HRES-1369-119
Referred to the House Committee on Rules.
Sponsored by Michael Cloud (R-TX)
What it does
This resolution would express the formal opinion of the House of Representatives that the Senate's cloture and filibuster rules are inconsistent with a constitutional design of two majoritarian legislative chambers, are not deliberative in practice, effectively disenfranchise House members and their constituents, and disrupt the balance of power between the two chambers. As a "sense of the House" resolution, it would carry no binding legal force and would not change Senate rules or any law.
Who benefits
House members whose legislation has stalled in the Senate due to filibuster — particularly those in the majority party at any given time. Advocacy groups and political movements whose legislative priorities have been blocked by the 60-vote threshold. Voters whose preferred legislation has passed the House but failed to advance in the Senate. Scholars and advocates who argue for majoritarian legislative processes.
Who is hurt
Senate members and institutions that rely on the filibuster as a tool for minority-party influence. Political minorities — including both parties when in the Senate minority — who use the filibuster to slow or block legislation they oppose. Advocacy groups whose preferred legislation has been protected from passage by the 60-vote threshold. State and local governments that benefit when federal legislation is harder to pass, preserving their policy space.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue that the Constitution establishes two chambers designed to operate by majority vote, and that the Senate's 60-vote cloture requirement effectively gives a minority of senators — representing a minority of the population — veto power over legislation passed by the House. They contend that this structural imbalance means House members and their constituents are systematically disenfranchised when majority-supported bills die in the Senate without a vote, undermining democratic accountability.
Opponents argue
Opponents argue that the Senate's rules — including the filibuster — are an internal matter explicitly reserved to each chamber under Article I, Section 5, which grants each house the authority to determine its own rules of proceeding. They contend that the filibuster serves a deliberative function by requiring broader consensus before major legislation advances, protecting against the tyranny of a bare majority and preserving the Senate's distinct constitutional role as a more deliberative body than the House.