DOCSLIB.ORG

111-Quorum.Pdf

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
111-Quorum.Pdf QUORUM Paragraph 1 of Rule VI provides that a quorum shall consist of a majority of the Senators duly chosen and sworn, and under the rules and practices of the Senate, any Senator may suggest the absence of a quorum before the Senate is permitted to act on any business. However, under a unanimous consent agreement placing a limitation on the debate of a measure and assigning control of that time, while that matter is pending no Senator may suggest the absence of a quorum unless that Senator con­ trols a sufficient amount of time (which has been held by the precedents to be 10 minutes). But, it has been equally well estab­ lished by the precedents that any Senator has a right to call for a quorum before a vote begins even if that Senator controlled no time, or even if there was an order that a vote occur at a time certain. However, certain unanimous consent agreements have been interpreted to preclude quorum calls. The Presiding Officer has no authority to count to see if a quorum is present when a Senator suggests the absence of a quorum unless the Senate is operating under cloture; the rules provide that once a Senator makes a point of no quorum, "the Presiding Officer shall forthwith direct the Secretary to call the roll" and the Presiding Officer "shall announce the result." U nti! a point of no quorum has been raised, the Senate oper­ ates on the assumption that a quorum is present, and even if only a few Senators are present, a measure may be passed or a nomi­ nation agreed to. Any Senator in attendance can suggest the absence of a quorum, which would stay any action by the Senate until a quorum is ascertained. Voice votes may be taken on the passage of a bill and if no question of a quorum is raised, that action is final, even though a majority of the Senators did not participate; the Senate operates on the absolute assumption that a quorum is always present until a point of no quorum is made. Once a point of no quorum has been raised, and the absence of a quorum established by the Chair announcing that a quorum is not present, the quorum call may not be called off, even by unanimous consent, and no business or debate is in order, until a quorum of the Senators has responded to the call. The Senate may in the absence of a quorum recess (if there is an order in place permitting such a recess), adjourn, or adopt motions to request or compel the attendance of absent Senators; it may not, however, proceed to take any further legislative action until a quorum is established. If the Senate is finally forced to adjourn without a quorum being present, the first thing when the Senate reconvenes is to call a quorum to ascertain the presence of a quorum. 1038 VerDate 11-MAY-2000 13:12 Feb 27, 2002 Jkt 077687 PO 00000 Frm 01062 Fmt 6602 Sfmt 6602 E:\RENEE\77687.TXT pfrm01 PsN: 77687 QUORUM 1039 Rule VI [Definition of a Quorum and Quorum Call Procedure] 1. A quorum shall consist of a majority of the Senators duly chosen and sworn. 2. No Senator shall absent himself from the service of the Senate without leave. 3. If, at any time during the daily sessions of the Senate, a question shall be raised by any Senator as to the presence of a quorum, the Presiding Officer shall forthwith direct the Secretary to call the roll and shall announce the result, and these proceedings shall be without debate. 4. Whenever upon such rollcall it shall he ascertained that a quorum is not present, a majority of the Senators present may direct the Sergeant at Arms to request, and, when necessary, to compel the attendance of the absent Senators, which order shall be determined without debate; and pending its execution, and until a quorum shall be present, no debate nor motion, except to adjourn, or to recess pursuant to a previous order entered by unanimous consent, shall be in order. Rule XII, Paragraph 4 [Quorum Call Before Consent To Fix Time for Vote on Passage of Bills and Joint Resolutions] No request by a Senator for unanimous consent for the taking of a final vote on a specified date upon the passage of a bill or joint resolu­ tion shall be submitted to the Senate for agreement thereto until after a quorum call ordered for the purpose by the Presiding Officer, it shall be disclosed that a quorum of the Senate is present; and when a unanimous consent is thus given the same shall operate as the order of the Senate, but any unanimous consent may be revoked by another unanimous consent granted in the manner prescribed above upon one day's notice. Form: Majority Leader: Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum. or Mr. President, I make the point of order that a quorum is not present. VerDate 11-MAY-2000 13:12 Feb 27, 2002 Jkt 077687 PO 00000 Frm 01063 Fmt 6602 Sfmt 6602 E:\RENEE\77687.TXT pfrm01 PsN: 77687 1040 SENATE PROCEDURE Absence of Quorum Announced, Business Out of Order: See "Quorum Call, Debate Out of Order Until Quorum Present," p. 767; "Business or Debate Out of Order in the Absence of a Quorum," pp. 1046-1049. Absence of a Quorum Disclosed by: See "Suggestion of the Absence of a Quorum When in Order," pp. 1062-1065. Absentees Called: A quorum being absent, and the Chair having an­ nounced the absence of a quorum, the Secretary is direct­ ed to call the names of the absentees. For details see "At­ tendance of Senators," "Call of Absentees, a Quorum Being Absent," p. 216. Adding of Names to Quorum Call After Call Is Completed: A Senator under a strict interpretation of the rule must respond to a call in order to be recorded, if the question is raised.! The Vice President, in 1913, instructed the Secretary not to record any Senator's name after such announce­ ment unless he obtained permission of the Senate. 2 The Vice President has made statements at different times against adding names after a quorum call has ended,3 as well as on adding names of Senators when they enter the Chamber after their names are called and before announcement of results. 4 Adjourn: See "Quorum Call Before Voting On," p. 7. Adjournment in the Absence of a Quorum: &e also "Precedence of," p. 16; "Precedence of Motions," pp. 4-5; "Quorum, Absence of," pp. 5-7. 1 See Mar. 19,1947,80-1, Record, p. 2264. 2 Dec. 10, 1913,63-2, Record, pp. 590-92. 3 Apr. 5, 1949, 81-1, Record, pp. 3832-35; Apr. 6, 1949, 81-1, Record, pp. 3956-57. 4 May 16, 1949, 81-1, Record, p. 6203. VerDate 11-MAY-2000 13:12 Feb 27, 2002 Jkt 077687 PO 00000 Frm 01064 Fmt 6602 Sfmt 6602 E:\RENEE\77687.TXT pfrm01 PsN: 77687 QUORUM 1041 When the Senate convenes following an adjournment or recess (under a previous order) taken in the absence of a quorum, the Presiding Officer will direct a quorum to be called as soon as the Senate convenes,5 without any motion from the floor. 6 Adjournment, May Not Interrupt Quorum Call Until Established That Quorum Was Not Present: See also "When Motion Not in Order," p. 7. After the Chair announces that a quorum is in progress, a motion to adjourn is not in order, until the quorum is called off or concluded, or the Chair announces that a quorum is not present. 7 Announced by Chair: When a quorum call discloses the presence of a quorum, the Chair will announce that a quorum is present, and on June 13, 1967 when a point of order was made following such announcement that there was no quorum present, the Presiding Officer assured the Senator that a quorum had responded to the rollcall from which there is no appeal.s Arrest, Orders for During Absence of Quorum: See "Compel or Request Attendance," pp. 217-222. Assumption That Quorum Is Present, Unless Question Raised: The Senate operates on the presumption that a quorum is present at all times,9 under all circumstances, unless 5 July 21,1975,94-1, Record, p. 23735; Apr. 30, 1971, 92-1, Record, pp.12855-61; May 3, 1971, 92-1, Record, p. 13131; July 16, 1942, 77-2, Record, p. 6225; Apr. 24 and 25, 1962, 87-2, Record, pp. 7139, 7141-43; July 28,1962,87-2, Record, pp. 14952-53; Aug. 14, 1962, 87-2, Record, p. 16416; Sept. 6, 1966, 89-2, Record, p. 21651; Sept.H, 1970, 91-2,Record, p. 31502; Aug. 21, 1970, 91-2, Record, p. 29764. For several successive instances of daily a~journments because of a lack of a quorum, see Sept. 17, 1964,88-2, Record, p. 22333; Sept. 18, 1964, 88-2, Record, p. 22354; Sept. 19, 1964, 88-2, Record, p. 22354; Sept. 21, 1964,88-2, Record, pp. 22354-55; Aug. 21, 1970, 91-2, Record, p. 29764; Sept. 11, 1970, 91-2, Record, p. 31502; June 30, 1971, 92-1, Record, p. 22878. 6 Sept. 20 and 23, 1968, Record, pp. 27793, 27815; Aug. 21, 1970, 91-2, Record, p. 29764; Sept. 11,1970,91-2, Record, p. 31502. 7 Sept. 30,1971,92-1, Record, pp. 34260, 34265. 8 June 13, 1967,90-1, Record, p. 15691. 9 Sept. 18, 1914, 63-2, Record, p.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-NY
    S2216 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE April 3, 2019 nominations because it is taking too I look forward to this dialogue, and I The question is, Is it the sense of the long, and so they made a proposal. It look forward to the day we can get this Senate that debate on the nomination was 2 hours, equally divided—so it issue resolved so we can get back to of Jeffrey Kessler, of Virginia, to be an would actually be 1 hour—for district the work of legislation because we Assistant Secretary of Commerce shall court judges, 8 hours for other nomi- can’t even get to legislation right now be brought to a close? nees, which again equally divided because we are blocked on nomina- The yeas and nays are mandatory would actually be 4 hours total for tions. So let’s get the nomination issue under the rule. other lower nominees, 30 hours for cir- resolved, as we have for two centuries, The clerk will call the roll. cuit court, Supreme Court, Cabinet of- and then let’s get on to legislation and The senior assistant legislative clerk ficers. finish the task. called the roll. Republicans joined with Democrats I yield the floor. Mr. THUNE. The following Senator is in 2013 and with 78 votes at the begin- I suggest the absence of a quorum. necessarily absent: the Senator from The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. ning of President Obama’s second Mississippi (Mrs. HYDE-SMITH). term—and may I remind this body, Re- PERDUE). The clerk will call the roll.
    [Show full text]
  • Resolutions to Censure the President: Procedure and History
    Resolutions to Censure the President: Procedure and History Updated February 1, 2021 Congressional Research Service https://crsreports.congress.gov R45087 Resolutions to Censure the President: Procedure and History Summary Censure is a reprimand adopted by one or both chambers of Congress against a Member of Congress, President, federal judge, or other government official. While Member censure is a disciplinary measure that is sanctioned by the Constitution (Article 1, Section 5), non-Member censure is not. Rather, it is a formal expression or “sense of” one or both houses of Congress. Censure resolutions targeting non-Members have utilized a range of statements to highlight conduct deemed by the resolutions’ sponsors to be inappropriate or unauthorized. Before the Nixon Administration, such resolutions included variations of the words or phrases unconstitutional, usurpation, reproof, and abuse of power. Beginning in 1972, the most clearly “censorious” resolutions have contained the word censure in the text. Resolutions attempting to censure the President are usually simple resolutions. These resolutions are not privileged for consideration in the House or Senate. They are, instead, considered under the regular parliamentary mechanisms used to process “sense of” legislation. Since 1800, Members of the House and Senate have introduced resolutions of censure against at least 12 sitting Presidents. Two additional Presidents received criticism via alternative means (a House committee report and an amendment to a resolution). The clearest instance of a successful presidential censure is Andrew Jackson. The Senate approved a resolution of censure in 1834. On three other occasions, critical resolutions were adopted, but their final language, as amended, obscured the original intention to censure the President.
    [Show full text]
  • A Handbook of Parliamentary Procedure
    A Handbook of Parliamentary Procedure irginia Publication 305-772 Cooperative Revised 1991 Extension Virginia Tech * Virginia State This publication is made possible, in part, by a grant from the W. K. Kellogg Foundation of Battle Creek, Michigan, to the Center for Volunteer Development at Virginia Tech and the Cooperative Extension Services of the following states: ALABAMA ARKANSAS ALABAMA A&M UNIVERSITY UNIVERSITY OF ARKANSAS Normal, Alabama Little Rock, Arkansas (205) 851-5710 (501) 373-2500 AUBURN UNIVERSITY and Auburn, Alabama Pine Bluff, Arkansas (205) 844-3681 (501) 541-6500 TUSKEGEE UNIVERSITY Tuskegee, Alabama (205) 727-8114 GEORGIA MISSISSIPPI FORT VALLEY STATE COLLEGE ALCORN STATE UNIVERSITY Fort Valley, Georgia Lorman, Mississippi (912) 825-6268 (601) 877-6125 UNIVERSITY OF GEORGIA Athens, Georgia (912) 382-3509 TENNESSEE VIRGINIA TENNESSEE STATE UNIVERSITY VIRGINIA POLYTECHNIC INSTITUTE Nashville, Tennessee AND STATE UNIVERSITY (615) 320-3650 Blacksburg, Virginia (703) 231-7966 Center for Volunteer Development Virginia Cooperative Extension programs, activities, and employment opportunities are available to all people regardless of race. color, religion, sex, age, national origin, handicap, or political affiliation. An equal opportunity/affirmative action employer. issued in furtherance of Cooperative Extension work. Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University. Virginia State University, and the U.S. Department of Agriculture cooperating. James F. Johnson, Director, Virginia Cooperative Extension, Virginia Tech. Blacksburg; Clinton V. Turner, Administrator. 1890 Extension Program. Virginia State. Petersburg. TABLE OF CONTENTS MEMBERSHIP PRIVILEGES and RESPONSIBILITIES .............................. 1 M em ber Privileges ...................................................... 1 M em berpl............................ Responsibilities ................... 1 KEYS TO BEING A GOOD MEMBER .......................................... 1 M E ETIN G S . 2 Types of M eetings .....................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Motions Explained
    MOTIONS EXPLAINED Adjournment: Suspension of proceedings to another time or place. To adjourn means to suspend until a later stated time or place. Recess: Bodies are released to reassemble at a later time. The members may leave the meeting room, but are expected to remain nearby. A recess may be simply to allow a break (e.g. for lunch) or it may be related to the meeting (e.g. to allow time for vote‐counting). Register Complaint: To raise a question of privilege that permits a request related to the rights and privileges of the assembly or any of its members to be brought up. Any time a member feels their ability to serve is being affected by some condition. Make Body Follow Agenda: A call for the orders of the day is a motion to require the body to conform to its agenda or order of business. Lay Aside Temporarily: A motion to lay the question on the table (often simply "table") or the motion to postpone consideration is a proposal to suspend consideration of a pending motion. Close Debate: A motion to the previous question (also known as calling for the question, calling the question, close debate and other terms) is a motion to end debate, and the moving of amendments, on any debatable or amendable motion and bring that motion to an immediate vote. Limit or extend debate: The motion to limit or extend limits of debate is used to modify the rules of debate. Postpone to a certain time: In parliamentary procedure, a postponing to a certain time or postponing to a time certain is an act of the deliberative assembly, generally implemented as a motion.
    [Show full text]
  • Committee Handbook New Mexico Legislature
    COMMITTEE HANDBOOK for the NEW MEXICO LEGISLATURE New Mexico Legislative Council Service Santa Fe, New Mexico 2012 REVISION prepared by: The New Mexico Legislative Council Service 411 State Capitol Santa Fe, New Mexico 87501 (505) 986-4600 www.nmlegis.gov 202.190198 PREFACE Someone once defined a committee as a collection of people who individually believe that something must be done and who collectively decide that nothing can be done. Whether or not this definition has merit, it is difficult to imagine the work of a legislative body being accomplished without reliance upon the committee system. Every session, American legislative bodies are faced with thousands of bills, resolutions and memorials upon which to act. Meaningful deliberation on each of these measures by the entire legislative body is not possible. Therefore, the job must be broken up and distributed among the "miniature legislatures" called standing or substantive committees. In New Mexico, where the constitution confines legislative action to a specified number of calendar days, the work of such committees assumes even greater importance. Because the role of committees is vital to the legislative process, it is necessary for their efficient operation that individual members of the senate and house and their staffs understand committee functioning and procedure, as well as their own roles on the committees. For this reason, the legislative council service published in 1963 the first Committee Handbook for New Mexico legislators. This publication is the sixth revision of that document. i The Committee Handbook is intended to be used as a guide and working tool for committee chairs, vice chairs, members and staff.
    [Show full text]
  • Absolute Voting Rules Adrian Vermeule
    University of Chicago Law School Chicago Unbound Coase-Sandor Working Paper Series in Law and Coase-Sandor Institute for Law and Economics Economics 2005 Absolute Voting Rules Adrian Vermeule Follow this and additional works at: https://chicagounbound.uchicago.edu/law_and_economics Part of the Law Commons Recommended Citation Adrian Vermeule, "Absolute Voting Rules" (John M. Olin Program in Law and Economics Working Paper No. 257, 2005). This Working Paper is brought to you for free and open access by the Coase-Sandor Institute for Law and Economics at Chicago Unbound. It has been accepted for inclusion in Coase-Sandor Working Paper Series in Law and Economics by an authorized administrator of Chicago Unbound. For more information, please contact [email protected]. CHICAGO JOHN M. OLIN LAW & ECONOMICS WORKING PAPER NO. 257 (2D SERIES) Absolute Voting Rules Adrian Vermeule THE LAW SCHOOL THE UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO August 2005 This paper can be downloaded without charge at: The Chicago Working Paper Series Index: http://www.law.uchicago.edu/Lawecon/index.html and at the Social Science Research Network Electronic Paper Collection: http://ssrn.com/abstract_id=791724 Absolute Voting Rules Adrian Vermeule* The theory of voting rules developed in law, political science, and economics typically compares simple majority rule with alternatives, such as various types of supermajority rules1 and submajority rules.2 There is another critical dimension to these questions, however. Consider the following puzzles: $ In the United States Congress, the votes of a majority of those present and voting are necessary to approve a law.3 In the legislatures of California and Minnesota,4 however, the votes of a majority of all elected members are required.
    [Show full text]
  • Simplified Parliamentary Procedure
    Extension to Communities Simplifi ed Parliamentary Procedure 2 • Iowa State University Extension Introduction Effective Meetings — Simplifi ed Parliamentary Procedure “We must learn to run a meeting without victimizing the audience; but more impor- tantly, without being victimized by individuals who are armed with parliamentary procedure and a personal agenda.” — www.calweb.com/~laredo/parlproc.htm Parliamentary procedure. Sound complicated? Controlling? Boring? Intimidating? Why do we need to know all those rules for conducting a meeting? Why can’t we just run the meetings however we want to? Who cares if we follow parliamentary procedure? How many times have you attended a meeting that ran on and on and didn’t accomplish anything? The meeting jumps from one topic to another without deciding on anything. Group members disrupt the meeting with their own personal agendas. Arguments erupt. A few people make all the decisions and ignore everyone else’s opinions. Everyone leaves the meeting feeling frustrated. Sound familiar? Then a little parliamentary procedure may just be the thing to turn your unproductive, frustrating meetings into a thing of beauty — or at least make them more enjoyable and productive. What is Parliamentary Procedure? Parliamentary procedure is a set of well proven rules designed to move business along in a meeting while maintaining order and controlling the communications process. Its purpose is to help groups accomplish their tasks through an orderly, democratic process. Parliamentary procedure is not intended to inhibit a meeting with unnecessary rules or to prevent people from expressing their opinions. It is intended to facilitate the smooth func- tioning of the meeting and promote cooperation and harmony among members.
    [Show full text]
  • The First Day of a New Congress: a Guide to Proceedings on the House Floor
    The First Day of a New Congress: A Guide to Proceedings on the House Floor -name redacted- Specialist on the Congress Updated December 19, 2018 Congressional Research Service 7-.... www.crs.gov RL30725 The First Day of a New Congress: A Guide to Proceedings on the House Floor Summary Article 1, Section 2 of the Constitution sets a term of office of two years for all Members of the House. One House ends at the conclusion of each two-year Congress, and the newly elected Representatives must constitute a new House at the beginning of the next Congress. Consequently, the House must choose its Speaker and officers and adopt the chamber’s rules of procedure every two years. The Constitution mandates that Congress convene at noon on January 3, unless the preceding Congress by law designated a different day. P.L. 113-201 set January 6, 2015, as the convening date of the 114th Congress. Congressional leaders planned that the 115th Congress would convene January 3, 2017, and that the 116th Congress would convene January 3, 2019, obviating the need for a law to set the date. Although no officers will have been elected when the House first convenes, officers from the previous Congress perform certain functions, such as conducting the election of the Speaker. The House follows a well-established first-day routine. The proceedings include— a call to order by the Clerk of the House; a prayer led by the Chaplain and the Pledge of Allegiance led by the Clerk; a quorum call ordered by the Clerk; the election of the Speaker, ordered by the Clerk and conducted with the assistance of tellers; remarks by the Speaker-elect, followed by his or her swearing-in by the dean of the House; the oath of office for the newly elected and re-elected Members, administered by the Speaker; adoption of the rules of the House for the new Congress; adoption of various administrative resolutions and unanimous consent agreements; and announcement of the Speaker’s policies on certain floor practices.
    [Show full text]
  • Timeline of Potential Administration and Congressional Action on ACA Repeal / Replace Legislation; Other Key Dates; and Activities of Tribes1
    Current understanding of proposed -- Timeline of Potential Administration and Congressional Action on ACA Repeal / Replace Legislation; Other Key Dates; and Activities of Tribes1 As of June 22, 2017 This brief provides a timeline on potential / completed congressional, Trump Administration, and Tribal organization actions regarding repealing and replacing the Affordable Care Act (ACA). Activities and dates are updated according to ongoing press reports. Congressional / Administration actions appear in black; Tribal organization actions appear in green. Timeline of Potential Administration and Congressional Action on ACA Repeal / Replace Legislation Late 2016 January 2017 February 2017 March 2017 April/May 2017 June/July 2017 August 2017 1/4 1/27 2/21 3/9 3/17 5/4 6/22 11/8 12/20 1/3 1/9-1/13 1/23 2/10 3/8 3/15 3/24 4/28 5/21 6/21 6/29 7/28 8/15 Election of TSGAC signs on Stated dates for IHS issues letter House E&C and House Republicans (Tentative) due date House/Senate President- to Tribal Senate/House to identifying W&M Com. withdraw (2c) ACA for first status report conference to Elect Trump request to vote (1b) on exclusions from introduce and repeal bill prior to in House GOP lawsuit combine bills; GOP retain IHCIA budget resolution federal employee approve (2a) ACA vote seeking to end CSRs plans to hold votes hiring freeze repeal bill (3c) on ACA repeal bill pre-August Trump imposes Appeal proceedings resume in Federal Federal spending (Revised) due date recess federal employee House GOP lawsuit seeking to debt limit authority for
    [Show full text]
  • Speakers of the House: Elections, 1913-2021
    Speakers of the House: Elections, 1913-2021 Updated January 25, 2021 Congressional Research Service https://crsreports.congress.gov RL30857 Speakers of the House: Elections, 1913-2021 Summary Each new House elects a Speaker by roll call vote when it first convenes. Customarily, the conference of each major party nominates a candidate whose name is placed in nomination. A Member normally votes for the candidate of his or her own party conference but may vote for any individual, whether nominated or not. To be elected, a candidate must receive an absolute majority of all the votes cast for individuals. This number may be less than a majority (now 218) of the full membership of the House because of vacancies, absentees, or Members answering “present.” This report provides data on elections of the Speaker in each Congress since 1913, when the House first reached its present size of 435 Members. During that period (63rd through 117th Congresses), a Speaker was elected six times with the votes of less than a majority of the full membership. If a Speaker dies or resigns during a Congress, the House immediately elects a new one. Five such elections occurred since 1913. In the earlier two cases, the House elected the new Speaker by resolution; in the more recent three, the body used the same procedure as at the outset of a Congress. If no candidate receives the requisite majority, the roll call is repeated until a Speaker is elected. Since 1913, this procedure has been necessary only in 1923, when nine ballots were required before a Speaker was elected.
    [Show full text]
  • The Rule XIX Call to Order for Disorderly Language in Senate Debate
    The Rule XIX Call to Order for Disorderly Language in Senate Debate Christopher M. Davis Analyst on Congress and the Legislative Process Michael Greene Senior Research Librarian June 27, 2018 Congressional Research Service 7-5700 www.crs.gov R45241 The Rule XIX Call to Order for Disorderly Language in Senate Debate Summary The Senate has, from the 1st Congress (1789-1790), valued the importance of decorum in debate and included a “call to order” mechanism in its rules to sanction Senators who use “disorderly” language. The rules adopted in 1789 contained such a call-to-order provision, and its language has been amended multiple times over the years. Table 1 of this report details the historical evolution of the rule. The present form of the Senate’s call-to-order provision was adopted on June 14, 1962. Senate Rule XIX identifies specific language that is considered disorderly. This includes language directly or indirectly imputing to another Senator or Senators “any conduct or motive unworthy or unbecoming a Senator” (paragraph 2) and referring “offensively to any State of the Union” (paragraph 3). Rule XIX prohibits imputing conduct or motive “by any form of words” to a sitting Senator, which includes not just original words spoken in debate but quotes, news articles, and other materials. The statements in paragraphs 2 and 3 are not considered to be a comprehensive recitation of language that may violate decorum in Senate debate. Although precedents on the subject are mixed, Senators have at times also been called to order for making disparaging references in debate to the House of Representatives or its Members.
    [Show full text]
  • Unanimous Consent Agreements Establishing a 60-Vote Threshold for Passage of Legislation in the Senate
    = 3&3.24:8= 438*39=,7**2*398=89&'1.8-.3,= &=0*849*=-7*8-41)=+47=&88&,*=4+=*,.81&9.43= .3=9-*=*3&9*= *,&3=:?&33*= >3(-= 3&1>89=43= 43,7*88=&3)=9-*=*,.81&9.;*=74(*88= &>=+,`=,**3= 43,7*88.43&1= *8*&7(-=*7;.(*= 18/1**= <<<_(78_,4;= -..3+= =*5479=+47=43,7*88 Prepared for Members and Committees of Congress 3&3.24:8= 438*39= ,7**2*398=89&'1.8-.3,=&=0*849*=-7*8-41)= = :22&7>= The Senate frequently enters into unanimous consent agreements (sometimes referred to as “UC agreements” or “time agreements”) that establish procedures for the consideration of legislation that the Senate is considering or will soon consider. In recent practice, such unanimous consent agreements have sometimes included a provision that would require a 60-vote threshold to be met for amendments or legislation to be considered agreed to, rather than the simple majority ordinarily required. These amendments or measures may be of a controversial nature with the potential for causing a filibuster. By incorporating a 60-vote threshold, such UC agreements avoid the multiple requirements imposed by Senate Rule XXII for invoking cloture, while preserving the same requirement for super-majority support. This report will be updated each session of Congress. 43,7*88.43&1=*8*&7(-=*7;.(*= 3&3.24:8= 438*39= ,7**2*398=89&'1.8-.3,=&=0*849*=-7*8-41)= = 3974):(9.43= The Senate’s emphasis on individual and minority rights, reflected in both its standing rules and chamber custom,1 can make it challenging for the chamber to achieve its various goals in a timely manner.
    [Show full text]