How long may debate be done in the senate

The House requires an amendment to meet a standard of relevance, being germane, unless a special rule has been passed. Hopper - Box on House Clerk's desk where members deposit bills and resolutions to introduce them. Morning Hour - A 90 minute period on Mondays and Tuesdays in the House of Representatives set aside for five minute speeches by members who have reserved a spot in advance on any topic. Motion to Recommit - A motion that requests a bill be sent back to committee for further consideration.

Normally, the motion is accompanied by instructions concerning what the committee should change in the legislation or general instructions such as that the committee should hold further hearings. Motion to Table - A motion that is not debatable and that can be made by any Senator or Representative on any pending question.

Agreement to the motion is equivalent to defeating the question tabled. Quorum - The number of Representatives or Senators that must be present before business can begin. In the House members must be present for a quorum. In the Senate 51 members must be present however, Senate can conduct daily business without a quorum unless it is challenged by a point of order. Rider - An informal term for an amendment or provision that is not relevant to the legislation where it is attached.

Substitute Amendment - An amendment that would replace existing language of a bill or another amendment with its own. Veto - A power that allows the President, a Governor or a Mayor to refuse approval of a piece of legislation.

Federally, a President returns a vetoed bill to the Congress, generally with a message. This is a card processor fee. Please know that a recurring donation of the amount and frequency that you selected will be processed and initiated tomorrow. Continue to secure page ». Government For Teachers.

Legislation is Introduced - Any member can introduce a piece of legislation House - Legislation is handed to the clerk of the House or placed in the hopper. Steps in Committee: Comments about the bill's merit are requested by government agencies.

Bill can be assigned to subcommittee by Chairman. Hearings may be held. Subcommittees report their findings to the full committee. Finally there is a vote by the full committee - the bill is "ordered to be reported. If substantial amendments are made, the committee can order the introduction of a "clean bill" which will include the proposed amendments.

This new bill will have a new number and will be sent to the floor while the old bill is discarded. The chamber must approve, change or reject all committee amendments before conducting a final passage vote. In the House, most bills go to the Rules committee before reaching the floor. Stay Informed Sign up to get Policy updates in your inbox:. Facebook Twitter Instagram. Voter Vitals. The Vitals. The Senate has a number of options for curtailing the use of the filibuster, including by setting a new precedent, changing the rule itself, or placing restrictions on its use.

Use of the Senate cloture rule has become far more common in the 21st century. More cloture motions have been filed in the last two decades than in the 80 years prior. A Closer Look. Where did the filibuster come from? How has the use of the filibuster changed over time? How does the Senate get around the filibuster now?

How would eliminating the filibuster actually work? What are some ways to modify the filibuster without eliminating it entirely? How likely are we to see a change to the filibuster in ? Fiona Hill details the role of public servants in the federal government. April 6, Christine Stenglein. August 25, September 30, The clocks are operated by the Deputy Clerk at the table Photo courtesy of Auspic. No general time limits were adopted in , although they were not unknown elsewhere.

It was considered that members of parliament had an important duty to perform and should be unrestricted as to time in putting their case to the legislature. A few days later, on 4 December , the Leader of the Government in the Senate, Senator Pearce Nat, WA , moved for the adoption of a new standing order to impose time limits on speeches. A general time limit of an hour would apply with a possible half hour extension, but one and a half hours would be available on the address-in-reply, on the first reading of a non-amendable bill and for a minister in moving the motion for the second reading of a bill.

In committee, a limit of a quarter of an hour would apply with some exceptions and there would be a limit of two speeches per senator on each question also with some exceptions. It was a contentious issue. Senator Gardiner ALP, NSW alleged, during debate on the motion that the report be printed, that the recommendation had been agreed to only narrowly, on the casting vote of the President Senator Givens.

This limitation was restored, however, when the Standing Orders Committee undertook its comprehensive review in Some bills, of course, are too important to be delayed only because some Senators object to considering them. Most are not, however, especially if the objections can be met through negotiation and compromise.

Thus, the possibility of extended debate affects decisions for scheduling legislation in two ways: by discouraging the majority leader and the Senate from attempting to take up bills to which some Senators object, and by encouraging negotiations over substantive changes in the bills in order to meet these objections. The right of Senators to debate at length is not the only way in which they can influence the Senate's legislative agenda.

The standing rules of the Senate give its Members at least two other opportunities to influence the matters that reach the Senate floor for debate and decision. One opportunity affects the prerogatives of Senate committees; the other affects the amendments that Senators may propose on the floor. The Senate's standing committees play an essential part in the legislative process, as they select the small percentage of the bills introduced each Congress that, in their judgment, deserve the attention of the Senate as a whole, and as they recommend amendments to these bills based on their expert knowledge and experience.

Most bills are routinely referred to the committee with appropriate jurisdiction as soon as they are introduced. However, paragraph 4 of Rule XIV permits a Senator to bypass a committee referral and have the bill placed directly on the Calendar of Business, with exactly the same formal status the bill would have if it had been considered and reported by a Senate committee.

By the same token, if a committee fails to act on a bill that was referred to it, while this may mean the bill will die for lack of action, the proposal it embodies may not. The Senator sponsoring the bill may introduce a new bill with exactly the same provisions as the first, and have the second bill placed directly on the calendar. However, taking the bill off the calendar via unanimous consent or a motion to proceed remains a question the Senate expects the majority leader to propose; thus, a Senator who uses Rule XIV to bypass a committee is not in a position to ensure the bill's movement to the floor.

In recent practice, the majority leader more frequently uses this method to put a measure directly on the calendar—often to expedite consideration of a complicated or high-profile bill that has been drafted outside of the committee process or in relation to a legislative vehicle that closely resembles another bill already considered in committee or by multiple committees.

An even more important opportunity for individual Senators is a result of the absence in the standing rules of any general requirement that the amendments offered by Senators on the floor must be germane or relevant to the bill being considered. The rules impose a germaneness requirement only on amendments to general appropriations and budget measures and to matters being considered under cloture; various statutes impose such a requirement on a limited number of other bills.

The Senate generally interprets germaneness strictly, to preclude amendments that expand the scope of a bill or introduce a specific additional topic. In all other cases, Senators may propose whatever amendments they choose on whatever subjects to whatever bill the Senate is considering. The right to offer non-germane amendments is extraordinarily important because it permits Senators to present issues to the Senate for debate and decision, without regard to the judgments of the Senate's committees or the scheduling decisions and preferences of its majority leader.

Again consider the position of a Senator whose bill is not being acted on by the committee to which it was referred. Instead of introducing an identical bill and having it placed directly on the calendar, he or she may have a second and typically more attractive option: to offer the text of the bill as a floor amendment to another bill that has reached the floor and that can serve as a useful legislative "vehicle.

The possibility of this opportunity can make it extremely difficult to anticipate what will happen to a bill when it reaches the floor and how much of the Senate's time it will consume. The party leaders and the bill's floor managers typically, the chair and ranking minority Member of the committee with jurisdiction over the bill may know what amendments on the subject of the bill are likely to be offered, but they cannot be certain that Senators will not want to also offer non-germane and often quite controversial amendments.

In fact, it is not unusual for one or more non-germane amendments to occupy more of the Senate's attention than the subject the bill itself addresses. Just as the right of extended debate encourages Senate committee and party leaders to bring up bills for consideration by unanimous consent, the right to debate combined with the right to offer non-germane amendments encourages the same leaders to seek unanimous consent agreements limiting or foreclosing the exercise of these rights while a bill is being considered.

Without such an agreement or in the absence of a successful cloture process , the bill could be debated for as long as Senators wish—as could each amendment offered, whether germane or not, unless the Senate votes to table it. These are the essential conditions under which the Senate considers a bill if it adheres to its standing rules. It is precisely to avoid these conditions that the Senate often debates, amends, and passes bills under very different sets of parliamentary ground rules—ground rules that are far more restrictive, but that can be imposed only by unanimous consent.

One of the frequent purposes of these unanimous consent agreements is to limit the time available for debate, and thereby ensure that there will be no filibuster. Complex unanimous consent agreements of this special kind are sometimes called "time agreements. In addition, before taking up a bill, or after the Senate has begun debating it, Senators often reach unanimous consent agreements to govern consideration of individual amendments that have been or will be offered.

Less often today, the Senate reaches an encompassing agreement, limiting debate on a bill and all amendments to it, before or at the time the bill is called up for floor action.

The following example illustrates several contemporary features of such a comprehensive unanimous consent agreement:. Ordered , That on Tuesday, July 29, , upon the confirmation of the Polaschik nomination, the Senate proceed to the consideration of H. Ordered further , That upon the use of yielding back of time, the Senate vote in relation to the amendments in the order listed; provided, that no second degree amendments be in order to any of the amendments prior to the votes; provided, that no motions to commit be in order; provided further, that upon disposition of the Toomey amendment, the bill, as amended, if amended, be read a third time and the Senate vote on passage of the bill, as amended, if amended; further, that the vote on each amendment and the vote on passage of the bill be subject to a 60 affirmative vote threshold; provided further, that the Secretary be authorized to make technical changes to amendments if necessary to allow for proper page and line number alignment.

Ordered further , That if the Senate passes H. July 23, 28, The two essential features of this and comparable unanimous consent agreements are 1 a prohibition on any amendments not listed in the agreement, and 2 strict limitations on the time available for debating the bill and any questions that may arise during its consideration. Under the terms of this agreement, for example, the Senate as a whole may debate each amendment for no more than one hour.

There is also a two-hour time limit for debate on the bill itself that is, "general debate". The differences between considering a bill under the terms of the Senate's standing rules and considering it under this kind of unanimous consent agreement are so great and so fundamental that they bear repeating.

Under the standing rules, Senators may be able to offer whatever amendments, even if non-germane, that they want as long as there are not already pending amendments that must first be disposed of ; under this agreement, only specified amendments are in order. Under the standing rules, Senators may debate the bill, each amendment, and a variety of other questions for as long as they want, subject only to limits that would be imposed under a successful cloture process; under this agreement, on each question, time for debate is strictly limited.

Under the standing rules, each amendment and passage of the bill would be subject to a simple-majority vote threshold; under this agreement, a super-majority vote is required reflecting the understanding by Senators that opponents of these questions could require a super-majority to invoke cloture in order to reach a vote. The differences could hardly be more dramatic. It must be emphasized, however, that such agreements are unanimous consent agreements.

They cannot be imposed on the Senate by any vote of the Senate; they require the concurrence or acquiescence of each and every Senator. Negotiating these complex unanimous consent agreements can be a difficult and time-consuming process, the responsibility for which falls primarily on the majority and minority leaders and the leaders of the committee with jurisdiction over the bill at issue. They consult interested Senators, but it would be impractical to consult every Senator about every bill scheduled for floor action.

For this reason, individual Senators and their staffs take the initiative to protect their own interests by advising the leaders of their preferences and intentions. Negotiations sometimes take place on the floor and on the public record, but at least the preliminary discussions and consultations usually occur in meetings during quorum calls or off the floor.

The negotiation process may also be facilitated by use of the clearance process [or "hotline"], an informal communication mechanism by which each party's leadership gauges the preferences of its conference members. Senators prefer to expedite the conduct of legislative business whenever possible, and so normally cooperate in reaching time agreements.

However, when Senators have special concerns—for instance, when they are intent on offering particular amendments or guaranteeing themselves ample time for debate—their interests must be accommodated.

Any Senator who is dissatisfied with the terms of a proposed time agreement has only to object when it is propounded on the floor; so long as any one Senator objects, the standing rules remain in force with all the rights and opportunities they provide.

As a result, time agreements may include exceptions to their general provisions in order to satisfy individual Senators. For example, a comprehensive agreement that generally limits debate on each first degree amendment to an hour and prohibits non-germane amendments may identify one or more specific amendments that are exempted from the germaneness requirement, and also may provide different amounts of time for debating them.

In these ways, time agreements can be less restrictive than the one quoted earlier. There may be no agreement at all if one or more Senators decide to fully preserve their rights to debate and offer amendments.

On many other occasions, however, an agreement's provisions are even more restrictive—for example, all amendments to the bill may be prohibited except for a few that are identified specifically in the agreement itself. If the Senate does accept a unanimous consent agreement, whatever its terms, it may be modified at a later time only by unanimous consent.

In current practice, the Senate usually begins consideration of most bills without first having reached a time limitation agreement. In some cases, the floor managers expect few amendments and relatively little debate, making an elaborate agreement unnecessary. In other cases, the majority leader and committee chair cannot reach an agreement with all Senators, but proceed with the bill anyway because of its timeliness and importance. After the Senate has debated such a bill and controversial amendments for many hours or even days, the leaders often renew their attempts to reach an overall agreement limiting debate on each remaining amendment or setting a time for the Senate to vote on passage of the bill.

In the absence of a time agreement covering all amendments and other questions, the party leaders and the floor managers often try to arrange unanimous consent agreements for more limited purposes while the Senate is debating a bill. During consideration of a controversial amendment, a Senator may propose that the Senate agree—by unanimous consent—to limit any further debate on it.

Senators also may agree to time limits on individual amendments before offering them. By unanimous consent, the Senate may set aside one amendment temporarily in order to consider another one that could not otherwise be offered at that time. Other agreements may define the order in which Senators will offer their amendments, postpone roll call votes until a later time that is more convenient for Senators, or even set a super-majority threshold for the adoption of a particular amendment. These examples only begin to illustrate the many ways in which the Senate relies every day on unanimous consent arrangements.

From routine requests to end a quorum call to extremely elaborate and complicated procedural "treaties," the Senate depends on unanimous consent requests and the willingness of Senators to agree to them. The extent to which the Senate uses unanimous consent arrangements to supplement or supplant operation of its standing rules makes it difficult to predict with confidence what will actually take place on the Senate floor each day.

This report already has mentioned some of the problems that can arise in scheduling legislation and in anticipating the time that will be consumed and the amendments that Senators will offer during consideration of each bill.

In addition, the other proceedings that occur each day also depend on whether the Senate decides to operate under or outside of its rules.