The American Spectator : The Spectacle Blog : Rules on Withdrawing an Amendment

Text Size

The Spectacle Blog

Rules on Withdrawing an Amendment

By Philip Klein on 12.17.09 @ 12:37PM

Yesterday, I wrote about how Senate Republicans were incensed that the parliamentarian allowed Sen. Bernie Sanders to cut off the reading of his single-payer proposal, and today a reader from Dallas, Texas passes along further evidence to support their complaint.

By way of background, yesterday, Sen. Tom Coburn forced the reading of Sanders 767 page amendment, but three hours into reading of the amendment, which was on pace to take more than 12 hours and wipe out an entire legislative day, Sanders withrew the amendment. This stopped the reading, and allowed Democrats to get on with their business.

The problem is that when an amendment is introduced, it has to be read on the Senate floor unless all Senators agree to cut off the reading. In Senate jargon, this is granting "unanimous consent."

Today, a reader noted that on page 119 of Riddick’s Senate Procedure, it says that "the Senator offering the amendment must have the floor in order to withdraw the amendment.”

But at the time he withdrew the amendment, Sanders didn't have the floor. The only way to regain the floor was to dispense with the reading of the bill, which again, calls for unanimous consent.

In non-Senate jargon, it appears that Republicans were in fact robbed. But sort of like complaining about a bad call by the ref after the game is already over, there's not much they can do about it.

View all comments (10) | Leave a comment

JP| 12.17.09 @ 12:57PM

What goes around comes around. The GOP can wreck thier revenge after they take back the Senate in 2012.

Roy| 12.17.09 @ 1:04PM

Let's hope Republicans aren't offering too many 767-page amendments...

sinanju| 12.17.09 @ 1:23PM

If only this could be a regular tactic for both parties. If every piece of legislation had to be read aloud, methinks they would be a lot less padded.

Take the Constitution itself, for instance...

Dixie Pixie| 12.17.09 @ 1:24PM

Because every American will be covered by the Health-Care bill, is it proper to read into the Senate Record the names, address and telephone number of every American affected.

In short the Republicans should require the Senate Clerk read into the Senate Record the Telephone Book of every city in the USA. That will stop the Health-Care debate for months.

Conservative Bob| 12.17.09 @ 1:53PM

Dixie, If my math is correct asuming 4 people per family and that they can read 40 names perminute and are willing to work 18 hour days it would take 5.5 years without a day off...

I think it is a great idea... READ THE NAMES!

Dixie Pixie| 12.17.09 @ 4:21PM

To: Conservative Bob

You are ignoring the enjoyment of seeing the look on Harry Reid's face when Mitch McConnell dumps multiple forklift loads of telephone books on the Senate clerk. The Senate clerk might even quit on the spot further delaying the reading.

Dell| 12.17.09 @ 2:27PM

"Robbed" isn't quite right. SNOOKERED is closer.

The person responsible for the error in parliamentary procedure should be fired, on the spot. It's obviously a Democrat, because they control both houses and, therefore, are responsible.

"Gee, I'm sorry....I made a mistake" isn't good enough. No apology is. This was a planned and well executed improper procedure at the highest level of U.S. government.

TLS| 12.17.09 @ 2:49PM

As a practical matter, it would be nice if there were a limit to the length of bills. Seriously, the shorter it is, the less bureaucratic it is likely to be.

befitz| 12.17.09 @ 3:27PM

Things are getting desperate. But things should not be desperate. Partisanship on this bill is nonexistent; so, certainly, there will be animosity. Before a brawl breaks out, and all integrity is lost, the legislators need to realize this bill, even if signed into law, will be litigated into oblivion. Best to start over, address the problem in a PARTISAN fashion, and hope to do some good.