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, the bill could be debated for as long as Senators wish, as could each amendment, 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 require unanimous consent to be imposed. Complex unanimous consent agreements of this special kind are frequently called "time agreements" because one of their primary purposes and effects is to limit the time available for debate, and thereby ensure that there will be no filibuster. Often after the Senate has begun debating a bill, Senators 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 such a comprehensive time agreement "in the usual form:"

ORDERED, That when the Senate proceeds to the consideration of S. 1651 (Order No. 636), the Veterans' Dioxin and Radiation Exposure Compensation Standards Act, debate on any amendment in the first degree shall be limited to 1 hour, to be equally divided and controlled by the mover of such and the manager of the bill, and debate on any amendment in the second degree, debatable motion, appeal, or point of order which is submitted or on which the Chair entertains debate shall be limited to 30 minutes, to be equally divided and controlled by the mover of such and the manager of the bill: PROVIDED, That in the event the manager of the bill is in favor of any such amendment or motion, the time in opposition thereto shall be controlled by the Minority Leader or his designee; PROVIDED FURTHER, That no amendment that is not germane to the provisions of the said bill shall be received.

ORDERED FURTHER, That on the question of final passage of the said bill, debate shall be limited to 4 hours, to be equally divided and controlled by the Majority Leader and the Minority Leader, or their designees: PROVIDED, That the said Senators, or either of them, may, from the time under their control on the passage of the said bill, allot additional time to any Senator during the consideration of any amendment, debatable motion, appeal, or point of order.

Before discussing the effect of this agreement, some of its terms require definition. A first degree amendment is an amendment that proposes to change or add to the text of the bill, while a second degree amendment proposes to change or replace the text of a first degree amendment that has been proposed but not yet voted on. The manager of the bill usually is the chairman of the standing committee that had considered and reported it, although it may be the chairman of one of the committee's subcommittees instead. Finally, debate on the question of final passage is debate on the bill as a whole, not on any amendment or motion affecting the bill; this debate may occur throughout the time the Senate considers the bill.

The two essential features of this and comparable time agreements are (1) a prohibition against non-germane amendments, and (2) strict limitations on the time available for debating the bill and every question that may arise during its consideration. Under the terms of this agreement, for example, the Senate as a whole may debate each first degree amendment for no more than one hour. Moreover, only a very few Senators have a right to speak during that hour; other Senators may speak only if one of their colleagues agrees to yield them part of the time that he or she controls. Senators still may offer as many amendments as they wish, but they have lost their valued right of unlimited debate. And there are even more stringent time limits for debate on second degree amendments and other questions, as well as a limit on time for debating the bill itself.

The differences between considering a bill under the terms of the Senate's standing rules and considering it under this kind of time agreement are so great and so fundamental that they bear repeating. Under the standing rules, Senators may offer whatever non-germane amendments they want; under the time agreement, no non-germane amendments at all are permitted. Under the standing rules, Senators may debate the bill, each amendment, and a variety of other questions for as long as they want; under the time agreement, only two Senators have the right to speak on each question, and their time is severely limited. The differences could hardly be more dramatic. But it must be emphasized that time 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.

[  Previous  :  Next  ]