The Senate now 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 chairman seek an agreement unsuccessfully, 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 an agreement setting a time for the Senate to vote on whether to pass the bill.

In the absence of a time agreement covering all amendments and other questions, the Majority Leader and the majority floor manager often try to arrange unanimous consent agreements for more limited purposes while the Senate is debating a bill. During consideration of a controversial amendment, either Senator may propose to limit 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. Other agreements may define the order in which Senators will offer their amendments or postpone roll call votes until a later time that is more convenient for Senators.

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 or waive the reading of an amendment to extremely elaborate and complicated procedural "treaties," the Senate depends on unanimous consent requests and the willingness of Senators to agree to them.

[  Previous  :  Next  ]