A Democratic-led discharge petition gained enough votes to force a House vote on extending temporary deportation protections for Haitian migrants that the Trump administration has tried to end. www.notus.org/democrats/ay...

No GOP Senators asked consent to pass the House-passed DHS CR in today's short pro forma session. The Senate has adjourned until 7 am on Thursday.

An example from the precedents: ↙️ Hatsell thought it was unreasonable that you may not move the previous question in a Committee of the whole House. ↘️ Some time later, Erskine May explains the logic behind that rule.

Parliamentary procedure is- much of the time- not just ‘archaic tradition’ but actually quite logical (I said *much* not all of the time)

Good thinking! I believe this is the first time they’ve proposed a provision like this.

To conduct business during a pro-forma session in the Senate: The first step is to get UC to be recognised to make a UC request (yes, that is paradoxical). Then you can ask UC to set aside the order prohibiting the conduct of business.

1. Incredible stuff. 2. Fantastic choice of speaker pro tempore. 3. Why would Democrats not object to this UC request and make them vote on a motion to this effect?

Taking no chances this time 😉

One word

Votes this evening?! I didn’t think they were actually going to do this… 🤯

This is *exactly* why anything to do with money is supposed to be considered in the 🐄.

One fun (and not totally unlikely) outcome would be some proper ping-pong, i.e., the House keeps sending over random things and the Senate keeps tabling them.

The Senate does some of its finest legislating at 2 am.

In the Senate, you can only adjourn until later in the same calendar day if that legislative day began on a previous calendar day. (In other words, you cannot have two legislative days *entirely* within the same calendar day.) In the House, there is no such restriction.

The idea is that suspension of the rules should not be the main method of considering legislation. 40 minutes of debate and no amendments is a terrible process. (It makes slightly less sense now that the usual process is one hour of debate and also no amendments! 😬)

You see, it is possible for debate in the Senate to end naturally! 😉

As for the House, remember that motions to suspend the rules are not in order on Fridays. Options: 1. The Rules Cmte orders a rule reported before the House convenes at 9 am. 2. Two-thirds vote to consider the rule 3. The House adjourns for a minute after the rule is reported. 4. Unanimous consent

The vote in question here took 22 minutes. The vote in the Senate right now has been open for over five hours.

Senators feel the same way:

No idea what Sessions was doing here. As Hoyer says, this was in the House, not the 🐄, so members should have directed their remarks to the speaker, not ‘the chairman of the committee’.

I’d always wondered what these scripts look like.

“Could lawmakers speak to King Charles about the Epstein files when he speaks to a Joint Meeting of Congress next month?” www.foxnews.com/politics/kha... From the precedents:

Deficit reduction idea: a $1 fine each time a member, e.g., tries to ‘pass’ a simple or concurrent resolution.

The Senate is getting the hang of this talking filibuster thing 😉.

A few things to say about the rule reported today: 1. An unusually close vote on an amendment.

Felling and filling the tree

🤨 That should be ‘joint meeting’, obviously.

Never have I seen a more concise, manifest, and veritably literal demonstration of the saying, "Where he stands depends on where he sits." #SRules h/t to @ringwiss.bsky.social's video department

Not great that Mullin voted for his own nomination.

Tbf, it’s good that senators are clearing up their misconceptions on the floor. More material for a new book of precedents 😉.

If you ever think your legislature is having a bad day, this was a Monday in Texas in 1969

Strange things happen during these rare Sunday sessions... To answer Kennedy’s question: rule XXII, paragraph 1 says, ‘When a question is pending, no motion shall be received but...’ (and then lists the possible motions). That’s why you can’t just make up whatever motion you want.

And now the Senate is considering a different nomination. Earlier today, it was debating a motion to proceed to the DHS appropriations bill. What is the point of this whole exercise if the Senate is not going to stay on the SAVE America Act?

Yes, such as on July 14, 1987. (Bastille Day 🇫🇷) This week, as I was reading that day's Record, it hit me – No wonder I had to have so many rules at hand back then; senators were doing a lot more back then. Individual senators, apart from leadership, both majority & minority. (Ds were majority) 1/

The Senate will be voting on cloture on a motion to suspend rule XXV to make in order a motion to refer the House message on the legislative vehicle for the SAVE America Act to the Rules and Administration Committee with instructions to consider legislation funding TSA. Up or down, indeed.

We just published my swan song for The Post: Congress nears tipping point of irrelevance. It’s been an amazing 19-plus-year run, especially last decade of this @PKCapitol column. The Post has been family, giving me this perch to cover Congress. So lucky … www.washingtonpost.com/politics/202...

"The Chair is not responsible for the Senate being wrong." – Vice President/Senate President John Nance Garner For anyone interested but who didn't want to dig it out, here's the back & forth on Executive vs Legislative day from the fn 10 citation in Ringwiss' clip from Riddick's. #SRules

I think one answer is that otherwise, Lee would have exhausted his two speeches a long time ago.

The Senate is now in executive session, debating* Mullin’s nomination. 🤔 * – Filibustering, you might say.

It seems that agreeing to a motion to proceed to a motion to reconsider (re DHS appropriations) would displace the House message (re the SAVE America Act).

Fun fact: The standing rules do not provide a two-thirds threshold for motions to suspend the rules. The Senate decided that by sustaining a point of order (which today would probably be called nuking...).

Interesting.

Some upper houses are more resilient than others.

Senator Ron Johnson (R-WI) explains – "We've got this bill on the floor. We're going to be debating it. The way the Senate debates thing is... " #Save_Act #SRules

Talking filibuster going well... No senator is seeking recognition, and the Senate is not in a quorum call, yet the chair is not putting the question on the pending amendment.

😳 If only the presiding officers in Congress took this approach...

They actually remembered this time! 👍

Good times.* (* – no, I wasn't there back then, but the Senate was still that way when I started working there; AND (tbc) it was still that way when I left!)