One way in which the possibility of extended debate affects the Senate's procedures is in how the Senate determines its legislative agenda--the order in which it decides to consider bills and other business on the floor.
When one or more of the Senate's standing committees reports a bill back to the Senate for floor debate and passage, the bill is placed on the Senate's Calendar of Business (under the heading of "General Orders"). The Senate gives its Majority Leader the primary responsibility for deciding the order in which bills on the Calendar should come to the floor for action. The Majority Leader's right to preferential recognition already has been mentioned, as has Senators' willingness to relinquish to him the right to make the motion that the standing rules provide for deciding the order of legislative business--namely, the motion that the Senate proceed to the consideration of a particular bill.
Whenever possible, however, bills reach the Senate floor not by motion but by unanimous consent. The motion to consider a bill usually is debatable and, therefore, subject to a filibuster. Even before the bill can reach the floor, and perhaps face a filibuster, there may be extended debate on the question of whether or not the Senate should even consider the bill at all. It is to avoid this danger that the Majority Leader attempts to get all Senators to agree by unanimous consent to take up the bill he wishes to have debated. If Senators withhold their consent, they are implicitly threatening extended debate on the question of considering the bill. Senators may do so because they oppose that bill or because they wish to delay consideration of one measure in the hope of influencing the fate of some other, possibly unrelated, measure. Senators can even place a "hold" on a bill, although this practice is not recognized in Senate rules or precedents, by which they ask their party's floor leader to object on their behalf to any unanimous consent request to consider the bill, at least until they have been consulted. More often than not, the Majority Leader will not even make such a unanimous consent request if there is a hold on a bill.
In attempting to devise a schedule for the Senate floor, the Majority Leader seeks to promote the legislative program of his party (and perhaps the President) as he also tries to ensure that the Senate considers necessary legislation in a timely fashion. But when he is confronted with two bills, one of which can be brought up by unanimous consent and the other of which cannot, he is naturally inclined to ask the Senate to take up the bill that can be considered without objection. Time is limited, and the Majority Leader is concerned to use that time with reasonable efficiency. Some bills, of course, are too important to be delayed because some Senators object to considering them. But most are not, 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 information in this section was compiled under the authority and direction of the Secretary of the Senate, Washington, DC 20510. Questions regarding content on this site can be directed to the Office of the Secretary Webmaster at webmaster@sec.senate.gov.)
