Tweet by Leader John Thune @LeaderJohnThune Let's summarize where we are after a 40+ day Democrat shutdown of the Department of Homeland Security. 1) ICE and CBP are funded, thanks to the Working Families Tax Cuts and the foresight of President Trump and Republicans in Congress. 2) After holding DHS and the American people hostage for over 40 days, Dems got ZERO restrictions that would prevent ICE and CBP agents from doing their jobs safely. 3) Due to Dem obstruction of the appropriations process, ICE and CBP will get even more funding through budget reconciliation. 4) Dems have once again established themselves as the "Open Borders, Defund the Police" party heading into an election. 5) Dem leadership has proven once again they can't be trusted to make a deal. Which begs the question if you're a Dem senator or one of their left-wing supporters: What was this really all about? 12:10 PM . Mar 27, 2026 . 747.2K Views

.@bbkogan.bsky.social Is Congress vectoring towards any partisan-controversial funding, that's ~always been done in annual appropriations, instead being done in reconciliation – leaving the filibuster only for policy laws? Or even towards no filibuster for anything by nuking the Byrd Rule?

#SRules

Cropped image of Thune to zoom in on the paper/script he's holding.

What Grok output: Full transcription of the script John Thune is holding: Senator: I move to proceed to the motion to reconsider the motion to lay on the table S.J.Res. 7. Chair: The question is on the motion to proceed to the motion to reconsider the motion to lay on the table S.J.Res. 7. All those in favor say “Aye.” All those opposed say “No.” The motion is not agreed to. Senator: I move to reconsider the vote by which the motion to proceed to the motion to reconsider the motion to lay on the table S.J.Res. 7 was not agreed to. Chair: The question is on the motion to reconsider the vote by which the motion to proceed to the motion to reconsider the motion to lay on the table S.J.Res. 7 was not agreed to. All those in favor say “Aye.” All those opposed say “No.” The motion is agreed to. Senator: I move to proceed to the motion to reconsider the motion to lay on the table S.J.Res. 7. Chair: The question is on the motion to proceed to the motion to reconsider the motion to lay on the table S.J.Res. 7. All those in favor say “Aye.” All those opposed say “No.” The motion is agreed to. Grok comments: This is a standard Senate floor script used for a very specific parliamentary maneuver involving Senate Joint Resolution 7 (S.J.Res. 7). Senate leaders like Thune often carry or have these printed scripts handy so they can deliver the exact wording required for complicated procedural votes without making a mistake. It’s not unusual — it’s just how the Senate’s arcane rules are handled on the floor.

I asked Grok to decrypt the script. (yes, we'll see it in the Record, but still :-) )

#Thune #SRules

Moreno does well in the chair – irrespective of whether he's simply repeating what the Parl says to him. Even while the Parl is speaking, he keeps his eyes on the Chamber.

#SRules

TODAY'S LESSON: All unanimous consent requests are requests, but not all requests are unanimous consent requests.

#SRules #DHS #ICE

Notwithstanding Sen Kennedy's (R-LA) claimed befuddlement on Sun, it's well established senators may object to a unanimous consent request w/o first being recognized by the chair – indeed w/o even being identified, which is so well established, the GPO Style Manual has an entry for it.

#SRules
1/

GPO Style Manual, 2016, page 396 https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/GPO-STYLEMANUAL-2016/pdf/GPO-STYLEMANUAL-2016.pdf#page=396 In gross or en gros When a bill comes to final action, in the presentment of amendments col- lectively for a vote, either the term “in gross’’ or the French equivalent “en gros’’ may be used.

Is it "in gross" or "en gros"? 🤔 Open your #GPO Style Manual to page 382...

#HRules #SRules
www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/...

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

Page from the Congressional Record of Aug 11, 1962. Here is a direct link to that page - https://www.congress.gov/87/crecb/1962/08/11/GPO-CRECB-1962-pt12-6-1.pdf#page=36

FUN FACT: Senators getting snippy during debate is not new.

Mr HOLLAND. Mr President, the Senator from FL was trying to show a willingness to be gracious. If the rules do not permit the Senator to be gracious then he will not be permitted.

Also, senators need not speak from their desks.

#SRules

Roger Marshall found an interesting way to start his remarks on the "SAVE Act" today.

#SRules

[As we know, those 3 amendments (ie, a motion to refer with an instructed amendment, plus 2 amendments) are how he filled the tree.]

#SRules

.@ringwiss.bsky.social may have covered this; in any event, I stumbled upon an example in the wild (ie, not via Riddick's): A cloture motion may be submitted even while a [non-debatable] tabling motion is pending.

That said, I can't see a difference if it were filed after the tabling vote.

#SRules

Senate section of Congressional Record, Jun 16, 1938 - page 9514 Direct link: https://www.congress.gov/75/crecb/1938/06/16/GPO-CRECB-1938-pt8-v83-8-1.pdf#page=10

Senate section of Congressional Record, Jun 16, 1938 - page 9515 Direct link: https://www.congress.gov/75/crecb/1938/06/16/GPO-CRECB-1938-pt8-v83-8-1.pdf#page=11

"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

... ie, to allow another senator to speak or to allow some business to transpire? I'd ~think so, like when a matter is temporarily set aside, it can be forced back with a call for regular order, but I'd need to look for that answer.

#SRules
8/

But (IMO), would have been better for the chair to have ruled Bennet had not actually yielded, "because_ a senator may not yield to another senator to make a statement", which is what Bennet had attempted to do.

The caveats? One, a senator (ie, who has the floor) may yield…

#SRules
5/

Apart from the entertainment value of this back and forth between Bennet and Lee, and the presiding officer stepping in: I'd never before heard or read mention of senators having a "right to withdraw your yield" – though that comes with key caveats, to follow. But before the caveats...

#SRules
2/

Indeed, Barrasso could ask Chuck Grassley what it was like during his first 15+ years in the Senate. HINT: "Unrelated" was an everyday-norm.

#SRules
3/

MORENO: Would you consider adding that to your resolution?
SLOTKIN: Will you yield?
MORENO: You have the floor.
SLOTKIN: Sorry, I don't know the rules here....

And then, Senator Slotkin (D-MI) took quite a stumble in the space-time continuum.

#SRules

Time for another episode of –
"House Members Saying Stupid Stuff About Senate Procedure"

Today we learn Rep Luna (R-FL) seems not to know that "extended debate" is another, longstanding way of saying "filibuster". Like "flatulence" is for "fart".

And filibusters aren't "invoke[d]".

#SRules
1/

"So, Democrats, you think you are strong? Well, we shall see. Biggles, put them in the Comfy Chair! ... Now, you will stay in the Comfy Chair until lunch time, with only a cup of tea at eleven."

#SRules
bsky.app/profile/kdby...

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

At the top of the attached, a screengrab from Riddick's Senate Manual: "When amendments are pending both to a bill and substitute therefor, it is in order to move to table any of the amendments. When an amendment to a committee substitute is tabled while amendments to the text of the bill to be stricken are pending, it is not in order to offer another amendment to the substitute until the pending amendments to the language of the bill proposed to be stricken are disposed of." At the end of that explanation is footnote 20, which says: "See Sept. 15, 1982,97-2, Record, pp. 23617-18." Then right below that on the attached is what Riddick's cites - From the Senate section of the Congressional Record, Sept 15, 1982. A snippet of at the bottom of page 102, and then all of page 103, sith some senators' names highlighted. The key parts are the back and forth between Senator Weicker (R-CT) and the Presiding Officer. Here is a link to page 102 of the pdf of the Record for that day: https://www.congress.gov/97/crecb/1982/09/15/GPO-CRECB-1982-pt17-7-1.pdf#page=102

PERSONAL NEWS: This is one of the oddest precedents I can recall.*

That said, upon consideration, I think there is some sort of logic to it… just, I am not prepared** to say what that is.

* – nb: not necessarily that I've ever seen; simply, that I can recall 🤷🏻‍♂️
** – as in, "Ohio passes"
#SRules
1/

Graphic: National Arbor Day - April 24 And to that left of the text, what looks to be a young boy in a blue hat and blue-rimmed sunglasses and a greenish-yellow rain parka holding a potted small tree, ready for planting.

I wonder if debate on the "SAVE Act" will last to Arbor Day.

#SRules

I was going to say the position of Padilla's poster is so likely a product of "bad staff work". However, it's so obviously bad that, subject to booth review, I'm putting it on Padilla.

#SRules

FUN FACT: One little-mentioned feature* of the filibuster is you never know when a senator might break into song.

Here's Al D'Amato (R-NY) during his one-man 15 hour & 14 minute filibuster on Oct 5, 1992, with a special audio appearance by Daniel Patrick Moynihan (D-NY).

#SRules

1/

A clip from a CRS report showing the first two graffs in the section titled: Four Hour Limit on Motion to Proceed and Guarantee of Minority Amendment Opportunity (Section 1 of S.Res. 15) The report can be found here - https://www.congress.gov/crs-product/R42996

Candidate for infield fly rule of Senate procedure, if only in the 113th Cong. "The four amendments do not have to be germane to be considered, although if cloture is invoked on the bill, a non-germane priority amendment would require 60 votes for approval."

#SRules
www.congress.gov/crs-product/...

Also, to any new or infrequent listeners: While Rule XIX allows for someone being Rule XIX'd to be appealed, and for the appeal to be debated, the appeal would be subject to an (immediate) motion to table, which is not debatable.

#SRules
#Parliamentary_Coup

... and it would require that the Yeas & Nays hadn't already been ordered. Iow, afaict rn, it'd require a parliamentary coup.

And btw, there are even more permutations… each of which would be less a nuking, more a coup.

#SRules

3/

Top of page 1 of the "SAVE Act" as send to the Senate by the House. The bill can be read here: https://www.congress.gov/bill/119th-congress/senate-bill/1383/text

TODAY'S QUESTION: Any handicapping on Democrats* who might (eg, after a weeks-long filibuster) vote with Republicans to invoke cloture on the "SAVE Act"?

On the one hand, I don't see SIX more Dems voting YEA.
Otoh, I long ago stopped doing whip counts**.

(* – Fetterman aside)
#SRules
1/

... thus revealing why such UC agreements were often called "time agreements".

Why the chair asked, "Is there objection to consideration of the bill?"? 🤔

Oddly, I was unable to find where the time agreement on HR 15586 was entered into. Mentions, yes. Entered into, no. 🤷🏻‍♂️

#SRules
3/

Department of Defense --> Defense Supplemental
Department of War --> War Supplemental?

Would make for an interesting amendment to the short title.

#HRules #SRules