Skip to Main Content


Republican Reconciliation Strategy “Patently Absurd,” Former Parliamentarian Says

By | Leave a Comment

Around the time that I was posting my interview with former Senate Parliamentarian Robert Dove, Greg Sargent reported that Republican senators were planning to stall any attempt at passing health reform through reconciliation with a “free for all of amendments.” Citing a “senior GOP aide,” Sargent writes:

He said the leadership — Senators Mitch McConnell, Jon Kyl, Lamar Alexander, etc. — are discussing how to exploit the fact that the reconciliation process allows for an “open-ended amendment process.”…

“If you bring a reconciliation bill to the Senate, it’s a free for all of amendments,” the GOP aide said, cautioning that this was only part of the overall strategy. “There is no way to limit the number of amendments that are voted on. You can’t close debate.”

Sargent reported that this understanding of reconciliation rules was confirmed by another unnamed Senate aide, this time on the Democratic side.

“That’s patently absurd,” Robert Dove told me when I relayed to him these aides’ claims. “All I can tell you is that reconciliation limits debate to 20 hours, and amendments have to be germane.”

Thematic Areas:


  • Wonk Room » Former Senate Parliamentarian Calls GOP Strategy To Derail Reconciliation Effort ‘Patently Absurd’ says:

    […] at least one former Senate parliamentarian is calling the strategy “patently absurd.” According to Robert Dove, who served as Senate parliamentarian until 2001, “In the […]

  • Nan Hunter says:

    Is the answer perhaps in Tim Jost’s earlier post:
    “Debate in the Senate is limited by law to 20 hours. But at the end of the debate the Senate moves to one of its most bizarre procedures, “votearama.” An unlimited number of amendments can be offered to the reconciliation bill at this point, with 2 minutes of debate on each amendment. Given the degree to which the Republicans have gone to obstruct this legislation, dozens, perhaps hundreds of amendments could be expected. (In 2003, 65 amendments were considered to the reconciliation act). Eventually, however, the process would end and a final vote will be taken.”

  • The views reflected in this expert column are those of the individual authors and do not necessarily represent those of the O’Neill Institute for National and Global Health Law or Georgetown University. This blog is solely informational in nature, and not intended as a substitute for competent legal advice from a licensed and retained attorney in your state or country.

    See the full disclaimer and terms of use.