116

Following the passing of Tax Cuts and Jobs Act in the U.S. Senate on December 2nd 2017, this photo has been making the rounds on social media (facebook in my case). The tweet by Jesse Lehrich claims

literally all 52Rs voted against letting Senators read the new tax code before voting on it.

But I have yet to see any news articles describing this proposal (to delay the vote so senators may read the 407 page bill) or the described vote (52 - 48) despite numerous google searches.

Did the alleged proposal or vote occur?

literally all 52Rs voted against letting Senators read the new tax code before voting on it.

Sklivvz
  • 78,578
  • 29
  • 321
  • 428
KareemElashmawy
  • 921
  • 2
  • 6
  • 8

1 Answers1

172

The claim refers to the fact that the 500-page tax bill was given to the senators immediately before the vote. Democratic minority leader Chuck Schumer moved to adjourn, to give senators the weekend to read the bill.

From the Senate record (page S7700, 77 in pdf viewer):

Screenshot of page

Mr. President, I move that the Senate adjourn until Monday, December 4, 2017, at 12 noon, and I ask for the yeas and nays.

The vote was defeated along party lines [h/t: @daniel].

This was reported by several news outlets, e.g. The Hill

While the claim that NO senators had read the bill before voting on it can not be confirmed with certainty, the claim "All Republican senators voted against the motion to adjourn" is true, as confirmed by the official records of the US Congress.

Community
  • 1
DocM
  • 1,325
  • 1
  • 10
  • 10
  • 2
    I've pushed the discussion on the verb "to table" to [chat](http://chat.stackexchange.com/rooms/69780/discussion-on-answer-by-docm-entire-gop-voted-against-letting-senators-read-the). – Oddthinking Dec 06 '17 at 04:49
  • @Oddthinking It looks like one comment (Zach Linton's) was caught in the noise. – IMSoP Dec 06 '17 at 11:45
  • 1
    The question mentions a 407 page bill, the answer mentions a 500 page bill are you both referring to the same bill and does it have any relation to [this](https://twitter.com/SenatorTester/status/936748480000921600) video posted on the same day which refers to a 479 page bill? – Ambo100 Dec 06 '17 at 15:13
  • 4
    Note, however, that all of those who wanted to move to adjourn also rejected the bill afterwards. So while the original claim is true, the *implicit* claim that laws are passed only by making senators unable to read them is not corroborated. Any of those who wanted to pass the bill had been able to ask for more time - they decided not to do this voluntarily, so it has to be assumed that they felt informed enough. – Thern Dec 06 '17 at 15:55
  • 13
    @Nebr This, of course, assumes, that those who voted _for_ the bill didn't already know it's content. Or, even worse, didn't care as much about democracy and their place in it as about making the right bills for their clients. – I'm with Monica Dec 06 '17 at 16:51
  • 29
    @Nebr, ...given as the bill they passed unintentionally mooted the corporate R&D deduction, it seems likely that whether they *felt* informed enough and *were* informed enough to ensure that the bill accurately reflected their intent are... not strongly coupled. – Charles Duffy Dec 06 '17 at 16:51
  • @RussellBorogove What about 407? – Ambo100 Dec 06 '17 at 18:44
  • 2
    @CharlesDuffy That may well be, but this is another story, where it's not about disrupting the way the senate works, but senators taking such a strong partisan stance that they are willing to accept any bill if coming from the "right" side. – Thern Dec 06 '17 at 21:28
  • 17
    @Nebr "the *implicit* claim that laws are passed only by making senators unable to read them is not corroborated." To me, the *implicit* claim here is that many senators were willing to *pass* a law that they had not even read themselves. – Josh Dec 07 '17 at 03:59
  • @J.G. Probably not. It'll typically be the [president pro tempore](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/President_pro_tempore_of_the_United_States_Senate) or (usually) their designated representative for the day. Just the guy/gal with the gavel at the time. – ceejayoz Dec 07 '17 at 16:24
  • 14
    @Josh: It's completely fair to pass laws you don't read *yourself*. You have work to do and that's why you have staff to help you read and write the laws. The problem here is not that they didn't read the bills themselves, but that it seems like really nobody read them... – user541686 Dec 07 '17 at 18:44
  • The Senators who voted for the bill essentially considered the decision to move it out of committee to be good enough. And of course the fact that their party was in control of the content. They didn't need any further independent review. – Barmar Dec 07 '17 at 22:49
  • 13
    It should be understood that "letting Senators read the new tax code" would normally be interpreted as providing the time (and access to the document) for the senators' staff workers to analyze it to some reasonable degree. – Daniel R Hicks Dec 07 '17 at 23:52
  • 1
    @Ambo100 - in my family, my dad would freak out and exaggerate how late someone was when he was waiting. We referred to that as "rounding to the nearest panic time." I think a similar phenomenon is at work when talking about the size of the bill that the senators didn't get extra time to review. – PoloHoleSet Dec 08 '17 at 15:08