Due to a prolonged illness, I’ve had a lot of spare time. Unfortunately, I’ve been tuning in to C-Span.
In the House, they often have a 5 minute vote on a motion or amendment, by electronic vote. The screen shows the time remaining, but representatives are still allowed to vote well after the 5 minutes have expired.
In the Senate, after nearly every speaker, the speaker notices the absence of a quorum. The President then asks the clerk to call the roll. But she normally doesn’t get past “Mr. Alexander”. I don’t know if she just stops calling the roll, or if they cut off her mic.
C-Span then plays classical music, while the screen says “waiting for a Senator to speak.” The next Senator says, in effect, " I ask that the quorum call be dismissed", and then launches into his speech.
As to the House, the five-minute period (or any other period specified for a vote by the House rules, which are very detailed on these time periods) is a minimum. It means that the presiding officer must not end the vote and announce a result before the expiry of this period. Even afterwards, however, members of the House may still vote as long as the result has not been announced.
And in the Senate, the quorum call is like a time out that can be called by any senator. It freezes legislative business for a bit of time, either seconds or hours. The clerk calls the names very slow because once the last senator’s name is called, by rule either all 100 senators are compelled to come to the floor, or the Senate adjourns. By calling the names very slowly, the clerk allows for the possibility that a very short time out can become a very long time out without forcing a live quorum call or adjournment.
As to the Senate, technically a quorum, i.e. a majority of senators, is required to do business; that’s in the Constitution. Whenever a senator suggests absence of a quorum, a quorum call is required to determine if there are the required 51 senators present. The reason for this quorum call is that no matter how many senators are evidently present or absent, the quorum is presumed to be met unless determined otherwise by means of a quorum call.
Once the quorum call has begun, however, it may be dismissed by unanimous consent of the members present. Unanimous consent in this case is presumed to be there if somebody asks for the call to be dismissed and, upon question from the presiding officer, nobody objects. This opens the opportunity for a little trick which can be used if a break or pause in the proceedings is required to sort out minor issues or wait for the next speaker: You start a quorum call, then dismiss it as soon as the reason for the break is not there any more, and proceed. It was never the intention to actually determine the quorum, it was just a measure to buy some time.
That Senate quorum business sounds damned silly. It seems like they could have come up with a method to just request a recess for a few minutes or hours without going through the charade of having the clerk read the names. Is there a good reason for doing it that way?
There are surely many ways to answer the question of why the Senate is content with the quorum call practice, but a few reasonable answers include:
It is tradition.
It does the job perfectly. If something works perfectly and elegantly but seems silly to some people, function often takes precedence over the claim of ‘silly.’ See also: filibuster.
It is hard to change the rules of the Senate.
The Senate puts great power in members and almost no power in the Presiding Officer. A motion to recess until the call of the chair is a perfectly valid motion in the Senate, but it places discretion in the Chair as opposed to rank and file Senators.
Does this mean that if a dozen or so senators show up, they have a presumed quorum, and can do whatever they want, as long as no one asks to be actually, you know, counted?
It’s a cute little trick that goes like this: it’s the job of the presiding officer to determine whether there’s a quorum. If the presiding officer decides there’s a quorum, and no one objects, it’s assumed there actually is a quorum, until someone makes an issue out of it.
I seem to recall a few years ago, either in the House or Senate, when everyone was trying to get out of town for some holiday, and the minority party kept someone on the floor at all times to object in case the few members who hadn’t already left town tried to push something through.
A motion to recess for an indefinite time is debatable and must be voted on while a quorum call is not. The procedure for debate and the vote would take more time than the few minutes of delay needed.
In addition to what others have said, in modern times, very little actual work is done on the Senate floor. Most things are done in committees or over coffee in the back offices. The floor debates are largely for show. It is a rare event where even a majority of senators are in the chamber.
C-Span rarely does a wide shot when someone is speaking. If you are ever in D.C, go to the gallery and watch the senate floor. One senator will be there speaking in a booming voice, with visual aids, and acting like he is looking at everyone else to make a point. Chances are he is the only senator there except for the presiding officer.
However, someone is always watching the floor. If a partisan senator is getting away with too much, the other party will send a senator over and ask if his “friend” would yield for a question. They get into a little spar and the other senator leaves. It is mostly theater.