That's exactly what you said--and I do have the floor, thank you.
With reasonable diligence, certainly the members would have been able to know that they did not receive the documents. If these documents were so pertinent, as my friend Mr. Moore aptly pointed out, it was incumbent upon the members to know that they didn't have them and that it wasn't some clerical error, or that the fault wasn't their own. That objection should have been raised on November 16. If these documents were so pertinent that they were essential to deal with clause-by-clause, it should have been raised at the first available opportunity—November 16, not today.
This motion is out of order.