[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 165 (Tuesday, October 24, 1995)]
[Senate]
[Pages S15536-S15538]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




[[Page S 15536]]


                         BUDGET RECONCILIATION

  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I hope that the Senators who are present 
will listen and that those who may be watching over the television will 
also listen. We are about to take up the reconciliation bill in the 
Senate. At this moment, the Senate reconciliation bill is not 
available. It has not been returned from the printers, so we do not 
have it. I hold in my hand the House reconciliation bill, 1,563 pages--
1,563 pages. The Senate bill may be a larger bill. It may not be. It 
may not have as many pages, but I would imagine that it is at least 
going to be 1,000 pages.
  This bill will be called up probably tomorrow. The motion to proceed 
to it is not debatable. One cannot filibuster. Once we are on it, the 
maximum length of time is 20 hours to be equally divided, which means 
10 hours to the side.
  This bill is so complex and so massive that there are tables of 
contents scattered throughout to indicate what items are from what 
committees. Each committee has been given instructions, and when that 
committee submits the results of those instructions to the Budget 
Committee, the Budget Committee cannot alter them substantively. The 
Budget Committee is required to fold them all into a reconciliation 
bill.
  What I am going to say is that we need more time to debate a 
reconciliation bill. There are all kinds of legislation that will be 
crammed into this bill--far-reaching legislation. Laws that are already 
on the statute books will be repealed, and very few Senators will know 
what is in the bill or will know what they are voting on. There will be 
comprehensive changes--Medicare, Medicaid, welfare reform, whatever.
  After we have voted on this bill--and we only have 20 hours--after we 
have completed our work on it, there may be a half dozen Senators who 
will have a grasp of the actions that have been taken.
  We are limited to 2 hours on any amendment in the first degree, 1 
hour on any amendment in the second degree, and there is no committee 
report.
  There is nothing here to tell us what we are going to be acting on. 
And it is going to hit us tomorrow morning in all likelihood, if not 
today, or maybe tomorrow afternoon. But think of that! Think of having 
to act on a bill of that size, a bill of that magnitude, and even this 
1,563 page bill is not complete. On page 1,562 it refers to ``Title 
XVIII, Welfare Reform, Text to be supplied.'' Page 1,563, ``Title XIX, 
Contract Tax Provisions, Text to be supplied; Title XX, Budget Process, 
Text to be supplied.''
  So it is not all here, even in this House reconciliation bill.
  What are we coming to in this Senate, in this Congress? This will be 
the most important bill that will be acted upon by this Senate in this 
session. And we all know that far-reaching changes are being 
contemplated, I suppose you would call it, in the so-called Contract 
With America. All of these new, all of these reforms and repealing of 
measures are going to be included in this reconciliation bill this 
year.
  As Members of the Senate are aware, the Congressional Budget Act of 
1974 established the congressional budget process. I was here. I had a 
lot to do with the writing of that act. But we did not contemplate, 
those of us who wrote that act in 1974, who voted on it, who debated it 
on the floor, did not contemplate what was going to be done in 
subsequent years through the reconciliation legislation.
  It was never intended--I would never have voted for that 1974 act if 
I could have just foreseen that the reconciliation process would be 
used as it is being used. It is a catchall for massive authorization 
measures that should be debated at length, and should be subject to 
unlimited time for amendments and unlimited time for debate.
  Very controversial measures are being put into reconciliation bills. 
And there is no cloture mechanism that could be more than a distant 
speck on the horizon as compared with time restrictions in a 
reconciliation bill. It is a super bear trap.
  Prior to the enactment of the Congressional Budget Act, there was no 
procedure or process through which Congress could exercise control over 
the total Federal budget. The appropriations process, which 
traditionally had overseen Federal spending through the enactment of 
annual appropriations bills, had increasingly become less able to do so 
because of the growth in ``entitlement'' or ``mandatory spending.'' 
These entitlement programs, notably Medicare and Medicaid, obligated 
the Federal Government to make direct payments to qualified 
beneficiaries, without the payments having to first be appropriated.
  Congress recognized that in order to be able to carry out its full 
responsibilities over the Federal purse, a new congressional budget 
process was needed. And through this new congressional budget process, 
it was our intention that all spending decisions would be considered in 
relation to each other. In addition, it is vital that the aggregate 
spending decisions we make be related carefully to revenue levels.
  In order to ensure that these new congressional budget processes and 
procedures would work, the Congressional Budget Act created two new 
fast-track vehicles--the budget resolution and the reconciliation bill. 
Both of these measures are considered under expedited, fast-track 
procedures in the Senate. It is the fast-track procedures relative to 
reconciliation measures which cause me great concern.
  And mind you, as I say, there is a limitation of 20 hours of debate. 
That includes debate on amendments, debatable motions, appeals, points 
of order. Everything is included under debate in that 20-hour 
limitation, except, for example, in the case of certain quorum calls 
and the reading of amendments. They are not charged against the 20 
hours.
  But that is not all. Any Senator may move to reduce the overall time 
from 20 hours to 10. Any Senator may move to reduce the 20 hours to 5 
or to 2 or to 1 hour.
  Well, that would be a rather unreasonable thing to do, but the rule 
allows it. And that would be a nondebatable motion. If a Senator elects 
to move to reduce the time--it does not have to be the majority leader 
or the minority leader--the newest Member of the Senate can make that 
motion to reduce the time. It is a nondebatable motion. It would be 
decided by a majority vote. So if a majority were so minded, it could 
reduce the time. This is an astonishing thing that we have done to 
ourselves.
  I think it is fair to say that the participants in the creation of 
the Congressional Budget Act recognized that this new process, as I 
say, was a dramatic departure from the budget practices and procedures 
that existed at the time. It was, therefore, obvious that no one could 
anticipate all of the effects that could result from enactment of the 
Congressional Budget Act. I do not believe that the Congress fully 
anticipated the uses that would be made of the fast-track 
reconciliation process.
  The reconciliation process is a fast-track, deficit-reduction vehicle 
which, under the Congressional Budget Act, cannot be filibustered 
against. A simple majority of Senators voting determines what 
amendments the Senate will adopt to a reconciliation measure, and a 
simple majority is sufficient to pass the legislation.
  First degree amendments, as I say, get 2 hours of debate; second 
degree amendments get 1 hour. All debate must fall within the act's 20-
hour cap. It is for this reason that I have called reconciliation a 
colossally super gag rule. It is a gigantic bear trap.
  I do not believe, Mr. President, the participants in the creation of 
the Congressional Budget Act recognized the way--I do not believe they 
recognized the way; I did not recognize it--in which this expedited 
reconciliation process would be used. They intended the reconciliation 
process to be a way to ensure that the spending and revenue and deficit 
targets for a given fiscal year would be met. In fact, there were no 
reconciliation instructions in budget resolutions for fiscal years 
1975, 1976, 1977, 1978, or 1979. The Senate Budget Committee first 
reported a budget resolution containing reconciliation procedures for 
FY 1980, under the chairmanship of Senator Muskie, Ed Muskie. The 
following year, the new Budget Committee chairman, Senator Hollings, 
included reconciliation instructions in the 1981 budget resolution in 
the form of a binding revision of the 1980 budget resolution.
  Then, for fiscal year 1982, Senator Domenici assumed the chairmanship 
of 

[[Page S 15537]]
the Budget Committee, a post which he also holds today, and he made 
further innovations in the reconciliation process. In fact, I 
understand that it was during this period that the revised budget 
resolution for fiscal year 1981 included reconciliation instructions 
for years beyond the first fiscal year covered by the resolution, 
thereby extending the reach of reconciliation to more permanent changes 
in law. No longer was reconciliation just a ledger adjustment for one 
year.
  Since that time, reconciliation instructions have been included in 
budget resolutions for FY 1981, 1982, 1984, 1986, 1987, 1988, 1990, 
1991, 1994, and 1996. By the same light, budget resolutions did not 
include reconciliation instructions in many fiscal years, including 
fiscal years 1989, 1992, and 1993, during multi-year budget agreements.
  Over this period, Congress used reconciliation legislation to 
accomplish substantial deficit reduction. At the same time, however, 
many legislative items were included in reconciliation bills that had 
no business being there. And it is not surprising, Mr. President, that 
attempts have been made to include extraneous matters in reconciliation 
bills. After all, the fast-track procedures for considering 
reconciliation bills, as well as conference reports thereon, make them 
almost irresistible vehicles to which Senators will attempt to attach 
non-budgetary legislative matters.
  It was in response to this problem that I offered an amendment to the 
Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1985, originally 
adopted as a temporary rule and made permanent in 1990 as Section 313 
of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, as amended. The purpose of 
what is commonly referred to as the ``Byrd Rule'' was to curb this 
tendency to include extraneous matter in reconciliation measures. That 
is why the Byrd rule came about. The Congressional Research Service 
recently issued a report for Congress entitled, ``The Senate's Byrd 
Rule Against Extraneous Matters in Reconciliation Measures: A Fact 
Sheet.'' According to that report, in the five reconciliation measures 
to which it applied, there have been 16 cases involving the Byrd Rule. 
In 11 of those cases, opponents were able to either strike extraneous 
matter from legislation--in six cases--or bar the consideration of 
extraneous amendments--in five cases--by raising points of order. Three 
of ten motions to waive the Byrd Rule were successful and two points of 
order against matter characterized as extraneous in a conference report 
were rejected. It appears, then, that the Byrd Rule has had some 
success in keeping extraneous matter out of reconciliation measures.
  Yet, Mr. President, more needs to be done to ensure that Senators and 
the American people are fully informed as to what is included in these 
massive reconciliation bills before they are voted upon.
  The people have a right to know, our constituents have a right to 
know what is in this bill, and we Senators have a right to know, and we 
Senators have a responsibility to know. But how can we know under the 
circumstances--under the circumstances?
  As it stands now, the Budget Act allows only 20 hours of debate on 
reconciliation bills and only 10 hours of debate on reconciliation 
conference reports. And that does not even begin to be a sufficient 
amount of time to address the massive number of items that are 
contained in reconciliation bills. These bills contain a large number 
of permanent changes in law which would otherwise have extended debate, 
which would otherwise have to go through the process of amendments and 
thoughtful consideration, debate, perhaps days of debate.
  Yet, we are all put under the gun, on both sides of the aisle, to get 
the reconciliation bill through with a modicum of debate, both in the 
Budget Committee and here on the Senate floor. I am having to make this 
speech on my amendment today, the day before we will actually take up 
the reconciliation bill because there will likely not be time to 
discuss my amendment during regular consideration of the bill.
  I have an amendment. It will be subject to a 60-vote point of order. 
It probably will not be adopted, but I am going to offer it anyhow. Do 
you think I will have time to debate that amendment when this bill is 
up before the Senate? We have a very little amount of time.
  I do not raise this issue for any partisan purpose. When Democrats 
controlled the House and Senate, reconciliation bills were also far-
reaching and yet received no more consideration than will the 1996 
reconciliation bill. I am convinced, though that regardless of which 
party is in the majority, reconciliation bills and conference reports 
require more of the Senate's time than the Budget Act presently allows. 
So I intend to offer an amendment to the reconciliation bill which will 
increase from 20 to 50 hours the time limitation for debate on future 
reconciliation measures and to increase from 10 to 20 hours the time 
limitation for Senate consideration of conference reports thereon. I 
recognize, as I say, that a Byrd Rule point of order can be raised 
against my amendment, in that it has no effect on outlays or revenues.
  Nevertheless, I urge my colleagues to refrain from raising a point of 
order against this amendment and, instead, to join me in adopting the 
amendment, both sides, Senators on both sides need more time for 
consideration of such a leviathan as this. While not a magic pill that 
will solve all the problems we face in reconciliation bills, I feel 
that this increased time for consideration of reconciliation bills and 
conference reports in the future does constitute a much-needed 
improvement to the present reconciliation process.
  Analogies between the legislative process and making sausage have 
often been made, but in no instance does legislating resemble sausage 
making more than in the process known as reconciliation.
  Unlike most legislative vehicles which emanate from only one 
committee, the reconciliation bill is a hodge-podge, a catchall, of 
proposals from every authorizing committee, sewn into one skin called a 
reconciliation package. The package is usually massive, as we have 
noted here today, and contains far-reaching changes in the law--some of 
them beneficial, some of them detrimental, and some of them downright 
ridiculous. The point here is that the expedited procedures and very 
tight time limits have, over the years, become opportunities for those 
who would abuse the process. Unfortunately, the Byrd Rule, which was 
intended to help lessen the prospects for abuse in reconciliation has, 
over time, become a favorite parlor game for many of Washington's 
fertile legal minds, and ways have been found to circumvent its intent.
  It is my belief that very often the final reconciliation sausage 
would not pass public inspection if there were a little more time for 
examination and debate. Our aim in the Senate should never be to hide 
important public issues from the public eye. While we need to keep the 
deficit reduction train on track with some sort of time limits, we do 
not need to be in such a hurry that the toxic material in the boxcars 
is rushed by without even a moment for a cautionary warning flag to be 
raised.
  We should give the American people a little more of a window on the 
reconciliation process here in the Senate, and at least allow for some 
additional debate and some additional opportunity to amend the bill. My 
amendment would make the ingredients of the reconciliation process a 
little more pure and, hopefully, a little better seasoned. I believe 
mine is a constructive change, and I will hope for bipartisan support 
when I offer it to the reconciliation bill.
  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I wonder if the Senator from West Virginia 
will yield to me for a question?
  Mr. BYRD. Yes, I gladly yield.
  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, let me first indicate that I hope that the 
Senator will add me as a cosponsor to his amendment that would expand 
the amount of time available for which there would be debate on the 
reconciliation bill.
  Mr. BYRD. I will be happy to do that.
  Mr. DORGAN. I think that is a very important amendment, and I hope 
people will not raise points of order against it. But even that is a 
minuscule amount of time with which to evaluate this kind of 
legislation.
  My understanding is that the reconciliation bill, when it comes to 
the floor of the Senate, will be somewhere over 2,000 pages, and that 
includes everything. It is now 20 minutes to 1. We 

[[Page S 15538]]
are told today may be the day we will begin considering the bill. It is 
not available. I have not seen a bill. I have asked for it. It is not 
available. So a piece of legislation that will be probably 2,000 pages 
long, if it includes everything--the House version is 1,500 pages long 
but does not include the three major areas, that is text to be added 
later, I understand.
  Mr. BYRD. The Senator is correct.
  Mr. DORGAN. So we are talking about a proposal that will have some of 
the most profound changes we have seen in 30, 40, 50 years coming to 
the floor of the Senate later today, and it is now 20 minutes to 1 and 
it is not yet available, not yet written, not yet provided to Members 
of the Senate. Fifty hours is not enough. I support the Senator's 
amendment.
  I have heard in the past people say, ``Well, how can we legislate if 
we don't have access to what is being done here?''
  The Senator from West Virginia comes from a rural State, as do I. 
This will contain, when it gets here, essentially, a new farm bill. We 
are required to write a farm bill every 5 years. This is a year to 
write a farm bill. It is now late October. We do not yet have a farm 
bill.
  This will contain the structure of the new farm bill. It should not 
be here. That is a slap in the face at rural States. It is in there. 
Yet, like everything else, it will have a profound impact on a rural 
State and almost no opportunity will exist to get at it, to amend it, 
and to have a thoughtful, responsible debate about what farm policy 
will be in our country.
  This will have a substantial impact on men and women all over this 
country who are trying to run a family-sized farm.
  Does the Senator from West Virginia have a copy of the reconciliation 
bill yet, or has the Senator from West Virginia sought to get a bill?
  Mr. BYRD. I have sought to get a copy and a copy is not available. I 
have in my hands a copy of the House reconciliation bill covering 1,563 
pages. As the distinguished Senator from North Dakota has pointed out, 
there are three titles which are yet to be supplied.
  I do not know what the size of the Senate reconciliation will be. It 
may be longer or shorter. I think the Senator is well within reason to 
expect at least 1,200 to 1,500 pages.
  These will be changes of great magnitude--complex--in Medicare, 
Medicaid, and as the Senator has already said, farm legislation. 
Various and sundry laws will be repealed and amended which otherwise 
would perhaps require hours and hours or days, even, for debate on the 
Senate floor.
  I will certainly be pleased to add the Senator's name to my 
amendment. I hope that Republicans will join in supporting this 
amendment because they, too, should be concerned about what we are 
doing here--enacting legislation of this enormity without knowing what 
is in the legislation, without having an opportunity to adequately 
study it or amend it.
  I thank the Senator for his willingness to join in the presentation.
  I yield the floor.

                          ____________________