[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 153 (2007), Part 14]
[Senate]
[Page 20008]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                              VOTE-ARAMAS

  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, last Thursday night, in an embarrassing 
display, the Senate engaged in the perennial and painfully ridiculous 
budget vote-arama.
  This is the process where the Senate considers either a budget 
resolution or reconciliation bill, and, under the rules of the Budget 
Act, Senators are permitted to offer and secure votes on amendments 
after the statutory limitation on debate has expired. By consent, 
Senators are usually allocated 2 minutes to describe their positions 
for and against an amendment before the Senate votes. Because Senators 
are not required to file their amendments in advance, far too often, 
Senators cannot read an amendment before a rollcall vote begins. We 
cannot even get an inkling of some of the mischief contained in many of 
these amendments. Many times, the amendments being considered would 
require sweeping changes to current law, and Senators are forced to 
cast their votes on these complex matters without the benefit of 
debate, an understanding of the costs, or even the chance to peek at 
the text of the amendment.
  In recent years, the budget vote-arama has come to signify an 
absolute breakdown in the deliberations of the U.S. Senate. The vote-
arama is a degrading process that sullies the reputation of the Senate 
every time it occurs. I can only imagine, and I cringe at the thought 
of, how the Senate must appear to the American people, voting on 
matters without debate, and without even something as simple as a copy 
of the amendment.
  Last Thursday night, during the debate on the Higher Education Access 
Act, the so-called education reconciliation bill, the process 
deteriorated even further, into something appalling. The Senate fell 
into a political tit-for-tat, with Senators offering, at first, an 
unrelated amendment regarding the Federal Communications Commission, 
and then a sense-of-the-Senate resolution regarding the detainees at 
Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, and then an unrelated amendment to alter the 
collective bargaining rights of American workers. The free-for-all 
further deteriorated when an amendment was offered urging the President 
not to pardon the Vice President's former Chief of Staff, I. Lewis 
``Scooter'' Libby, and then a retaliatory amendment was offered 
regarding the pardons granted by President Clinton. And on it went.
  Amendment after amendment was offered, each completely unrelated to 
the education bill before the Senate, and subject to multiple 
violations under the Budget Act. And, yet, each side continued to raise 
the stakes, taking political shots at the opposing side, while the 
Senate suffered through a humiliating night of political ping-pong. 
Cooler heads finally prevailed, thanks to the intervention of the 
majority leader, and, at least, the amendments regarding Presidential 
pardons were withdrawn. Nevertheless, the soap opera of last Thursday 
night underscores the dangers of the budget reconciliation process--
where bills are considered under expedited procedures, where debate is 
almost nonexistent, where vote-aramas occur, and where Senators are 
called upon to cast votes on nearly anonymous amendments that amount to 
little more than colorful sloganeering.
  The spectacle also underscored the absolute necessity of the Byrd 
Rule. Section 313 of the Budget Act--the Byrd Rule--prevents extraneous 
matter from being added to reconciliation bills, and being jammed 
through the Senate on party-line votes, like the ones we saw last 
Thursday night. The Byrd Rule was designed to prevent passage of 
exactly the kind of amendments that were being offered.
  As the hours ticked by, I believe that many Members were embarrassed 
by the performance of the Senate, as it got dragged into a political 
game of tossing zingers. In hindsight, we have to admit that matters 
got carried away, and that this body drifted far from its 
constitutional responsibility to legislate for the American people, and 
not the political media. Last Thursday night, the Senate displayed an 
utter lack of seriousness and appreciation for the depth and complexity 
of the issues before this country. I opposed every amendment that 
violated the Byrd Rule--regardless of whether it was offered by a 
Republican or Democrat, and regardless of how I viewed the subject 
matter--because I was so appalled by the deterioration in the Senate's 
deliberative processes. I can say honestly that I took no part in the 
message-mongering amendments that were extraneous to the underlying 
bill, and that showed this institution in such a shameful light.
  Last Thursday night's spectacle ought to cause every Senator to 
reevaluate the budget process in the U.S. Senate. I will renew my 
efforts to do away with these pernicious vote-aramas, and I hope my 
colleagues will join me in that effort.

                          ____________________