[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 154 (2008), Part 4]
[Senate]
[Pages 4622-4624]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                         SUBMITTED RESOLUTIONS

                                 ______
                                 

  SENATE RESOLUTION 493--TO LIMIT CONSIDERATION OF AMENDMENTS UNDER A 
                           BUDGET RESOLUTION

  Mr. SPECTER submitted the following resolution; which was referred to 
the Committee on the Budget:

                              S. Res. 493

       Resolved,

     SECTION 1. LIMITATION ON CONSIDERATION OF AMENDMENTS UNDER A 
                   BUDGET RESOLUTION.

       For purposes of consideration of any Budget Resolution 
     reported under section 305(b) of the Congressional Budget Act 
     of 1974--
       (1) time on a budget resolution may only be yielded back by 
     consent;
       (2) no first degree amendment may be proposed after the 
     10th hour of debate on a budget resolution unless it has been 
     submitted to the Journal Clerk prior to the expiration of the 
     10th hour;
       (3) no second degree amendment may be proposed after the 
     20th hour of debate on a budget resolution unless it has been 
     submitted to the Journal Clerk prior to the expiration of the 
     20th hour;
       (4) after not more than 40 hours of debate on a budget 
     resolution, the resolution shall be set aside for 1 calendar 
     day, so that all filed amendments are printed and made 
     available in the Congressional Record before debate on the 
     resolution continues; and
       (5) provisions contained in a budget resolution, or 
     amendments thereto, shall not include programmatic detail not 
     within the jurisdiction of the Senate Committee on the 
     Budget.

     SEC. 2. WAIVER AND APPEAL.

       Section 1 may be waived or suspended in the Senate only by 
     an affirmative vote of three-fifths of the Members, duly 
     chosen and sworn. An affirmative vote of three-fifths of the 
     Members of the Senate, duly chosen and sworn, shall be 
     required in the Senate to sustain an appeal of the ruling of 
     the Chair on a point of order raised under section 1.

  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I submit a resolution which would modify 
the budget process to bring some sanity to the Senate as we consider 
the budget resolution.
  On March 13, less than a month ago, we took up the budget resolution. 
From 11:15 a.m. until 2 a.m, on March 14, this body was bedlam. May the 
record show the distinguished presiding Senator from Montana was 
nodding in the affirmative. If he wishes to have a disclaimer on that--
he has just signaled it is OK with him.
  There are two Senators on the floor of the Senate now, one presiding 
and one speaking, who can attest to an extraordinary event. The Senate 
is billed as the world's greatest deliberative body. During the time 
from 11:15 a.m. on the 13th, until 2 a.m. on the 14th, the place was 
bedlam--absolute bedlam. We were considering amendments which had not 
been available for examination by Senators or their staffs. We were 
considering them in a context of 2 minutes equally divided, so the 
proponent had a full minute. That may be a little long for speeches in 
the House of Representatives, but it is not in the Senate. The opposite 
side had 1 minute.
  It was impossible to hear what was going on in the Chamber. If you 
tried to listen to get the gravamen of what was going on, it simply 
could not be heard. During the course of the deliberations after 
midnight I had occasion to talk to the distinguished majority leader, 
Senator Reid, and the chair of the Rules Committee, Senator Feinstein, 
about doing something about it. My staff and I have done some research. 
We found that a resolution had been submitted, a proposal had been 
submitted by Senator Byrd in the past. I have taken Senator Byrd's 
approach, having my staff consult with his staff. We do not yet have it 
worked out as to whether he will cosponsor because we have been in the 
period of recess for the past 2 weeks, but Senator Byrd is renowned for 
his expertise on parliamentary matters. The essence of the resolution 
would provide that first-degree amendments would have to be filed prior 
to the 10th hour of debate. Then, second-degree amendments would have 
to be filed prior to the 20th hour of debate. Then the resolution would 
be set aside for 1 day prior to the 40th hour of debate so that the 
amendments could be printed in the Congressional Record.
  For those who may be watching on C-SPAN, it is impossible to deal 
with an amendment which has not been filed and printed so that staff 
and Senators can review it. When the amendments are offered--as there 
is a right to offer them, under the existing procedures, on the spur of 
the moment--nobody can follow them. One minute of explanation is 
totally insufficient.
  There was one complex amendment which was offered with respect to the

[[Page 4623]]

city of Berkeley, to take away their earmarks and their grants. I 
happened to be on the other end of the Chamber at the time and actually 
could not hear; the bedlam, the noise just precluded hearing. I later 
found out that there was a lot more to the consideration of the issue 
than I could digest in the course of that time.
  The procedures that have been used on the budget resolution have 
taken two forms which have subverted the process. One is the sense-of-
the-Senate resolution, and the second is the resolution on deficit-
neutral reserve funds to try to bring it within the confines of the 
budget resolution. Through those two artifices there are efforts made 
to legislate, put legislative proposals in the budget resolution.
  I will ask unanimous consent my full statement be printed in the 
Record at the close of my comments. The full statement has a reference 
to amendment No. 4299, which was offered, which was on prescription 
drugs. It doesn't have anything to do with the budget resolution, but 
it was a sense of the Senate. This is just illustrative of substantive 
matters which are offered which have no place on the budget resolution.
  My prepared statement also refers to amendment No. 4231, which refers 
to immigration, a detailed proposal.
  Many of these, if not most of these amendments, are ``gotcha'' 
amendments. I am getting a lot of agreement from the distinguished 
Presiding Officer. If anyone is watching on C-SPAN II, a ``gotcha'' 
amendment is an amendment that compels people to vote on complex 
questions which can be used on a 30-second commercial.
  One of the difficulties of campaign practice is to be able to defend 
your votes. It is sometimes hard to defend a vote on a complex matter 
where you have no advance notice of the issue and no opportunity to 
hear it debated. The procedures of the Senate, worth just a momentary 
comment, are, somebody proposes legislation and files it at the desk. 
It is referred to a committee. The committee has hearings. Then there 
is a markup where the bill is considered. Then the committee files a 
report, analyzing it. Then it comes to the Senate floor for 
consideration.
  That is the way the Senate is supposed to function. That is what 
makes the Senate, arguably, the world's greatest deliberative body. But 
not when you have amendments which are offered on the spur of the 
moment with no opportunity to know what is in the amendment and all of 
these votes are recorded. Try to explain a ``gotcha'' amendment as to 
why you voted a certain way in answering on a commercial. It just 
cannot be done.
  It is my hope the Senate will take up this issue. I think the 
proposal by Senator Byrd on the scheduling is a good approach. I am not 
wedded to this approach. There are other approaches which could be 
undertaken which would be satisfactory to this Senator. We had some 
discussions on the Senate floor about perhaps limiting the number of 
amendments with a certification by the two leaders that you had germane 
amendments. But one way or another, we ought not to again next year 
undertake a process which has 44 votes. That established a new record--
although on prior years we came close to that with votes numbering in 
the thirties. We ought to avoid this kind of process and redo our 
procedures under the budget resolution.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent my full statement be printed 
in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                           Bill Introduction

       Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I have sought recognition to 
     introduce legislation to provide greater efficiencies to what 
     I believe is a broken process for consideration of the budget 
     resolution. The need for reform is based on the most recent 
     consideration of the budget resolution on March 13, 2008, 
     when the Senate conducted 44 stacked roll call votes in one 
     day--the so-called ``vote-a-rama.'' With the 44 stacked 
     votes, the frequent unavailability of amendment text in 
     advance so there could be no analysis and preparation, the 
     chamber full of senators, the unusual noise level, the 
     constant banging of the gavel by the presiding officer, the 
     near impossibility of hearing even just the two minutes 
     allotted for discussion, and consideration of matters 
     entirely unrelated to the budget, I believe the process needs 
     reform. The resolution I am introducing today is based on a 
     proposal previously submitted by Senator Robert Byrd, whom 
     most would agree is our most-knowledgeable Senator on 
     parliamentary procedure. The Byrd proposal seeks to correct 
     these problems I have cited by imposing several new rules 
     designed to foster greater transparency and efficiency on a 
     budget resolution.
       Under the budget rules, once all debate time has been used 
     or yielded back, the Senate must take action to agree to or 
     to dispose of pending amendments before considering final 
     passage. This scenario creates a dizzying process of voting 
     on numerous amendments in a stacked sequence, often referred 
     to as a ``vote-a-rama.'' During the course of the ``vote-a-
     rama'', dozens of votes may occur with little or no 
     explanation, often leaving Senators with insufficient 
     information or time to deliberate and evaluate the merits of 
     an issue prior to casting a vote. By consent, the Senate has 
     typically allowed two minutes of debate, equally divided, 
     prior to votes. However, the budget process does not require 
     Senators to file their amendments prior to their 
     consideration. In many instances, members are voting on 
     amendments on which the text has never been made available. 
     This difficult working environment is further compounded by a 
     Chamber full of Senators and the constant banging of the 
     gavel by the presiding officer to maintain order. This 
     unusual noise level makes it nearly impossible to hear the 
     one minute of debate per side.
       The Budget Act of 1974 outlines the many clearly defined 
     rules for consideration of a budget resolution, including 
     debate time and germaneness. Despite these rules, the Senate 
     has often set aside these rules and found clever ways to 
     circumvent the rules. To restore some order to the process, 
     the resolution I am offering today would require first-degree 
     amendments to be filed at the desk with the Journal Clerk 
     prior to the 10th hour of debate. Accordingly, second-degree 
     amendments must be filed prior to the 20th hour of debate. 
     This legislation would require a budget resolution to be set 
     aside for one calendar day prior to the 40th hour of debate. 
     Doing so would allow all filed amendments to be printed in 
     the Record allowing Senators, and their staff, an opportunity 
     for review before debate on the resolution continues. To 
     preserve the integrity of these new rules, debate time may 
     only be yielded back by consent, instead of the current 
     procedure whereby time may be yielded at the discretion of 
     either side.
       Another problem has been the subversion with the budget's 
     germaneness rules by offering amendments to deal with 
     authorization and substantive policy changes. It is important 
     to remember that the Federal budget has two distinct but 
     equally important purposes: the first is to provide a 
     financial measure of federal expenditures, receipts, 
     deficits, and debt levels; and the second is to provide the 
     means for the Federal Government to efficiently collect and 
     allocate resources. To keep the debate focused, amendments to 
     the budget resolution must be germane, meaning those which 
     strike, increase or decrease numbers, or add language that 
     restricts some power in the resolution. Otherwise, a point of 
     order lies against the amendment, and 60 votes are required 
     to waive the point of order. Yet, to circumvent this 
     germaneness requirement and inject debate on substantive 
     policy changes, Senators have offered Sense of the Senate 
     amendments and Deficit-Neutral Reserve Fund amendments that 
     include exorbitant programmatic detail.
       A sense of the Senate amendment allows a Senator to force 
     members to either support or oppose any policy position they 
     seek to propose. An excerpt of an amendment to the FY09 
     Budget Resolution follows:


                           Amendment No. 4299

       (b) Sense of the Senate.--It is the sense of the Senate 
     that--(1) the leadership of the Senate should bring to the 
     floor for full debate in 2008 comprehensive legislation that 
     legalizes the importation of prescription drugs from highly 
     industrialized countries with safe pharmaceutical 
     infrastructures and creates a regulatory pathway to ensure 
     that such drugs are safe; (2) such legislation should be 
     given an up or down vote on the floor of the Senate; and (3) 
     previous Senate approval of 3 amendments in support of 
     prescription drug importation shows the Senate's strong 
     support for passage of comprehensive importation legislation.

       The use of sense of the Senate amendments on the budget 
     resolution has been discouraged in recent years because they 
     have little relevance to the intended purpose of the budget 
     resolution. As a result, it has become increasingly popular 
     to offer deficit-neutral reserve fund amendments. Prior to 
     the FY06 Budget Resolution, reserve funds were used 
     sparingly. In in FY07, 22 were included in the Senate 
     resolution and 8 in the House resolution; in FY08, 38 were 
     included in the Senate resolution and 23 in the conference 
     report; and in FY09, 31 were included in the Senate 
     resolution.
       Deficit-neutral reserve funds--which are specifically 
     permitted by section 301(b)(7) of the Budget Act of 1974--
     have an important

[[Page 4624]]

     functional use in the budget process, but do not require 
     extensive programmatic detail to be useful. On the 
     speculation that Congress may enact legislation on a 
     particular issue--perhaps ``immigration,'' ``energy,'' or 
     ``health care''--a reserve fund acts as a ``placeholder'' to 
     allow the chairman of the Budget Committee to later revise 
     the spending and revenue levels in the budget so that the 
     future deficit-neutral legislation would not be vulnerable to 
     budgetary points of order. Absent a reserve fund, legislation 
     which increases revenues to offset increases in direct 
     spending would be subject to a Budget Act point of order 
     because certain overall budget levels (total revenues, total 
     new budget authority, total outlays, or total revenues and 
     outlays of Social Security) or budgetary levels specific to 
     authorizing committees and the appropriations committee 
     (committee allocations) would be breached.
       However, it is unnecessary to include extensive 
     programmatic detail into the language of a deficit-neutral 
     reserve fund for it to be useful at a later date. An excerpt 
     of an amendment to the FY09 Budget Resolution demonstrates 
     the unnecessary level of programmatic detail that I refer to:


                           Amendment No. 4231

     DEFICIT-NEUTRAL RESERVE FUND FOR BORDER SECURITY, IMMIGRATION 
                   ENFORCEMENT, AND CRIMINAL ALIEN REMOVAL 
                   PROGRAMS.

       (a) In General.--The Chairman of the Committee on the 
     Budget of the Senate may revise the allocations of 1 or more 
     committees, aggregates, and other appropriate levels in this 
     resolution by the amounts authorized to be appropriated for 
     the programs described in paragraphs (1) through (6) in 1 or 
     more bills, joint resolutions, amendments, motions, or 
     conference reports that funds border security, immigration 
     enforcement, and criminal alien removal programs, including 
     programs that--(1) expand the zero tolerance prosecution 
     policy for illegal entry (commonly known as ``Operation 
     Streamline'') to all 20 border sectors; (2) complete the 700 
     miles of pedestrian fencing required under section 102(b)(1) 
     of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant 
     Responsibility Act of 1996 (8 U.S.C. 1103 note); (3) deploy 
     up to 6,000 National Guard members to the southern border of 
     the United States; (4) evaluate the 27 percent of the 
     Federal, State, and local prison populations who are 
     noncitizens in order to identify removable criminal aliens; 
     (5) train and reimburse State and local law enforcement 
     officers under Memorandums of Understanding entered into 
     under section 287(g) of the Immigration and Nationality Act 
     (8 U.S.C. 1357(g)); or (6) implement the exit data portion of 
     the US-VISIT entry and exit data system at airports, 
     seaports, and land ports of entry.

       Voting on amendments that advocate substantive policy 
     changes in the context of a budget debate are a subversion of 
     the budget's germaneness requirements and clearly fall 
     outside the jurisdiction of the Budget Committee. In many 
     instances, the programmatic detail is of a controversial 
     nature, such as a recent amendment to ``provide for a 
     deficit-neutral reserve fund for transferring funding for 
     Berkeley, CA earmarks to the Marine Corps'' (Coburn Amendment 
     No. 4380).
       To bring the focus back to the budget, my legislation 
     states that ``provisions contained in a budget resolution, or 
     amendments thereto, shall not include programmatic detail not 
     within the jurisdiction of the Senate Committee on the 
     Budget.'' It is my hope that this language will bring about a 
     change in practice in the Senate whereby Senators will avoid 
     including excessive programmatic detail in their reserve fund 
     amendments. Doing so will put the focus back on the important 
     purposes of a budget resolution.
       The provisions in my legislation may be waived or suspended 
     in the Senate only by an affirmative vote of three-fifths of 
     the Members. Also, an affirmative vote of three-fifths of the 
     Members of the Senate is required in the Senate to sustain an 
     appeal of the ruling of the Chair on a point of order raised 
     under this section.
       I commend the chairman and ranking member of the Senate 
     Budget Committee for their hard work in processing amendments 
     to the budget resolution. Unfortunately, the process needs 
     reforms to provide structure and to increase transparency and 
     efficiency. The 44 rollcall votes conducted in relation to S. 
     Con. Res. 70 are the largest number of votes held in one 
     session dating back to 1964, according to records maintained 
     by the Senate Historical Office. The Senate cast more votes 
     on the budget in one day than it had previously cast all year 
     on various other issues. It is my hope that this resolution, 
     modeled in part on a previous proposal by Senator Byrd, will 
     lead us to a more constructive debate on the budget 
     resolution.
       I urge the support of my colleagues.

                          ____________________