[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 155 (2009), Part 3]
[Senate]
[Pages 2999-3001]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




  SENATE RESOLUTION 29--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. 29

       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 to that resolution, 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 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 
2 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

[[Page 3000]]

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 2 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:

       Vitter Amendment #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 fiscal year 06 budget resolution, reserve 
funds were used sparingly. In fiscal year 07, 22 were included in the 
Senate resolution and 8 in the House resolution; in fiscal year 08, 38 
were included in the Senate resolution and 23 in the conference report; 
and in fiscal year 09, 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 
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 fiscal year 09 
budget resolution demonstrates the unnecessary level of programmatic 
detail that I refer to:

       Sessions Amendment #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 #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

[[Page 3001]]

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 \3/5\ of the Members. Also, an 
affirmative vote of \3/5\ 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 roll call 
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.

                          ____________________