Am I Insane? Senate Procedure Help Needed!: Am I Insane?--or, Rather, How Insane Am I? Weblogging
Geez. First people saying that President Al Gore would have been likely to invade Iraq in 2003, and now this…
On September 13, 2010, Bill Heniff, Jr. of the Congressional Research Service wrote that:
the Senate, in May 2007, also adopted a rule barring the use of Reconciliation in a manner that would increase the deficit (or reduce the surplus). The rule was included in the FY2008 budget resolution (S.Con.Res. 21, 110th Congress) as Section 202:
Sec. 202. Senate Point of Order Against Reconciliation Legislation That Would Increase the Deficit or Reduce a Surplus.
(a) In General.—It shall not be in order in the Senate to consider any reconciliation bill, resolution, amendment, amendment between Houses, motion, or conference report pursuant to section 310 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 that would cause or increase a deficit or reduce a surplus in either of the following periods:
(1) The current fiscal year, the budget year, and the ensuing 4 fiscal years following the budget year.
(2) The current fiscal year, the budget year, and the ensuing 9 fiscal years following the budget year.
(b) Supermajority Waiver and Appeal in the Senate.—
(1) Waiver.—This section may be waived or suspended in the Senate only by an affirmative vote of three-fifths of the Members, duly chosen and sworn.
(2) Appeal.—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 this section…
I read this as meaning that the Senate in 2007 had closed off the loophole that George W. Bush had used in 2001 to use Reconciliation to increase the deficit (or diminish the surplus) in the short run. I thought (and think) that if you want to increase the deficit next year you need either (a) 60 votes in the Senate to waive the point-of-order, (b) 60 votes in the Senate to end debate and vote on a bill to amend §202 S.Con.Res. 21, 110th to allow the use of Reconciliation to increase the short-term deficit, or (c ) 51 votes on the first day of the new Senate to vote that the Senate is not a continuing body and thus must adopt rules de novo by majority vote, and then 51 votes to adopt rules that do not include §202 S.Con.Res. 21…
UPDATE: Former Senate Parliamentarian Robert Dove corrects me. I need to add: (d) include a provision in this budget cycle's Budget Resolution amending §202 S.Con.Res. 21, 110th to allow the use of Reconciliation to increase the short-term deficit, pass it through the Senate by 51 votes and then through the House to get it engrossed, and then increase the deficit in the next budget cycle's Budget Resolution.
Now comes Robert Stein on Twitter to tell me that I am wrong:
Robert Stein @BobStein_FT: @delong Hard to block a prez with a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate and control of the House.
J. Bradford DeLong @delong: @BobStein_FT Dems could defeat filibuster 7/7-8/1/09, 11/9/09, and 9/25/09-2/4/09. Did an awful lot of Senate business in those <5 mos
Robert Stein @BobStein_FT: @delong Wrong. You're only counting Dems. Specter was a pro-O vote even before he switched. No reason not to count him.
J. Bradford DeLong @delong: @BobStein_FT Don't start tweets "wrong"--especially when you r wrong. Dems had 58. Specter gives them 59. Franken seated on 7/7 makes 60
Robert Stein @BobStein_FT: @delong it's not the length of time they're formally seated...u can anticipate & do legis spade work and wait for formal votes when they r.
Robert Stein @BobStein_FT: @delong filibuster-proof majority lasted 6 months + could have used only 50 in Senate for temp tax cuts or higher G via budg res/reconcile.
J. Bradford DeLong @delong: @BobStein_FT I don't think you understand the restrictions placed on Reconciliation when you talk about using it for "temp tax cuts"...
Robert Stein @BobStein_FT: @delong was ch ecnmst at senate budget. Unlike u, I know reconciliation process. Can use for temp tax cuts (or more G) like Bush in 01/03.
J. Bradford DeLong @delong: @BobStein_FT §202 S.Con.Res. 21, 110th http://democrats.budget.house.gov/sites/democrats.budget.house.gov/files/documents/reconciliation.pdf … , pp. 18-19. Need 60 votes to undo that. Can't use for temp tax cuts or more G
Robert Stein @BobStein_FT: @delong You are a fool. That rule itself can be repealed w/ 50 votes. Talk to someone who understands how Congress works.
Robert Stein @BobStein_FT: @delong brad, you r a smart guy and top notch economist, but blatantly obtuse re legislative process.
As I see it, you bring up on the floor of the Senate a motion to amend §202 S.Con.Res. 21, 110th. You debate it. You move to end debate and proceed to a vote on your motion to amend §202 S.Con.Res. 21, 110th. The votes are 53 Ayes and 47 Noes. The chair says: the motion is not agreed to; debate continues.
How do you repeal §202 S.Con.Res. 21, 110th with only 50 votes? How do you, procedurally, get to a vote on the question?
Am I missing something? Is there anybody who understands Senate procedure who can tell me what I am missing here? I mean, I think that Bob Stein has simply not kept up with changes in Senate procedure since the early George W. Bush years. But I could be wrong…
