Mr. ENSIGN. Mr. President, I make a point of order that the pending bill violates section 407 of H. Con. Res. 95, the concurrent resolution on the budget for fiscal year 2006.That exchange erected a 60 vote hurdle for the asbestos bill. Not a cloture motion, it's purely coincidental that both have the same hurdle. Before getting to the question of "where did THAT rule come from?", here are portions of the debate that followed the point of order.Mr. SPECTER. I move to waive the point of order under the applicable provisions of the rules and statutes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The motion to waive is debatable. ...
Mr. DOMENICI. ... I want the Senators who are worried about voting to waive this point of order to understand this is not a budgetary issue. This is a technical point of order that got to the Senate because the Congressional Budget Office, I assume, or the Parliamentarian in consultation with the Congressional Budget Office, ruled that any expenditure of money exceeding $5 billion over a baseline in the year 2016 cannot be sustained. ...So let me say, if you want to kill this bill based upon a point of order that is--it is almost not a point of order, it is just a little, tiny technicality--it gets in by the skin of its teeth on an interpretation--then vote for it. If you are worried about saving money, and being a tightfisted budgeteer, then understand that this has nothing to do with being a tightfisted budgeteer because there is no budgeting involved. ...
Mr. CONRAD. Yes. I have talked directly to the chairman of the Budget Committee, and he has said to me he believes that clearly this budget point of order does lie. And he is buttressed, I might say to my colleague, by the Congressional Budget Office itself, which says on page 2 of their report on this legislation called S. 852, the Fairness in Asbestos Injury Resolution Act, in the last paragraph:
Pursuant to section 407 of H. Con. Res. 95 (the Concurrent Resolution on the Budget, Fiscal Year 2006), CBO estimates that enacting S. 852 would cause an increase in direct spending greater than $5 billion in at least one 10-year period from 2016 to 2055. ...
Mr. SESSIONS. ... I say again that I respect this point of order and I respect Senator Ensign for raising it. I point out this is indeed technical in the sense that the monies in this fund are not Federal Government money, and that if the fund runs out of money, the Government doesn't put in extra funds. It goes back into the litigation system and the plaintiffs continue their lawsuits in that fashion. Therefore, I think it would be wise under these circumstances to waive the Budget Act. ...
12 . POSTAL ACCOUNTABILITY AND ENHANCEMENT ACT -- (Senate - February 09, 2006)
Mr. KENNEDY. ... The sponsors claim the budget point of order against the bill is technical, but the financial inadequacy of the trust fund to meet its obligation is very real. Should the trust fund fail, both asbestos victims and the taxpayers will pay a heavy price.8 . ASBESTOS -- (Senate - February 10, 2006)
Mr. SESSIONS. ... I urge my colleagues to look into this point. Do not allow this supermajority vote. To keep the bill on track, 60 Senators will have to vote to waive this point of order. It would be a tragedy, indeed. When we see Senator Leahy, Senator Specter, and Senator Sessions supporting a piece of legislation, when we see the Washington Times and the Washington Post supporting a piece of legislation, when we see the veterans groups incredibly anxious to see this legislation passed, and when we see overwhelmingly the businesses that are involved in this process and are paying out this money that want to see it passed, why can't we get it passed?Let's not allow it to fall on a supermajority vote of 60 instead of the normal 50 required to pass legislation. I hope everyone will study it, and when they do, I think they will feel comfortable in voting to waive the budget point of order.
14 . THE FAIR ACT -- (Senate - February 10, 2006)
In each case, a point of order is the procedural mechanism for enforcing the provisions set forth in the budget resolution. Points of order, however, are not self- enforcing; a member must raise a point of order to enforce the spending and revenue amounts included in a budget resolution. Congress may consider and enact legislation even if it were to violate the provisions of a budget resolution if no point of order is made.Section 503 of H.Con.Res. 95 in the 108th Congress passed the Senate on April 11, 2003, roll-call vote No. 134 passing 51-50, straight party line with Zell Miller crossing over.Also, budget enforcement points of order may be waived. In the House, a special rule reported by the Rules Committee and adopted by the House may be used to waive any point of order. In the Senate, these budgetary points of order may be waived by unanimous consent or by a vote of the Senate on a waiver motion as provided under Section 904 of the CBA. A motion to waive most Congressional Budget Act points of order requires a three-fifths vote of all Senators duly chosen and sworn (60 votes if there are no vacancies), although Section 303(a) may be waived by simple majority. This supermajority requirement was extended through September 30, 2008, by the FY2004 budget resolution (see Section 503 of H.Con.Res. 95). [N.B. 108th Congress]
Budget Resolution Enforcement
CRS 98-815 GOV - Updated July 17, 2003
SEC. 503. EXTENSION OF SUPERMAJORITY ENFORCEMENT.(a) IN GENERAL- Notwithstanding any provision of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, subsections (c)(2) and (d)(3) of section 904 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 shall remain in effect for purposes of Senate enforcement through September 30, 2008.
(b) REPEAL- Senate Resolution 304, agreed to October 16, 2002 (107th Congress), is repealed.
SEC. 403. EXTENSION OF SENATE ENFORCEMENT.Section 403 of H.Con.Res. 95 in the 109th Congress passed the Senate on April 28, 2005, roll-call vote No. 114 passing 52-47, straight party line except DeWine crossed over and voted Nay.(a) EXTENSION- Notwithstanding any provision of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, subsections (c)(2) and (d)(3) of section 904 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 shall remain in effect for purposes of Senate enforcement through September 30, 2010.
(b) IN GENERAL-
(1) UNFUNDED MANDATES- Section 425(a)(1) and (2) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 shall be subject to the waiver and appeal requirements of subsections (c)(2) and (d)(3) of section 904 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974.
(2) CONSIDERATION OF BUDGET LEGISLATION- Section 303 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 shall be subject to the waiver and appeal requirements of subsections (c)(2) and (d)(3) of section 904 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974. For the purpose of Section 303, the year covered by the resolution shall be construed as the upcoming fiscal year only.
(3) APPLICATION TO RECONCILIATION- This subsection shall not apply to any legislation reported pursuant to reconciliation directions contained in a concurrent resolution on the budget.
(4) EFFECTIVE DATE- This subsection shall remain in effect for purposes of Senate enforcement through September 30, 2010.
Mr. ENSIGN. Mr. President, I make a point of order that the pending bill violates section 407 of H. Con. Res. 95, the concurrent resolution on the budget for fiscal year 2006.Mr. SPECTER. I move to waive the point of order under the applicable provisions of the rules and statutes.
The route to the statutory expression of the 3/5ths requirement is actually direct, not indirect as I posted above.
SEC. 407. LIMITATION ON LONG-TERM SPENDING PROPOSALS.(a) CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET OFFICE ANALYSIS OF PROPOSALS- The Director of the Congressional Budget Office shall, to the extent practicable, prepare for each bill or joint resolution reported from committee (except measures within the jurisdiction of the Committee on Appropriations), or amendments thereto or conference reports thereon, an estimate of whether the measure would cause, relative to current law, a net increase in direct spending in excess of $5 billion in any of the four 10-year periods beginning in fiscal year 2016 through fiscal year 2055.
(b) POINT OF ORDER- In the Senate, it shall not be in order to consider any bill, joint resolution, amendment, motion, or conference report that would cause a net increase in direct spending in excess of $5 billion in any of the four 10-year periods beginning in 2016 through 2055.
(c) WAIVER- This section may be waived or suspended only by the affirmative vote of three-fifths of the Members, duly chosen and sworn.
(d) APPEALS- An affirmative vote of three-fifths of the Members, duly chosen and sworn, shall be required to sustain an appeal of the ruling of the Chair on a point of order raised under this section.
(e) DETERMINATIONS OF BUDGET LEVELS- For purposes of this section, the levels of net direct spending shall be determined on the basis of estimates provided by the Committee on the Budget of the Senate.
(f) APPLICATION TO RECONCILIATION- This section shall not apply to any legislation reported pursuant to reconciliation directions contained in a concurrent resolution on the budget.
(g) SUNSET- This section shall expire on September 30, 2010.
H.CON.RES.95.ENR - Enrolled as Agreed to or Passed by Both House and Senate