§008. BPLA §174. CBA Sec. 904 (PAR)(357-368)

BPLA (Contents)

Budget Process Law Annotated (1993)

Section 904

[Pages 357-368]
exercise of rulemaking powers

Sec. 904.(a) The provisions of this title (except section 905944) and of titles I,945 III,946 IV,947 V,948 and VI949 (except section 601(a)950 and the provisions of sections951 701,952 703,953 and 1017954 are enacted by the Congress—

[page 358]

(1) as an exercise of the rulemaking power of the House of Representatives and the Senate, respectively, and as such they shall be considered as part of the rules of each House, respectively, or of that House to which they specifically apply, and such rules shall supersede other rules only to the extent that they are inconsistent therewith; and

(2) with full recognition of the constitutional right of either House to change such rules (so far as relating to such House) at any time, in the same manner, and to the same extent as in the case of any other rule of such House.956

[Notes on Subsection (a)]

944. Section 905 deals with effective dates. See infra  pp. 369-370.

945. See supra pp. 21-28.

946. See supra pp. 43-194.

947. See supra pp. 247-272.

948. See supra pp. 273-298. Section 13112(a)(11) of the Budget Enforcement Act of 1990 added this reference to title V (see infra p. 710), as section 13201(a) of that Act (see infra p. 713) amended title V to address credit reform.

949. See supra pp. 299-339. Section 13112(a)(11) of the Budget Enforcement Act 1990 added this reference to title VI (see infra  p. 710), as section 13111 of that Act (see infra p. 707) amended title VI to contain provisions to enforce the budget agreement between Congress and the President.

950. See supra pp. 299-303. Section 601(a) defines the maximum deficit amounts and discretionary spending limits, and since they bind the executive branch as well as Congress, they are not enacted solely as an exercise of the rule-making power.

951. Section 13112(a)(11) of the Budget Enforcement Act of 1990 (see infra  p. 710) deleted a reference here to section 606 (which used to deal with studies by Congressional committees of off-budget agencies (set supra note 908)), as section 13111 of the Budget Enforcement Act of 1990 (see infra p. 707) repealed what used to be section 606 and amended title VI to contain provisions to enforce the budget agreement between Congress and the President.

952. See supra p. 344.

953. See supra  p. 346.

954. See infra pp. 393-402.

955. The Constitution provides: “Each House: may determine the Rules of its Proceedings … ,” U.S. Const., art. I, § 5, cl. 2. The provisions of section 904(a) are thus a specific statement of a more general proposition. In his Senate Procedure, the Parliamentarian Emeritus explains:

Regardless of laws passed and signed by the President involving the rulemaking power of the House and Senate, as stipulated in each Act. the two Houses of Congress in their rulemaking power, under the Constitution, may ignore provisions of such laws of positive action by a majority vote of either or both Houses, as the case might be, as long as it is within the scope of the granted rulemaking power of the two bodies. This is the case with the Budget Act embodying provisions of rulemaking powers of the two bodies.

Floyd M. Riddick, Senate Procedure 464 (1981). See generally Johnny H. Killian, The Constitution of the United States of America: Analysis and Interpretation 120-21 (1987) (on “Rules of Proceedings”).

956. Either the Senate or the House may thus adopt a simple resolution that would waive or suspend any section of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 insofar as that section governs the House adopting the resolution. See supra note 308.

The conference report on the Budget Act expounded:

Section 904. Rulemaking Powers

The House and Senate versions provided that the rules established for the congressional budget process and certain other provisions are an exercise of the rulemaking powers of the House and Senate and may be changed by either as it desires …

The conference substitute retains, with conforming changes, the provisions of the House bill and Senate amendment relating to the rulemaking powers of the House and Senate.

S. Conf. Rep. No. 924, 93rd Congress, 2nd Session, 74 (1974), reprinted in 1974 U.S.C.C.A.N. 3591, 3615.

[PAGE 359]

(b) Any provision957 title III958 or IV959 may be waived960 or suspended in the Senate by a majority vote of the [p. 361] Members voting, a quorum being present, or by the unanimous consent of the Senate.961

[Subsection (b) skips begins on page 359, but page 360 only includes text from footnote #960, which spans pages 359-361.]

[Notes on Subsection (b)] 

957. Note that section 904(c) similarly provides that the Senate may waive certain section only by the affirmative vote or three-fifths or the Members, duly chosen and sworn – that is, 60 Senators. See infra pp. 361-363.

Note that the Senate may also waive section 303(a) pursuant to section 303(c). See supra pp. 114-116.

Section 904(c) provides that the Senate may waive or suspend sections 301(i),302(c), 302(f), 305(b)(2), 305(c)(4), 306, 310(d)(2), 310(f), 311(a), 313, 601(b), 606(c), 904(c), and 904(d) only by the affirmative vote or 60 Senators. See infra pp. 361, 363. Section 271(b) or Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985 also provides that the Senate may waive or suspend sections 301(i), 302(c), 302(f), 304(b), 310(d). 310(g), and 311(a) only by the affirmative vote of 60 Senators. See infra p. 671. Section 13208 or the (see infra pp. 728-729) amended section 904(c) or the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 (see infra pp. 361-363) so as to supersede section 271(b) or Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985 (see infra p. 671), but did not repeal section 271(b).

958. See supra pp. 43-194.

959. See supra pp. 247-272. The Budget Enforcement Act of 1990 should have added title VI to this list of titles that the Senate may waive by a majority vote. The drafters of the Budget Enforcement Act of 1990 certainly did not want those sections of title VI not mentioned in section 904(c) (see infra  p. 361) to stand without possibility of waiver. The drafters of the Act assumed that unless the law listed a section among those requiring 60 Senators to waive, that section would require a simple majority of those present and voting to waive.

960. Once the Chair has ruled on a point or order, it is too late to move to waive the provision on which the point of order was based. 128 Cong. Rec. S8884, 88887-88 (1982); Senate Precedent PRL19820722.001 (July 22, 1982) (Legis, Rules database) (attempt to waive by Sen. Thurmond during debate on the Tax Reconciliation Act of 1982).

Debate on Points of Order

A motion to waive a provision of the Congressional Budget Act is debatable. See, e.g., 133 Cong. Rec. S5381 (1987); Senate Precedent PRL198704123-002 (Apr. 23, 1987) (Legis, Rules database) (inquiry of Sen. Hark.in); 132 Cong. Rec. S16,420 (daily ed. Oct. 16, 1986) (inquiries of Sens. Simpson & Domenici); id. at S14,202 (daily ed. Sept. 29, 1986); id. S318 (daily ed. Jan 27, 1986) (inquiry of Sen. Metzenbaum). Contrast the limited debate allowed under a waiver resolution pursuant to section 303(c). See supra pp. 92-94.

In contrast, the Chair will permit debate after “ point of order is raised under the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 at the Chair’s discretion. See 132 Cong. Rec. S13,522 (daily ed. Sept. 24, 1986) (point of order under section 302(f)).

When a Senator makes a motion to waive under during the consideration of a budget resolution or a reconciliation bill,  debate is limited to one hour, as specified by section 305(b)(2), see supra p. 125, and as applied to reconciliation by section 310(e)(1), see supra  p. 172. See also 131 Cong. Rec. S14,011 (1985) Senate Precedent PRL1985102A-002 (Oct. 24, 1985) (Legis, Rules database) (reconciliation).

If on a motion to waive a section of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, a unanimous consent agreement divides time “in the usual form,” then the Presiding Officer will divide time on the motion to waive between the maker of the motion to waive and the majority manager of the bill. See 138 Cong. Rec. 82312 (daily ed. Feb. 26, 1992) (unanimous consent agreement); id. at S2457 (daily ed. Feb. 27, 1992) (parliamentary inquiry by Sen. McCain). Consequently, if a Senator other than the majority manager of a bill raises a point of order against an amendment, the Senator raising the point of order must seek time from the majority manager if the Senator wishes to speak in favor of the point of order and against the motion to waive it.

Subject Matter or Motion to Waive

A motion to waive may permissibly waive all requirements of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 generally. 130 Cong. Rec. S7102 (daily ed. June 13, 1984). A motion to waive the germaneness requirement of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 without specifying the object of that motion, even though made in response to a point of order against an amendment, would waive that requirement without restriction. 131 Cong. Rec. S14,015-16 (1985); Senate Precedent PRL19851024-003 (Oct. 24, 1985) (Legis, Rules database).

A motion to waive may permissibly waive provisions of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 for a bill and “any amendments thereto.” 130 Cong. Rec. 87919, 88011 (1984); Senate Precedent PRL19840621.001 (June 21, 1984) (Legis, Rules database).

Disposition of Motion To Waive

A motion to waive is amendable. 131 Cong. Rec. S14,015-16 (1985); Senate Precedent PRL198510U-003 (Oct. 24, 1985) (Legis, Rules database). It takes unanimous consent to modify a motion (such as a motion to waive) after the yeas and nays have been ordered on it. Id.

A Senator is entitled to withdraw a point of order the Senator made if the Senate has taken no action on it. 128 Cong. Rec. S10,069-71 (1982); Senate Precedent PRL19820810-006 (Aug. 10, 1982) (Legis, Rules database) (inquiry Sen. Leahy regarding point of order under rule XV on a supplemental appropriations bill). Once the Chair has ruled on a point of order, it is too late to withdraw the point of order. 128 Cong. Rec. S8884, S8887-88 (1982): Senate Precedent PRL19820722-001 (July 22. 1982) (Legis, Rules database) (attempt by Sen. Dole to with-draw his point of order to a Thurmond amendment to the Tax Reconciliation Act of 1982).

A motion to waive is subject to a motion to table when time has expired or been yielded back. 131 Cong. Rec. S14,011 (1985): Senate Precedent PRL19851024-002 (Oct. 24, 1985) (Legis, Rules database).

Any motion in the Senate must be submitted In writing upon the request of any Senator. Id.

961. For examples of waiver of points of order by unanimous consent, see, e.g., 138 Cong. Rec. S15,365 (daily ed. Sept. 26, 1992) (Bentsen motion to waive points of order prospectively for a Chafee amendment creating refundable tax credit in violation of sections 602(c) and 302(f)); id. at S14,791 (daily ed. Sept. 23, 1992) (Bentsen motion to waive points of order prospectively for his health care amendment which violated sections 602(c) and 302(f)); 136 Cong. Rec. S8197 (daily ed. June 19, 1990) (the Senate agreed to a Cranston unanimous consent request to waive points of order regarding a Heinz amendment regarding congressional action to remove Social Security trust funds from the definition of the deficit).

Either the Senate or the House may also adopt a simple resolution that would waive or suspend any section of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 insofar as that section governs only the House adopting the resolution. See supra note 308.

(c)962 Waiver.—Sections 305(b)(2),963 305(c)(4), [p. 362] 306,964 904(c), and 904(d)965 may be waived or suspended in the Senate only by the affirmative vote of three-fifths of the Members, duly chosen and sworn.966 Sections 301(i), 302(c), 302(f), 310(d)(2), 310(f),967 311(a), 313, 601(b), and 606(c) of [p. 363] this Act and sections 258(a)(4)(C), 258A(b)(3)(C)(i), 258B(f)(1), 258B(h)(1), 258B(h)(3), 258C(a)(5), and 258C(b)(1) of the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985 may be waived or suspended in the Senate only by the affirmative vote of three-fifths of the Members, duly chosen and sworn.968

[Note #968 spans pages 363-366 include only text from   PAGE 364 includes the table “Origin of 60-vote point of order”.]
[PAGE 366]

[Notes on Subsection (c)]

962. Section 13208(a)(1) of the Budget Enforcement Act of 1990 amended subsection (c) to read as it does now. See infra p. 728. For legislative history of this subsection, see infra note 968 (at the end of the subsection).

963. For examples of motions under section 904 to waive section 305(b), see, e.g., 133 Cong. Rec.  S17,652-53 (daily ed. Dec. 10, 1987) (Harkin motion to waive rejected 47-49 regarding his amendment no. 1257 to S. 1920, the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1987): 133 Cong. Rec. S17,600 (daily ed. Dec. 10, 1987) (Majority Leader Byrd’s motion to waive section 305(b) and other sections approved 81-13 regarding specified amendments and motion to recommit regarding S. 1920, the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Ad of 1987).

964. For examples of motions under section 904 to waive section 306, see, e.g., 138 Cong. Rec. S15,001-18 (daily ed. Sept. 25, 1992) (Smith motion to waive Sasser point of order rejected 36-58 regarding his amendment on a tax-form check-off to trigger deficit reductions or sequesters); id. at S14,915-19 (daily ed. Sept. 24, 1992) (McCain motion to waive a Sasser point of order rejected 32 to 60 regarding his amendment no. 3172 that would require a supermajority to raise taxes and remove the supermajority requirement to cut taxes); id. at S2457-78 (daily ed. Feb. 27, 1992) (McCain motion to waive Sasser point of order rejected 44-54 regarding his amendment no. 1698 to enhance the President’s rescission authority); 135 Cong. Rec. S7457-78 (daily ed. June 6, 1990) (McCain motion to waive rejected 43-50 regarding his amendment no. 1995 regarding enhancing the President’s rescission authority); 135 Cong. Rec. S15,336-58 (daily ed. Nov. 9, 1989) (Coats motion to waive rejected 40-51 regarding his amendment no. 1092 regarding enhancing the President’s rescission authority); 133 Cong. Rec. S11,025 (daily ed. July 31, 1987) (Conrad motion to waive rejected 36-53 regarding his amendment no. 651 to H.J. Res. 324, Increase in the Public Debt Limit); id. at S10,584 (daily ed. July 23, 1987) (Domenici motion to waive rejected 47-49 regarding his amendment no. 631to H.J. Res. 324, Increase in the Public Debt Limit, that would revise the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985); id. at S10,579 (daily ed. July 23, 1987) (Chiles motion to waive approved 71-25 regarding his modified amendment no. 626 to H.J. Res. 324, Increase in the Public Debt Limit, that would revise the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985); 129 Cong. Rec. S3587-603 (1983); Senate Precedent PRL19830322-002 (Mar. 22, 1983) (Legis, Rules database) (Heinz motion to waive tabled 56-41 regarding his amendment to remove Social Security trust funds from the unified budget).

The Senate may also waive section 306 by unanimous consent. See, e.g., 136 Cong. Rec. S8197 (daily ed. June 19, 1990) (the Senate agreed to a Cranston unanimous consent request to waive points of order regarding a Heinz amendment regarding congressional action to remove Social Security trust funds from the definition of the deficit).

965. See infra p. 366.

966. That is, 60 Senators, no matter how many Senators are present and voting.

967. See supra p. 174. This reference, which stayed as it was in the Senate-passed version of the bill, should have been changed to “310(g)” when the conference agreement changed the subsection setting forth the point of order to section 310(g). The intent of Congress to refer to section 310(g) and not section 310(f) is evident from the subject matter of section 310(f): It refers only to matters governing the House of Representatives. The Senate-passed version of the bill that became the Budget Enforcement Act of 1990 repealed section 310(f) altogether, and thus what was 310(g) would have become 310(f). See H.R. 5835, 101st Cong., 2d Cong., 136 Cong. Rec. S15,868, S15,985, S15,995 (daily ed. Oct. 18, 1990). The error has no effect on the supermajority required for waiver or section 310(g), however, as the Budget Enforcement Act of 1990 also mistakenly failed to repeal section 271(b) of the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985, which also sets forth a supermajority requirement for waiving section 310(g). See infra note 968.

Note that this subsection does not apply to provisions or the Impoundment Control Act of 1974 having functions similar to those or the provisions or the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 listed here. Compare, e.g., section 1017(d)(2) infra pp. 399-400 (“No amendment that is not germane to the provisions of a rescission bill shall be received.”) with section 305(b)(2) supra pp. 124-136 (“No amendment that is not germane to the provisions or such concurrent resolution [on the budget] shall be received.”).

968. That is, 60 Senators, no matter how many Senators are present and voting.

Section 275(b) or the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985 provides that this sentence will expire on September 30, 1995, when the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985 expires.[1] 

See infra p. 691.

Section 13208(a)(1) or the Budget Enforcement Act of 1990 amended subsection (c) to read as it does DOW. See infra p. 728. Congress intended this last sentence or subsection (c) to supersede section 271(b) of the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985 (see infra p. 671), although when section 13208 or the Budget Enforcement Act of 1990 (see infra pp. 728-729)added this sentence, it mistakenly did not repeal section 271(b) or the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985. To the extent that direct conflicts exist, however, this later-enacted language takes precedence over that or section 271(b). Section 271(b) provides:

(b) Other Waivers and Suspensions Senate.—Sections 301(i), 302(c), 302(1), 304(b), 310(d), 310(g), and 311(a) or the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 may be waived or suspended in the Senate only by the affirmative vote of three-fifths of the Members, duly chosen and sworn. This subsection shall not apply to any joint resolution reported or discharged pursuant to section 254(a_ of this joint resolution. 

See infra  p. 671.

Section 271(a) of the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985 added section 904(c) to the Congressional Budget Act in the first place. See infra p. 671. Before enactment or the Budget Enforcement Act of 1990, section 904(c) read as follows:

(c) Sections 305(b)(2) and 306 of this Act may be waived or sus- [p. 364]pended in the Senate only by the of affirmative vote of three-fifths of the Members, duly chosen and sworn.

The following table displays the origins of the 60-vote points of order in the Senate:

[See Origin of 60-Vote Point of Order Table from the BPLA.]  

At first blush, it may appear that the Budget Enforcement Act of 1990 vastly expanded the occasions on which the law requires 60 votes to waive a point or order. On one level this is true, as what used to require a majority vote now requires 60 votes under the sections added to the list. Nonetheless, the real change in the behavior or the Senator will be minimal, for the new sections added to the list by the Budget Enforcement Act of 1990 all deal with the same subject matter as sections that the law already required 60 votes to waive. Thus, Senators would have been more likely to find themselves surprised by the former law, which would have allowed waiver of these sections by a majority vote, than by the revised law, which made waiver consistent across points of order on the same subject. 

Specifically, among the sections newly added to the list of sections requiring 60 votes to waive, section 305(c)(4) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 and sections 258A(b)(3)(C)(i), 258B(f)(1), 258B(h)(1), 258C(b)(1) of the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985 all require (sometimes among other things) that amendments be germane, just as does section 305(b)(2) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, which was already on the list. Similarly, section 258(a)(4)(C) of the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985 prohibits any amendment. Section 601(b) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 prohibits spending more than the discretionary spending limit allow, in a fashion similar to the way that section 302(f) prohibits spending more than allowed by the allocations to a subcommittee. Section 606(c) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 and section 258C(a)(5) of the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985 prohibit violation of the maximum deficit amount, much as did section 301(i) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 before the Budget Enforcement Act of 1990 amended it. Section 258B(h)(3) of the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985 requires that amendment be deficit-neutral, much as does section 310(d)(2) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974. Sections 904(c) and 904(d) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 are the sections that themselves provide the supermajority requirement, and the Budget Enforcement Act of 1990 added them to the list (in the same way that what used to-be the Byrd Rule required a supermajority to waive the subsection that required a supermajority) to counter the argument that one could do away with the entire scheme of supermajority requirements simply by waiving section 904(b) or 904(c). Finally, the Budget Enforcement Act of 1990 only added section 310(f) to the list by mistake, as discussed in this note above.

Note that the Budget Enforcement Act of 1990 changed the nature of the point of order provided by section 301(i) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, which has been on the list of sections requiring a supermajority to waive since the enactment of the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985 and remains on the list. Whereas section 301(i) used to provide a point of order against a budget resolution violating the maximum deficit amount (much as section 606(c) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 does now), section 301(i) now provides the Social Security “firewall” point or order in the Senate, which prohibits the Senate Budget Committee from reporting budget resolutions that would decrease the surplus in the Social Security trust funds.

Note also that section 13112(a)(8) of the Budget Enforcement Act of 1990 (see infra p. 709) repealed what used to be Section 304(b), which used to require that revisions of budget resolutions remain within the maximum deficit amount and is on the old list of point a of order requiring 60 Senators to waive under section 271(b). Section 13111 of the Budget Enforcement Act of 1990 (see infra p. 707) added the new section 606(c) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 (see supra p. 334) to fulfill much the same function as did the old section 301(i). (Compare the text of what used to be section 301(i) (see supra note 912) with that of the new section 606(c). See supra 334.) Section 606(c) does not, however, apply to revisions of budget resolutions under section 304, even though the parallel language for the House of Representatives in section 606(b) (see supra p. 329) explicitly mentions revisions of budget resolutions under section 304. Consequently, while violating the maximum deficit amount in this context used to require a supermajority, it no longer does.

Similarly, note also that the Budget Enforcement Act of 1990 moved from what used to be section 311(a) (see supra note 907) to section 605(b) (see supra pp. 329-330) the point of order that prohibits legislation from violating the maximum deficit amount in the Senate. (Section 13112(a)(10) of the Budget Enforcement Act of 1990 (see infra  p. 709) struck the maximum deficit amount point of order from what used to be section 311(a), and section 13111 of the Budget Enforcement Act of 1990 (see infra p. 707) added what is now section 605.) The Budget Enforcement Act of 1990 neglected, however, to add section 605(b) to the list of sections requiring 60 votes to waive. Consequently, while violating the maximum deficit amount in this context used to require a supermajority, it no longer does.

(d) Appeals in the Senate from the decisions of the Chair relating to any provision of title III969 or IV970 or section 1017971 shall, except as otherwise provided herein, be limited to 1 hour, to be equally divided between, and controlled by, the mover and the manager of the resolution, concurrent resolution, reconciliation bill, [Page 367] or rescission bill, as the case may be.972 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 raised under sections 305(b)(2), 305(c)(4), 306, 904(c), and 904(d). An affirmative vote of three-fifths or 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 sections 301(i), 302(c), 302(f), 310(d)(2), 310(1),973 3ll(a), 313, 60l(b), and 606(c) or this Act and sections 258(a)(4)(C), 258A(b)(3)(C)(1), 258B(f)(1), 58B(h)(1), 258B(h)(3), 258C(a)(5), and 258C(b)(1) of the Balanced Budget [Page 368] and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985[.]974

[Notes on Subsection (d)] 

969. See supra pp. 43-194.

970. See supra pp. 247-272.

971. See infra pp. 393-402.

972. Compare the similar provisions for control and division of time on appeals in section 305(b)(2), which provide for time for the minority leader under certain circumstances. See supra p. 125.

Despite the legislative language of this subsection and section 305(b)(2), the Chair once responded to an inquiry that time for debate on an appeal from the ruling of the Chair during consideration of a reconciliation bill was controlled by and evenly divided between the Senator who made the appeal and the majority leader. 128 Cong. Rec. S8702-03, S8705 (1982); Senate Precedent PRL19820720-003 (July 20, 1982) (Legis, Rules database) (inquiry by the manager, Senator Packwood, during debate on the Reconciliation Tax Act of 1982). As section 310(e)(1) applies the provisions of section 305(b)(2) to reconciliation bills, section 305(b)(2) indicates that the Chair should have responded that time was to be equally divided between, and controlled by, the Senator who made the appeal and the manager of the reconciliation bill, except that in the event that the manager favored the appeal, the minority leader or the minority leader’s designee would control the time in opposition.

Contrast the more limited debate 20 minutes allowable for appeals under a waiver resolution pursuant to section 303(c). See supra pp. 92-94.

973. See supra p. 174. This reference, which stayed as it was in the Senate-passed version of the bill, should have been changed to “310(g)” when the conference agreement changed the subsection providing the point of order to section 310(g). The intent of Congress to refer to section 310(g) and not section 310(f) is evident from the subject matter of section 310(f): It refers only to matters governing the House of Representatives. The Senate-passed version of the bill that became the Budget Enforcement Act of 1990 repealed section 310(f) altogether, and thus what was 310(g) would have become 310(f). See H.R. 5835, 101st Cong. 2d Cong., 136 Cong. Rec. S15,868, S15,985, S15,995 (daily ed. Oct. 18, 1990). The error bas no effect on the supermajority required to appeal regarding section 310(g), however, as the Budget Enforcement Act of 1990 also mistakenly failed to repeal section 271(c) of the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985, which also sets forth the supermajority requirement for appeals relating to section 310(g). See infra note 974.

That is, 60 Senators, no matter how many Senators are present and voting. The final period here is missing in the original.

Section 275(b) of the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985 provides that this sentence will expire on September 30, 1995, when the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985 expires.[1] 

See infra p. 691.

Section 13208(a)(1) of the Budget Enforcement Act of 1990 amended subsection (c) to read as it does now. See infra p. 728. This sentence supersedes section 271(c) of the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985 (see infra p. 671), although when section 13208 of the Budget Enforcement Act of 1990 (see infra pp. 728-729) added this sentence, it did not repeal section 271(c) of the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985. To the extent that direct conflicts exist, this later enacted language takes precedence over that of section 271(c). Section 271(c) provides: 

(c) Appeals of Rulings.—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 301(i), 302(c), 302(1), 304(b), 306, 310(d), 310(g), or 311(a) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974.

 

Counsel Notes
SECTION 507, in Current Law

Section 904 as in the current Congressional Budget Act of 1974 (Pub. L. 97-344).

Endnotes

[1] After its enforcement provisions expired after 2002 and the remaining provisions after 2006, section 104 of the Budget Control Act of 2011 repealed the expiration terms of the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985. By repealing section 275 of the Act, it was made the Act permanent and hence it no longer includes an expiration date.

Note: Legislative History of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974

07/12/1974      Public law 93-344.

06/12/1974      Conference report filed in Senate, S. Rept. 93-924.

06/11/1974      Conference report filed in House, H. Rept. 93-1101.

Previous:

Sec. 903 (BPLA)

Next:

Sec. 905 (BPLA)

 

FrillBreak