SR 107-06: Harry S Truman Memorial Anti-Lazy Legislating Resolution (Passed)

[WD]

SENATE RESOLUTION

To combat the rise in "arms length legislating" and to help facilitate the production of budgets in the future

Be it resolved in the Senate Assembled that the Senate Rules shall be amended as follows:

The Harry S Truman Memorial Anti-Lazy Legislating Resolution

1. Article 2, Section 8 shall be included as follows with the existing 8 renumbered as 9.

8.) All legislation raising revenue must be submitted along with revenue estimates to be brought to the floor. All legislation changing spending must explicitly state the amounts spent or redirected to be brought to the floor.

2.Article 3, Section 1  shall be amended as follows:

1.) During the course of debate on legislation, any sitting Senator may offer amendments to the legislation. The President Pro Tempore may remove amendments from consideration that are functionally impractical, frivolous, directly unconstitutional, raise revenue without submitting an estimate, spend vague amounts of money, or lack clear intent regarding the changes to be made. The amendment sponsor shall have 24 hours to object to the decision and may overturn the action with the concurrence of 1/3rd of his fellow Senators. Unless stated otherwise in the amendment, components of the underlying legislation not referenced in an amendment will remain unchanged.

People's and Regions Senate of Atlasia
---

Sponsor: North Carolina Yankee

The gentleman from North Carolina is recognized.

[Senator-elect Spark]

As much as this will make us try harder to figure out estimations for appropriations of bills, it is necessary to ensure we are doing our due diligence.

However, I'd be supportive of an amendment that included something to the effect of the CG providing monthly reports to the Congress of the impact of legislation. Maybe that is too much to ask but is necessary.

[GM Team Member and Senator WB]

As much as this will make us try harder to figure out estimations for appropriations of bills, it is necessary to ensure we are doing our due diligence.

However, I'd be supportive of an amendment that included something to the effect of the CG providing monthly reports to the Congress of the impact of legislation. Maybe that is too much to ask but is necessary.

We haven’t had a CG in like, almost a year. So I don’t think that’s going to work.

[Senator-elect Spark]

As much as this will make us try harder to figure out estimations for appropriations of bills, it is necessary to ensure we are doing our due diligence.

However, I'd be supportive of an amendment that included something to the effect of the CG providing monthly reports to the Congress of the impact of legislation. Maybe that is too much to ask but is necessary.

We haven’t had a CG in like, almost a year. So I don’t think that’s going to work.

We truly need to fix this issue.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

I apologize for the delay here.

A lot of what I said on the budget process act applies here, as this was written first and then got incorporated into the Budget Process Act after one night of intense frustration for the President Scott and myself with regards to various bills and issues that were hanging us up.

This resolution was conceived of after an argument between myself and Truman, whereby he mentioned that Senators were lazy and should do the work themselves rather then foist it on people like in this instance President Scott to try and come back or the CG position frequently occupied by Mr. Vacancy, CPA.

Yes this does provide something of an "encumbrance on the legislative process", but we are at a point where something has to give in this whole, CG, revenue estimate cluster@%@! that we have had for a while now. While I don't expect Truman's enthusiasm for this to necessarily translate to actual votes across the board, I would appreciate at least some support or engaged if not, to hopefully find a better solution to the present wallowing in the myre as the Doors would say, when it comes to these estimates or lack thereof.

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

We're just going to have to anticipate the CG position being empty for the foreseeable future. Going forward, we (and I say this as someone who is also guilty, particularly with regard to the CUBI) need to have our bills scored prior to passage if we ever want to pass budgets on time again. As I told Spark privately, sometimes that's going to require making an educated guess.

I endorse the resolution. The only change I would make would be to clarify that any changes in the tax code (increases, reductions, penalties, or credits) need to come with revenue totals as well.

[Unconditional Surrender Truman]

It is really not so hard to come up with a cost estimate for a bill you are introducing into the queue, and doing so saves hours of work later in the year when it is crunch time and the Senate is now voting on Continuing Resolution #44958 because one person is doing a year's worth of math during the Christmas holidays. I recommend this resolution to the Senate for their swift adoption: laziness in senators should not be rewarded!

[Attorney General, Senator-Elect, & Former PPT Dwarven Dragon]

I support this change. I would agree that in the medium to long-term, filling the CG position is the real way to address this, so we have estimates that are as objective and correct as possible, and to that end I'd urge any interested individual on any side of the aisle to make their interest known to the administration. But this is a solid substitute for now, and is far better than the federal status quo of near-endless CRs. The regions have improved their timeliness in recent years, and the federal government needs to be doing the same - government by CR invites dangerous uncertainty, places great challenges on our government agencies, and does not serve the people well. This change will help the federal government achieve that goal.

[WD]

Opening a final vote in 24 hours.

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

I would raise an objection to offer a very minor amendment, if a senator would be so kind:

SENATE RESOLUTION

To combat the rise in "arms length legislating" and to help facilitate the production of budgets in the future

Be it resolved in the Senate Assembled that the Senate Rules shall be amended as follows:

The Harry S Truman Memorial Anti-Lazy Legislating Resolution

1. Article 2, Section 8 shall be included as follows with the existing 8 renumbered as 9.

8.) All legislation raising revenue must be submitted along with revenue estimates to be brought to the floor. All legislation changing spending must explicitly state the amounts spent or redirected to be brought to the floor.

2.Article 3, Section 1  shall be amended as follows:

1.) During the course of debate on legislation, any sitting Senator may offer amendments to the legislation. The President Pro Tempore may remove amendments from consideration that are functionally impractical, frivolous, directly unconstitutional, raise change revenue without submitting an estimate, spend vague amounts of money, or lack clear intent regarding the changes to be made. The amendment sponsor shall have 24 hours to object to the decision and may overturn the action with the concurrence of 1/3rd of his fellow Senators. Unless stated otherwise in the amendment, components of the underlying legislation not referenced in an amendment will remain unchanged.

People's and Regions Senate of Atlasia
---

Tax changes of all kinds should be scored. Also, while we're on the subject, those two tax laws we passed recently will have to be scored for the next fiscal year.

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

Hello?

[WD]

I would raise an objection to offer a very minor amendment, if a senator would be so kind:

SENATE RESOLUTION

To combat the rise in "arms length legislating" and to help facilitate the production of budgets in the future

Be it resolved in the Senate Assembled that the Senate Rules shall be amended as follows:

The Harry S Truman Memorial Anti-Lazy Legislating Resolution

1. Article 2, Section 8 shall be included as follows with the existing 8 renumbered as 9.

8.) All legislation raising revenue must be submitted along with revenue estimates to be brought to the floor. All legislation changing spending must explicitly state the amounts spent or redirected to be brought to the floor.

2.Article 3, Section 1  shall be amended as follows:

1.) During the course of debate on legislation, any sitting Senator may offer amendments to the legislation. The President Pro Tempore may remove amendments from consideration that are functionally impractical, frivolous, directly unconstitutional, raise change revenue without submitting an estimate, spend vague amounts of money, or lack clear intent regarding the changes to be made. The amendment sponsor shall have 24 hours to object to the decision and may overturn the action with the concurrence of 1/3rd of his fellow Senators. Unless stated otherwise in the amendment, components of the underlying legislation not referenced in an amendment will remain unchanged.

People's and Regions Senate of Atlasia
---

Tax changes of all kinds should be scored. Also, while we're on the subject, those two tax laws we passed recently will have to be scored for the next fiscal year.

Sponsoring this. 24 hours to object

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

I have no objections, though I am not sure how it tangibly changes things as historically "raise" revenue was such an all encompassing consideration.

[Unconditional Surrender Truman]

I have no objections, though I am not sure how it tangibly changes things as historically "raise" revenue was such an all encompassing consideration.

Yeah, Idk what is meant by "change revenue." Feels like the sort of amendment that could cause problems later on.

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

This isn't a hill I want to die on but I was suggesting that changes to tax policies should have a price tag too, although tax cuts can also raise revenue.

Keep it the way it was.

[WD]

Opening a final vote in 24 hours

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

I have no objections, though I am not sure how it tangibly changes things as historically "raise" revenue was such an all encompassing consideration.

Yeah, Idk what is meant by "change revenue." Feels like the sort of amendment that could cause problems later on.

How so?

Reserving right to object pending response to this question.

[Unconditional Surrender Truman]

I have no objections, though I am not sure how it tangibly changes things as historically "raise" revenue was such an all encompassing consideration.

Yeah, Idk what is meant by "change revenue." Feels like the sort of amendment that could cause problems later on.

How so?

Reserving right to object pending response to this question.

You can't "change" revenue. It doesn't make any sense! You can change rates of taxation, fines, tariffs, or other means of raising revenue. As you say, the phrase "to raise revenue" has a clear, understood, and established meaning that would of course include any bill to increase or decrease taxes. But if we adopt this amendment on the reasoning that "amendments to ... raise revenue" do not include those to cut taxes, we create a new and ambiguous meaning —we create uncertainty about what "raising revenue" means in other contexts. Better to avoid this than to create a loophole that could be exploited by unscrupulous or ignorant actors down the line.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

I tend to agree with Truman here, especially with regards to long term consequences.

[WD]

Opening a final vote in 24 hours.

[WD]

A final vote is now open. Senators, please vote Aye, Nay, or Abstain.

[DabbingSanta]

Aye

[OBD]

Aye

[Kuumo]

Aye

[WD]

Aye