The Senate does not debate the budget as much as the House.
How much less? Try about 15 hours over the past six years.
Since 2003, state senators spent about nine hours debating the budget on the floor, while the House spent a little over 24 hours, based on time stamps on budget motions recorded by legislative staffers.
Typically, the House spends between two and six hours on floor debate each year, while the Senate gets it over in an hour or less.
The biggest gap was 2007, when the House spent enough time to watch the first three "Star Wars" movies back-to-back, while the Senate debated long enough for about one and a half episodes of "Friends."
One reason for the difference is sheer numbers. The House has 120 members, while the Senate has 50. That means not only more legislators to hear from, but also more factions to split off and debate side issues on the budget.
Another reason is that Senate leaders often cut off debate early.
After the jump, the hours and our methodology.
—————
How Long They Debated
Times are based on the first time listed for a motion on second reading and the second reading. Third readings were included if more amendments were offered, but not conference reports.
2008
HOUSE: 4 hours, 36 minutes
SENATE: 38 minutes
2007
HOUSE: 6 hours, 34 minutes
SENATE: 40 minutes
2006
HOUSE: 2 hours, 11 minutes
SENATE: 1 hour, 13 minutes
2005
HOUSE: 3 hours, 22 minutes*
SENATE: 3 hours, 48 minutes
2004
HOUSE: 2 hours, 34 minutes
SENATE: 1 hour, six minutes
2003
HOUSE: 4 hours, 55 minutes
SENATE: 1 hour, 55 minutes
* Time stamps are inaccurate on second reading, so we used third reading, which appeared to follow directly.
SOURCE: N.C. General Assembly
Blog RSS feed
Re: Senate debates budget less than House
Maybe if they debated it more they might actually figure out what's really in it. I get tired of them making the budget out to be better for teachers every year than it is for state employees. Once again this year the Legislature claimed publicly to have "taken care of the teachers first". They say they gave us a 3% raise, which even if true would be less than inflation. Unfortunately when you look at the pay scales they actually gave us less of a raise, I can't find anywhere on the pay scale where anybody got more than 2.5%. They gave state employees that aren't teachers 2.75% or $1100, whichever was more. Well my wife and I are both teachers (with a combined twenty years teaching) and I can tell you that every state employee got a bigger pay raise than either of us.
Why don't reporters ever actually check the numbers when lawmakers make demonstrably false claims? Too much like actually reporting?