The Budget Reconciliation Process: House and Senate Procedures

Congressional research reportAug 10, 2005

Ask Donna

What actually matters in this document.

Text

Order Code RL33030

CRS Report for Congress

Received through the CRS Web

The Budget Reconciliation Process:

House and Senate Procedures

August 10, 2005

name redacted

Specialist in American National Government

Government and Finance Division

name redacted

Analyst in American National Government

Government and Finance Division

Congressional Research Service ˜ The Library of Congress

The Budget Reconciliation Process:

House and Senate Procedures

Summary

The budget reconciliation process is an optional procedure that operates as an

adjunct to the budget resolution process established by the Congressional Budget Act

of 1974. The chief purpose of the reconciliation process is to enhance Congress’s

ability to change current law in order to bring revenue, spending, and debt-limit

levels into conformity with the policies of the annual budget resolution.

Reconciliation is a two-stage process. First, reconciliation directives are

included in the budget resolution, instructing the appropriate committees to develop

legislation achieving the desired budgetary outcomes. If the budget resolution

instructs more than one committee in a chamber, then the instructed committees

submit their legislative recommendations to their respective Budget Committees by

the deadline prescribed in the budget resolution; the Budget Committees incorporate

them into an omnibus budget reconciliation bill without making any substantive

revisions. In cases where only one committee has been instructed, the process allows

that committee to report its reconciliation legislation directly to its parent chamber,

thus bypassing the Budget Committee.

The second step involves consideration of the resultant reconciliation legislation

by the House and Senate under expedited procedures. Among other things, debate

in the Senate on any reconciliation measure is limited to 20 hours (and 10 hours on

a conference report) and amendments must be germane and not include extraneous

matter. The House Rules Committee typically recommends a special rule for the

consideration of a reconciliation measure in the House that places restrictions on

debate time and the offering of amendments.

As an optional procedure, reconciliation has not been used in every year that the

congressional budget process has been in effect. Beginning with the first use of

reconciliation by both the House and Senate in 1980, however, reconciliation has

been used in most years. In three years, 1998 (for FY1999), 2002 (for FY2003), and

2004 (for FY2005), the House and Senate did not agree on a budget resolution.

Congress has sent the President 19 reconciliation acts over the years; 16 were signed

into law and three were vetoed (and the vetoes not overriden).

Following an introduction that provides an overview of the reconciliation

process and discusses its historical development, the report explains the process in

sections dealing with the underlying authorities, reconciliation directives in budget

resolutions, initial consideration of reconciliation measures in the House and Senate,

resolving House-Senate differences on reconciliation measures, and presidential

approval or disapproval of such measures. The text of two relevant sections of the

Congressional Budget Act of 1974 (Sections 310 and 313) is set forth in the

appendices, along with a list of other Congressional Research Service products

pertaining to reconciliation procedures.

This report will be updated as developments warrant.

Contents

Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

Overview of the Budget Reconciliation Process . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

Historical Development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

Underlying Authorities of the Reconciliation Process . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

Section 310 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

Section 313 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9

Procedural Provisions in Budget Resolutions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9

Other Authorities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11

Reconciliation Directives in Budget Resolutions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13

Features of Reconciliation Directives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13

Types of Directives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14

Multiple Directives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16

Impact of Directives on the Deficit or Surplus . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18

Initial Consideration in the House . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32

Development of Legislative Recommendations by the Instructed

Committees . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32

Committee Markup Procedures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32

Committee Submissions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33

Compliance with Reconciliation Directives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35

Preparation of an Omnibus Measure by the House Budget Committee . . . 36

Special Rules and the House Rules Committee . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37

Provisions of the Special Rule . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37

Floor Consideration: Debate and Amendment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39

Consideration and Disposition of Amendments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39

Raising and Sustaining Points of Order . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40

Motions to Recommit . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41

Initial Consideration in the Senate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56

Development of Legislative Recommendations by the Instructed

Committees . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56

Relationship With the Budget Committee . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56

Hearings, Markup, and Reporting or Submission of

Recommendations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57

Committee Report or Submission Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57

Preparation of an Omnibus Measure by the Senate Budget Committee . . . 59

Ensuring Accuracy and Completeness . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59

Dealing With Tardy Responses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60

Evaluating Compliance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61

Floor Consideration: Debate and Amendment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63

Patterns in the Consideration of Senate and House Legislation . . . . . 64

Initiating Consideration and Controlling Time . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71

Restrictions on Amendments and Motions to Recommit . . . . . . . . . . 72

“Vote-arama” . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73

The Senate’s “Byrd Rule” Against Extraneous Matter . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75

Definitions of Extraneous Matter . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 76

Exceptions to the Definition of Extraneous Matter . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 77

Resolving House-Senate Differences on Reconciliation Measures . . . . . . . . . . . 79

Initial Motions and Appointment of Conferees . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 80

Motions to Instruct Conferees . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 81

Conducting the Conference and Reporting the Conference Agreement . . . 82

Consideration of the Conference Report . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 83

Enrollment and Technical Corrections . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 85

Presidential Approval or Disapproval . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 91

Presidential Approval . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 91

Presidential Veto . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 92

Line-Item Veto . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 94

Cancellation of Limited Tax Benefits . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 95

Cancellation of Direct Spending Item . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 95

Appendices . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 96

Appendix A. Text of Section 310 (Reconciliation) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 96

Appendix B. Text of Section 313 (the “Byrd Rule”) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 101

Appendix C. Other Congressional Research Service Products on the

Budget Reconciliation Process . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 104

List of Tables

Table 1. Reconciliation Resolutions and Resultant Reconciliation Acts:

FY1981-FY2005 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

Table 2. Summary of Reconciliation Directives to House Committees and

Overall Deficit or Surplus Levels in Budget Resolutions for

FY1981-FY2006 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20

Table 3. Detailed Information on Reconciliation Directives to House

Committeesand Overall Deficit or Surplus Levels in Budget

Resolutions for FY1981-FY2006 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23

Table 4. Initial House Action on Reconciliation Measures: FY1981-FY2005 . 43

Table 5. Special Rules Providing for the Consideration of Reconciliation

Measures in the House: FY1981-FY2005 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47

Table 6. House Floor Amendments and Motions to Recommit to

Reconciliation Measures: FY1981-FY2005 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50

Table 7. Initial Senate Action on Reconciliation Measures: FY1981-FY2005 . 65

Table 8. House and Senate Action on Conference Reports on Reconciliation

Acts: FY1981-FY2005 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 86

The authors wish to acknowledge and thank the following individuals who

provided comments on the draft version of this report: Arthur Burris, Tom Kahn, and

Paul Restuccia (House Budget Committee); Gail Millar and Allison Parent (Senate

Budget Committee); Bill Dauster (Senate Finance Committee); Muftiah McCartin

(House Parliamentarian’s Office); Sandy Davis (Congressional Budget Office); and

(name redacted) (Congressional Research Service); and other congressional staff.

The accuracy of the report, however, is solely the responsibility of CRS.

The Budget Reconciliation Process:

House and Senate Procedures

Introduction

Overview of the Budget Reconciliation Process

The Congressional Budget Act of 1974 established the congressional budget

process.1 Under the act, the House and Senate are required to adopt at least one

budget resolution each year.2 The budget resolution, which takes the form of a

concurrent resolution and is not sent to the President for his approval or veto, serves

as a congressional statement in broad terms regarding the appropriate revenue,

spending, and debt-limit policies, as well as a guide to the subsequent consideration

of legislation implementing such policies at agency and programmatic levels. Budget

resolution policies are enforced through a variety of mechanisms, including points

of order.3 The House and Senate Budget Committees, which were created by the

1974 act, exercise exclusive jurisdiction over budget resolutions and are responsible

for monitoring their enforcement.

In developing a budget resolution, the House and Senate Budget Committees

use various sources of budgetary information and analysis, including baseline budget

projections of revenue, spending, and the deficit or surplus prepared by the

Congressional Budget Office (CBO). A budget resolution typically reflects many

different assumptions regarding legislative action expected to occur during a session

that would cause revenue and spending levels to be changed from baseline amounts.

Titles I-IX of the Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act of 1974 (P.L. 93344; July 12, 1974; 88 Stat. 297-339) are cited as the “Congressional Budget Act of 1974”;

Title X is cited as the “Impoundment Control Act of 1974.” Both the Congressional Budget

Act of 1974 and the Impoundment Control Act of 1974 have been amended many times over

the years, and all references to them in this report are to the amended versions, unless

otherwise noted. Sections of the acts dealing with congressional procedure are codified at

2 U.S.C. 621-692.

Beginning with the inception of the congressional budget process in 1975 (for FY1976),

the House and Senate have met this requirement every year except in 1998 (for FY1999),

2002 (for FY2003), and 2004 (for FY2005). For background information on budget

resolutions, see CRS Report RL30297, Congressional Budget Resolutions: Selected

Statistics and Information Guide, by (name redacted)

The congressional budget process, and its enforcement procedures, are discussed in more

detail in CRS Report 98-721, Introduction to the Federal Budget Process, by (name redacted)

and Allen Schick. Also, see CRS Report 97-865, Points of Order in the Congressional

Budget Process, by (name redacted).

CRS-2

Most revenue and direct spending,4 however, occurs automatically each year under

permanent law; therefore, if the committees with jurisdiction over the revenue and

direct spending programs do not report legislation to carry out the budget resolution

policies by amending existing law, revenue and direct spending for these programs

likely will continue without change.

The budget reconciliation process is an optional procedure that operates as an

adjunct to the budget resolution process. The chief purpose of the reconciliation

process is to enhance Congress’s ability to change current law in order to bring

revenue, spending, and debt-limit levels into conformity with the policies of the

budget resolution. Accordingly, reconciliation can be a potent budget enforcement

tool for a large portion of the budget.

Reconciliation is a two-stage process. First, reconciliation instructions are

included in the budget resolution, directing the appropriate committees to develop

legislation achieving the desired budgetary outcomes. If the budget resolution

instructs more than one committee in a chamber, then the instructed committees

submit their legislative recommendations to their respective Budget Committees by

the deadline prescribed in the budget resolution; the Budget Committees incorporate

them into an omnibus budget reconciliation bill without making any substantive

revisions.5

The second step involves consideration of the resultant reconciliation legislation

by the House and Senate under expedited procedures. Among other things, debate

in the Senate on any reconciliation measure is limited to 20 hours (and 10 hours on

a conference report) and amendments must be germane and not include extraneous

matter. The House Rules Committee typically recommends a special rule for the

consideration of a reconciliation measure in the House that places restrictions on

debate time and the offering of amendments.

In cases where only one committee has been instructed, the process allows that

committee to report its reconciliation legislation directly to its parent chamber, thus

bypassing the Budget Committee. In some years, budget resolutions included

reconciliation instructions that afforded the House and Senate the option of

considering two or more different reconciliation bills. Once the reconciliation

legislation called for in the budget resolution has been approved or vetoed by the

President, the process is concluded; Congress cannot develop another reconciliation

Direct spending is provided mainly in substantive law under the jurisdiction of the

legislative committees, in contrast to discretionary spending, which is provided in annual

appropriations acts under the jurisdiction of the House and Senate Appropriations

Committees. Most direct spending programs are entitlements, such as Social Security,

Medicare, federal civilian and military retirement, and unemployment compensation.

The use of omnibus legislation is not unique to the budget reconciliation process. In the

case of most “omnibus” measures, however, the term is not used in the legislation’s title, as

is often done with respect to reconciliation measures. During the past decade or two, the

terms “omnibus” or “consolidated omnibus” have been applied to some annual

appropriations acts; these measures have no connection to the reconciliation process. (For

examples of the application of this term to annual appropriations acts, see CRS Report

RL32473, Omnibus Appropriations Acts: Overview of Recent Practices, by (name redacted).)

CRS-3

bill in the wake of a veto without first adopting another budget resolution containing

reconciliation instructions.

As an optional procedure, reconciliation has not been used in every year that the

congressional budget process has been in effect. Beginning with the first use of

reconciliation by both the House and Senate in 1980, however, reconciliation has

been used in most years. (In three years, 1998 (for FY1999), 2002 (for FY2003), and

2004 (for FY2005), the House and Senate did not agree on a budget resolution.)

Congress has sent the President 19 reconciliation acts over the years; 16 were signed

into law and three were vetoed (and the vetoes not overriden). Table 1 provides a

list of these 19 reconciliation acts.

Not every reconciliation measure considered by one chamber has been

considered by the other chamber, or been regarded as a reconciliation measure when

considered by the other chamber. In 2000, for example, the House considered and

passed several reconciliation measures, but they were not considered by the Senate.6

In 1976, the Senate considered a House-passed revenue bill under reconciliation

procedures, although the measure had not been considered as a reconciliation bill in

the House; the bill later was vetoed.7 Conversely, in 1984, the House and Senate

agreed to deficit-reduction legislation that had been considered as a reconciliation bill

by the House but not the Senate; the bill, the Deficit Reduction Act of 1984, was

signed into law by President Ronald Reagan (P.L. 98-369) but was not designated as

a reconciliation measure.

Historical Development

The budget reconciliation process reflects a complex set of rules, procedures,

and practices employed by the House and Senate. Like other complex processes of

the House and Senate, such as the annual appropriations process, the reconciliation

process has been marked by significant change over time. The House and Senate

have adapted reconciliation procedures to fit changing political and budgetary

circumstances.

See CRS Report RL30714, Congressional Action on Revenue and Debt Reconciliation

Measures in 2000, by (name redacted).

On December 15, 1975, the Senate considered, amended, and passed H.R. 5559, the

Revenue Adjustment Act of 1975, which reduced revenues by about $6.4 billion pursuant

to a directive in the second budget resolution for FY1976. The measure was not regarded

as a reconciliation bill when it was considered by the House, but it was considered under

reconciliation procedures in the Senate. President Gerald Ford vetoed the measure later in

the year and the House sustained his veto. See the remarks of Senator Russell Long and the

presiding officer, on page 40540, and the remarks of Senator Edmund Muskie and others,

on pages 40544-40550, in the Congressional Record, vol. 121, Dec. 15, 1975, regarding the

status of H.R. 5559 as a reconciliation bill.

CRS-4

Table 1. Reconciliation Resolutions and Resultant

Reconciliation Acts: FY1981-FY2005

Fiscal

Year

Budget

Resolution

1981

H.Con.Res. 307

Omnibus Reconciliation Act of 1980

(P.L. 96-499)

12-05-80

1982

H.Con.Res. 115

Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of

1981

(P.L. 97-35)

08-13-81

1983

S.Con.Res. 92

Tax Equity and Fiscal Responsibility Act of

1982

(P.L. 97-248)

09-03-82

Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of

1982

(P.L. 97-253)

09-08-82

Resultant Reconciliation Act(s)

Date

Enacted

1984

H.Con.Res. 91

Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of

1983

(P.L. 98-270)

04-18-84

1986

S.Con.Res. 32

Consolidated Omnibus Budget

Reconciliation Act of 1985

(P.L. 99-272)

04-07-86

1987

S.Con.Res. 120

Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of

1986

(P.L. 99-509)

10-21-86

1988

S.Con.Res. 93

Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of

1987

(P.L. 100-203)

12-22-87

1990

H.Con.Res. 106

Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of

1989

(P.L. 101-239)

12-19-89

1991

H.Con.Res. 310

Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of

1990

(P.L. 101-508)

11-05-90

1994

H.Con.Res. 64

Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of

1993

(P.L. 103-66)

08-10-93

1996

H.Con.Res. 67

Balanced Budget Act of 1995

(H.R. 2491)

12-06-95

(vetoed)

1997

H.Con.Res. 178

Personal Responsibility and Work

Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996

(P.L. 104-193)

08-22-96

CRS-5

Fiscal

Year

Budget

Resolution

1998

H.Con.Res. 84

Resultant Reconciliation Act(s)

Date

Enacted

Balanced Budget Act of 1997

(P.L. 105-33)

08-05-97

Taxpayer Relief Act of 1997

(P.L. 105-34)

08-05-97

2000

H.Con.Res. 68

Taxpayer Refund and Relief Act of 1999

(H.R. 2488)

09-23-99

(vetoed)

2001

H.Con.Res. 290

Marriage Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of

2000

(H.R. 4810)

08-05-00

(vetoed)

2002

H.Con.Res. 83

Economic Growth and Tax Relief

Reconciliation Act of 2001

(P.L. 107-16)

06-07-01

2004

H.Con.Res. 95

Jobs and Growth Tax Relief Reconciliation

Act of 2003

(P.L. 108-27)

05-28-03

Source: Prepared by the Congressional Research Service.

The framers of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 anticipated that changes

might be made from time to time in the budget resolution and reconciliation

processes that it established. In an effort to provide limited procedural flexibility, the

act contains a provision referred to as the “elastic clause.” Originally framed as

Section 301(b)(2), the elastic clause authorized the House and Senate to include in

a budget resolution, at their discretion, “any other procedure which is considered

appropriate to carry out the purposes of this Act.” The clause later was redesignated

as Section 301(b)(4) and revised to read:

The concurrent resolution on the budget may — ... (4) set forth such other

matters, and require such other procedures, relating to the budget, as may be

appropriate to carry out the purposes of this Act.

The House and Senate have used authority under the elastic clause to modify

reconciliation procedures over time in many significant ways, including advancing

the use of reconciliation to the spring budget resolution and extending the

reconciliation time frame from one year to multiple years. While some innovations

in reconciliation procedure were dropped, others persisted and eventually were

incorporated into the 1974 act as required elements of reconciliation procedure.

Two of the most significant changes in reconciliation procedure involved

advancing its use to the spring budget resolution and extending its time frame from

one year to multiple years (paralleling the changes in budget resolution scheduling

and time frame). As originally framed, the 1974 act required the adoption of two

budget resolutions each year. The first budget resolution, to be adopted in the spring,

set advisory budget levels for the upcoming fiscal year. The second budget

resolution, to be adopted on September 15, just before the start of the new fiscal year

CRS-6

on October 1, set binding budget levels for the year. Reconciliation was established

as an adjunct to the adoption of the second budget resolution. Congress and the

President could use reconciliation procedures to quickly make any adjustments in

existing law or pending legislation that were required to achieve budget policies as

they changed between the adoption of the spring and fall budget resolutions. Action

on any required reconciliation legislation was expected to be completed by

September 25.

In the early 1980s, the House and Senate abandoned the practice of adopting a

second budget resolution, choosing instead to adopt a single budget resolution in the

spring of each year (although the schedule often slipped, sometimes markedly). This

change in practice formally was incorporated into the 1974 act by the Balanced

Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985 (Title II of P.L. 99-177;

December 12, 1985; 99 Stat. 1037-1101).

The growing prominence of the spring budget resolution was indicated by the

decision in 1980 to use it to initiate reconciliation procedures for FY1981.

Reconciliation procedures were used again the following year as an adjunct to the

adoption of the FY1982 budget resolution in the spring, but the budget resolution and

reconciliation time frame was extended to three years, FY1982-FY1984 (although

figures for the latter two years were considered to be “planning” levels). These

changes occurred for several reasons, including the belief that an advancement in the

reconciliation schedule was needed to allow committees more time to develop their

reconciliation recommendations, and to allow the House and Senate more time to

consider them on the floor and reconcile their differences in conference, and that an

extended time frame would promote more effective and lasting changes in budgetary

policy while discouraging evasions of enforcement.

In addition to the changes made with respect to the timing and scheduling of

reconciliation, the 1974 act has been amended to bar in the Senate the inclusion of

extraneous matter in reconciliation legislation (see later discussion of Section 313 of

the act, known as the “Byrd rule”). Although Section 313 operates as a rule of the

Senate, it has also dramatically affected the development of reconciliation legislation

in the House and, at times, been a source of friction between the two chambers.

Other significant changes in reconciliation practice have derived from the

changing political and budgetary environment, or changes in precedent, and have not

relied upon the elastic clause. Initial actions under reconciliation, for example,

focused on deficit-reduction efforts. Consequently, the procedures were employed

to achieve spending reductions and revenue increases on a net basis. In the latter part

of the 1990s, particularly when large surpluses emerged in the federal budget for the

first time in decades, the focus of reconciliation action was shifted to reducing

revenues, which continued into the 2000s. Most recently, for FY2006, reconciliation

directives entail reductions in both revenues and spending.

CRS-7

Underlying Authorities of the Reconciliation

Process

The principal authorities underlying the reconciliation process are set forth in

two key sections of Title III (“Congressional Budget Process”) of the Congressional

Budget Act of 1974. Section 310 (2 U.S.C. 641) establishes the basic reconciliation

procedures, and Section 313 (2 U.S.C. 644) establishes a Senate rule aimed at

preventing the inclusion of extraneous matter in reconciliation legislation. The text

of Section 310 and Section 313 is provided in Appendix A and Appendix B,

respectively.

In addition, other provisions in Title III have a bearing on the reconciliation

process. Section 300 (2. U.S.C. 631), for example, lays down the timetable of the

congressional budget process, indicating that Congress should complete action on

any required reconciliation legislation by June 15 during a session.

Section 301 (2 U.S.C. 632) contains a provision authorizing the inclusion in a

budget resolution of reconciliation directives (in subsection (b)(2)), a deferred

enrollment procedure to used in connection with reconciliation (in subsection (b)(3)),

and other appropriate “matters” and “procedures” under the elastic clause (in

subsection (b)(4)).

Section 305 (2 U.S.C. 636) sets forth, in subsection (b), Senate procedures for

the consideration of budget resolutions, which, by virtue of a reference in Section

310(e), also apply to the consideration of reconciliation measures (except for the time

limit on debate).

Points of order pertaining to the enforcement of timing requirements,

substantive budget resolution policies, and the jurisdiction of the House and Senate

Budget Committees, that could apply to the consideration of reconciliation measures,

are found in Sections 302, 303, and 311. Additional points of order that could apply

to reconciliation measures, dealing with budgetary legislation not subject to

appropriations and unfunded mandates, are set forth in Title IV of the act. Finally,

Section 904 (2 U.S.C. 621 note) imposes a three-fifths vote requirement on waivers

(and appeals of the ruling of the chair) with respect to certain points of order under

the act.

Section 310 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974

Section 310(a) of the 1974 act provides for the inclusion of reconciliation

directives in a budget resolution. The directives shall, “to the extent necessary to

effectuate the provisions and requirements of such resolution,” specify the total

amounts by which spending, revenues, the public debt limit, or a combination of

these elements are to be changed. The directives take the form of instructions to each

appropriate committee to make changes in the laws under its jurisdiction to achieve

the specified budgetary results.

Under Section 310(b), when only one committee in the House or Senate is

subject to reconciliation directives, it reports its recommendations directly to its

CRS-8

chamber. When two or more committees in the House or Senate receive

reconciliation instructions, each committee submits its recommendations to its

respective Budget Committee.

The Budget Committee incorporates the

recommendations of all of the instructed committees, “without any substantive

revision,” into an omnibus measure, which it then reports to its chamber.

The subsection refers to a reconciliation resolution, which is a concurrent

resolution directing the Clerk of the House or the Secretary of the Senate to make

changes in legislation that has not yet been enrolled. A reconciliation resolution is

intended to be used with a “deferred enrollment” procedure (see discussion below),

but the House and Senate instead have always used reconciliation bills.

Section 310(c), known informally as the “fungibility rule,” grants some

flexibility to committees subject to reconciliation directives pertaining to both

spending and revenues. This provision applies principally to the House Ways and

Means Committee and the Senate Finance Committee because they exercise

jurisdiction in their chambers over tax legislation generally; some other committees

exercise jurisdiction over matters, such as certain fees, involving budgetary

transactions that are treated as revenues. In essence, the fungibility rule deems either

committee to be in compliance with its reconciliation directives if its recommended

legislation does not cause either the spending changes or the revenue changes to

exceed or fall below its instruction by more than 20% of the sum of the two types of

changes, and the total amount of changes recommended is not less than the total

amount of changes that were directed.

Section 310(d) imposes a requirement in the House and Senate that amendments

be deficit neutral, but suspends the requirement if a declaration of war is in effect.

The subsection provides that, in the Senate, a motion to strike always is in order,

notwithstanding the deficit-neutrality requirement. Further, the subsection authorizes

the House Rules Committee to make in order amendments to achieve compliance

with the reconciliation instructions in the event one or more of the instructed

committees fail to submit recommendations.

Senate procedures for the consideration of budget resolutions are made

applicable to the consideration of reconciliation measures by Section 310(e), except

that the 50-hour debate limit applicable to budget resolutions is reduced to a 20-hour

limit for reconciliation bills.

Section 310(f) is intended to enforce in the House the June 15 deadline for

completing action on reconciliation legislation (as indicated in the timetable in

Section 300). It does so by barring the consideration in July of an adjournment

resolution providing for the traditional August recess if the House has not completed

action. There is no comparable provision in the act for the Senate.

Finally, Section 310(g) prohibits the consideration of any reconciliation

measure, including a special reconciliation measure under Section 258C of the

Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985 (see discussion below),

that contains recommendations with respect to the Social Security program.

CRS-9

Section 313 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974

Section 313 of the 1974 act is informally known as the “Byrd rule,” after its

chief sponsor, Senator Robert C. Byrd. The Byrd rule originated on October 24,

1985, as Amendment No. 878 (as modified) to S. 1730, the Consolidated Omnibus

Budget Reconciliation Act (COBRA) of 1985. The Senate adopted the amendment

by a vote of 96-0. In this form, the Byrd rule applied to initial Senate consideration

of reconciliation measures, but a short while later its coverage was extended to

conference reports.

Senator Byrd explained that the basic purposes of the amendment were to

protect the effectiveness of the reconciliation process (by excluding extraneous

matter that often provoked controversy without aiding deficit reduction efforts) and

to preserve the deliberative character of the Senate (by excluding from consideration

under expedited procedures legislative matters not central to deficit reduction that

should be debated under regular procedures).

The rule achieves its purposes by defining six categories of extraneous matter

in reconciliation legislation, and several exceptions thereto, and providing points of

order against any such matter. The Byrd rule, and its operation, is discussed in more

detail in the section of this report dealing with “Initial Consideration in the Senate.”

During the first five years that the Byrd rule was in effect, from late 1985 until

late 1990, it consisted of two separate components: (1) a provision in statute applying

to initial Senate consideration of reconciliation measures; and (2) a Senate resolution

extending application of portions of the statutory provision to conference reports and

amendments between the two chambers. Several modifications were made to the

Byrd rule in 1986 and 1987, including extending its expiration date from January 2,

1987, to January 2, 1988, and then to September 30, 1992, but the two separate

components of the rule were preserved. In 1990, these components were merged

together and made permanent when they were incorporated into the 1974 act as

Section 313. There have been no further changes in the Byrd rule since 1990.

Procedural Provisions in Budget Resolutions

Pursuant to authority granted in Section 301(b) of the 1974 act, including the

elastic clause, the House and Senate have, on occasion, included procedural

provisions in budget resolutions that affect the reconciliation process. Several

examples are discussed below.

In 1980, the second budget resolution for FY1981 contained a bar against House

or Senate consideration of a resolution providing for sine die adjournment of either

chamber “unless action has been completed on H.R. 7765, the Omnibus

Reconciliation Act of 1980,” which had been developed in response to reconciliation

directives in the first budget resolution for FY1981.8

See Section 7 in the conference report, Second Concurrent Resolution on the Budget —

Fiscal Year 1981 (to accompany H.Con.Res. 448), H.Rept. 96-1469, Nov. 19, 1980, p. 9.

CRS-10

In 1987, a provision in the FY1988 budget resolution declared that any

reconciliation recommendations developed by the House Ways and Means

Committee and the Senate Finance Committee pertaining to the establishment of a

special Deficit Reduction Account would not be considered extraneous matter under

the Byrd rule.9

Most recently, the FY2006 budget resolution included a procedural provision

applying a three-fifths vote requirement to waivers and appeals of points of order

dealing with unfunded mandates and the consideration of certain measures prior to

passage of a budget resolution, but provided that the change not apply in the case of

reconciliation legislation.10

In 1993, the Senate established a “pay-as-you-go” (PAYGO) rule as part of the

FY1994 budget resolution. The rule, which has been modified several times and

extended through September 30, 1998, was not part of the statutory PAYGO

requirement in effect from FY1992-FY2002 (see discussion below).

The Senate’s PAYGO rule generally prohibits the consideration of direct

spending and revenue legislation that is projected to increase (or cause) an on-budget

deficit in any one of three time periods: the first year, the first five years, and the

second five years covered by the most recently adopted budget resolution. Any

increase in direct spending or reduction in revenues resulting from such legislation

must be offset by an equivalent amount of direct spending cuts, tax increases, or a

combination of the two. Without an offset, such legislation would require the

approval of at least 60 Senators to waive the rule and be considered on the Senate

floor. An exception is made for revenue or spending legislation assumed in the

budget resolution levels.11

Prior budget resolutions containing reconciliation directives explicitly exempted

reconciliation legislation from the Senate’s PAYGO rule; reconciliation legislation

also was exempted by virtue of being assumed in budget resolution levels.

Section 301(b)(3) of the 1974 act authorizes an optional “deferred enrollment”

procedure. Under the procedure, if reconciliation is triggered by the budget

resolution, all or certain spending bills (i.e., bills providing new budget authority or

new entitlement authority) for the upcoming fiscal year that have passed the House

and Senate may be held at the desk rather than being enrolled. This affords the

House and Senate an opportunity, through a reconciliation resolution, to direct the

See Section 6 in the conference report, Concurrent Resolution on the Budget — Fiscal

Year 1988 (to accompany H.Con.Res. 93), H.Rept. 100-175, June 22, 1987, p. 17. The

provision referenced the Byrd rule as it existed at that time (i.e., Section 20001 of the

Consolidated Omnibus Reconciliation Act of 1985).

See Section 403(b) in the conference report, Concurrent Resolution on the Budget —

Fiscal Year 2006 (to accompany H.Con.Res. 95), H.Rept. 109-62, Apr. 28, 2005, p. 21.

For more information on the Senate’s PAYGO rule, see CRS Report RL31943, Budget

Enforcement Procedures: Senate’s Pay-As-You-Go (PAYGO) Rule, by (name redacted), and

CRS Report RL32835, PAYGO Rules for Budget Enforcement in the House and Senate, by

(name redacted) and (name redacted)

CRS-11

Clerk of the House or the Secretary of the Senate to make changes in the enrollment

of pending legislation, rather than having to use a reconciliation bill to make the

changes in existing law. Once action has been completed on the reconciliation

resolution, and any necessary changes are made in the enrollment of the spending

measures held at the desk, they are cleared for the President.

Several budget resolutions in the early 1980s contained deferred enrollment

provisions, but the release of the deferred measures was made contingent upon the

adoption of the then-required second budget resolution, not upon the passage of

reconciliation legislation.

Other Authorities

Key elements of the methodology used to prepare budget baselines and score

budgetary legislation are laid out in Section 257 of the Balanced Budget and

Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985. Other scoring practices that underpin the

congressional budget process, including reconciliation procedures, are rooted partly

in scorekeeping guidelines that were included in the joint explanatory statements

accompanying two reconciliation acts — the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of

1990 and the Balanced Budget Act of 1997.12

One of the guidelines, number 3, specifically refers to the treatment of

reconciliation legislation under certain circumstances. Guideline number 3 requires

that changes in direct spending (i.e., entitlement and other mandatory spending,

including offsetting receipts), made in annual appropriations acts, be scored against

the Appropriations Committees’ Section 302(b) allocations of spending made under

the budget resolution. The guideline states, in part, that “direct spending savings that

are included in both an appropriations bill and a reconciliation bill will be scored to

the reconciliation bill and not to the appropriations bill.”

Section 258C (2 U.S.C. 907d) of the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit

Control Act of 1985 (Title II of P.L. 99-177, as amended) established a special

reconciliation process in the Senate, but not the House, tied initially to statutory

deficit targets, and subsequently, to a statutory pay-as-you-go (PAYGO) requirement.

Violations of the deficit targets and PAYGO requirement were to be enforced by

“sequestration,” a process entailing the automatic imposition of largely across-theboard spending cuts.

Section 258C, which was never invoked, provided for the consideration of

reconciliation legislation in the fall in order to achieve deficit reductions that would

obviate the need for an expected sequester under the PAYGO requirement (or,

previously, the deficit targets). The PAYGO requirement effectively expired at the

end of the 107th Congress.13 All of the reconciliation measures considered by the

The guidelines are set forth as Appendix A to Office of Management and Budget Circular

A-11 (Preparation, Submission, and Execution of the Budget), which is available on the

OMB website at [http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/circulars/a11/current_year/app_a.pdf]

For additional information, see CRS Report RS21378, Termination of the “Pay-As-You(continued...)

CRS-12

Senate thus far have originated pursuant to Section 310 of the 1974 act. (Sections

310 and 313 of the 1974 act currently reference the reconciliation process under

Section 258C of the 1985 act.)

(...continued)

Go” (PAYGO) Requirement for FY2003 and Later Years, by (name redacted).

CRS-13

Reconciliation Directives in Budget Resolutions

Features of Reconciliation Directives

The fundamental purpose of reconciliation directives is to compel committees

to develop legislation to achieve certain goals reflected in the budget resolution that

require changes in existing law (or pending legislation) to be realized. A directive

to a committee represents an expression of the intent of the parent chamber that the

specified legislative action be carried out.

Reconciliation directives, and the budget resolution policies that underpin them,

are expressed in terms of highly aggregated dollar amounts and do not determine the

budgetary outcomes for individual accounts, programs, or activities. Decisions at

these levels remain the prerogative of the committees with jurisdiction over spending

and revenue legislation. In a few rare instances, however, reconciliation directives

have been couched in programmatic terms. In the FY1981 budget resolution, for

example, the Senate Appropriations Committee was instructed to “limit

appropriations for fiscal year 1981 subsidies to the U.S. Postal Service” to a

particular level as part of the reconciliation directives.14 In response to a

parliamentary inquiry on May 19, 1982, however, the Senate Presiding Officer

advised that reconciliation directives may not specify that the instructed committee

must achieve its changes from certain types of programs or in specific ways.15

Nonetheless, the Budget Committees may indicate particular options or

assumptions that would allow an instructed committee to meet its spending or

revenue reconciliation directives, partly to garner credibility and support for the

budget resolution and partly to influence the subsequent policy debates.

A reconciliation directive to a committee usually consists of several

components: (1) an identification of the House or Senate committee being instructed;

(2) the type of budgetary changes that are intended to be achieved by changes in laws,

bills, and resolutions within the instructed committee’s jurisdiction, together with

specified amounts; (3) the fiscal year periods to which the changes apply; and (4) a

deadline by which the instructed committees must submit their recommendations to

their respective Budget Committee, or, if singly instructed, report them to their

chamber. Each dollar amount of change for a fiscal year time period is regarded as

a separate directive. A committee instructed to achieve savings in direct spending

outlays of $100 million for the first fiscal year and $800 million for a five-fiscal year

period, for example, is considered to be subject to two different directives.

Given that the language authorizing reconciliation directives refers to “changes,”

such directives may properly recommend both increases and decreases in revenues,

spending, and the debt limit (see further discussion below).

See Section 3(a)(10) in the conference report, First Concurrent Resolution on the Budget,

Fiscal Year 1981 (to accompany H.Con.Res. 307), H.Rept. 96-1051, May 23, 1980, p. 6.

See Congressional Record (daily ed.), vol. 128, May 19, 1982, p. S5506.

CRS-14

Types of Directives. Section 310(a) of the 1974 act enumerates three

different types of budgetary changes that reconciliation directives may require: (1)

spending, in the form of new budget authority for the budget year and thereafter,

budget authority initially provided for prior fiscal years, new entitlement authority,

and credit authority; (2) revenues; (3) and the statutory limit on the public debt. In

addition, Section 310(a) provides that reconciliation directives may combine any of

the three types of changes, including “a direction to achieve deficit reduction”

(representing a combination of spending reductions and revenue increases).

The type of budgetary changes included in the reconciliation directives

determines the type of legislation that will result. After the first several years of

experience with reconciliation, spending directives have applied almost exclusively

to direct spending (also known as mandatory spending), rather than discretionary

spending. Direct spending, which is under the jurisdiction of the legislative

committees of the House and Senate, funds entitlements and other mandatory

programs (e.g., Medicare, unemployment compensation, federal employee

retirement), largely on a permanent basis. Discretionary spending, which mainly

funds the ongoing operations of federal agencies, falls under the jurisdiction of the

House and Senate Appropriations Committees and is provided in annual

appropriations acts.

Under current practice, reconciliation directives for direct spending generally

refer to changes in outlay levels.16 While such directives usually specify the dollar

amounts by which outlay levels are to be changed, for a time the House Budget

Committee specified the total outlay level that should occur after the required

changes had been made. (Therefore, the amount of changes involved had to be

calculated by comparing baseline levels to the levels expected to occur following

reconciliation.) In the course of complying with a directive to change spending, a

committee may recommend changes in offsetting collections or offsetting receipts

within its jurisdiction; offsetting collections, which include many user fees, are

treated as negative spending.

Reconciliation directives have sometimes been used to affect discretionary

spending levels, although this is not the usual practice. Initially, reconciliation was

used to directly change the levels of discretionary spending. The House

Appropriations Committee (in the FY1981 budget resolution) and the Senate

Appropriations Committee (in the FY1981 and FY1982 budget resolutions) were

instructed to reduce spending for the fiscal year already in progress. In order to

comply with these instructions, the committees recommended rescissions of annual

appropriations that already had been enacted. (The rescissions were considered

separately from the reconciliation legislation for those years.)

Congress and the President create new budget authority through the enactment of laws.

Agencies incur obligations (that is, financial liabilities through such means as employing

personnel, entering into contracts, and submitting purchase orders) within the framework

of available budget authority. Finally, outlays (sometimes referred to as expenditures) ensue

when obligations are liquidated or paid off through such means as electronic fund transfers,

the issuance of checks, or the disbursement of cash. Outlays levels, not budget authority

levels, are compared to revenue levels to determine the level of the deficit or surplus.

CRS-15

A more expansive, and indirect, attempt to reduce discretionary spending

through the reconciliation process occurred in 1981. The FY1982 budget resolution

included reconciliation directives that, in part, required legislative committees to

reduce authorizations of appropriations. The intent behind this approach was to set

in place reduced authorization levels over a three-year period that would reduce

spending levels in the annual appropriations acts considered in each of those years.

This approach was widely regarded as having unnecessarily complicated the

reconciliation legislation and strained relationships between the authorizing

committees and the Appropriations Committees. The House and Senate Budget

Committees have not returned to this approach, except occasionally on a much more

selective basis. In the Senate, such language probably would be judged extraneous

under the Byrd rule, on the ground that it does not affect outlays.

Due to the dispersal of spending jurisdiction to almost every standing committee

of the House and Senate, nearly every one of them has been involved in

reconciliation at least once.

Directives to change revenue levels have been less complicated generally in that

they have not differentiated between different sources of revenue, such as individual

incomes taxes, corporate income taxes, or excise taxes. On occasion, revenue

reconciliation directives have been accompanied by directives to change outlays

because some tax-related changes, such as increases in refundable tax credits, are

scored as outlays. (Conversely, in some instances changes in spending programs may

affect revenue levels.)

As mentioned previously, reconciliation directives may also instruct a

committee to achieve a level of “deficit reduction,” reflecting a combination of

spending reductions and revenues increases at the committee’s discretion.

In the reconciliation process, compliance with reconciliation directives is judged

on a net basis, or on the basis of the “bottom line.” Consequently, directives to

reduce spending or increase revenues in order to achieve deficit reduction generally

may include “sweeteners” that increase spending and reduce revenues, so long as the

required amount of deficit reduction is accomplished.

As practiced by the House and Senate, a reconciliation instruction to reduce

spending, or increase revenues, includes a target that is a minimum amount of

spending reduction, or revenue increase (a floor). Similarly, a reconciliation

instruction to increase spending, or reduce revenues, includes a target that is a

maximum amount of spending increase, or revenue reduction (a ceiling).

For years, the public debt limit has been codified in Section 3101(b) of Title 31,

United States Code. Periodic adjustments in the debt limit take the form of

amendments to 31 U.S.C. 3101(b), usually by striking the current dollar limitation

and inserting a new one. While most adjustments to the debt limit have been

increases, in some instances the debt limit has been reduced or extended at its current

level for a specified interval. For example, P.L. 455 of the 79th Congress (60 Stat.

316; June 26, 1946) reduced the debt limit from $300 billion to $275 billion as

budget surpluses reemerged following World War II. While the debt limit has been

adjusted in reconciliation legislation, in most instances Congress employs another

CRS-16

type of measure for this purpose. The House Ways and Means Committee and the

Senate Finance Committee exercise jurisdiction over the debt limit.17

From time to time, budget resolutions have included contingent reconciliation

directives. Under a contingent directive, the amount of changes in spending or

revenue that a committee is directed to achieve may be adjusted at a later time upon

the happening of a contingency. The FY1998 budget resolution, for example,

provided for an adjustment in the Senate Finance Committee’s reconciliation

directives (as well as the committee’s spending allocations and other budget levels)

to accommodate a five-year children’s health initiative of up to $16 billion. The

adjustments were made contingent upon the committee reporting reconciliation

legislation with an excess of outlay savings so that the additional spending on the

children’s health initiative would be deficit neutral.18

In at least one instance, reconciliation directives to a committee became

effective (without any adjustment) upon the happening of a contingency. The

FY1996 budget resolution contained directives to the Senate Finance Committee to

reduce revenues by $245 billion over seven years upon the certification by the

Congressional Budget Office that spending reconciliation legislation would lead to

a balanced budget by FY2002. Under the budget resolution, if CBO did not certify

a balanced budget, the revenue reconciliation directives to the committee would not

become effective, and the revenue reductions could not be included in the final

reconciliation bill.19

Multiple Directives

The House and Senate typically use multiple directives, in terms of the number

of committees instructed and the types of budgetary changes designated, when

initiating the reconciliation process. Whenever the House and Senate included

spending reconciliation directives in a budget resolution, more than one House and

Senate committee received them, except for the FY2002 and FY2004 budget

resolutions; in these two cases, the House Ways and Means Committee and the

Senate Finance Committee received instructions regarding outlays in order to

accommodate the outlay effects of certain changes in revenue laws.

The number of House and Senate committees given spending reconciliation

directives in a budget resolution ranged from one, for both chambers (both in the

FY2002 and FY2004 budget resolutions), to 14 for the Senate and 15 for the House

(both in the FY1982 budget resolution).

For more information on this topic, see CRS Report RS21519, Legislative Procedures for

Adjusting the Public Debt Limit: A Brief Overview, by (name redacted) and (name redacted)

See Section 104(d) of the conference report on the FY1998 budget resolution, Concurrent

Resolution on the Budget for Fiscal Year 1998 (to accompany H.Con.Res. 84), H.Rept. 105116, June 4, 1997, pp. 16-17.

See Section 105(b) and Section 205 of the conference report on the FY1996 budget

resolution, Concurrent Resolution on the Budget for Fiscal Year 1996 (to accompany

H.Con.Res. 67), H.Rept. 104-159, June 26, 1995, pp. 24, 29-30, 94-95.

CRS-17

Reconciliation directives to change the statutory limit on the public debt are

made only to a single committee in each chamber, because the House Ways and

Means Committee and the Senate Finance Committee exercise sole jurisdiction in

their chambers over this matter. While reconciliation directives to change revenue

levels principally involve the Ways and Means Committee and the Finance

Committee, other committees sometimes receive such instructions as well. As stated

previously, the Ways and Means Committee and Finance Committee exercise

jurisdiction in their chambers over the tax code and revenues generally, but some

other committees exercise jurisdiction over matters, such as certain fees, involving

budgetary transactions that are treated as revenues.

When reconciliation directives require different types of budgetary changes, the

committee recommendations affecting revenues, spending, or the debt limit, as

appropriate, may be incorporated into a single omnibus measure or considered as

separate measures, depending on how the directives are fashioned. In the FY1998

budget resolution, for example, the Senate Finance Committee received a two-part

reconciliation directive in Section 104(a). Section 104(a)(5)(A) instructed the

committee to reduce outlays (by $40.911 billion for FY2002 and $100.646 billion for

FY1998-FY2002) and Section 104(a)(5)(B) instructed the committee to increase the

statutory limit on the public debt (to not more than $5.950 trillion). Seven other

Senate committees received an instruction to reduce spending (or the deficit) in

Section 104(a). In a separate provision, Section 104(b), the Finance Committee was

instructed to reduce revenues (by not more than $20.5 billion in FY2002 and $85

billion for FY1998-FY2002). Accordingly, in response to its directives, the Finance

Committee could develop reconciliation legislation reducing spending and raising the

debt limit, for inclusion in an omnibus bill, and reducing revenues in a separate bill.

Under current procedures in the Senate, only one reconciliation measure of each

type of budgetary change is allowed. Thus, a budget resolution may create as many

as three reconciliation bills — one for spending, one for revenues, and one for the

debt limit. The reconciliation directives, however, may not lead to two reconciliation

bills for spending, or two for revenues, or two for the debt limit. In the case of the

FY2006 budget resolution, for example, the directives to eight Senate committees to

reduce direct spending, and to the Senate Finance Committee to reduce revenues and

increase the debt limit, are expected to result, at most, in three reconciliation

measures — a spending bill, a revenue bill, and a debt-limit bill.

House practices in this regard allow for greater latitude in the development of

multiple reconciliation measures. Reconciliation measures may mix together

different types of reconciliation changes, and more than one reconciliation measure

involving a particular type of budgetary change may be provided for under the

reconciliation directives. The FY1997 budget resolution, for example, provided for

the potential consideration of three separate reconciliation measures in the House,

including a “Welfare and Medicaid Reform and Tax Relief” act, a “Medicare

Preservation” act, and a “Tax and Miscellaneous Direct Spending Reforms” act. As

explained by the House Budget Committee:

CRS-18

The House conferees note that the multi-reconciliation process provides

maximum flexibility to achieve the changes in spending and the tax relief

assumed in this conference report. For example, any of the spending or revenue

changes assumed in the first bill could — if not enacted — be achieved in the

third bill.20

Given that the Senate’s flexibility in packaging reconciliation legislation is

relatively more constrained under its current practices compared with past ones, the

House is more constrained in its choice of reconciliation packaging as well.

Consequently, a reconciliation procedure in the House as flexible as the one proposed

for FY1997 may no longer be practicable.

Impact of Directives on the Deficit or Surplus

During the period covering FY1981 through FY2006, the House and Senate

adopted 18 budget resolutions containing reconciliation directives. (The budget

resolutions for FY1985, FY1989, FY1992, FY1993, and FY1995 did not include

reconciliation directives; also, the House and Senate did not reach final agreement

on budget resolutions for FY1999, FY2003, and FY2005.) The reconciliation

directives included in budget resolutions through FY1998 were intended to reduce

the deficit in the net; the directives in budget resolutions since then (through

FY2006), while part of an overall budget resolution policy to improve the budgetary

posture over time, on their own terms proposed reducing the surplus or increasing the

deficit in the net (by virtue of revenue reductions).

The reconciliation directives to House and Senate committees during this period

generally were of comparable scope, although there were some significant differences

in particular years. Table 2 and Table 3 present information on the reconciliation

directives to House committees during this period to illustrate the relationship taken

generally by the House and Senate between reconciliation and deficit reduction.

As Table 2 shows, all 18 of the budget resolutions recommended policies that

assumed an improvement in budgetary posture from the budget year to the final fiscal

year covered, either by changing a deficit into a surplus (seven instances), reducing

a deficit to a lower level (eight instances), or increasing a surplus to a higher level

(three instances).21 For example, over a five-year time frame, the budget resolution

for FY1991 called for a deficit of $64 billion in the first year and surplus of $156

billion in the final year; the budget resolution for FY1994 called for a deficit of $254

billion in the first year and a deficit of $202 billion in the final year; and the budget

resolution for FY2001 called for a surplus of $170 billion in the first year and a

surplus of $232 billion in the final year.

See the conference report on the FY1997 budget resolution, Concurrent Resolution on the

Budget for Fiscal Year 1997 (to accompany H.Con.Res. 178), H.Rept. 104-612, June 7,

1996, p. 81.

The “budget year” is the upcoming fiscal year (beginning on October 1) at the time the

budget resolution is under consideration. Budget resolutions sometimes include revised

figures for the “current year,” which is the fiscal year in progress at the time the budget

resolution is under consideration; current-year levels are not reflected in Tables 1 and 2.

CRS-19

The reconciliation directives in the first 10 budget resolutions listed in Table

2, covering through FY1981-FY1994, all recommended net deficit reduction in the

aggregate, ranging from $12 billion (in the FY1981 budget resolution) to $343 billion

(in the FY1994 budget resolution). The reconciliation directives included revenue

increases, spending decreases (and other changes), or a combination thereof intended

to eliminate or reduce the deficit by the final year.

With regard to the next three budget resolutions (for FY1996, FY1997, and

FY1998), precise data are not available because the reconciliation directives to House

committees were not expressed as amounts of change from baseline levels, but rather

were expressed as the levels of revenue and direct spending outlays that were to

result from the changes. The reconciliation directives in these three budget

resolutions, however, generally were regarded as containing revenue reductions that

were expected to be more than offset by reductions in direct spending.22

The remaining five sets of reconciliation directives (in the FY2000-FY2002,

FY2004, and FY2006 budget resolutions), all recommended net reductions in the

surplus/increases in the deficit, ranging from $35 billion (over six years) to $1.350

trillion (over 11 years).

The budget resolutions for FY2000-FY2002 included directives that

recommended large revenue reductions (and a $100 billion increase in outlays in the

FY2002 budget resolution) without offsetting changes. These resolutions

recommended allocating a portion of the projected surpluses for tax cuts; in each

case, the estimated final year surplus was larger than estimated for the first year.

The FY2004 budget resolution included reconciliation directives that

recommended large revenue reductions (and a $27 billion increase in outlays)

without any offsetting changes. Despite aggregate reductions in the surplus/increases

in the deficit through reconciliation of $550 billion over 11 years, covering FY2003FY2013, the budget resolution envisioned a deficit of $385.0 billion for the budget

year becoming a surplus of $36.8 billion by the final year.

The FY2006 budget resolution included reconciliation directives that

recommended revenue reductions of $70 billion over five years (FY2006-FY2010)

and outlay reductions of $35 billion over six years (including FY2005) in the context

of a decline in the total deficit over the period.

Table 3 provides more detailed information on the overall deficit and surplus

levels and the reconciliation directives to House committees in the budget resolutions

for this period.

The amounts of revenue reduction expected to occur over the multiyear period,

apparently by means of reconciliation, were indicated in the joint explanatory statement

accompanying the conference report for each of the fiscal years involved. While the

amounts of direct spending reductions in reconciliation directives to House committees were

not indicated in the joint explanatory statements, such amounts in reconciliation directives

to Senate committees yielded estimated net savings of $387.1 billion (over seven years) in

the FY1996 budget resolution, $228.9 billion (over six years) in the FY1997 budget

resolution, and $52.2 billion (over five years) in the FY1998 budget resolution.

CRS-20

Table 2. Summary of Reconciliation Directives to House Committees and Overall Deficit or Surplus Levels in Budget

Resolutions for FY1981-FY2006

(amounts in $ billions)

Reconciliation Directives:

Increases (+) or Decreases (-) in the Deficit

Budget Resolution a

Number of Fiscal

Years Covered

Outlay

(or Deficit

Reduction)

Changes b

Revenue

Changes b

Deficit (-) or Surplus (+) Levels

Reflected in the Budget Resolution c

Net

Decreases (-)

Increases (+) b

Budget

Year

Final

Year

FY1981

-7

-12

—

FY1982

-137

-38

FY1983

+98

-27

-125

-104

-60

FY1984

+73

-12

-85

-170

-127

FY1986

-88

-172

-113

FY1987

-24

-143

-78

FY1988

+64

-29

-93

-108

-50

FY1990

+11

-13

-24

-100

-66

FY1991

+119

-127

-246

-64

+156

CRS-21

Reconciliation Directives:

Increases (+) or Decreases (-) in the Deficit

Budget Resolution a

Number of Fiscal

Years Covered

Outlay

(or Deficit

Reduction)

Changes b

Revenue

Changes b

Deficit (-) or Surplus (+) Levels

Reflected in the Budget Resolution c

Net

Decreases (-)

Increases (+) b

Budget

Year

Final

Year

FY1994

-343 d

-254

-202

FY1996

-245

—e

-170

FY1997

-122

—e

-153

FY1998

-85

—e

-91

FY2000

-778

+778

+141

+248

FY2001

-150

+150

+170

+232

FY2002

-1,250

+100

+1,350

+219

+514

FY2004

-535

+15

+550

-385

+37

FY2006

-70

-35

+35

-383

-211

Sources: conference reports on budget resolutions (see Table 3 for complete listing).

a. The budget resolutions for FY1985, FY1989, FY1992, FY1993, and FY1995 did not contain reconciliation directives; also, the House and Senate did not reach final

agreement on budget resolutions for FY1999, FY2003, and FY2005. Details may not add to totals due to rounding.

CRS-22

b. The “revenue changes” column reflects reconciliation directives to the House Ways and Means Committee to change revenue levels, and the “outlay (or deficit

reduction) changes” column reflects reconciliation directives to all House committees to change outlay levels or to achieve deficit reduction, which in some cases

could have allowed additional revenue increases beyond those reflected in the preceding column. “Net decreases (-)” in the deficit also refers to net increases

in the surplus; “net increases (+)” in the deficit also refers to net decreases in the surplus.

c. Although the text of the budget resolution reflects only the on-budget deficit or surplus (as required by law), tables in the joint explanatory statement accompanying

the conference report usually reflect the total deficit or surplus (which includes the off-budget Social Security trust funds and Postal Service Fund). This column

presents total deficit or surplus levels, unless otherwise noted.

d. The $343.1 billion in “outlay (or deficit reduction) changes” and “net decreases” excludes $42.953 billion in reconciled reductions in authorizations.

e. Reconciliation directives to House committees in the budget resolutions for FY1996-FY1998 were not expressed as amounts of change from baseline levels, but

rather were expressed as the levels of revenue and direct spending outlays that were to result from the changes. The amounts of revenue reduction expected to

occur over the multiyear period, apparently by means of reconciliation, were indicated in the joint explanatory statement accompanying the conference report

for each of the fiscal years involved; see H.Rept. 104-159, page 89 (for FY1996), H.Rept. 104-612, page 51 (for FY1997), and H.Rept. 105-116, page 100 (for

FY1998). While the amounts of direct spending reductions in reconciliation directives to House committees were not indicated in the joint explanatory

statements, such amounts in reconciliation directives to Senate committees yielded estimated net savings of $387.1 billion (over seven years) in the FY1996

budget resolution, $228.9 billion (over six years) in the FY1997 budget resolution, and $52.2 billion (over five years) in the FY1998 budget resolution.

CRS-23

Table 3. Detailed Information on Reconciliation Directives to House Committees

and Overall Deficit or Surplus Levels in Budget Resolutions for FY1981-FY2006

(amounts in $ billions)

Reconciliation Directives:

Increases (+) or Decreases (-) in the Deficit

Fiscal

Year

1981

1982

1983

1984

Budget

Resolution

H.Con.Res. 307

H.Con.Res. 115

S.Con.Res. 92

H.Con.Res. 91

Revenue Changes b

Outlay (or Deficit

Reduction)

Changes c

(1980-1981)

+4.2

-7.4 f

(1982-1984)

0.0

(1983-1985)

+98.3

(1984-1986)

+73.0

Fiscal Years

Covered a

-137.0

-27.2

-12.3

Net

Decreases (-)

or Increases (+) d

-11.6

-137.0

-125.4

-85.3

Deficit (-) or

Surplus (+) Levels

Reflected in the

Budget Resolution e

(on budget)

Budget year:

+0.5

(on budget)

Budget year:

Second year:

Third year:

-37.7

-19.1

+1.1

(on budget)

Budget year:

Second year:

Third year:

-103.9

-83.9

-60.0

(on budget)

Budget year:

Second year:

Third year:

-169.9

-156.3

-127.2

CRS-24

Reconciliation Directives:

Increases (+) or Decreases (-) in the Deficit

Fiscal

Year

Budget

Resolution

Fiscal Years

Covered a

1985

1986

Revenue Changes b

Outlay (or Deficit

Reduction)

Changes c

Net

Decreases (-)

or Increases (+) d

Deficit (-) or

Surplus (+) Levels

Reflected in the

Budget Resolution e

[No reconciliation directives in budget resolution]

S.Con.Res. 32

(1986-1988)

0.0

-88.2

(on budget)

Budget year:

Second year:

Third year:

-171.9

-154.7

-112.9

1987

S.Con.Res. 120

(1987-1989)

0.0

-24.2

Budget year:

Second year:

Third year:

-142.6

-115.7

-77.9

1988

H.Con.Res. 93

(1988-1990)

+64.3

-28.6

-92.9

(on budget)

Budget year:

Second year:

Third year:

-108.0

-89.9

-50.3

Budget year:

Second year:

Third year:

-99.7

— 88.4

-65.8

1989

1990

[No reconciliation directives in budget resolution]

H.Con.Res. 106

(1990-1991)

+10.6

-13.3

-23.9

CRS-25

Reconciliation Directives:

Increases (+) or Decreases (-) in the Deficit

Fiscal

Year

1991

Budget

Resolution

H.Con.Res. 310

Fiscal Years

Covered a

(1991-1995)

Revenue Changes b

Outlay (or Deficit

Reduction)

Changes c

+118.8

-127.4

Net

Decreases (-)

or Increases (+) d

1992

[No reconciliation directives in budget resolution]

1993

[No reconciliation directives in budget resolution]

1994

H.Con.Res. 64

(1994-1998)

0.0

-343.1 g

Deficit (-) or

Surplus (+) Levels

Reflected in the

Budget Resolution e

-246.2

Budget year:

Second year:

Third year:

Fourth year:

Fifth year:

-64.0

-8.5

44.8

108.5

156.2

-343.1 g

Budget year:

Second year:

Third year:

Fourth year:

Fifth year:

-253.8

-236.9

-205.0

-192.6

-201.9

CRS-26

Reconciliation Directives:

Increases (+) or Decreases (-) in the Deficit

Fiscal

Year

Budget

Resolution

Fiscal Years

Covered a

1995

Revenue Changes b

Outlay (or Deficit

Reduction)

Changes c

Net

Decreases (-)

or Increases (+) d

Deficit (-) or

Surplus (+) Levels

Reflected in the

Budget Resolution e

[No reconciliation directives in budget resolution]

1996

H.Con.Res. 67

(1996-2002)

-245.0 h

—h

Budget year:

Second year:

Third year:

Fourth year:

Fifth year:

Sixth year:

Seventh year:

-170.3

-152.2

-115.8

-100.4

-80.8

-33.1

6.4

1997

H.Con.Res. 178

(1997-2002)

-122.4 h

—h

Budget year:

Second year:

Third year:

Fourth year:

Fifth year:

Sixth year:

-153.4

-146.7

-117.2

-89.0

-41.6

4.6

1998

H.Con.Res. 84

(1998-2002)

-85.0 h

—h

Budget year:

Second year:

Third year:

Fourth year:

Fifth year:

-90.5

-89.5

-82.9

-53.1

1.8

CRS-27

Reconciliation Directives:

Increases (+) or Decreases (-) in the Deficit

Fiscal

Year

Budget

Resolution

1999

Fiscal Years

Covered a

Revenue Changes b

Outlay (or Deficit

Reduction)

Changes c

Net

Decreases (-)

or Increases (+) d

Deficit (-) or

Surplus (+) Levels

Reflected in the

Budget Resolution e

[House and Senate did not reach final agreement on a budget resolution]

2000

H.Con.Res. 68

(2000-2009)

-777.9

0.0

+777.9

Budget year:

Second year:

Third year:

Fourth year:

Fifth year:

Sixth year:

Seventh year:

Eighth year:

Ninth year:

Tenth year:

141.4

148.2

158.0

165.2

174.8

199.7

215.1

225.1

237.9

248.0

2001

H.Con.Res. 290

(2001-2005)

-150.0

0.0

+150.0

Budget year:

Second year:

Third year:

Fourth year:

Fifth year:

170.0

183.5

198.4

212.4

232.3

CRS-28

Reconciliation Directives:

Increases (+) or Decreases (-) in the Deficit

Fiscal

Year

2002

Budget

Resolution

H.Con.Res. 83

Fiscal Years

Covered a

(2001-2011)

Revenue Changes b

Outlay (or Deficit

Reduction)

Changes c

-1,250.0

+100.0

Net

Decreases (-)

or Increases (+) d

+1,350.0

Deficit (-) or

Surplus (+) Levels

Reflected in the

Budget Resolution e

Budget year:

Second year:

Third year:

Fourth year:

Fifth year:

Sixth year:

Seventh year:

Eighth year:

Ninth year:

Tenth year:

218.6

246.5

265.9

276.9

294.5

331.0

362.7

407.7

466.6

514.2

CRS-29

Reconciliation Directives:

Increases (+) or Decreases (-) in the Deficit

Fiscal

Year

Budget

Resolution

2003

2004

Revenue Changes b

Net

Decreases (-)

or Increases (+) d

Deficit (-) or

Surplus (+) Levels

Reflected in the

Budget Resolution e

[House and Senate did not reach final agreement on a budget resolution]

H.Con.Res. 95

2005

2006

Fiscal Years

Covered a

Outlay (or Deficit

Reduction)

Changes c

(2003-2013)

-535.0

+15.0

+550.0

Budget year:

Second year:

Third year:

Fourth year:

Fifth year:

Sixth year:

Seventh year:

Eighth year:

Ninth year:

Tenth year:

-385.0

-293.7

-217.1

-165.8

-151.1

-99.4

-68.6

-71.1

9.8

36.8

+35.3

Budget year:

Second year:

Third year:

Fourth year:

Fifth year:

-382.7

-313.2

-254.4

-238.4

-210.9

[House and Senate did not reach final agreement on a budget resolution]

H.Con.Res. 95

(2005-2010)

-70.0

-34.7

CRS-30

Sources:

FY1981 — conference report on H.Con.Res. 307, H.Rept. 96-1051 (May 23, 1980), pages 27 and 28.

FY1982 — conference report on H.Con.Res. 115, H.Rept. 97-46 (May 15, 1981), pages 41-43 and 46.

FY1983 — conference report on S.Con.Res. 92, H.Rept. 97-614 (June 21, 1982), pages 19 and 29;

FY1984 — conference report on H.Con.Res. 91, H.Rept. 98-248 (June 21, 1983), pages 29, 45, and 46;

FY1986 — conference report on S.Con.Res. 32, H.Rept. 99-249 (August 1, 1985), pages 24, 32, and 33;

FY1987 — conference report on S.Con.Res. 120, H.Rept. 99-664 (June 26, 1986), pages 20, 30, and 31;

FY1988 — conference report on H.Con.Res. 93, H.Rept. 100-175 (June 22, 1987), pages 23 and 30-32;

FY1990 — conference report on H.Con.Res. 106, H.Rept. 101-50 (May 15, 1989), pages 19, 29, and 30;

FY1991 — conference report on H.Con.Res. 310, H.Rept. 101-820 (October 7, 1990), pages 21, 26, and 27;

FY1994 — conference report on H.Con.Res. 62, H.Rept. 103-48 (March 31, 1993), pages 38 and 41-43;

FY1996 — conference report on H.Con.Res. 67, H.Rept. 104-159 (June 26, 1995), pages 44 and 50-51;

FY1997 — conference report on H.Con.Res. 178, H.Rept. 104-612 (June 7, 1996), pages 56 and 83-84;

FY1998 — conference report on H.Con.Res. 84, H.Rept. 105-116 (June 4, 1997), pages 58, 100, and 104-105;

FY2000 — conference report on H.Con.Res. 68, H.Rept. 106-91 (April 14, 1999), pages 36, and 61;

FY2001 — conference report on H.Con.Res. 290, H.Rept. 106-577 (April 12, 2000), pages 49 and 66;

FY2002 — conference report on H.Con.Res. 83, H.Rept. 107-60 (May 8, 2001), pages 48, and 76-77;

FY2004 — conference report on H.Con.Res. 95, H.Rept. 108-71 (April 10, 2003), pages 38 and 102-104; and

FY2006 — conference report on H.Con.Res. 95, H.Rept. 109-62 (April 18, 2005), pages 50 and 68-71.

Note: Details may not add to totals due to rounding.

a. The reconciliation directives applied to the budget year (i.e., the fiscal year beginning on October 1 of the calendar year in which the budget resolution was

considered) and ensuing fiscal years covered by the budget resolution, except that reconciliation directives in budget resolutions for FY1981, FY2002, and

FY2004 also applied to the current year (i.e., the fiscal year in progress at the time).

b. This column reflects reconciliation directives to the House Ways and Means Committee to change revenue levels.

c. This column reflects reconciliation directives to all House committees to change outlay levels or to achieve deficit reduction (which in some cases could have

allowed additional revenue increases beyond those reflected in the preceding column).

d. “Net decreases (-)” in the deficit also refers to net increases in the surplus; “net increases (+)” in the deficit also refers to net decreases in the surplus.

CRS-31

e. Although the text of the budget resolution reflects only the on-budget deficit or surplus (as required by law), tables in the joint explanatory statement accompanying

the conference report usually reflect the total deficit or surplus (which includes the off-budget Social Security trust funds and Postal Service Fund). This column

presents total deficit or surplus levels, unless otherwise noted, and does not include any revised deficit or surplus figures for the current fiscal year.

f. In addition to reconciliation directives to House and Senate Committees for FY1981, the budget resolution included reconciliation directives to the House and Senate

Appropriations Committees to reduce spending for FY1980. Accordingly, savings of $1.0 billion in outlays from the directives to the Appropriations Committees

are reflected in this figure.

g. The $343.1 billion in “other changes” and “net savings” excludes $42.953 billion in reconciled reductions in authorizations.

h. Reconciliation directives to House committees in the budget resolutions for FY1996-FY1998 were not expressed as amounts of change from baseline levels, but

rather were expressed as the levels of revenue and direct spending outlays that were to result from the changes. The amounts of revenue reduction expected to

occur over the multiyear period, apparently by means of reconciliation, were indicated in the joint explanatory statement accompanying the conference report

for each of the fiscal years involved; see H.Rept. 104-159, page 89 (for FY1996), H.Rept. 104-612, page 51 (for FY1997), and H.Rept. 105-116, page 100 (for

FY1998). While the amounts of direct spending reductions in reconciliation directives to House committees were not indicated in the joint explanatory

statements, such amounts in reconciliation directives to Senate committees yielded estimated net savings of $387.1 billion (over seven years) in the FY1996

budget resolution, $228.9 billion (over six years) in the FY1997 budget resolution, and $52.2 billion (over five years) in the FY1998 budget resolution.

CRS-32

Initial Consideration in the House

Four aspects of House action at this stage of the reconciliation process are

addressed in this section: (1) the development of legislative recommendations by the

instructed committees; (2) the preparation of an omnibus measure by the House

Budget Committee; (3) the special rule providing for the consideration of

reconciliation legislation; and (4) floor consideration of reconciliation legislation.

Development of Legislative Recommendations by the

Instructed Committees

Each committee included in the reconciliation directives is instructed to

recommend legislative changes to existing law to meet specific budgetary targets by

a certain date. The Congressional Budget Act of 1974 does not provide any special

requirements (other than meeting those specified in the reconciliation directives in

a budget resolution) or any guidance as to the procedures committees must follow to

develop their legislative recommendations pursuant to reconciliation directives. The

instructed committees generally follow the rules and practices of developing

legislation under the normal legislative process.

It is expected that each instructed committee will comply with the pertinent

requirements in the Standing Rules of the House, as well as its committee rules,

when developing its legislative recommendations pursuant to the reconciliation

directives. In particular, clause 2(h)(1) of House Rule XI requires that a committee

must meet, with a majority quorum present, to report its reconciliation

recommendations.

Prior to marking up and reporting reconciliation recommendations, as in the

case of other legislation, instructed committees often hold hearings. In 1997, for

example, in developing reconciliation recommendations pursuant to the directives

in the FY1998 budget resolution, at least four of the eight instructed committees

conducted oversight and legislative hearings related to its reconciliation

recommendations subsequently transmitted to the House Budget Committee.23

Committee Markup Procedures. While there are variations among

committees’ formal rules and informal practices, House committees typically follow

a standard markup process.24 Under this process, the legislative text to be considered

first is read in full, unless waived by a majority vote or unanimous consent, and then

it is read for amendment, section by section.25 Amendments are considered under a

See House Budget Committee, Balanced Budget Act of 1997 (report to accompany H.R.

2015), H.Rept. 105-149, June 24, 1997, pp. 497-1619.

For detailed information on House committee markup procedures, see CRS Report

RL30244, The Committee Markup Process in the House of Representatives, by (nam

e redacted).

Under clause 1(a)(1)(B) of House Rule XI, if printed copies of the legislative text to be

marked up are available, the reading of the text may be waived by majority vote on a

(continued...)

CRS-33

five-minute rule. At the end of consideration of the legislative text and amendments,

a committee votes to order the legislation reported to the House directly or, if

instructed by the reconciliation directives, transmitted to the House Budget

Committee.

A key decision in the markup process is selecting the text the committee will

consider. A committee may consider a bill introduced and referred to the committee

or consider draft legislation that has not been introduced. In most cases, in response

to reconciliation directives, committees have considered draft legislation developed

by the committee’s staff, instead of a bill introduced and referred to the committee.

In 1997, for example, pursuant to the reconciliation directives contained in the

FY1998 budget resolution, all eight committees instructed to submit to the House

Budget Committee legislative recommendations changing existing law considered

original legislative language as the markup text.26 Three of these committees

considered its reconciliation recommendations in the form of committee prints as the

markup text. Only one committee considered a bill introduced and referred to the

committee. In that case, the Education and the Workforce Committee considered

H.R. 1515 and incorporated the text of the bill, as amended during markup, into its

reconciliation recommendations; the committee, as well, ordered the bill reported,

as amended, to the House directly.27

In some cases, however, especially in those cases when a committee received

instructions to report legislative recommendations to the House directly, as in recent

years, committees have considered a bill introduced and referred to the committee as

the markup vehicle. In 2003, for example, the House Ways and Means Committee

considered and marked up H.R. 2, which had been previously introduced and referred

to the committee, as the legislative vehicle to respond to its reconciliation directives

contained in the FY2004 budget resolution.28

Committee Submissions. As mentioned above, the reconciliation directives

contained in a budget resolution specify a certain date in which an instructed

committee is required to report its legislative recommendations. In addition, the

directives indicate, as provided in the 1974 act, whether a committee is required to

report its legislative recommendations to the House directly or to submit such

recommendations to the House Budget Committee. Section 310(b) of the 1974 act

specifies two options for the submission of legislative recommendations to comply

with reconciliation directives: (1) if one committee is instructed, the committee

reports its legislative recommendations to its parent chamber directly; or (2) if two

(...continued)

privileged non-debatable motion. If printed copies are not available, the reading of the text

may be waived only by unanimous consent.

House Budget Committee, Balanced Budget Act of 1997 (report to accompany H.R. 2015),

H.Rept. 105-149, June 24, 1997.

Ibid., pp. 977-1089.

House Ways and Means Committee, Jobs and Growth Reconciliation Tax Act of 2003

(report to accompany H.R. 2), H.Rept. 108-94, May 8, 2003.

CRS-34

or more committees are instructed, the committees submit their legislative

recommendations to their respective Budget Committee.

Of the 17 budget resolutions that have contained reconciliation directives,

excluding the FY2006 budget resolution, five budget resolutions contained directives

instructing a committee to report legislation to the House directly.29 Thirteen budget

resolutions directed two or more committees to submit legislative recommendations

to the House Budget Committee.

In either case, the submission material is similar. A committee reporting its

reconciliation recommendations to the House directly must include the required

contents of a written report to accompany the reported legislation. Such information

includes, for example, supplemental, minority, or additional views, a cost estimate,

and committee rollcall votes.30

In the case of submissions to the House Budget Committee, the Budget

Committee typically provides guidance to the instructed committees, requesting that

they include with their reconciliation submissions similar material required in a

committee report. This year, for example, the Budget Committee requested the

following material to be submitted by each instructed committee:

1. legislative text;

2. transmittal letter signed by the committee chairman;

3. summary of the major policy decisions in the legislation;

4. section-by-section description;

5. committee oversight findings;

6. constitutional authority statement;

7. committee votes;

8. Ramseyer statement regarding the text of changes made in existing law;

9. performance goals; and

10. supplemental, additional, and minority views.31

When a committee is directed to submit reconciliation recommendations to the

Budget Committee, it also may report legislation to the House directly. On at least

two occasions, for example, the Ways and Means Committee submitted

reconciliation recommendations to the Budget Committee as well as reporting

The five budget resolutions are those for FY1981, FY2000, FY2001, FY2002, and

FY2004. The FY1981 budget resolution contained a separate reconciliation directive to the

House Appropriations Committee to report legislation to the House directly, in addition to

instructions to multiple committees to submit legislation to the House Budget Committee.

Therefore, the FY1981 budget resolution also is counted as one (of the 13) which included

instructions to submit legislation to the House Budget Committee.

For additional information on the required contents of committee reports, see CRS Report

98-169 GOV, House Committee Reports: Required Contents, by (name redacted).

House Budget Committee, House Reconciliation Guidelines, June 24, 2005, pp. 2-3

(prepared by the Republican staff). For additional information, see House Budget

Committee, Budget Reconciliation: What It Is and How It Works, May 18, 2005 (prepared

by the Democratic staff).

CRS-35

legislation, containing those recommendations, to the House directly.32 In addition,

on at least one occasion, several instructed committees reported reconciliation

legislation to the House directly instead of submitting their recommendations to the

Budget Committee. In 1982, four of the nine instructed committees reported

individual reconciliation measures to the House directly. The House considered and

passed each of these measures individually and subsequently incorporated them into

one omnibus reconciliation bill (H.R. 6955, 97th Congress).33

Compliance with Reconciliation Directives. Each instructed committee

is expected to comply with its reconciliation directives, specifically with regard to

submitting its reconciliation recommendations by the date specified and

recommending legislative changes to existing law projected to produce the budgetary

changes specified. Neither the 1974 act nor the Standing Rules of the House

provides a point of order, or any other sanction, against a committee’s reconciliation

recommendations, or the subsequent omnibus reconciliation legislation, for not

complying with the reconciliation directives. The House Rules Committee, however,

as will be discussed further below, under Section 310(d)(5) of the 1974 act, may

make in order amendments to achieve compliance if one or more committees fail to

submit their legislative recommendations pursuant to their reconciliation instructions.

In the past, several committees have submitted their reconciliation

recommendations after the submission deadline or not at all. In 1995, for example,

nine of the 12 instructed committees submitted their reconciliation recommendations

to the Budget Committee after the September 22 deadline.34 All of the tardy

submissions were included in the reconciliation measure reported by the Budget

Committee. In this case, as in the past, it does not appear that the late submissions

caused any procedural consequences.35

In several instances, one or more of the instructed committees did not submit

any legislative recommendations. In at least two years, 1981 and 1995, the House

Rules Committee made in order amendments that provided language within the

jurisdiction of the non-compliant committees to satisfy their reconciliation directives.

In 1995, for example, the Rules Committee made in order an amendment in the

nature of a substitute, offered by then-Budget Committee Chairman John Kasich,

that, among other things, achieved compliance for the House Agriculture

The House Ways and Means Committee reported H.R. 7652 (H.Rept. 96-1150, Prt. 1, July

2, 1980) pursuant to its FY1981 reconciliation directives and H.R. 3850 (H.Rept. 97-143,

Prt.1, June 12, 1981) pursuant to its FY1982 reconciliation directives.

See Congressional Record, vol. 128, Aug. 10, 1982, p. 20216.

The submission date for each committee is reflected on its transmittal letter to the Budget

Committee. See House Budget Committee, Seven-Year Balanced Budget Reconciliation Act

of 1995 (report to accompany H.R. 2491), H.Rept. 104-280, Oct. 17, 1995.

In 1983, due to delays by committees to submit their reconciliation recommendations, the

House extended by unanimous consent the submission deadline from July 22 to September

23. See the print of the House Budget Committee, A Review of the Reconciliation Process,

October 1984, Serial No. CP-9, p. 43. After this instance, it does not appear the House

extended the submission deadline again.

CRS-36

Committee.36 In 1996, several of the instructed committees did not submit

reconciliation recommendations to the Budget Committee, but reconciliation

legislation applicable to those committees was not developed.

Preparation of an Omnibus Measure by the House Budget

Committee

The House Budget Committee plays a significant, if not substantive, role in the

development of reconciliation legislation when two or more committees are directed

to recommend legislative changes pursuant to reconciliation directives. As

mentioned above, when two or more committees are involved, each committee is

required to submit its legislative recommendations to the Budget Committee, by a

certain date, as specified in the reconciliation directives contained in the budget

resolution. Section 310(b)(2) of the 1974 act provides that when the Budget

Committee receives all the legislative recommendations from the directed

committees, it is required to report to the House “reconciliation legislation carrying

out all such recommendations, without any substantive revision.”

In practice, this administrative function has entailed incorporating the

committee’s recommendations as separate titles into an omnibus reconciliation

measure. The Budget Committee has performed this function formally by conducting

a markup of the reconciliation legislation. At the end of the markup, the Budget

Committee orders reported the omnibus reconciliation legislation, containing the

instructed committees’ submissions, as an original bill.

During the markup, amendments are not considered, as in the case of a standard

committee markup, because of the prohibition against any substantive revision to the

instructed committees’ recommendations. The Budget Committee, however,

traditionally has entertained motions to direct the Budget Committee chairman to

request that the Rules Committee make in order certain amendments. In 1997, for

example, during the markup of H.R. 2015, the Balanced Budget Act of 1997,

committee Members made 11 motions to direct the Budget Committee chairman to

request that the rule for floor consideration include an amendment; one motion

passed, seven motions were rejected, and three motions were withdrawn.37

In 1995, the House Agriculture Committee was unable to approve and therefore to submit

reconciliation recommendations. See David Hosansky, “Panel Rejects Farm Overhaul In

a Rebuke to Leadership,” Congressional Quarterly Weekly Report, Sept. 23, 1995, pp. 28752879. See the print of the House Budget Committee, The Seven-Year Balanced Budget

Reconciliation Act of 1995: An Amendment in the Nature of a Substitute for H.R. 2491, Oct.

20, 1995, Serial No. CP-3. The House Rules Committee reported a rule (H.Res. 245,

H.Rept. 104-292) for the consideration of H.R. 2491 making in order the amendment in the

nature of a substitute.

The motion that passed did not explicitly direct the Budget Committee chairman to

request an amendment in the rule, but instead directed the chairman to request a certain

policy impact; the chairman presumably would request a policy impact by requesting the

rule include a certain amendment. See House Budget Committee, Balanced Budget Act of

1997 (report to accompany H.R. 2015), H.Rept. 105-149, June 24, 1997, pp. 1620-1625.

CRS-37

The Budget Committee formally orders reported the omnibus reconciliation

measure to the House with a written report (see Table 4). An original bill

subsequently is introduced in the House by the chairman of the Budget Committee.

Past committee reports have included an overview of the reconciliation measure,

occasionally including comments by the Budget Committee on the instructed

committees’ compliance with the reconciliation directives.

The committee report also typically contains report language submitted by the

committees, including a general explanation of the development of the legislative

recommendations and a section-by-section analysis of the recommendations. As

mentioned above, the committee submissions usually, but not always, include all the

information that is required to be printed in committee reports, such as committee

votes. In most cases, the Budget Committee report has included a cost estimate

prepared by the Congressional Budget Office (or, for revenue measures, the Joint

Committee on Taxation) for the recommended legislative changes submitted by each

committee.

Special Rules and the House Rules Committee

The House considers most major legislation under the provisions of a special

rule, supplementing and at times superseding the Standing Rules of the House. A

special rule, when adopted by the House, governs the consideration of the applicable

measure, including regulating the amending process.38 The House Rules Committee

has the exclusive responsibility for developing and reporting a special rule providing

for the consideration of a measure on the House floor.

The 1974 act contemplates a role for the Rules Committee in the reconciliation

process by providing, under Section 310(d)(5), as mentioned above, that the

committee may make in order amendments to achieve changes specified by

reconciliation directives if one or more committees fails to comply with them. As

with most major legislation considered by the House, reconciliation measures

typically have been considered under a special rule reported by the Rules Committee.

In most cases, the special rule reported by the House Rules Committee was

agreed to by the House (see Table 5). Only one special rule was amended (in 1981

for FY1982), after the previous question was defeated, and only two were rejected

(in 1984 for FY1985 and 1988 for FY1989).

Provisions of the Special Rule. The special rule providing for the

consideration of the reconciliation measure usually has provided for general debate;

made only certain amendments in order; placed debate limitations on some of these

amendments; waived points of order against the consideration of the reconciliation

bill, the provisions of the bill, and certain amendments; and provided for a motion

to recommit with or without instructions.

For further information on special rules, see CRS Report 98-612, Special Rules and

Options for Regulating the Amending Process, by (name redacted).

CRS-38

General debate under special rules providing for the consideration of a

reconciliation measure has ranged from one hour to 10 hours. In 1980, the first time

the House considered an omnibus reconciliation measure, the special rule divided the

general debate time among all the instructed committees plus the Budget Committee.

After 1980, general debate on an omnibus reconciliation measure has been

equally divided between the chair and the ranking minority member of the Budget

Committee. In cases when the reconciliation measure was reported by one

committee, such as in recent years with the Ways and Means Committee, the special

rule has divided the time for general debate equally between the chair and ranking

minority member of that committee.

The special rule providing for the consideration of a reconciliation measure

always has limited the consideration of amendments to the bill; a reconciliation

measure has never been considered under an open rule, as defined by the Rules

Committee. In three instances, the Rules Committee reported and the House adopted

a rule prohibiting any floor amendments (defined as a closed rule by the Rules

Committee).39

On several occasions, especially since the mid-1980s, the special rule provided

that an amendment, or modifications to the underlying reconciliation bill, be

considered as adopted upon the adoption of the special rule (sometimes referred to

as a self-executing provision). The special rule (H.Res. 186) on the Omnibus Budget

Reconciliation Act of 1993, for example, included two self-executing provisions

involving: (1) about two dozen brief amendments affecting various titles in the bill;

and (2) a new title (Title XV) dealing with the budget process. Both of the selfexecuting provisions were printed in the Rules Committee report on the special rule.

Most special rules for the consideration of a reconciliation measure have made

in order very few floor amendments. In fact, many special rules allowed one floor

amendment only, usually an amendment in the nature of a substitute. Moreover, only

five special rules, excluding those that prohibited any floor amendments, allowed

more than two floor amendments; the greatest number of floor amendments made in

order by a special rule was 10 in 1989 (H.Res. 249 for H.R. 3299).

In every instance that a floor amendment was made in order by the special rule,

debate on the amendment was limited by the rule as well. Debate on individual

amendments under the special rules has ranged from 20 minutes to four hours,

equally divided between the proponent and an opponent of the amendment.

Typically, the special rule provided an hour of debate for each floor amendment.

The Rules Committee reported and the House agreed to a closed rule in 1985 (H.Res. 301

for H.R. 3128), 1997 (H.Res. 174 for H.R. 2015), and 2003 (H.Res. 227 for H.R. 2). In

1989, the Rules Committee reported and the House agreed to a special rule (H.Res. 245 for

H.R. 3299) that provided for general debate only, but the subsequent special rule (H.Res.

249) provided for the consideration of amendments; therefore, for purposes of this report,

this special rule is not counted as a closed rule.

CRS-39

All special rules waived one or more points of order against the consideration

of the reconciliation bill, the bill itself, or a floor amendment. In most cases, the

special rule waived all points of order against the reconciliation bill. Two special

rules waived certain points of order against the reconciliation bill except for certain

provisions in the bill.40 In addition, most special rules waived all points of order

against the floor amendments, including amendments in the nature of a substitute,

made in order by the special rule.

Finally, all the special rules providing for the consideration of a reconciliation

measure provided for the offering of a motion to recommit. A motion to recommit

may be offered with or without instructions. Most special rules allowed the motion

with instructions. Four special rules, however, explicitly prohibited any motion to

recommit that contained instructions.41

Floor Consideration: Debate and Amendment

The House floor consideration of a reconciliation measure, as mentioned above,

usually is governed by a special rule. Of the 29 reconciliation measures considered

on the House floor during the period covering 1980 to 2003, 23 measures were

considered under a special rule. Of the remaining six reconciliation measures, five

measures were considered under “suspension of the rules” procedures and one was

considered by unanimous consent.42 This section discusses the consideration of

reconciliation measures under a special rule.

During the House floor consideration of a reconciliation measure under a special

rule, at least three key elements can have a substantive impact on the measure:

amendments, points of order, and motions to recommit the measure. The historical

experience of the House regarding each of these actions is discussed below.

Consideration and Disposition of Amendments. The special rule

providing for the consideration of a reconciliation measure limited the consideration

of floor amendments to those made in order by the special rule. In only one instance,

In 1985 and 1989, the special rules providing for the consideration of the reconciliation

measures (H.R. 3500 and H.R. 3299, respectively) exempted certain provisions in those bills

from the waivers of certain points of order.

The special rules providing for reconciliation measures in 1986 (H.Res. 558 for H.R.

5300), 1987 (H.Res. 298 for H.Res. 3545), 1990 (H.Res. 509 for H.R. 5835), and 1993

(H.Res. 186 for H.R. 2264), prohibited the inclusion of instructions in the motion to

recommit.

The House considered reconciliation measures under “suspension of the rules” procedures

in 1982 (H.R. 6782) and 2000 (H.R. 4601, H.R. 4866, H.R. 5173, and H.R. 5203). For

information on “suspension of the rules” procedures, see CRS Report RL32474, Suspension

of the Rules in the House of Representatives, by (name redacted). The House considered a

reconciliation measure by unanimous consent in 1982 (H.R. 6955). In that case, to facilitate

a conference with the Senate, the measure merged the text of four reconciliation bills

previously passed by the House.

CRS-40

a Member offered an amendment not made in order by the rule.43 In most cases, a

Member offered the amendments made in order by the rule. The number of

amendments offered to a reconciliation bill ranged from one (eight times) to 10

(once).

In six cases, an amendment made in order by the rule was not offered or was

withdrawn by a Member. In one of these cases, a Member attempted to modify his

amendment prior to offering it but was unsuccessful; consequently, he did not offer

his original amendment made in order by the rule.44

With regard to 13 reconciliation measures, one or more amendments were

adopted upon the adoption of the special rule; four of these amendments were

amendments in the nature of a substitute to the reconciliation bill.

Overall, of the 30 floor amendments offered to reconciliation measures, 19

amendments were agreed to and 11 amendments were rejected (see Table 6). This

overall success of amendments, however, masks the variation over the years. In the

early 1980s, for example, almost all of the amendments offered to the reconciliation

measures were agreed to (between 1980 and 1985, 16 of the 19 floor amendments

were agreed to). Since 1985, only eight of the 21 floor amendments to reconciliation

measures were agreed to. Moreover, over half (five) of these eight floor amendments

were offered to one reconciliation measure (H.R. 3299 in 1989).

Raising and Sustaining Points of Order. Any Member may make a point

of order against a pending matter (e.g., a provision in a bill or an amendment) on the

grounds that it violates a rule of the House.45 Unless a special rule waives the

relevant points of order, a reconciliation measure and amendments thereto are subject

to the Standing Rules of the House, such as the germaneness requirement under

clause 7 of Rule XVI.

In addition, as a budgetary measure, a reconciliation bill is subject to the budget

enforcement procedures associated with the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 and

the annual budget resolution.46 In particular, a reconciliation measure and any

amendments thereto must not cause the aggregate spending and revenue levels

(Section 311), and any committees’ spending allocations (Section 302) associated

In 1982, during the consideration of H.R. 6812, Representative St. Germain asked

unanimous consent to offer an amendment to a substitute amendment made in order by the

rule. No objection was made and thus Representative St. Germain was able to offer the

amendment. See Congressional Record, vol. 128, Aug. 5, 1982, pp. 19653-19654.

In 1986, during the consideration of H.R. 5300, Representative Wylie asked unanimous

consent to modify his amendment made in order by the rule. An objection was made by

Representative Bill Gray, the then-Chairman of the House Budget Committee and thus the

modification was not allowed. See Congressional Record, vol. 132, Sept. 24, 1986, pp.

25892-25893.

For a general description of points of order in the House, see CRS Report 98-307, Points

of Order, Rulings, and Appeals in the House of Representatives, by Paul Rundquist.

For more detailed information on these points of order and their application, see CRS

Report 97-865, Points of Order in the Congressional Budget Process, by (name redacted).

CRS-41

with the annual budget resolution, to be exceeded. Under Section 310(d)(1) of the

1974 act, amendments to a reconciliation measure also must be deficit neutral to the

bill.

Most of the special rules providing for the consideration of a reconciliation

measure, however, waived one or more points of order against the bill and floor

amendments made in order. Therefore, while various provisions in the reconciliation

bills or amendments offered thereto might have violated certain points of order under

the Standing Rules of the House or the 1974 act, the special rule prohibited a

Member from raising such points of order.

Two special rules, as mentioned above, made exceptions to the waiver of certain

points of order. In each of these cases, Members raised points of order against the

unprotected provisions during the consideration of the reconciliation measure.

In 1985, for example, the special rule providing for the consideration of H.R.

3500, the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1985, waived any points of order

under clauses 5(a) and (b) of Rule XXI (now clauses 4 and 5(a) of Rule XXI) against

the bill except for certain provisions. Clause 5(a) of Rule XXI prohibited an

appropriation in legislation reported by a committee not having jurisdiction to report

appropriations. Clause 5(b) of Rule XXI prohibited a tax measure reported by a

committee not having jurisdiction to report a tax measure.

During the consideration of H.R. 3500, Representative Sidney Yates raised a

point of order against one of the unprotected provisions that contained an

appropriation in a title of the reconciliation bill reported by a committee not having

jurisdiction to report an appropriation. In addition, Representative Dan

Rostenkowski raised points of order against two unprotected provisions that

contained a tax measure in a title of the bill reported by a committee not having

jurisdiction to report tax measures. In all three cases, the points of order were

sustained and thus the violating provisions were stricken from the bill.47

Motions to Recommit. Under the Standing Rules of the House, one motion

to recommit a reconciliation measure may be offered by a Member opposed to the

measure, with preference given to a Member of the minority party, after the previous

question has been ordered on the measure but before the vote on final passage (House

Rule XIX, clause 2).48 The motion may be made with or without instructions.

A motion to recommit with instructions is debatable for 10 minutes, equally

divided between the proponent and an opponent of the motion; this debate time may

be extended to an hour if requested by the majority floor manager. A motion to

recommit without instructions is not debatable.

All special rules providing for the consideration of a reconciliation measure

allowed for the offering of a motion to recommit. Members offered 16 motions to

See Congressional Record, vol. 131, Oct. 24, 1985, pp. 28812 and 28826-28827.

For more detailed information on the motion to recommit, see CRS Report 98-383,

Motions to Recommit in the House, by (name redacted).

CRS-42

recommit 15 reconciliation bills. Almost all of these motions to recommit (13 of the

16) included instructions. All of the motions to recommit with or without

instructions were rejected. In one case, in 2003, a motion to recommit with

instructions fell on a point of order that it was not germane to the bill.49

Subsequently, another motion to recommit with instructions was offered; it was

rejected.

See Congressional Record (daily ed.), vol. 149, May 9, 2003, pp. H3953-H3954.

CRS-43

Table 4. Initial House Action on Reconciliation Measures: FY1981-FY2005

Committee Report

Fiscal Year

Congress

(Session)

Reconciliation Act

Bill Number

Committee

H. Report

Number

Initial House Action

Date Reported

Date

Vote

1981

96th

(Second)

Omnibus Reconciliation Act

of 1980

(P.L. 96-499; 12-05-80)

H.R. 7765

Budget

H.Rept. 96-1167

07-21-80

09-04-80

294-91

1982

97th

(First)

Omnibus Budget

Reconciliation Act of 1981

(P.L. 97-35; 08-13-81)

H.R. 3982

Budget

H.Rept. 97-158

06-19-81

06-25-81

06-26-81

232-193

1983

97th

(Second)

Omnibus Budget

Reconciliation Act of 1982

(P.L. 97-253; 09-08-82)

H.R. 6782a

Veterans’ Affairs

H.Rept. 97-660

07-23-82

07-27-82

400-0

08-03-82

268-128

H.R. 6862a

H.R. 6812

H.R. 6892a

[none]

Banking, Finance, and

Urban Affairs

H.Rept. 97-683

07-29-82

08-05-82

Voice

Agriculture

H.Rept. 97-687

08-02-82

08-10-82

268-121

08-10-82

Voice

H.R. 6955a

1984

[none]

(First)

Omnibus Budget

Reconciliation Act of 1983

(P.L. 98-270; 04-18-84)

H.R. 4169

Budget

H.Rept. 98-425

10-20-83

10-25-83

Voice

98th

(Second)

Deficit Reduction Act of

1984

(P.L. 98-369; 07-18-84)

H.R. 4170

Ways and Means

H.Rept. 98-432,

Part I

10-21-83

04-11-84

318-97

H.Rept. 98-432,

Part II

03-05-84

CRS-44

Committee Report

Fiscal Year

Congress

(Session)

Reconciliation Act

Bill Number

1985

98th

(Second)

[did not become law]

H.R. 5394

1986

99th

(First)

Consolidated Omnibus

Budget Reconciliation Act of

1985

(P.L. 99-272; 04-07-86)

H.R. 3128

Committee

H. Report

Number

Initial House Action

Date Reported

[none]b

Date

Vote

04-12-84

261-152

10-31-85

245-174

Ways and Means

H.Rept. 99-241,

Part I

07-31-85

Education and Labor

H.Rept. 99-241,

Part II

09-11-85

Judiciary

H.Rept. 99-241,

Part III

09-11-85

H.R. 3500c

Budget

H.Rept. 99-300

10-03-85

10-23-85

10-24-85

228-199

1987

99th

(Second)

Omnibus Budget

Reconciliation Act of 1986

(P.L. 99-509; 10-21-86)

H.R. 5300

Budget

H.Rept. 99-727

07-31-86

09-24-86

309-106

1988

100th

(First)

Omnibus Budget

Reconciliation Act of 1987

(P.L. 100-203; 12-22-87)

H.R. 3545

Budget

H.Rept. 100-391

10-26-87

10-29-87

206-205

1990

101st

(First)

Omnibus Budget

Reconciliation Act of 1989

(P.L. 101-239; 12-19-89)

H.R. 3299

Budget

H.Rept. 101-247

09-26-89

09-27-89

09-28-89

10-03-89

10-04-89

10-05-89

333-91

09-20-89

CRS-45

Committee Report

Fiscal Year

Congress

(Session)

Reconciliation Act

Bill Number

Committee

H. Report

Number

Initial House Action

Date Reported

Date

Vote

1991

101st

(Second)

Omnibus Budget

Reconciliation Act of 1990

(P.L. 101-508; 11-05-90)

H.R. 5835

Budget

H.Rept. 101-881

10-16-90

227-203

1994

103rd

(First)

Omnibus Budget

Reconciliation Act of 1993

(P.L. 103-66; 08-10-93)

H.R. 2264

Budget

H.Rept. 103-111

05-25-93

05-27-93

219-213

1996

104th

(First)

Balanced Budget Act of 1995

(vetoed; 12-06-95)

H.R. 2491

Budget

H.Rept. 104-280

10-17-95

10-25-95

10-26-95

227-203

1997

104th

(Second)

Personal Responsibility and

Work Opportunity

Reconciliation Act of 1996

(P.L. 104-193; 08-22-96)

H.R. 3734

Budget

H.Rept. 104-651

06-27-96

07-18-96

256-170

1998

105th

(First)

Balanced Budget Act of 1997

(P.L. 105-33; 08-05-97)

H.R. 2015

Budget

H.Rept. 105-149

06-24-97

06-25-97

270-162

Taxpayer Relief Act of 1997

(P.L. 105-34; 08-05-97)

H.R. 2014

Budget

H.Rept. 105-148

06-24-97

06-26-97

253-179

Ways and Means

H.Rept. 106-238

07-16-99

07-22-99

223-208

07-12-00

269-159

2000

106th

(First)

Taxpayer Refund and Relief

Act of 1999

(vetoed; 09-23-99)

H.R. 2488

2001

106th

(Second)

Marriage Tax Relief

Reconciliation Act of 2000

(vetoed; 08-05-00)

H.R. 4810

[none]

CRS-46

Committee Report

Fiscal Year

Congress

(Session)

Bill Number

Committee

[did not become law]

H.R. 4601

Ways and Means

[did not become law]

H.R. 4866

[did not become law]

H.R. 5173

Reconciliation Act

H. Report

Number

H.Rept. 106-673,

Part I

Initial House Action

Date Reported

06-12-00

[none]

Ways and Means

H.Rept. 106-862,

Part I

09-18-00

Date

Vote

06-20-00

419-5

07-18-00

422-1

09-18-00

381-3

[did not become law]

H.R. 5203

[none]

09-19-00

401-20

2002

107

(First)

Economic Growth and Tax

Relief Reconciliation Act of

2001

(P.L. 107-16; 06-07-01)

H.R. 1836

[none]

05-16-01

230-197

2004

108th

(First)

Jobs and Growth Tax Relief

Reconciliation Act of 2003

(P.L. 108-27; 05-28-03)

H.R. 2

05-09-03

222-202

Ways and Means

H.Rept. 108-94

05-08-03

Source: Prepared by the Congressional Research Service.

a. The first four measures listed, H.R. 6782, H.R. 6812, H.R. 6862, and H.R. 6892, were considered and passed separately by the House, but later were incorporated into H.R. 6955,

which became the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1982 (except for H.R. 6782, which became public law separately, P.L. 97-306).

b. The House Budget Committee issued a report, Efforts to Reduce the Federal Deficit (H.Rept. 98-673, Apr. 10, 1984) pertaining to the reconciliation recommendations contained

in H.R. 5394, but the report did not officially accompany that measure.

c. Following its passage by the House, H.R. 3500 was incorporated into H.R. 3128 by H.Res. 330.

CRS-47

Table 5. Special Rules Providing for the Consideration of Reconciliation Measures in the House: FY1981-FY2005

Vote

Fiscal Year

Congress/

Session

Reconciliation

Measure

Special Rule

House Rules Committee

Report

Previous Question

Special Rule

Date

1981

96th

(Second)

H.R. 7765

H.Res. 776

H.Rept. 96-126

230-157

206-182

09-04-80

1982

97th

(First)

H.R. 3982

H.Res. 169

H.Rept. 97-160

210-217

214-208

06-25-81

219-208

1983

97th

(Second)

H.R. 6782

[suspension procedure]

H.R. 6862

H.Res. 536

H.Rept. 97-672

—

240-170

07-28-82

H.R. 6812

H.Res. 547

H.Rept. 97-692

—

Voice

08-05-82

H.R. 6892

H.Res. 551

H.Rept. 97-702

—

230-156

08-10-82

H.R. 6955

1984

98th

(First)

H.R. 4169

H.Res. 344

H.Rept. 98-437

—

224-198

10-25-83

H.R. 4170

H.Res. 376

H.Rept. 98-555

—

204-214

11-17-83

H.Res. 462

H.Rept. 98-617

—

Voice

04-11-84

H.Res. 483

H.Rept. 98-672

—

217-196

04-12-84

98th

(Second)

1985

98th

(Second)

[unanimous consent]

H.R. 5394

CRS-48

Vote

Fiscal Year

1986

Congress/

Session

99th

(First)

Reconciliation

Measure

Special Rule

House Rules Committee

Report

Previous Question

Special Rule

Date

H.R. 3500

H.Res. 296

H.Rept. 99-310

—

230-190

10-23-85

H.R. 3128

H.Res. 301

H.Rept. 99-338

219-205

Voice

10-31-85

H.R. 3128

H.Res. 330

H.Rept. 99-410

—

Voice

12-05-85

1987

99th

(Second)

H.R. 5300

H.Res. 558

H.Rept. 99-871

216-196

255-157

09-24-86

1988

100th

(First)

H.R. 3545

H.Res. 296

H.Rept. 100-406

—

203-217

10-29-87

H.Res. 298

H.Rept.

100-411

—

238-182

10-29-87

(2nd leg. day)

H.Res. 245

H.Rept. 101-248

—

316-109

09-26-89

H.Res. 249

H.Rept.

101-261

—

371-49

09-27-89

1990

101st

(First)

H.R. 3299

1991

101st

(Second)

H.R. 5835

H.Res. 509

H.Rept. 101-882

241-184

231-195

10-16-90

1994

103rd

(First)

H.R. 2264

H.Res. 186

H.Rept. 103-112

252-178

236-194

05-27-93

1996

104th

(First)

H.R. 2491

H.Res. 245

H.Rept. 104-292

228-191

235-185

10-26-95

CRS-49

Vote

Fiscal Year

Congress/

Session

Reconciliation

Measure

Special Rule

House Rules Committee

Report

Previous Question

Special Rule

Date

1997

104th

(Second)

H.R. 3734

H.Res. 482

H.Rept. 104-686

—

258-54

07-18-96

1998

105th

(First)

H.R. 2015

H.Res. 174

H.Rept. 105-152

222-204

228-200

06-25-97

H.R. 2014

H.Res. 174

H.Rept. 105-152

222-204

228-200

06-25-97

2000

106th

(First)

H.R. 2488

H.Res. 256

H.Rept. 106-246

—

219-208

07-22-99

2001

106th

(Second)

H.R. 4810

H.Res. 545

H.Rept. 106-545

—

407-16

07-12-00

H.R. 4601

[suspension procedure]

H.R. 4866

[suspension procedure]

H.R. 5173

[suspension procedure]

H.R. 5203

[suspension procedure]

2002

107th

(First)

H.R. 1836

H.Res. 142

H.Rept. 107-68

—

220-207

05-16-01

2004

108th

(First)

H.R. 2

H.Res. 227

H.Rept. 108-94

219-203

220-203

05-09-03

Source: Prepared by the Congressional Research Service.

CRS-50

Table 6. House Floor Amendments and Motions to Recommit to Reconciliation Measures: FY1981-FY2005

Amendments and Motions to Recommit (MTR)

Fiscal

Year

Congress

(Session)

Reconciliation Act

1981

96th

(Second)

Omnibus Reconciliation Act of 1980

(P.L. 96-499; 12-05-80)

1982

1983

97th

(First)

97th

(Second)

Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act

of 1981

(P.L. 97-35; 08-13-81)

Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act

of 1982

(P.L. 97-253; 09-08-82)

Bill

Number

H.R. 7765

H.R. 3982

Sponsor

Disposition

Vote

Giaimo

Agreed to

Voice

Vanick

Agreed to

Voice

Baumann

Agreed to

309-72

Latta (en bloc)

Agreed to

217-211

Broyhill

Withdrawn

—

ANS

Agreed to

Voicea

Schneider (RI) MTR

(with instructions)

Rejected

Voice

H.R. 6782

[none]

H.R. 6862

Derwinski MTR

(with instructions)

Rejected

160-236

H.R. 6812

St. Germain

Agreed to

Voice

Stanton

Agreed to

337-69

Banking ANS

Agreed to

Voice

Agriculture (en bloc)

Agreed to

Voice

H.R. 6892

CRS-51

Amendments and Motions to Recommit (MTR)

Fiscal

Year

Congress

(Session)

Reconciliation Act

Bill

Number

Sponsor

98th

(First)

98th

(Second)

1985

1986

98th

(Second)

99th

(First)

Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act

of 1983

(P.L. 98-270; 04-18-84)

Deficit Reduction Act of 1984

(P.L. 98-369; 07-18-84)

[did not become law]

Consolidated Omnibus Budget

Reconciliation Act of 1985

(P.L. 99-272; 04-07-86)

H.R. 4169

H.R. 4170

H.R. 5394

H.R. 3500

Vote

Zablocki

Agreed to

Voice

Wampler

Rejected

181-210

H.R. 6955

1984

Disposition

[none]

Jones

Agreed to

245-176b

ANS

Agreed to

Voice

Martin MTR

(without instructions)

Rejected

Voice

Ways and Means ANS

Agreed to

Voice

Ways and Means

Agreed to

Voice

Archer MTR

(without instructions)

Rejected

Voice

Jacobs (Ways and Means)

Rejected

Voice

Moore MTR

(with instructions)

Rejected

172-242

Latta

(as modified by unanimous

consent)

Rejected

209-219

CRS-52

Amendments and Motions to Recommit (MTR)

Fiscal

Year

Congress

(Session)

Reconciliation Act

Bill

Number

H.R. 3128

Sponsor

Disposition

Vote

Fazio

Agreed to

222-205

Florio

Agreed to

Voice

Latta MTR

(without instructions)

Rejected

Voice

Gradison MTR

(with instructions)

Rejected

183-238

1987

99th

(Second)

Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act

of 1986

(P.L. 99-509; 10-21-86)

H.R. 5300

1988

100th

(First)

Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act

of 1987

(P.L. 100-203; 12-22-87)

H.R. 3545

Michel (en bloc)

Rejected

182-229

1990

101st

(First)

Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act

of 1989

(P.L. 101-239; 12-19-89)

H.R. 3299

Roukema

Agreed to

250-173

Dorgan

Agreed to

390-36

Anderson

Agreed to

305-116

Rostenkowski

Rejected

190-239

Oxley

Rejected

162-261

Donnelly

Agreed to

360-66

[none]

CRS-53

Amendments and Motions to Recommit (MTR)

Fiscal

Year

1991

Congress

(Session)

101st

(Second)

Reconciliation Act

Bill

Number

Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act

of 1990

(P.L. 101-508; 11-05-90)

H.R. 5835

Sponsor

Disposition

Vote

Panetta

Agreed to

Voice

Stark

Rejected

156-269

Edwards (OK)

Rejected

140-285

Stenholm

Rejected

195-230

Petri MTR

(with instructions)

Rejected

Voice

Rostenkowski (en bloc)

Agreed to

238-192

Panetta (en bloc, as modified by

unanimous consent)

Agreed to

Voice

1994

103rd

(First)

Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act

of 1993

(P.L. 103-66; 08-10-93)

H.R. 2264

Kasich ANS

Rejected

138-295

1996

104th

(First)

Balanced Budget Act of 1995

(vetoed; 12-06-95)

H.R. 2491

Orton ANS

Rejected

72-356

Gephardt MTR

(with instructions)

Rejected

180-250

Ney

Agreed to

239-184

Tanner ANS

Rejected

168-258

1997

104th

(Second)

Personal Responsibility and Work

Opportunity Reconciliation Act of

1996 (P.L. 104-193; 08-22-96)

H.R. 3734

CRS-54

Amendments and Motions to Recommit (MTR)

Fiscal

Year

1998

2000

2001

Congress

(Session)

105th

(First)

106th

(First)

106th

(Second)

Reconciliation Act

Bill

Number

Sponsor

Disposition

Vote

Tanner MTR

(with instructions)

Rejected

203-220

Balanced Budget Act of 1997

(P.L. 105-33; 08-05-97)

H.R. 2015

Brown (OH) MTR

(with instructions)

Rejected

207-223

Taxpayer Relief Act of 1997

(P.L. 105-34; 08-05-97)

H.R. 2014

Rangel ANS

Rejected

197-235

Peterson (MN) MTR

(with instructions)

Rejected

164-268

Rangel ANS

Rejected

173-258

Tanner MTR

(with instructions)

Rejected

211-220

Rangel ANS

Rejected

198-230

Rangel MTR

(with instructions)

Rejected

197-230

Taxpayer Refund and Relief Act of

1999

(vetoed; 09-23-99)

H.R. 2488

Marriage Tax Relief Reconciliation

Act of 2000

(vetoed; 08-05-00)

H.R. 4810

[did not become law]

H.R. 4601

[none]

[did not become law]

H.R. 4866

[none]

[did not become law]

H.R. 5173

[none]

[did not become law]

H.R. 5203

[none]

CRS-55

Amendments and Motions to Recommit (MTR)

Fiscal

Year

Congress

(Session)

2002

107th

(First)

Economic Growth and Tax Relief

Reconciliation Act of 2001

(P.L. 107-16; 06-07-01)

H.R. 1836

Rangel ANS

Rejected

2004

108th

(First)

Jobs and Growth Tax Relief

Reconciliation Act of 2003

(P.L. 108-27; 05-28-03)

H.R. 2

Rangel MTR

(with instructions)

Fell on point of

orderc

Moore MTR

(with instructions)

Rejected

Reconciliation Act

Bill

Number

Sponsor

Disposition

Vote

188-239

—

202-218

Source: Prepared by the Congressional Research Service.

Note: “ANS” refers to an amendment in the nature of a substitute.

a. The previous question on the amendment was agreed to by a vote of 215-212.

b. The amendment was agreed to in the Committee of the Whole on a division vote of 31-24. The amendment, subsequently, was agreed to in the House on a vote of 245-176, as

indicated.

c. The ruling of the chair was appealed and a motion to table the appeal was agreed to by a vote of 222-202.

CRS-56

Initial Consideration in the Senate

The initial consideration of reconciliation measures in the Senate is potentially

a complex process that parallels House action in some respects, but differs

significantly in others. Four aspects of Senate action at this stage of the

reconciliation process are addressed in this section: (1) the development of

legislative recommendations by the instructed committees; (2) the preparation of an

omnibus measure by the Senate Budget Committee; (3) floor consideration of

reconciliation legislation; and (4) the operation of the Senate’s “Byrd rule.”

Development of Legislative Recommendations by the

Instructed Committees

The reconciliation directives contained in the budget resolution, as finally

agreed to by the House and Senate, inform each instructed Senate committee as to the

type and scope of the legislative recommendations it must develop in order to comply

with the directives. In addition, the reconciliation directives include a deadline for

the submission of legislative recommendations to the Budget Committee or the

reporting of legislation directly to the Senate.

Whether a committee has been instructed to submit legislative recommendations

to the Senate Budget Committee for inclusion in an omnibus reconciliation measure,

or has been instructed to report a reconciliation measure directly to the Senate, it

develops its recommendations in generally the same manner as it develops other

legislation.50 In doing so, the committee must adhere to the pertinent requirements

in the Standing Rules of the Senate, as well as it own committee rules, including

rules regarding the reporting of a measure or matter.51

Relationship With the Budget Committee. Prior to the commencement

of work by the instructed committees on their reconciliation recommendations, the

Senate Budget Committee usually sends a set of “guidelines” to the chairman and

ranking member of each committee. The guidelines summarize the applicable

procedural requirements stemming from the budget resolution containing the

reconciliation directives and pertinent provisions of the Congressional Budget Act

of 1974, and provide additional information on related matters, such as scoring

conventions that will be used to evaluate the reconciliation recommendations. The

Budget Committee also may advise each instructed committee on drafting

considerations (e.g., the number of the title or titles in the measure for the

committee’s recommendations) to avoid confusion when compiling the committee

recommendations into a single measure.

“Fact Sheets” and other reports of the Congressional Research Service on different aspects

of Senate committee, floor, and conference procedure may be found on the CRS website at

[http://www.crs.gov/products/guides/senate/explanations/SenateExplanations.shtml]

For an example of committee rules, see the rules of the Senate Finance Committee for the

109th Congress inserted by Chairman Grassley in the Congressional Record (daily ed.), vol.

151, Jan. 25, 2005, at pp. S425-S426.

CRS-57

In most instances, the instructed committees maintain an ongoing relationship

with the Budget Committee during the process of developing their legislative

recommendations, at least informally at the staff level. Consultations occur between

the committees to foster a clear understanding of procedural requirements, to assess

potential compliance issues with the aim of avoiding them, and for other reasons. In

addition, the instructed committees regularly consult with CBO and, if appropriate,

the Joint Committee on Taxation (JCT) on the budgetary implications of policy

options and other budget-related assessments, and seek appropriate guidance and

support from the Parliamentarian, Legislative Counsel, and other offices.

Hearings, Markup, and Reporting or Submission of

Recommendations. While committees typically are afforded a certain amount of

flexibility in conducting their legislative activities, Senate Rule XXVI, entitled

“Committee Procedure,” lays out basic requirements with regard to such matters as

the scheduling of meetings and hearings, quorums, openness, and voting and

reporting requirements.

As in the case of other legislation, instructed committees often hold hearings

prior to marking up their legislative recommendations. The Senate Finance

Committee, for example, held multiple hearings at the full committee and

subcommittee level before marking up a revenue reconciliation measure on June 19,

1997. Over a period spanning from February 4 through June 5 of that year, the

committee held 10 full committee and two subcommittee hearings on topics related

to the reconciliation recommendations, covering such matters as the status of the

Airport and Airway Trust Fund, Individual Retirement Account proposals, capital

gains and losses, the Administration’s FY1998 budget, and tax proposals related to

education, health care, and small business.52

Committees may proceed by marking up a bill that already has been introduced.

The most common approach, however, is for the committee to originate legislation

in the markup, such as by considering a “chairman’s mark,” which may be altered by

the adoption of amendments in committee.

Before an instructed committee can submit reconciliation legislation to the

Budget Committee or report it directly to the Senate, it must meet to consider and

approve the legislation, including relevant amendments and motions that may be

offered, and then order the legislation reported by a majority vote. A majority of the

committee must be physically present in order to vote to report the legislation;

otherwise, a point of order may be raised on the Senate floor to prevent its

consideration.53

Committee Report or Submission Requirements. In addition to

complying with reporting requirements under Senate Rule XXVI, the committee

must comply with reporting requirements in Section 308 (2 U.S.C. 637), Section 402

Senate Finance Committee, Revenue Reconciliation Act of 1997 (to accompany S. 949),

S.Rept. 105-33, June 20, 1997, p. 2.

See CRS Report 98-246, Reporting a Measure from a Senate Committee, by (name red

acted), which discusses the requirements under Senate Rule XXVI, Paragraph 7(a)(1) and (3).

CRS-58

(2 U.S.C. 653), and Section 423 (2 U.S.C. 658b) of the 1974 act. These sections

pertain to various analyses of budgetary legislation, including cost estimates and

assessments of unfunded mandates prepared by CBO and, in the case of revenue

legislation, the JCT. The CBO and JCT estimates must be included in committee

reports only if they are available in a timely manner.

Further, with respect to revenue legislation, Section 4022(b) of the Internal

Revenue Service Reform and Restructuring Act of 1998 (P.L. 105-206) requires the

inclusion of a tax complexity analysis in the report accompanying any revenue

measure reported by the House Ways and Means Committee, the Senate Finance

Committee, or a conference committee, if the measure directly or indirectly amends

the Internal Revenue Code and has widespread applicability to individuals or small

businesses.

Committee submissions to the Budget Committee usually consist of four

required elements. In addition to the legislative text, the submission includes the

committee report language, the CBO or JCT estimates, and a transmittal letter signed

by the chairman of the instructed committee. In many instances, the ranking member

of the instructed committee signs the transmittal letter as well.

Like committee reports on other measures, the committee report language

accompanying reconciliation legislation may include additional, supplemental, or

dissenting views, which allow committee members individually, or as part of a group,

to amplify their views, register their concerns, or express their dissent regarding part

or all of the legislation. In the case of 1995 reconciliation legislation, for example,

eight minority members of the Budget Committee signed a statement collectively

expressing their views.54

On occasion, the CBO or JCT estimates may not be prepared in time for

inclusion in the committee’s submission and are omitted, but usually become

available in time for inclusion in the Budget Committee’s report on the omnibus

reconciliation measure. On other occasions, the instructed committee may include

CBO or JCT estimates that are preliminary and are revised later.

While a committee that is participating in the development of an omnibus

reconciliation measure must submit its legislative recommendations to the Budget

Committee, it may also publish them separately or report them as separate legislation

altogether.

Senate committee actions that led to the enactment of two reconciliation acts in

one year during the 105th Congress, the Balanced Budget Act of 1997 and the

Taxpayer Relief Act of 1997, illustrate the potential complexity involved. The

FY1998 budget resolution provided for a revenue reconciliation act and an omnibus

spending reconciliation act.

Senate Budget Committee, Balanced Budget Reconciliation Act of 1995, S.Prt. 104-36,

October 1995, pp. 11-23.

CRS-59

The initial Senate version of the spending reconciliation measure, the Balanced

Budget Act (S. 947), originated in the Budget Committee and was reported on June

20, 1997. In lieu of a written report on the bill, the Budget Committee issued a 241page committee print containing the transmittal letters, report language, and cost

estimates provided by the eight instructed Senate committees.55 The print included

(on pages 71-197) a 126-page submission from the Senate Finance Committee. As

a supplement to the Budget Committee’s print, the Finance Committee issued its own

474-page committee print, explaining its spending reconciliation recommendations

in more detail.56

The initial Senate version of the revenue reconciliation measure, the Taxpayer

Relief Act of 1997 (S. 949), was reported directly to the Senate by the Finance

Committee (because it was the sole committee subject to revenue reconciliation

directives) on June 20. The committee issued a written report to accompany the

measure.57

Preparation of an Omnibus Measure by the Senate Budget

Committee

In the course of preparing an omnibus reconciliation measure, the Budget

Committee’s task usually is described as a “ministerial function.” Under Section

310(b)(2) of the 1974 act, after receiving the legislative recommendations of the

instructed committees, the Budget Committee must report omnibus reconciliation

legislation carrying out the recommendations “without any substantive revision.”

Ensuring Accuracy and Completeness. Although this task may be

described correctly as being ministerial, the Budget Committee still is faced with

several issues at this point. First, the Budget Committee must endeavor to ensure

that all responses from instructed committees are complete and accurate. As

indicated previously, the Budget Committee secures any CBO or JCT estimates that

were not prepared in time for inclusion with the committee submissions, or secures

final estimates in place of preliminary ones.

In order to ensure accuracy, the Budget Committee from time to time has made

technical corrections in the submissions at the request of the instructed committees.

In the case of reconciliation legislation in 1996 dealing with welfare reform, for

example, both of the instructed committees asked the Budget Committee to make

corrections in their previous submissions. On July 9, 1996, Chairman Richard Lugar

and Ranking Member Patrick Leahy of the Senate Agriculture, Nutrition, and

Forestry Committee sent a letter to Budget Committee Chairman Pete Domenici,

Senate Budget Committee, Balanced Budget Reconciliation Act of 1997, S.Prt. 105-30,

June 1997.

Senate Finance Committee, Budget Reconciliation Recommendations of the Committee

on Finance (Spending Provisions), S.Prt. 105-29, June 1997.

Senate Finance Committee, Revenue Reconciliation Act of 1997 (to accompany S. 949),

S.Rept. 105-33, June 20, 1997.

CRS-60

with technical corrections to four provisions in the June 28 submission attached.58

Similarly, on July 15, Chairman William Roth of the Finance Committee sent a letter

to Chairman Domenici notifying him that the July 11 submission “inadvertently

included a change to the child care section of the bill which was not actually made

by the Committee.”59 The Budget Committee indicated that it had made the changes

requested by both committees. It was the instructed committees, and not the Budget

Committee, that had the authority to make these changes.

Dealing With Tardy Responses. A second issue faced by the Budget

Committee is what to do if one or more committees does not submit its

recommendations by the deadline. The initial practice of the Senate was to extend

the deadline when the Budget Committee felt that such action was warranted. This

practice was motivated by the view that including tardy committee submissions could

“taint” the reconciliation measure, thereby causing it to lose its privilege and the

protection of expedited procedures. In 1985, for example, the Senate extended the

September 27 deadline set in the FY1986 budget resolution to October 1 by

unanimous consent in order to accommodate the Banking, Housing, and Urban

Affairs Committee.60 In some instances, the deadline was extended in a series of

tightly constrained steps. In 1986, for example, the deadline of July 25 set in the

FY1987 budget resolution was extended to 6:00 p.m. on July 29, to 12:00 noon on

July 30, and then to 3:30 p.m. on that same day, July 30.61 Finally, the deadline has

been extended by larger margins; the July 28 deadline in the FY1988 budget

resolution was extended to September 29 and then to October 19.62

Under more recent practice, the Budget Committee may be afforded some

discretion in awaiting the responses of tardy committees in order to include them in

the omnibus reconciliation measure. While the budget resolution provides a deadline

for the submissions by the instructed committees, it does not impose a reporting

deadline on the Budget Committee. Under Section 310(b)(2) of the 1974 act, the

Budget Committee is obliged to report the omnibus reconciliation measure only

“upon receiving all such recommendations.” Consequently, the Budget Committee’s

obligation to report does not ripen until all recommendations have been received,

even tardy ones.63

Senate Budget Committee, Personal Responsibility, Work Opportunity, and Medicaid

Restructuring Act of 1996, S.Prt. 104-58, July 1996, pp. 12-13.

Ibid., pp. 72-73.

See the remarks of Senator Bob Dole in the Congressional Record (daily ed.), vol. 131,

Oct. 1, 1985, p. S12344.

See the Congressional Record (daily ed.), vol. 132, of July 28 (p. S9709), July 29 (p.

S9773), and July 30, 1986 (p. S9840).

See the Congressional Record (daily ed.) , vol. 133, of July 28 (p. S10800) and Sept. 29,

1987 (p. S13111).

For one Budget Committee chairman’s interpretation of the committee’s discretion, see

the remarks of Senator James Sasser in the Congressional Record (daily ed.), vol. 134, of

Oct. 4, 1989, p. S12589.

CRS-61

Nonetheless, the Budget Committee is expected to report the omnibus

reconciliation measure in a reasonably prompt manner. Accordingly, when faced

with lingering delay in the responses by one or more instructed committees, it may

choose to report the omnibus reconciliation measure without the responses and seek

a remedy for the omissions during floor consideration.

Evaluating Compliance. A third task facing the Budget Committee at this

stage of the reconciliation process, and perhaps the most important one, is evaluating

compliance by the responding committees. Compliance may be judged by several

criteria. First and foremost, the Budget Committee assesses whether each instructed

committee has met the goals laid out in the reconciliation directives. In the case of

each committee, the estimated levels of spending changes (and, if appropriate,

revenue changes and debt-limit changes) that would be achieved for each time period

are measured against the instructed levels.

Although the Budget Committee and each instructed committee receives cost

estimates from CBO and the JCT, it is the Budget Committee’s responsibility and

prerogative to assess committee compliance on the basis of spending or revenue

levels. In measuring compliance, the Budget Committee sometimes will make

adjustments to the estimates provided by CBO or the JCT. One such adjustment,

which occurred in 1995, involved a change in the enactment date assumed by CBO,

which shortened the time available in FY1996 for the sale of the Naval Petroleum

Reserves. As a consequence of this change, CBO judged that the sale could not be

completed in FY1996 and reduced the savings attributed to the Armed Services

Committee accordingly. As explained by the Senate Budget Committee:

The FY1996 budget resolution assumed an October 1, 1995

enactment date and the reconciliation instructions to committees were

based on this enactment date. Due to the delay of some of the

committee’s submissions and other factors, CBO is currently using a

November 15, 1995 enactment date. As a result, some committees

followed the assumptions in the budget resolution and still failed to

meet their fiscal year 1996 reconciliation instruction because of this

change in the assumption on the enactment date.... However, if a

committee follows the assumptions in the budget resolution and fails

to meet its instructions for fiscal year 1996 solely because of an

assumption on the enactment date, the Senate Budget Committee will

hold the committee harmless and will score the committee as

achieving its instruction. Therefore, with this adjustment, the Armed

Services Committee has complied with the budget resolution’s

reconciliation instructions for FY1996.64

A second criterion for determining compliance involves the “fungibility rule,”

which is set forth in Section 310(c) of the 1974 act.65 The purpose of the rule is to

Senate Budget Committee, Balanced Budget Reconciliation Act of 1995, S.Prt. 104-36,

October 1995, p. 3.

The fungibility rule was established by the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit

Control Act of 1985 (Title II of P.L. 99-177; December 12, 1985; 99 Stat. 1037-1101).

(continued...)

CRS-62

allow some flexibility in the response of a committee instructed to change both

spending and revenues. The fungibility rule may not apply if revenue and spending

changes are reported in separate reconciliation measures pursuant to separate

directives.

In sum, the fungibility rule: (1) applies to any Senate (or House) committee that

is subject to reconciliation directives in a budget resolution requiring it to recommend

reconciliation legislation changing both spending and revenues; (2) deems any such

committee to be in compliance with its reconciliation directives if its recommended

legislation does not cause either the spending changes or the revenue changes to

exceed or fall below the directives by more than 20% of the sum of the two types of

changes, and the total amount of changes recommended is not less than the total

amount of changes that were directed; and (3) authorizes the chairman of the Senate

Budget Committee to file appropriate adjustments in the levels in the budget

resolution, and committee spending allocations thereunder, upon the exercise of the

rule, and requires any committee receiving revised spending allocations to promptly

report Section 302(b) suballocations.

The operation of this rule in the Senate was described in 1993 in a print of the

Senate Budget Committee, as follows:

For an example of the rule in operation, take the case of a budget resolution

that instructs a committee to achieve $3 million in outlay reductions and $7

million in revenue increases, for a total of $10 million in deficit reduction. By

virtue of this section, that committee may permissibly achieve outlay reductions

as low as $1 million ($3 million minus 20 percent of $10 million, or $2 million),

as long as it achieves a total of at least $10 million in deficit reduction by also

achieving at least $9 million in revenue increases. Alternatively, the committee

may achieve revenue increases as low as $5 million ($7 million minus 20 percent

of $10 million, or $2 million), as long as it achieves a total of at least $10 million

in deficit reduction by also achieving outlay reductions of at least $5 million.66

In its current form, the fungibility rule authorizes the chairman of the Senate

Budget Committee to file changes in budget resolution levels, and committee

spending allocations thereunder, whenever the rule is exercised, and to require that

(...continued)

Section 201(b) of the 1985 act (beginning at 99 Stat. 1040) set forth a substitute for Title III

of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, including a new Section 310(c), “Compliance

With Reconciliation Directions” (99 Stat. 1054). Originally, Section 310(c) set forth

reporting requirements for when a single committee in each House and when multiple

committees in each House are given reconciliation directions and defined the term

“reconciliation resolution”; this subject matter was moved to Section 310(b) by the 1985 act.

The new Section 310(c) originated in conference; although both the House and Senate

initially passed versions of the act containing changes in the reconciliation process, this

particular change was not included in the versions that passed each body.

Senate Budget Committee, Budget Process Law Annotated, S.Prt. 103-49, October 1993,

p. 168 (annotations by William G. Dauster, Chief Counsel).

CRS-63

any committee receiving revised spending allocations promptly report Section 302(b)

suballocations.67

As Senate and House rules grant jurisdiction over revenue matters primarily to

the Senate Finance Committee and House Ways and Means Committee, respectively,

these are the two main committees to which the fungibility rule applies.

Finally, a third criterion for assessing committee compliance with the

reconciliation directives is the Senate’s “Byrd rule,” which is discussed in detail

below. Briefly, the rule bars the inclusion of matter in reconciliation legislation that

is extraneous to the purposes of the reconciliation directives.

The Parliamentarian also plays a role in assessing compliance with

reconciliation directives, determining whether provisions from the instructed

committees are within their respective jurisdictions. Further, the Parliamentarian

determines, as a threshold matter, whether the assembled submissions from the

instructed committees constitute a reconciliation bill and, thus, whether the bill may

be considered under the expedited procedures of the reconciliation process.

While the Budget Committee must report the legislative recommendations

submitted to it, the committee need not necessarily issue a written report. Beginning

in the late 1980s, the practice of the Senate Budget Committee has been to report

omnibus reconciliation bills without a written report. The purpose of this practice

is to avoid both a Budget Committee rule providing for time to submit additional and

minority views, and the Senate rule requiring legislation accompanied by a written

report to lay over for a period of time before floor consideration. The Budget

Committee usually issues a committee print explaining the legislation in lieu of a

report.

The Budget Committee, because it must report an omnibus reconciliation bill

“without any substantive revision,” may not resolve any substantive issues on noncompliance at this point. The Budget Committee may, however, in concert with the

leadership, evaluate strategies for remedying the non-compliance on the Senate floor

through one or more manager’s amendments or by other means.

Floor Consideration: Debate and Amendment

The basic contours of Senate procedure for the consideration of reconciliation

measures are shaped by Section 310 of the 1974 act. In particular, Section 310(e)

provides that the provisions of Section 305 of the act, which establish procedures for

the consideration of budget resolutions and conference reports thereon in the Senate,

shall also apply to the consideration of reconciliation measures and conference

reports thereon. In one important exception, a 20-hour limit on debate is set for

reconciliation measures, instead of the 50-hour limit applicable to budget resolutions.

The timetable for the congressional budget process set out in Section 300 of the

1974 act indicates that Congress should complete action on any required

See Section 13207(c) of P.L. 101-508 (104 Stat. 1388-618 and 619).

CRS-64

reconciliation by June 15. While Section 310(f) of the act is intended to enforce this

deadline in the House (by barring the consideration in July of an adjournment

resolution providing for the traditional August recess if the House has not completed

action), the act does not contain any comparable provision for the Senate.

Like other budgetary legislation, reconciliation measures generally must be in

compliance with budget enforcement procedures in the 1974 act and included in

annual budget resolutions. In particular, spending levels in the measure must not

cause any committee’s spending allocations under the budget resolution to be

exceeded (Section 302), revenues levels in the measure must not drop below the

revenue floor established in the budget resolution (Section 311), and no policy or

procedural matters within the Budget Committee’s jurisdiction can be included

(Section 306), or the bill will be subject to points of order under these sections that

require a three-fifths vote to waive.

Patterns in the Consideration of Senate and House Legislation.

During the period from 1980-2004, covering budget resolutions for FY1981-FY2005,

the Senate completed action on a total of 19 reconciliation acts stemming from

reconciliation directives in budget resolutions for 17 different years (see Table 7).

In all but three of these years, the Senate considered a single reconciliation measure

in response to the reconciliation directives in the budget resolution. In the three

remaining years, the Senate considered two different reconciliation measures each

year, resulting in the enactment of five reconciliation acts — one act in 1980 (for

FY1981) and two acts each in 1982 and 1997 (for FY1983 and FY1998).

As a general matter, the Senate initially considers a single, Senate-numbered

reconciliation measure, either an omnibus reconciliation act reported by the Budget

Committee or a reconciliation act reported by the Finance Committee. Following the

completion of debate and amendment, the Senate positions itself for conference with

the House by taking up the House-passed reconciliation measure, striking all after the

enacting clause, and inserting the text of the Senate-passed measure.

This procedure is especially important with respect to reconciliation measures

that affect revenues due to the requirement in the Constitution that revenue measures

originate in the House. By passing a House-numbered bill in the final instance, the

Senate abides by the constitutional requirement. (After the Senate considers the

Senate-numbered bill, the 1974 act would allow an additional 20 hours to consider

the House-numbered bill, but the Senate usually considered the House-numbered bill

by unanimous consent.)

Different patterns of legislative action have occurred as well. In 1980, for

example, the Senate Budget Committee reported two different original Senate bills

carrying out revenue and spending reconciliation instructions, and the Senate

considered each of them separately. Following their consideration, the Senate

incorporated both of the measures into the House-passed reconciliation bill.68

See Senate action on S. 2885 and S. 2939, and on H.R. 7765, in the second session of the

96th Congress.

CRS-65

Table 7. Initial Senate Action on Reconciliation Measures: FY1981-FY2005

Committee Report

Fiscal Year

1981

1982

Congress

(Session)

96th

(Second)

(First)

Reconciliation Act

Bill Number

Omnibus Reconciliation Act of 1980 S. 2885

(P.L. 96-499; 12-05-80)

S. 2939

Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act

of 1981

(P.L. 97-35; 08-13-81)

Committee

97th

(Second)

Initial Senate Action

Date Reported

Date

Vote

Budget

[none]

06-26-80

06-30-80

89-0

Budget

[none]

07-02-80

07-23-80

Voice

H.R. 7765

Budget

Discharged

09-17-80

Voice

S. 1377

Budget

S.Rept. 97-139

06-17-81

06-22-81

06-23-81

06-24-81

06-25-81

80-15

07-13-81

Voice

07-19-82

07-20-82

07-21-82

07-22-82

07-23-82

50-47

H.R. 3982

1983

S. Report

Number

Tax Equity and Fiscal Responsibility H.R. 4961

Act of 1982

(P.L. 97-248; 09-03-82)

n/a

Finance

S.Rept. 97-494

07-12-82

CRS-66

Committee Report

Fiscal Year

1984

1986

1987

Congress

(Session)

Reconciliation Act

Bill Number

Committee

Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act

of 1982

(P.L. 97-253; 09-08-82)

S. 2774

98th

(First, into

Second)

Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act

of 1983

(P.L. 98-270; 04-18-84)

S. 2062

99th

(First, into

Second)

Consolidated Omnibus Budget

Reconciliation Act of 1985

(P.L. 99-272; 04-07-86)

S. 1730

Budget

S.Rept. 99-146

H.R. 3128

(see also H.R.

3500 for House

action)

Finance

S. 2706

Budget

99th

(Second)

Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act

of 1986

(P.L. 99-509; 10-21-86)

Budget

S. Report

Number

H.R. 6955

Date Reported

07-26-82

Budget

Date

Vote

08-04-82

08-05-82

72-24

08-11-82

Voice

11-16-83

11-18-83

n/a

04-05-84

67-26

10-02-85

10-15-85

10-16-85

10-22-85

10-23-85

10-24-85

11-12-85

11-13-85

11-14-85

[none]

11-14-85

93-6

S.Rept. 99-348

07-31-86

09-17-86

09-18-86

09-19-86

09-20-86

88-7

09-25-86

Voice

n/a

H.R. 4169

H.R. 5300

S.Rept. 97-504

Initial Senate Action

S.Rept. 98-300

11-04-03

n/a

CRS-67

Committee Report

Fiscal Year

1988

Congress

(Session)

100th

(First)

Reconciliation Act

Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act

of 1987

(P.L. 100-203; 12-22-87)

Bill Number

S. 1920

Committee

Budget

H.R. 3545

1990

1991

101st

(First)

101st

(Second)

Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act

of 1989

(P.L. 101-239; 12-19-89)

S. 1750

Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act

of 1990

(P.L. 101-508; 11-05-90)

S. 3209

103rd

(First)

Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act

of 1993

(P.L. 103-66; 08-10-93)

Budget

H.R. 3299

S. 1134

104th

(First)

Balanced Budget Act of 1995

(vetoed; 12-06-95)

S. 1357

H.R. 2491

Date Reported

12-04-87

[none]

10-12-89

n/a

Budget

[none]

10-16-90

n/a

Budget

H.R. 2264

1996

[none]

Initial Senate Action

n/a

H.R. 5835

1994

S. Report

Number

[none]

06-22-93

n/a

Budget

[none]

n/a

10-23-95

Date

Vote

12-09-87

12-10-87

12-11-87

[none]

12-11-87

Voice

10-12-89

10-13-89

[none]

10-13-89

87-7

10-17-90

10-18-90

10-19-90

[none]

10-19-90

54-46

06-23-93

06-24-93

06-25-93

[none]

06-25-93

50-49

10-25-95

10-26-95

10-27-95

[none]

10-27-95

10-28-95

52-47

CRS-68

Committee Report

Fiscal Year

1997

Congress

(Session)

104th

(Second)

Reconciliation Act

Personal Responsibility and Work

Opportunity Reconciliation Act of

1996

(P.L. 104-193; 08-22-96)

Bill Number

S. 1956

H.R. 3734

Committee

Budget

S. Report

Number

[none]

n/a

Initial Senate Action

Date Reported

07-16-96

Date

Vote

07-18-96

07-19-96

07-22-96

07-23-96

[none]

07-23-96

74-24

CRS-69

Committee Report

Fiscal Year

1998

Congress

(Session)

105th

(First)

Reconciliation Act

Balanced Budget Act of 1997

(P.L. 105-33; 08-05-97)

Bill Number

S. 947

Committee

Budget

H.R. 2015

Taxpayer Relief Act of 1997

(P.L. 105-34; 08-05-97)

S. 949

106th

(First)

Taxpayer Refund and Relief Act of

1999

(vetoed; 09-23-99)

S. 1429

H.R. 2488

[none]

Initial Senate Action

Date Reported

06-20-97

n/a

Finance

H.R. 2014

2000

S. Report

Number

S.Rept. 105-33

06-20-97

n/a

Finance

S.Rept. 106-120

n/a

07-26-99

Date

Vote

06-23-97

06-24-97

06-25-97

73-27

06-25-97

Unanimous

Consent

06-25-97

06-26-97

06-27-97

[none]

06-27-97

80-18

07-28-99

07-29-99

07-30-99

08-04-99

57-43

(passage later

vitiated)

07-30-99

Unanimous

Consent

CRS-70

Committee Report

Fiscal Year

2001

2002

2004

Congress

(Session)

Reconciliation Act

Bill Number

106th

(Second)

Marriage Tax Relief Reconciliation

Act of 2000

(vetoed; 08-05-00)

S. 2839

107th

(First)

Economic Growth and Tax Relief

Reconciliation Act of 2001

(P.L. 107-16; 06-07-01)

S. 896

108th

(First)

Jobs and Growth Tax Relief

Reconciliation Act of 2003

(P.L. 108-27; 05-28-03)

S. 1054

Source: Prepared by the Congressional Research Service.

Committee

Finance

S. Report

Number

S.Rept. 106-329

H.R. 4810

Date Reported

07-05-00

n/a

Finance

[none]

H.R. 1836

H.R. 2

Initial Senate Action

05-16-01

n/a

Finance

[none]

05-13-03

n/a

Date

Vote

[none]

07-14-00

07-17-00

07-18-00

61-38

[none]

05-17-01

05-21-01

05-22-01

05-23-01

62-38

05-14-03

05-15-03

[none]

05-15-03

51-49

CRS-71

On two occasions, in 1982 and 1997, the Senate considered separate revenue

and spending reconciliation acts that each became law.69 Three of the four measures

were original Senate bills reported by the Budget Committee (two bills) or the

Finance Committee (one bill), but in the remaining instance the Finance Committee

reported a House-passed bill instead of an original Senate bill.70

In 2001 and 2003, the Finance Committee reported original Senate bills carrying

out revenue reconciliation instructions, but the Senate did n

This text is long and has been trimmed here. Open the source document for the complete record.

This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.