# The Budget Reconciliation Process: House and Senate Procedures

> Briefs, arguments, decisions, and more.

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/crs%3ARL33030

## Record

- **Collection:** Congressional research report
- **Document type:** CRS Report
- **Published:** August 10, 2005
- **Citation:** RL33030

## 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.

1

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.
2

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)
3

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
4

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.
5

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.

6

See CRS Report RL30714, Congressional Action on Revenue and Debt Reconciliation
Measures in 2000, by (name redacted).
7

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

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

9

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).
10

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.
11

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
12

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]

13

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.)

13

(...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).

14

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.
15

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.)

16

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).

17

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)
18

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.
19

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.

20

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.
21

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.
22

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 (-)
or
Increases (+) b

Budget
Year

Final
Year

FY1981

2

+4

-7

-12

+1

—

FY1982

3

0

-137

-137

-38

+1

FY1983

3

+98

-27

-125

-104

-60

FY1984

3

+73

-12

-85

-170

-127

FY1986

3

0

-88

-88

-172

-113

FY1987

3

0

-24

-24

-143

-78

FY1988

3

+64

-29

-93

-108

-50

FY1990

2

+11

-13

-24

-100

-66

FY1991

5

+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 (-)
or
Increases (+) b

Budget
Year

Final
Year

FY1994

5

0

-343 d

-343 d

-254

-202

FY1996

7

-245

—e

—e

-170

+6

FY1997

6

-122

—e

—e

-153

+5

FY1998

5

-85

—e

—e

-91

+2

FY2000

10

-778

0

+778

+141

+248

FY2001

5

-150

0

+150

+170

+232

FY2002

11

-1,250

+100

+1,350

+219

+514

FY2004

11

-535

+15

+550

-385

+37

FY2006

6

-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

2
(1980-1981)

+4.2

-7.4 f

3
(1982-1984)

0.0

3
(1983-1985)

+98.3

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

3
(1986-1988)

0.0

-88.2

-88.2

(on budget)
Budget year:
Second year:
Third year:

-171.9
-154.7
-112.9

1987

S.Con.Res. 120

3
(1987-1989)

0.0

-24.2

-24.2

Budget year:
Second year:
Third year:

-142.6
-115.7
-77.9

1988

H.Con.Res. 93

3
(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

2
(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
5
(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

5
(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

7
(1996-2002)

-245.0 h

—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

6
(1997-2002)

-122.4 h

—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

5
(1998-2002)

-85.0 h

—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

10
(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

5
(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
11
(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

11
(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

6
(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

23

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.
24

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).
25

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

25

(...continued)
privileged non-debatable motion. If printed copies are not available, the reading of the text
may be waived only by unanimous consent.
26

House Budget Committee, Balanced Budget Act of 1997 (report to accompany H.R. 2015),
H.Rept. 105-149, June 24, 1997.
27
28

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

29

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.
30

For additional information on the required contents of committee reports, see CRS Report
98-169 GOV, House Committee Reports: Required Contents, by (name redacted).
31

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

32

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.
33

See Congressional Record, vol. 128, Aug. 10, 1982, p. 20216.

34

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.
35

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

36

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.
37

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.

38

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.

39

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,

40

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.
41

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.
42

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
43

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.
44

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.
45

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.
46

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
47
48

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.

49

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

a

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

th

[none]

98
(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

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

th

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

Pre

[Text truncated at 120,000 characters. The full text is on the page linked above.]

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/crs%3ARL33030. Public record. Not legal advice.