Order Code RL30862
CRS Report for Congress
Received through the CRS Web
The Budget Reconciliation Process:
The Senate’s “Byrd Rule”
Updated April 7, 2005
Robert Keith
Specialist in American National Government
Government and Finance Division
Congressional Research Service { The Library of Congress

---

The Budget Reconciliation Process:
The Senate’s “Byrd Rule”
Summary
Reconciliation is a procedure under the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 by
which Congress implements budget resolution policies affecting mainly permanent
spending and revenue programs. The principal focus in the reconciliation process has
been deficit reduction, but in recent years reconciliation has encompassed revenue
reduction generally and spending increases in selected program areas. Although
reconciliation is an optional procedure, it has been used most years since its first use
in 1980 (16 reconciliation bills were enacted into law and three were vetoed).
During the first several years’ experience with reconciliation, the legislation
contained many provisions that were extraneous to the purpose of implementing
budget resolution policies. The reconciliation submissions of committees included
such things as provisions that had no budgetary effect, that increased spending or
reduced revenues when the reconciliation instructions called for reduced spending
or increased revenues, or that violated another committee’s jurisdiction.
In 1985 and 1986, the Senate adopted the Byrd rule (named after its principal
sponsor, Senator Robert C. Byrd) on a temporary basis as a means of curbing these
practices. The Byrd rule has been extended and modified several times over the
years. In 1990, the Byrd rule was incorporated into the Congressional Budget Act of
1974 as Section 313 and made permanent (2 U.S.C. 644).
A Senator opposed to the inclusion of extraneous matter in reconciliation
legislation may offer an amendment (or a motion to recommit the measure with
instructions) that strikes such provisions from the legislation, or, under the Byrd rule,
a Senator may raise a point of order against such matter. In general, a point of order
authorized under the Byrd rule may be raised in order to strike extraneous matter
already in the bill as reported or discharged (or in the conference report), or to
prevent the incorporation of extraneous matter through the adoption of amendments
or motions. A motion to waive the Byrd rule, or to sustain an appeal of the ruling of
the chair on a point of order raised under the Byrd rule, requires the affirmative vote
of three-fifths of the membership (60 Senators if no seats are vacant).
The Byrd rule provides six definitions of what constitutes extraneous matter for
purposes of the rule (and several exceptions thereto), but the term is generally
described as covering provisions unrelated to achieving the goals of the reconciliation
instructions.
The Byrd rule has been applied to 19 reconciliation measures considered by the
Senate from 1985 through 2004. In 42 of the 55 actions involving the Byrd rule,
opponents were able to strike extraneous matter from legislation (18 cases) or bar the
consideration of extraneous amendments (24 cases) by raising points of order. Nine
of 41 motions to waive the Byrd rule, in order to retain or add extraneous matter,
were successful. The Byrd rule has been used only four times during consideration
of a conference report on a reconciliation measure (twice in 1993, once in 1995, and
once in 1997). This report will be updated as developments warrant.

---

Contents
Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
Legislative History of the Byrd Rule . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
Current Features of the Byrd Rule . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
Definitions of Extraneous Matter . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
Exceptions to the Definition of Extraneous Matter . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
Implementation of the Byrd Rule . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
Byrd Rule Controversies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
Appendix A. Text of the Byrd Rule . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
List of Figures
Figure 1. Laws and Resolutions Establishing the Byrd Rule . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
List of Tables
Table 1. Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Acts: Calendar Years
1980-2004 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
Table 2. Summary of Actions Under the Byrd Rule . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
Table 3. Listing of Actions Under the Senate’s Byrd Rule
(Calendar Years 1985 Through 2004) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18

---

The Budget Reconciliation Process:
The Senate’s “Byrd Rule”
Introduction
Reconciliation is a process established under Section 310 of the Congressional
Budget Act of 1974 (P.L. 93-344), as amended. The purpose of reconciliation is to
change substantive law so that revenue and mandatory spending levels are brought
into line with budget resolution policies. Reconciliation generally has been used to
reduce the deficit through spending reductions or revenue increases, or a combination
of the two. In recent years, however, the reconciliation process also has encompassed
revenue reduction generally and spending increases in selected program areas.
Reconciliation is a two-step process. Under the first step, reconciliation
instructions are included in the budget resolution, directing one or more committees
in each House to develop legislation that changes spending or revenues (or both) by
the amounts specified in the budget resolution. If more than one committee in each
House is given instructions, each instructed committee submits reconciliation
legislation to its respective Budget Committee, which incorporates all submissions,
without any substantive revision, into a single, omnibus budget reconciliation
measure. Reconciliation procedures during a session usually have applied to multiple
committees and involved omnibus legislation.
Under the second step, the omnibus budget reconciliation measure is considered
in the House and Senate under expedited procedures (for example, debate time in the
Senate on a reconciliation measure is limited to 20 hours and amendments must be
germane). The process culminates with enactment of the measure, thus putting the
policies of the budget resolution into effect.
Reconciliation, which was first used by the House and Senate in 1980, is an
optional procedure, but it has been used in most years. Over the 25-year period from
1980-2004, 16 reconciliation bills were enacted into law and three were vetoed.
During the first several years’ experience with reconciliation, the legislation
contained many provisions that were extraneous to the purpose of reducing the
deficit. The reconciliation submissions of committees included such things as
provisions that had no budgetary effect, that increased spending or reduced revenues,
or that violated another committee’s jurisdiction.
In 1985 and 1986, the Senate adopted the Byrd rule (named after its principal
sponsor, Senator Robert C. Byrd) as a means of curbing these practices. Initially, the
rule consisted of two components, involving a provision in a reconciliation act and
a Senate resolution. The Byrd rule has been modified several times over the years.

---

CRS-2
The purpose of this report is to briefly recount the legislative history of the Byrd
rule, summarize its current features, and describe its implementation from its
inception through the present.
Legislative History of the Byrd Rule
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 Houses. 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
Congressional Budget Act (CBA) of 1974 as Section 313. There have been no
further changes in the Byrd rule since 1990.
The Byrd rule originated on October 24, 1985, when Senator Robert C. Byrd,
on behalf of himself and others, offered Amendment No. 878 (as modified) to S.
1730, the Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act (COBRA) of 1985.1
The Senate adopted the amendment by a vote of 96-0.2 In this form, the Byrd rule
applied to initial Senate consideration of reconciliation measures.
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). He opened his remarks by stating:
. . . we are in the process now of seeing . . . the Pandora’s box which has been
opened to the abuse of the reconciliation process. That process was never meant
to be used as it is being used. There are 122 items in the reconciliation bill that
are extraneous. Henceforth, if the majority on a committee should wish to
include in reconciliation recommendations to the Budget Committee any
measure, no matter how controversial, it can be brought to the Senate under an
ironclad built-in time agreement that limits debate, plus time on amendments and
motions, to no more than 20 hours.
It was never foreseen that the Budget Reform Act would be used in that way.
So if the budget reform process is going to be preserved, and more importantly
if we are going to preserve the deliberative process in this U.S. Senate — which
1 For a detailed legislative history of the Byrd rule, see the following print of the Senate
Budget Committee: Budget Process Law Annotated — 1993 Edition, by William G.
Dauster, 103rd Cong., 1st sess., S. Prt. 103-49, October 1993, notes on pages 229-246.
2 The Senate’s consideration of and vote on the amendment occurred on pages S14032-
S14038 of the Congressional Record (daily ed.) of Oct. 24, 1985.

---

CRS-3
is the outstanding, unique element with respect to the U.S. Senate, action must
be taken now to stop this abuse of the budget process.3
The Byrd amendment was included in modified form in COBRA of 1985 (P.L.
99-272), which was not enacted into law until April 7, 1986, as Section 20001 (100
Stat. 390-391). The Byrd rule, in this form, thus became effective on April 7. As
originally framed, the Byrd rule was set to expire on January 2, 1987.
Figure 1. Laws and Resolutions
Over the years, the Senate
Establishing the Byrd Rule
has expanded and revised the
Byrd rule through the adoption
of two resolutions and the
P.L. 99-272, Consolidated Omnibus
inclusion of provisions in four
Budget Reconciliation Act of 1985, Section
laws. Figure 1 lists the laws
2001 (100 Stat. 390-391), April 7, 1986.
and resolutions that have
established and revised the
S.Res. 286 (99th Congress, 1st Session),
Byrd rule.
December 19, 1985.
On December 19, 1985,
S.Res. 509 (99th Congress, 2nd Session),
the Senate adopted by voice
October 16, 1986.
vote a resolution (S.Res. 286),
sponsored by Senator Alan
P.L. 99-509, Omnibus Budget
Simpson and others, that
Reconciliation Act of 1986, Section 7006 (100
extended the application of
Stat. 1949-1950), October 21, 1986.
portions of the statutory
provision to conference reports
P.L. 100-119, Increasing the Statutory
and amendments between the
Limit on the Public Debt, Section 205 (101
two Houses. Because the
Stat. 784-785), September 29, 1987.
enactment of COBRA of 1985
was delayed until early 1986,
P.L. 101-508, Omnibus Budget Reconcili-
the portion of the Byrd rule
ation Act of 1990, Section 13214 (104 Stat.
dealing with conference reports
1388-621 through 1388-623), November 5,
became effective first. The
1990.
provisions of S.Res. 286 were
set to expire on the same date
P.L. 105-33, Balanced Budget Act of
as the provision in COBRA of
1997, Section 10113(b)(1) (111 Stat. 688),
1985 (January 2, 1987).
August 5, 1997.
In the following year, the
Senate was involved in two
actions affecting the Byrd rule.
First, the Senate adopted S.Res. 509 by voice vote on October 16, 1986. The
measure, offered by Senator Alan Simpson and others, modified S.Res. 286 in a
technical fashion. Second, the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1986 was
enacted into law, as P.L. 99-509, on October 21, 1986. Section 7006 of the law made
3 See the remarks of Senator Robert C. Byrd on page S14032 of the Congressional Record
(daily ed.) of Oct. 24, 1985.

---

CRS-4
several minor changes in the Byrd rule and extended its expiration date by one year
— until January 2, 1988.
Further changes in the Byrd rule were made in 1987. These changes were
included in a measure increasing the statutory limit on the public debt, modifying
procedures under the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985,
and making other budget process changes (P.L. 100-119, signed into law on
September 29; see Title II (Budget Process Reform)). Section 205 of the law added
an item to the list of definitions of extraneous matter in the Byrd rule and extended
its expiration until September 30, 1992.
In 1990, Congress and the President agreed to further modifications of the
budget process by enacting the Budget Enforcement Act (BEA) of 1990 (Title XIII
of the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1990). Section 13214 of the law made
significant revisions to the Byrd rule and incorporated it (as permanent law) into the
CBA of 1974 as Section 313 (2 U.S.C. 644).
Finally, the Budget Enforcement Act of 1997 (Title X of the Balanced Budget
Act of 1997) made minor technical changes in Section 313 of the CBA of 1974 to
correct drafting problems with the BEA of 1990.
Current Features of the Byrd Rule
A Senator opposed to the inclusion of extraneous matter in reconciliation
legislation has two principal options for dealing with the problem. First, a Senator
may offer an amendment (or a motion to recommit the measure with instructions)
that strikes such provisions from the legislation. Second, under the Byrd rule, a
Senator may raise a point of order against extraneous matter.
The Byrd rule is a relatively complex rule4 that applies to two types of
reconciliation measures considered pursuant to Section 310 of the CBA of 1974 —
reconciliation bills and reconciliation resolutions.5 (A reconciliation resolution could
be used to make changes in legislation that had passed the House and Senate but had
not yet been enrolled and sent to the President. The practice of the House and Senate
has been to consider only reconciliation bills.)
4 Some of the complexities of the Byrd rule are examined in: (1) Riddick’s Senate
Procedure (S.Doc. 101-28, 101st Cong., 2nd sess., 1992), by Floyd M. Riddick and Alan S.
Frumin, on pages 624-626; and (2) Budget Process Law Annotated — 1993 Edition, by
William G. Dauster, op. cit., beginning on page 198.
5 Part of the Byrd rule, Section 313(a), also applies to reconciliation measures considered
pursuant to Section 258C of the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of
1985. This section, which has never been invoked, provides 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 pay-as-you-go (PAYGO) requirement (or,
previously, the deficit targets). The PAYGO requirement effectively expired at the end of
the 107th Congress (see CRS Report RS21378, Termination of the “Pay-As-You-Go”
(PAYGO) Requirement for FY2003 and Later Years, by Robert Keith.) All of the
reconciliation measures considered by the Senate thus far have originated pursuant to
Section 310 of the CBA of 1974.

---

CRS-5
In general, a point of order authorized under the Byrd rule may be raised in order
to strike extraneous matter already in the bill as reported or discharged (or in the
conference report), or to prevent the incorporation of extraneous matter through the
adoption of amendments or motions. A point of order may be raised against a single
provision or two or more provisions (as designated by title or section number, or by
page and line number), and may be raised against a single amendment or two or more
amendments. The chair may sustain a point of order as to all of the provisions (or
amendments) or only some of them.
Once material has been stricken from reconciliation legislation under the Byrd
rule, it may not be offered again as an amendment.
A motion to waive the Byrd rule, or to sustain an appeal of the ruling of the
chair on a point of order raised under the Byrd rule, requires the affirmative vote of
three-fifths of the membership (60 Senators if no seats are vacant).6 A single waiver
motion can: (1) apply to the Byrd rule as well as other provisions of the
Congressional Budget Act; (2) involve multiple as well as single provisions or
amendments; (3) extend (for specified language) through consideration of the
conference report as well as initial consideration of the measure or amendment; and
(4) be made prior to the raising of a point of order, thus making the point of order
moot.
When a reconciliation measure, or a conference report thereon, is considered,
the Senate Budget Committee must submit for the record a list of potentially
extraneous matter included therein.7 This list is advisory, however, and does not bind
the chair in ruling on points of order.
Determinations of budgetary levels for purposes of enforcing the Byrd rule are
made by the Senate Budget Committee.
Definitions of Extraneous Matter. Subsection (b)(1) of the Byrd rule
provides definitions of what constitutes extraneous matter for purposes of the rule.
The Senate Budget Committee, in its report on the budget resolution for fiscal year
1994, noted:
6 In the Senate, many points of order under the CBA of 1974 require a three-fifths vote of
the membership to waive (or to sustain an appeal of the ruling of the chair). Most of these
three-fifths waiver requirements are temporary, but in the case of the Byrd rule it is
permanent. Section 503 of the FY2004 budget resolution (H.Con.Res. 95, 108th Cong.),
adopted on Apr. 11, 2003, extended the expiration date for the temporary requirements to
Sept. 30, 2008.
7 For an example of such a list, see the remarks of Senator Pete Domenici regarding the
conference report on the Balanced Budget Act of 1997 in the Congressional Record (daily
ed.) of July 31, 1997, at pages S8406-S8408.

---

CRS-6
‘Extraneous’ is a term of art. Broadly speaking, the rule prohibits inclusion in
reconciliation of matter unrelated to the deficit reduction goals of the
reconciliation process.8
A provision is considered to be extraneous if it falls under one or more of the
following six definitions:
(1) it does not produce a change in outlays or revenues;
(2) it produces an outlay increase or revenue decrease when the
instructed committee is not in compliance with its instructions;
(3) it is outside of the jurisdiction of the committee that submitted the
title or provision for inclusion in the reconciliation measure;
(4) it produces a change in outlays or revenues which is merely incidental
to the non-budgetary components of the provision;
(5) it would increase the deficit for a fiscal year beyond those covered by
the reconciliation measure; and
(6) it recommends changes in Social Security.
The last definition complements a ban in Section 310(g) of the CBA of 1974
against considering any reconciliation legislation that contains recommendations
pertaining to the Social Security. For purposes of these provisions, Social Security
is considered to include the Old-Age, Survivors, and Disability Insurance (OASDI)
program established under Title II of the Social Security Act; it does not include
Medicare or other programs established as part of that act.
Exceptions to the Definition of Extraneous Matter. Subsection (b)(2)
of the Byrd rule provides that a Senate-originated provision that does not produce a
change in outlays or revenues shall not be considered extraneous if the chairman and
ranking minority members of the Budget Committee and the committee reporting the
provision certify that —
! the provision mitigates direct effects clearly attributable to a
provision changing outlays or revenues and both provisions together
produce a net reduction in the deficit; or
! the provision will (or is likely to) reduce outlays or increase
revenues: (1) in one or more fiscal years beyond those covered by
the reconciliation measure; (2) on the basis of new regulations, court
rulings on pending legislation, or relationships between economic
indices and stipulated statutory triggers pertaining to the provision;
or (3) but reliable estimates cannot be made due to insufficient data.
8 See the report of the Senate Budget Committee to accompany S.Con.Res. 18, Concurrent
Resolution on the Budget, FY1994 (S.Rept. 103-19, Mar. 12, 1993), at page 49.

---

CRS-7
Additionally, under subsection (b)(1)(A), a provision that does not change
outlays or revenues in the net, but which includes outlay decreases or revenue
increases that exactly offset outlay increases or revenue decreases, is not considered
to be extraneous.
The full text of the Byrd rule in its current form is provided in Appendix A.
Implementation of the Byrd Rule
Congress and the President considered 19 omnibus reconciliation measures (as
shown in Table 1) between calendar year 1980, when the reconciliation process was
first used, and the present.9 As stated previously, 16 of these measures were enacted
into law and three were vetoed (by President Clinton). The Byrd rule has been in
effect during the consideration of the last 14 of these 19 measures. The Byrd rule had
not been established when the first five reconciliation bills were considered.
Table 1. Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Acts:
Calendar Years 1980-2004
Date
Omnibus Budget
Public Law
Statutes-at-
Approved
Reconciliation Act
Number
Large Citation
(or Vetoed)
Omnibus Reconciliation Act of
96-499
94 Stat. 2599-
12-05-80
1980
2695
Omnibus Budget Reconciliation
97-35
95 Stat. 357-933
08-13-81
Act of 1981
Tax Equity and Fiscal
97-248
96 Stat. 324-707
09-03-82
Responsibility Act of 1982
9 The Senate also considered two measures linked to the reconciliation process. 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 budget
resolution instruction. 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. The President 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 of Dec. 15, 1975, regarding the status of H.R. 5559 as a reconciliation bill.
The Deficit Reduction Act of 1984 (P.L. 98-369) was regarded as a reconciliation bill
when it was considered in the House, but was stripped of that classification when it was
considered in the Senate (in April and May of 1984).
For more information on the consideration of reconciliation measures, see CRS Report
RL30458, The Budget Reconciliation Process: Timing of Legislative Action, by Robert
Keith.

---

CRS-8
Date
Omnibus Budget
Public Law
Statutes-at-
Approved
Reconciliation Act
Number
Large Citation
(or Vetoed)
Omnibus Budget Reconciliation
97-253
96 Stat. 763-807
09-08-82
Act of 1982
Omnibus Budget Reconciliation
98-270
98 Stat. 157-162
04-18-84
Act of 1983
Consolidated Omnibus Budget
99-272
100 Stat. 82-391
04-07-86
Reconciliation Act of 1985
Omnibus Budget Reconciliation
99-509
100 Stat. 1874-
10-21-86
Act of 1986
2078
Omnibus Budget Reconciliation
100-203
101 Stat. 1330,
12-22-87
Act of 1987
1-472
Omnibus Budget Reconciliation
101-239
103 Stat. 2106-
12-19-89
Act of 1989
2491
Omnibus Budget Reconciliation
101-508
104 Stat. 1388,
11-05-90
Act of 1990
1-630
Omnibus Budget Reconciliation
103-66
107 Stat. 312-
08-10-93
Act of 1993
685
Balanced Budget Act of 1995
(H.R. 2491)
(vetoed)
12-06-95
Personal Responsibility and
104-193
110 Stat. 2105-
08-22-96
Budget Reconciliation Act of
2355
1996
Balanced Budget Act of 1997
105-33
111 Stat. 251-
08-05-97
787
Taxpayer Relief Act of 1997
105-34
111 Stat. 788-
08-05-97
1103
Taxpayer Refund and Relief Act
(H.R. 2488)
(vetoed)
09-23-99
of 1999
Marriage Tax Relief
(H.R. 4810)
(vetoed)
08-05-00
Reconciliation Act of 2000
Economic Growth and Tax Relief
107-16
115 Stat. 38-150
06-07-01
Reconciliation Act of 2001
Jobs and Growth Tax Relief
108-27
117 Stat. 752-
05-28-03
Reconciliation Act of 2003
768
The Byrd rule was fully in effect during the consideration of all but the first of
the 14 reconciliation bills. During consideration of that bill, the Consolidated
Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1985, the Byrd rule applied to the
consideration of the conference report, but not to initial consideration of the bill.

---

CRS-9
There has been a total of 55 actions involving points of order or waiver motions,
or both, under the Byrd rule.10 (A point of order can be raised under the Byrd rule
without a waiver motion being offered; conversely, a waiver motion can be offered
without a point of order having been raised.) In total, 53 points of order were raised
under the Byrd rule. In two instances, a point of order was not raised because a
waiver motion previously had been offered and approved, thus making the point of
order moot.
On the whole, actions under the Byrd rule have occurred more frequently in
recent years. (However, there were no actions under the Byrd rule in 2001 and only
one in 2003, the last two years in which reconciliation was used). Also, opponents
of extraneous matter in reconciliation legislation generally have used the Byrd rule
successfully.11
Reconciliation legislation has been considered under the Byrd rule over a 20-
year period, covering calendar years 1985-2004. As Table 2 shows, actions taken
under the Byrd rule were less frequent during the first 10 years of this period (16
actions in total), covering 1985-1994, compared to the remaining 10 years (39 actions
in total), covering 1995-2004.
With regard to the 55 total actions pertaining to the Byrd rule, 42 involved
actions that resulted in extraneous matter being stricken or barred while 13 involved
actions that resulted in such matter being retained or added.
Of the 53 points of order raised under the Byrd rule, 42 were sustained, enabling
Senators to strike extraneous matter from the legislation in 18 cases and bar the
consideration of extraneous amendments in 24 cases. Ten of the points of order fell,
either upon the adoption of a waiver motion or upon the ruling of the chair, and one
point of order was withdrawn.
A total of 41 motions to waive the Byrd rule, to permit the inclusion of
extraneous matter, were made. Nine of these motions were successful, while 32 were
rejected. (Two other waiver motions were withdrawn and one was changed to a
unanimous consent request.) Eight of these successful motions were used to protect
committee-reported language in the bill or language in the conference report; only
one motion to protect a floor amendment was successful.
10 The Byrd rule is only one of many point-of-order provisions in Titles III and IV of the
CBA of 1974, as amended (2 U.S.C. 644). In some instances, points of order or waiver
motions are made under the Act by general reference only (such as a Senator raising a point
of order “under Title III of the Act”) rather than by specific reference to the provision(s)
involved. When only general references are made, it usually is impossible to determine (by
reference to debate in the Congressional Record alone) which provision of the act is
involved. Consequently, this report reflects only those instances when specific reference
was made to Section 313 of the act or to the Byrd rule and may undercount somewhat the
actual number of actions involving the rule.
11 It is difficult, if not impossible, to accurately determine the deterrent effect of the Byrd
rule, so this aspect is not addressed in this report.

---

CRS-10
Table 2. Summary of Actions Under the Byrd Rule
Actions to strike
Actions to retain
or bar
or add
Calendar
extraneous
extraneous
Total
year
matter
matter
actions
1985
0
0
0
1986
1
1
2
1987
0
1
1
1988
—
—
—
1989
0
0
0
1990
5
1
6
1991
—
—
—
1992
—
—
—
1993
5
2
7
1994
—
—
—
Subtotal,
11
5
16
1985-1994
1995
8
0
8
1996
5
1
6
1997
12
5
17
1998
—
—
—
1999
3
1
4
2000
2
1
3
2001
—
—
—
2002
—
—
—
2003
1
0
1
2004
—
—
—
Subtotal,
31
8
39
1995-2004
Total
42
13
55
Eight of the nine successful waiver motions exceeded the required 60-vote
threshold by an average margin of 12 votes (the remaining one was approved by
voice vote), while 31 of the 32 unsuccessful waiver motions fell short of the

---

CRS-11
threshold by an average of 13 votes (the remaining one was rejected by voice vote).
Fourteen of the unsuccessful waiver motions garnered at least 51 votes but less than
the 60 votes required to be successful.
Table 3, at the end of this section, provides more detailed information on
actions involving points of order and waiver motions made under the Byrd rule from
1985 through 2004.
The Byrd rule has been used primarily during initial consideration of a
reconciliation measure. It was invoked only four times — twice in 1993, once in
1995, and once in 1997 — during consideration of a conference report. In 1993, two
points of order against matter characterized as extraneous in a conference report were
rejected by the chair. In both instances, the chair’s ruling was upheld upon appeal.
The two motions to appeal the chair’s rulings were defeated by identical votes, 43-57.
In 1995, two sections were stricken from a conference report and the two chambers
had to resolve the final differences with a further amendment between them. In
1997, a section in the conference report was retained following a successful vote (78-
22) to waive a point of order.
In many instances, a point of order was raised against multiple provisions,
sections, or titles of the bill, sometimes covering a variety of different topics. In a
few cases, the Chair ruled that most, but not all, of the provisions violated the Byrd
rule.
Five of the six definitions of extraneousness (the exception being
recommending changes in Social Security) have been cited as bases for invoking the
Byrd rule. The most common basis for a point of order has been that the provision
or amendment did not change outlays or revenues.
On three occasions (in 1985, 1989, and 2001), the Senate considered
reconciliation legislation without taking any actions under the Byrd rule. No actions
were taken under the Byrd rule during consideration of the conference report on the
Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1985, which began on
December 19, 1985; this was the first instance in which the Byrd rule applied.
In 1989, no actions involving the Byrd rule occurred, in large part because the
Senate leadership chose to use an amendment rather than the Byrd rule to deal with
extraneous matter in the bill. On October 13, 1989, during consideration of the
Omnibus Budget Reconciliation of 1989, the Senate adopted Mitchell Amendment
No. 1004 by voice vote. The amendment struck extraneous matter from the bill; its
stated purpose was “to strike all matter from the bill that does not reduce the
deficit.”12
Finally, no actions under the Byrd rule were taken in 2001 during consideration
of the Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act. The potential
12 See the Congressional Record (daily ed.) of Oct. 13, 1989, at page S13349. The Senate
leadership used an amendment for similar purposes during consideration of the Omnibus
Budget Reconciliation Act of 1981.

---

CRS-12
application of the Byrd rule to the tax-cut measure was averted by the inclusion of
a “sunset” provision that limited the duration of the tax cuts to 10 years.
Byrd Rule Controversies
Although the Byrd rule has advocates in the House and Senate, its use
sometimes has engendered much controversy between the two Houses.
In 1993 and 1994, during the 103rd Congress, the stringent application of the
Byrd rule by the Senate significantly influenced the final shape of the reconciliation
act.
The House considered its version of the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of
1993, H.R. 2264, on May 27. The Senate considered its version, S.1134, on June 23
and June 24 (after completing consideration of S. 1134, the Senate amended and
passed H.R. 2264 for purposes of conference with the House). Senator Pete
Domenici, ranking minority member of the Senate Budget Committee, inserted a list
of potentially extraneous matters included in S. 1134 in the Congressional Record
of June 24 (at page S 7984).13 The list identified more than a dozen sections in five
titles of the bill as possibly being in violation of the Byrd rule, specifically Section
313(b)(1)(A) (i.e., producing no change in outlays or revenues).
At the House-Senate conference stage, the Senate leadership directed the
parliamentarian and Senate Budget Committee staff to thoroughly review the
legislation to identify any provisions originating in the House or Senate that might
violate the Byrd rule.14 As a result of this review, many provisions were deleted from
the legislation in conference.
During Senate consideration of the conference report, Senator James Sasser,
Chairman of the Senate Budget Committee, discussed this process:
...with regard to the Byrd rule, we worked very hard and very faithfully over a
period of well over a week in going over this bill to try to clarify and remove
items that might be subject to the Byrd rule.
As the distinguished ranking member indicated, I think over 150 items were
removed from the reconciliation instrument here, because it was felt that they
would be subject to the Byrd rule....
13 This requirement was added by Section 13214 of the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act
of 1990. Consequently, its first application was to consideration of the Omnibus Budget
Reconciliation Act of 1993.
14 See the discussion of “Preemptive Editing of the Conference Report” in Budget Process
Law Annotated — 1993 Edition, by William G. Dauster, op. cit., at pages 245-246. Also,
see (1) Richard E. Cohen, “Running Up Against the ‘Byrd Rule’,” National Journal, Sept.
4, 1993, page 2151; (2) George Hager, “The Byrd Rule: Not an Easy Call,” Congressional
Quarterly Weekly Report, July 31, 1993, page 2027; and (3) Mary Jacoby, “Senate
Parliamentarian Purges Budget Bill of Measures That Could Violate Byrd Rule,” Roll Call,
Aug. 5, 1993, page 9.

---

CRS-13
I might say some of our House colleagues could not understand, and I do not
blame them because there were a number of things that were pulled out of this
budget reconciliation that had been voted on and passed by large majorities in
both houses. But simply because they violated the Byrd rule, we had to go to the
chairmen of the appropriate House committees and tell them they had to come
out. They simply did not understand it. I think it made them perhaps have a little
less high esteem for some of us here in the Senate...In the final analysis, their
leadership had to demand that some of these provisions subject to the Byrd rule
come out.15
During House consideration of the conference report, several Democratic
Members criticized the Byrd rule and discussed its impact on the legislation. For
example, Representative Dan Rostenkowski, chairman of the House Ways and
Means Committee, stated:
...I also have to express my grave concerns regarding the other body’s so-called
Byrd rule. As a result of this procedural rule, policies that would have
significantly improved the Medicare Program could not even be considered.
Over 80 pages of statutory language were stripped out of the Medicare title.
Staff wasted countless hours, scrutinizing every line to ensure that there is
nothing that would upset our friends at the other end of the Capitol. Even more
absurd is the fact that most of the items stripped were minor and technical
provisions that received bipartisan support when they passed both the House and
the Senate last year.
I hope that Members on both sides of the aisle share my grave concerns about
how this rule has been used, and its impact on reconciliation. I sincerely hope
that this rule will be reconsidered before we ever return to the reconciliation
process again.16
Controversy over the Byrd rule persisted during late 1993 and into 1994. The
Joint Committee on the Organization of Congress, co-chaired by Representative Lee
Hamilton and Senator David Boren, was slated to make recommendations on
congressional reform, including changes in the budget process, in December of 1993.
Representative Martin Olav Sabo, chairman of the House Budget Committee, wrote
to Co-Chair Hamilton in October, telling him that “widespread use [of the Byrd rule]
this year was extremely destructive and bodes ill for the reconciliation process in the
future.” Further, he stated that “the use of mechanisms like the Byrd rule greatly
distorts the balance of power between the two bodies” and that strict enforcement of
the Byrd rule “requires that too much power be delegated to unelected employees of
the Congress.”17
15 See the remarks of Senator Sasser in the Congressional Record (daily ed.) of Aug. 6,
1993, at page S10662.
16 See the remarks of Representative Rostenkowski in the Congressional Record (daily ed.)
of Aug. 5, 1993, at page H6126. He discusses specific programs dropped from the
conference report because of the Byrd rule at page H6124. Also, see the remarks that same
day of Representatives de la Garza (at page H6143), Vento (at page H6235), and Stenholm
(at page H6257).
17 Letter from Representative Martin Olav Sabo to Representative Lee H. Hamilton, October
(continued...)

---

CRS-14
Chairman Sabo attached two Budget Committee staff documents to his letter:
(1) a 29-page listing of reconciliation provisions “dropped or modified” in conference
in order to comply with the Byrd rule, and (2) a 3-page statement identifying specific
problems caused by the rule (including a bar against including authorizations savings
in reconciliation, the forcing of piecemeal legislation, incentives to use
counterproductive drafting techniques to mitigate effects, and a bar against provisions
achieving savings or promoting efficiency when the Congressional Budget Office
was unable to assign particular savings to them).
The Senate Members of the Joint Committee on the Organization of Congress
recommended in their final report that a provision clarifying “that the ‘Byrd rule’ is
permanent, applies to conference reports, requires sixty votes to waive, and applies
to extraneous matters” be included in a broad reform bill.18 Legislation embodying
the Senate recommendations (S. 1824) was introduced on February 3, 1994 (the
recommendation pertaining to the Byrd rule was set forth in Section 312 of the bill).
The House Members of the Joint Committee did not include any recommendations
regarding the Byrd rule in their report or legislation (H.R. 3801, also introduced on
February 3, 1994).
The day after the two reform bills were introduced, the chairmen of 15 House
committees wrote to Speaker Tom Foley. They urged him to meet with Senate
Majority Leader George Mitchell in order to get Section 312 of S. 1824, dealing with
the Byrd rule, removed from the reform package.19
On July 19, 1994, Chairman Sabo introduced H.R. 4780. The bill would have
amended the CBA of 1974 to make the Byrd rule “applicable to the Senate only,”
chiefly by removing references to conference reports in Section 313 of the Act.20
None of the three bills cited above were acted upon before the 103rd Congress
adjourned.
During the 106th Congress, the budget resolutions for FY2000 and FY2001
included reconciliation instructions directing the House Ways and Means and Senate
Finance Committees to develop legislation implementing substantial reductions in
revenue.21 The reconciliation instructions in the two budget resolutions called for
17 (...continued)
26, 1993, 2 pages.
18 See Organization of the Congress: Final Report of the Senate Members of the Joint
Committee on the Organization of Congress, S.Rept. 103-215, Vol. I, Dec. 1993, pages 14
and 15.
19 The letter is discussed in: Karen Foerstel, “Byrd Rule War Erupts Once Again,” Roll
Call, Feb. 24, 1994, pages 1 and 13.
20 See the following article for a discussion of the Sabo bill: Mary Jacoby, “Sabo Bill
Would Kill Byrd Rule For Good,” Roll Call, July 25, 1994, page 12.
21 See Sections 104 and 105 of H.Con.Res. 68, the FY2000 budget resolution (the
conference report was H.Rept. 106-91, Apr. 14, 1999), and Sections 103 and 104 of
(continued...)

---

CRS-15
total revenue reduction over five years of $142 billion and $150 billion,
respectively.22 Neither budget resolution included any instructions regarding
spending. This marked the first time that the House and Senate had recommended
substantial reductions in revenue through the reconciliation process without
offsetting savings to be achieved in spending programs. Any resultant reconciliation
legislation was expected under these budget resolutions to reduce large surpluses, not
to incur or worsen deficits.
In each of these two years, there was controversy in the Senate regarding the
appropriateness of using reconciliation procedures under circumstances that
worsened the federal government’s fiscal posture. Some Senators argued that the use
of reconciliation, with its procedural restrictions that sharply curtail debate time and
limit the offering of amendments in comparison to the usual Senate procedures, could
be justified only when it was necessary to reduce or eliminate a deficit (or to preserve
or increase a surplus). Other Senators maintained that reconciliation is neutral in its
orientation — the language in Section 310 of the CBA of 1974 refers to “changes”
in spending and revenue amounts, not increases or decreases — and is intended to
expedite the consideration of important and potentially complex budgetary
legislation.
Against the backdrop of the larger issue of the appropriate use of reconciliation
under these circumstances, Senators also debated in particular the impact of the Byrd
rule on the scope of the resultant tax-cut legislation. One of the determinants of
extraneousness under the Byrd rule is whether the legislation reduces revenues or
increases spending in the net beyond the period to which the reconciliation
instructions apply. Changes in tax law, however, often are made on a permanent
basis. As a consequence, reconciliation legislation recommending permanent tax
cuts may run afoul of the Byrd rule.
During consideration of the Taxpayer Refund and Relief Act of 1999 and the
Marriage Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2000, the Byrd rule was used successfully
to ensure the inclusion of sunset provisions in the bills, limiting the effectiveness of
the tax cuts to the period covered by the reconciliation instructions.23
21 (...continued)
H.Con.Res. 290, the FY2001 budget resolution (the conference report was H.Rept. 106-577,
Apr. 12, 2000). The FY2001 budget resolution also included reconciliation instructions
directing the House Ways and Means Committee to develop legislation reducing the debt
held by the public.
22 The instructions in the FY2000 budget resolution covered 10 fiscal years, while the
instructions in the FY2001 budget resolution covered five fiscal years. The reconciliation
instructions in the FY2000 budget resolution also provided for total revenue reductions of
$778 billion over 10 years.
23 Proceedings under this aspect of the Byrd rule, in the case of the Taxpayer Refund and
Relief Act of 1999, occurred on July 28, 1999; see the remarks of Senators Roth, Moynihan,
Conrad, Gramm, and others in the Congressional Record (daily ed.) of that date on pages
S9478-S9484. With regard to the Marriage Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2000, see the
remarks of Senator Roth in the Congressional Record of July 14, 2000, on pages S6782-

---

CRS-16
During the first session of the 107th Congress, the Senate again addressed these
issues as it considered H.R. 1836, largely embodying President Bush’s proposal for
a $1.6 trillion tax cut.24 In addition to debating the appropriateness of using the
reconciliation process to expedite tax-cut legislation, Senators argued for and against
the inclusion of the 10-year “sunset” provision necessary to achieve compliance with
the Byrd rule. Some Senators maintained that permanent changes in tax law should
be allowed under reconciliation procedures, just as they often are customarily made
in freestanding tax legislation. Other Senators praised the value of being able to
reexamine such significant modifications in budgetary policy in future years when
economic circumstances may have changed materially.
The sunset provision was retained in the final version of the legislation, as
Section 901 (115 Stat. 150) of P.L. 107-16, the Economic Growth and Tax Relief
Reconciliation Act of 2001.
In 2003, during the first session of the 108th Congress, the Byrd rule influenced
the form of revenue reconciliation directives in the FY2004 budget resolution
(H.Con.Res. 95).25 Initially, House and Senate leaders indicated that they would
settle on a conference agreement instructing the House Ways and Means Committee
to reduce revenues through reconciliation by $550 billion or more for the period
covering FY2003-FY2013 and the Senate Finance Committee to reduce revenues by
$350 billion for the same period. A majority of Senators had indicated their
opposition to revenue reductions greater than $350 billion.
The use of dual reconciliation instructions in the budget resolution would enable
the leadership to secure passage of the budget resolution while leaving open the
possibility that a subsequent conference on the differing versions of the revenue
reconciliation measure passed by the two Houses might reach an acceptable
compromise between these two amounts.
However, it soon became apparent that, if the Senate initially passed a revenue
reconciliation measure consistent with the directive in the budget resolution (i.e.,
reducing revenues by $350 billion), the later consideration of a conference agreement
reflecting a compromise level of revenue reductions greater than $350 billion could
violate the Byrd rule. In particular, Section 313(b)(1)(B) defines as extraneous any
provision reported by a committee that reduces revenues (or increases outlays) if the
net effect of all of the committee’s provisions is that it fails to achieve its
reconciliation instructions. Proposing revenue reductions greater than the level of
reductions set in the reconciliation instructions would be considered a failure to
achieve the instructions.
23 (...continued)
S6784.
24 See, for example, the remarks of Senator Robert C. Byrd, “Reconciliation Process
Reform,” in the Congressional Record (daily ed.) of Feb. 15, 2001, on pages S1532-S1536,
and opening remarks of Senator Byrd and others during Senate consideration of H.R. 1836
in the Congressional Record (daily ed.) of May 17, 2001, beginning on page S5028.
25 See H.Rept. 108-71 (Apr. 10, 2003).

---

CRS-17
In order to resolve the problem, the conference agreement on the FY2004
budget resolution instructed both the House Ways and Means Committee and the
Senate Finance Committee to reduce revenues by $550 billion over FY2003-FY2013,
but a point of order barred the initial consideration in the Senate of a reconciliation
measure (as distinct from a conference report) containing revenue reductions in
excess of $350 billion for this period.26 The FY2004 budget resolution further
provided that the Senate point of order could be waived only by the affirmative vote
of three-fifths of the Members duly chosen and sworn (i.e., 60 Senators, if no seats
are vacant). This procedural formulation strengthened the position of those who
favored initial Senate passage of a reconciliation measure limited to $350 billion in
revenue reductions, but removed the potential Byrd rule hurdle should a majority of
Senators later choose to support a conference agreement providing as much as $550
billion in revenue reductions.27
Senator Max Baucus, the ranking minority member of the Senate Finance
Committee, questioned whether the directive to the committee should be regarded as
$350 billion or $550 billion.28 Ultimately, Senator Charles Grassley, chairman of the
Senate Finance Committee, indicated that he had reached agreement with other
Senators to adhere to the $350 billion level in the conference on the reconciliation
measure, notwithstanding the fact that the limitation in Section 202 of the budget
resolution only applied to initial consideration of the measure.29 The resultant
reconciliation measure (H.R. 2), according to final estimates of the Congressional
Budget Office and Joint Tax Committee, contained $349.7 billion in revenue
reductions and related outlay changes.30
26 The reconciliation directives are set forth in Section 201 of H.Con.Res. 95; the Senate
point of order is set forth in Section 202. A portion of the reconciled amounts is set forth
as outlay increases in order to accommodate changes in tax programs (e.g., refundable tax
credits) that are scored as outlays. Consequently, the aggregate instruction of $550 billion
is actually $535 billion in revenue reductions and $15 billion in outlay increases in the
House, and $522.524 billion in revenue reductions and $27.476 billion in outlay increases
in the Senate.
27 For further discussion of this matter, see CRS Report RL31902, Revenue Reconciliation
Directives in the FY2004 Budget Resolution, by Robert Keith. Also, see (1) “Concessions
to Moderates Imperil Early GOP Tax Cutting Accord,” by Andrew Taylor, CQ Weekly, Apr.
12, 2003; and (2) “Grassley Promises GOP Moderates Final Tax Cut Will Not Top $350
Billion,” by Bud Newman, BNA’s Daily Report for Executives, Monday, Apr. 14, 2003,
page G-7.
28 See the remarks of Senator Max Baucus in the Congressional Record (daily ed.) of Apr.
11, 2003, at pages S5296-S5298, in which he inserts a letter from Senate Parliamentarian
Alan Frumin to Senate Democratic Leader Thomas Daschle regarding the potential
application of the Byrd rule to the consideration of reconciliation legislation.
29 See the remarks of Senator Grassley in the Congressional Record (daily ed.) of Apr. 11,
2003, at pages S5295-S5296.
30 See the CBO cost estimate on H.R. 2 (108th Cong.) of May 23, 2003, available at
[www.cbo.gov]; the bill became P.L. 108-27, the Jobs and Growth Tax Relief
Reconciliation Act of 2003.

---

r
de
en
int of Or
Disposition of
o
P
ber 19, 1986)
ber 19, 1986)
Sustained; section strick
(Septem
Fell
(Septem
c
tion
15
rd Rule
o
61
r M
ed, 79-
Waive
ected, 32-
Rej
Approv
r
edies
s
tte
18
a
ram
il rem
CRS-
ct M
tions Under the Senate’s By
ation prog
fraud civ
c
Subje
d
ram
1985
Conserv
Prog
eport
eport
(Calendar Years 1985 Through 2004)
b r
en
h
de
erence R
1986
erence R
ittee’s
nf
nf
m
o
o
Basis of
Table 3. Listing of A
int of Or
increase w
o
ittee not in
P
m
pliance
tlay
tside com
endment(s)
u
u
risdiction
endment(s)
m
O
com
com
O
ju
m
A
A
a r
nibus Budget Reconciliation Act of
p. 161,
de
nsideration of
nsideration of
ject of
o
o
r C
r C
Ob
int of Or
a
a
o
Strike Provision(s) From Bill or C
B
Strike Provision(s) From Bill or C
e 139, line 1-
B
P
o
o
nibus Budget Reconciliation Act of
o
24
o
T
[none]
T
[not applicable]
T
Section 403
Pag
line 17; and p. 162, lines
1-
T
[none]
1. Consolidated Om
2. Om

---

r
de
int of Or
Disposition of
o
P
[none raised]
c
tion
o
13
r M
ed, 81-
Waive
pprov
A
r
tte
19
a
CRS-
ct M
topics]
Subje
arious
[v
eport
eport
b r
e
de
1987
erence R
1989
erence R
nf
nf
o
o
Basis of
int of Or
o
P
endment(s)
endment(s)
m
[specific basis not cited]
m
A
A
ent
ent
a r
endm
de
endm
assebaum
nsideration of
Am
nsideration of
ject of
o
ent No. 1259;
m
o
r C
r C
Ob
Dole Am
int of Or
a
a
o
Strike Provision(s) From Bill or C
B
rd-
endm
Strike Provision(s) From Bill or C
B
P
nibus Budget Reconciliation Act of
o
o
nibus Budget Reconciliation Act of
o
o
T
[none]
T
By
No. 1254; K
Am
and Gram
No. 1260
T
[none]
T
[none]
3. Om
4. Om

---

en
en
r
en
de
ent fell
ent fell
isions strick
int of Or
endm
endm
Disposition of
o
P
Sustained; subsection strick
(October 17, 1990)
Sustained; prov
(October 18, 1990)
Sustained; sections strick
(October 18, 1990)
Fell
(October 18, 1990)
Sustained; am
(October 18, 1990)
Sustained, am
(October 18, 1990)
c
te
o
tion
o
31
ice v
52
o
r M
ed, 69-
Waive
ected, v
ected, 48-
None
None
None
Approv
Rej
Rej
,
C)
tor
o
rust
r
T
hway
traffic
tte
and
20
a
ber in the
ram
hway
ased
-b
CRS-
ct M
ent of hig
inistration
h density
iation noise policy
stem
m
of tim
d
ent prog
e Federal Deposit
Subje
) penalties
em
A
elop risk
esting
ass National Forest in
a
itations on airport
enues, hig
ealth A
SH
arv
ong
ask
prov
atters
surance Corporation (FDI
eposit of all increased m
Apportionm
funds between states
Occupational Safety
H
(O
H
T
Al
National av
lim
im
rev
airport rules, and related
m
Authoriz
In
to dev
insurance sy
D
fuel taxes (other than taxes on
railroads) into Hig
Fund
eport
b r
s or
s or
s or
s or
de
es
ponents
1990
erence R
ittee’s
nf
m
o
chang
com
Basis of
e in outlay
e in outlay
e in outlay
e in outlay
int of Or
incidental to non-
o
etary
etary
P
enues
enues
enues
enues
utside com
risdiction
udg
erely
endment(s)
O
ju
B
m
budg
No chang
rev
No chang
rev
m
No chang
rev
No chang
rev
A
.
o
a
(as
r
p. 1018,
ent N
ent No.
de
)
4016
title B
b
endm
endm
u
nsideration of
m
ject of
o
S
A
r C
s Am
Ob
int of Or
III,
a
m
o
Strike Provision(s) From Bill or C
e 1017, line 5-
p. 1019, line 18
B
m
P
nibus Budget Reconciliation Act of
o
odified)
o
raham
T
Section 7405(j
Pag
line 19; and p. 1018, line
22-
Sections 4003-
Title
m
T
G
3025
Sy
3039
5. Om

---

f
en
en
r
de
isions strick
57
57
int of Or
st prov
o
Disposition of
o
P
ected, 43-
ected, 43-
rej
ust 6, 1993)
rej
ust 6, 1993)
une 24, 1993)
une 24, 1993)
Sustained; subsection strick
(J
Sustained; m
(J
Fell. Motion to appeal Chair’s
ruling
(Aug
Fell. Motion to appeal Chair’s
ruling
(Aug
c
tion
o
60
r M
Waive
ected, 38-
Rej
None
None
None
r
ine
tte
ations and
ations
21
a
estic
ents on U.S.
uniz
uniz
CRS-
ct M
one in other
m
m
anufacturers
Subje
ercial use of bov
m
position of dom
arette m
rowth horm
Com
g
countries
Childhood im
tax return preparer standards
Childhood im
Im
content requirem
cig
eport
b r
s or
s or
s or
de
es
etary
ponents
ponents
1993
erence R
nf
o
erely
com
chang
com
Basis of
e in outlay
e in outlay
e in outlay
int of Or
incidental to non-
o
es m
etary
etary
etary
P
enues
enues
enues; budg
erely
No chang
rev
No chang
rev
No chang
rev
chang
incidental to non-
budg
Budg
m
budg
a
in part
r
de
ct); and
in part a new
ct)
ject of
A
A
Ob
int of Or
o
Strike Provision(s) From Bill or C
P
nibus Budget Reconciliation Act of
o
T
Section 1105(c)
Section 7801; Section
7803(a) (proposing
new Sections 2106 and
2108(b)(2) of the Social
Security
Section 8252(a)(2), (b),
and (c)
Section 13631(b)
(proposing
Section 1928 of the Social
Security
Section 1106(a)
6. Om

---

en
r
isions,
de
en
ent fell
ent fell
ent fell
en; not sustained
int of Or
endm
endm
endm
isions, which
ainst 46 prov
Disposition of
o
P
ained in bill
une 24, 1993)
une 24, 1993)
une 24, 1993)
ainst 3 prov
Sustained; am
(J
Sustained; am
(J
Sustained; am
(J
Sustained; section strick
(October 27, 1995)
Sustained; subsection strick
(October 27, 1995)
Sustained ag
which were strick
ag
rem
(October 27, 1995)
c
tion
o
45
45
55
45
46
r M
Waive
ected, 53-
ected, 53-
ected, 43-
ected, 55-
ected, 53-
Rej
Rej
Rej
None
Rej
Rej
h
r
um
tte
caps on
22
a
throug
ent
axim
elfare
e of Medicare
CRS-
ct M
ith w
ent for appropriations
ounts
w
Subje
the ag
of abortions under
ainst the use of federal
]
estic spending
ibility
arily
aising
arious topics, dealing
Extend discretionary
defense, international, and
dom
FY 1995
Separate enrollm
requirem
and tax expenditures
Restoration of m
deficit am
R
elig
Bar ag
funding
Medicaid
[v
prim
reform
eport
b r
— continued
s or
s or
s or
s or
s or
de
1993
erence R
nf
o
Basis of
e in outlay
e in outlay
e in outlay
e in outlay
e in outlay
int of Or
o
P
enues
enues
enues
enues
enues
endment(s)
arious bases cited]
m
No chang
rev
No chang
rev
No chang
rev
No chang
rev
No chang
rev
[v
A
.
1995
o
No.
a r
ent N
ent
arious
de
nsideration of
endm
endm
m
ject of
o
ent No. 544
A
isions in v
r C
Am
Ob
m
int of Or
a
enici/Nunn
o
B
endm
am
Strike Provision(s) From Bill or C
P
nibus Budget Reconciliation Act of
o
radley
o
T
Dom
Am
B
542
Gr
557
T
Section 7171
Section 7191(a)
49 prov
titles of the bill
6. Om
7. Balanced Budget Act of

---

en from
r
de
ent fell
ent fell
ent fell
ent fell
isions strick
int of Or
endm
endm
endm
endm
Disposition of
o
P
ber 17, 1995)
em
Sustained; prov
conference report
(Nov
Sustained; am
(October 26, 1995)
Sustained; am
(October 27, 1995)
Sustained; am
(October 27, 1995)
Sustained; am
(October 27, 1995)
c
tion
o
45
52
82
50
52
r M
Waive
ected, 54-
ected, 47-
ected, 17-
ected, 49-
ected, 47-
Rej
Rej
Rej
Rej
Rej
r
sician
e of
et
tte
23
a
n
a flat tax
it on debate
ainst the scoring
CRS-
ct M
e lim
sense of the
arding
sponsored
ption of phy
Subje
ations (MedicarePlus)
deferral for U.S.
s
ider-
aniz
ing
islation
pplication of antitrust rule to
ported property
crease tim
A
prov
org
and exem
office laboratories.
Ending
shareholders on incom
controlled foreig
corporations attributable to
im
Expressing
Senate reg
Prohibition ag
of assets sales as budg
sav
In
in Senate on reconciliation
leg
b r
s or
s or
s or
s or
de
etary
ponents
erely
com
Basis of
e in outlay
e in outlay
e in outlay
e in outlay
int of Or
o
es m
etary
P
— continued
enues; budg
enues
enues
enues
endment(s)
No chang
rev
chang
incidental to non-
budg
m
[specific basis not cited]
No chang
rev
No chang
rev
No chang
rev
1995
A
.
o
ent
No.
a
ent N
r
ent
endm
de
endm
ct) and Section
nsideration of
endm
m
an Am
ject of
o
A
ent No. 2986
r C
Ob
ers A
int of Or
a
an Am
p
o
B
g
endm
m
rd/Dorg
P
o
u
Section 8001 (proposing
in part a new Section
1853(f) to the Social
Security
13301
T
Dor
2977
Specter Modified
Am
B
3028
By
No. 2942
7. Balanced Budget Act of

---

ision,
r
en
en
en
isions,
the bill;
de
en from
ision strick
ision strick
ision strick
ainst 1 prov
int of Or
ainst 21 prov
Disposition of
o
P
ained in the bill
ere strick
18, 1996)
23, 1996)
23, 1996)
23, 1996)
23, 1996)
ich w
ich rem
uly
uly
uly
uly
h
h
uly
Sustained; prov
(J
Sustained; prov
(J
Fell
(J
Sustained; prov
(J
Sustained ag
w
not sustained ag
w
(J
c
tion
o
32
57
46
r M
ed, 67-
Waive
ected, 42-
ected, 52-
None
Rej
Approv
Rej
None
s
the
ram
r
ing
ing
tte
1996
ided by
24
a
ental
ate
olv
CRS-
ct M
ilies receiv
ices prov
p, School Lunch,
s
Subje
cap (no additional
ations
elfare reform
ily
ram
brella fund
aniz
stinence education
b
Medicaid supplem
um
Fam
cash assistance for children
born to fam
assistance)
Social serv
charitable or priv
org
A
prog
Various topics inv
Food Stam
and Child Nutrition prog
and w
eport
b r
en
s or
s or
s or
h
de
erence R
nf
o
Basis of
e in outlay
e in outlay
e in outlay
int of Or
increase w
o
ittee not in
P
m
pliance
tlay
chang
enues
enues
enues
u
o
arious bases cited]
O
com
com
N
rev
No chang
rev
No chang
rev
[v
a
e
a r
ct), pag
arious
de
A
p. 785, line
ject of
isions in v
Ob
int of Or
o
Strike Provision(s) From Bill or C
P
o
ersonal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of
T
Section 2923 (proposing
new Section 1511 of the
Social Security
772, line 13-
22
Section 408(a)(2)
Section 2104
Section 2909
22 prov
titles of the bill
8. P

---

r
en
en
de
ent fell
ision strick
int of Or
endm
Disposition of
o
P
19, 1996)
uly
une 24, 1997)
une 25, 1997)
une 25, 1997)
une 25, 1997)
Sustained; am
(J
Fell
(J
Sustained; prov
(J
[point of order withdrawn]
Sustained; sections strick
(J
Fell
(J
c
tion
o
38
37
43
tion
r M
o
ed, 62-
ed, 62-
er m
Waive
ected, 55-
aiv
one
Rej
Approv
[w
withdrawn]
None
N
Approv
— continued
er
r
aiv
al of
tte
1996
w
rant
25
a
G
ibility
(balanced
e of Medicare
CRS-
ct M
Work
ram
the sense of
ent of a Medicare
to-
ent elig
)
Subje
elfare reform
the ag
of abortions under
ainst the use of federal
protection)
ress that the President
ibility
ram
ong
aising
rollm
n
arious topics]
hoice prog
Expressing
C
should ensure approv
state w
requests
R
elig
E
(Welfare-
Prog
Bar ag
funding
Medicaid
[v
Establishm
C
billing
eport
b r
s or
s or
s or
s or
de
es
erence R
ponents
ittee’s
nf
m
o
chang
com
Basis of
e in outlay
e in outlay
e in outlay
e in outlay
int of Or
incidental to non-
o
etary
etary
P
enues
enues
chang
enues
tside com
enues
endment(s)
erely
o
u
risdiction
m
No chang
rev
No chang
rev
Budg
m
budg
N
rev
O
ju
No chang
rev
A
1997
a r
de
nsideration of
ject of
o
ent No. 4914
r C
Ob
int of Or
a
o
B
endm
Strike Provision(s) From Bill or C
P
o
o
ersonal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of
T
First Modified
Am
T
Section 5611
Section 5822
Section 1949(a)(2)
Sections 5713, 5833, and
5987
Section 5001
8. P
9. Balanced Budget Act of

---

r
de
en
ent fell
ent fell
ent fell
int of Or
endm
endm
endm
Disposition of
o
P
31, 1997)
une 25, 1997)
une 25, 1997)
une 25, 1997)
une 26, 1997)
une 27, 1997)
uly
Sustained; am
(J
Sustained; am
(J
Sustained; am
(J
Sustained; section strick
(J
Fell
(J
Fell
(J
c
tion
o
21
22
45
57
62
tion
r M
o
ed, 77-
ed, 78-
er m
Waive
ected, 55-
ected, 43-
ected, 38-
aiv
Rej
Rej
Rej
[w
withdrawn]
Approv
Approv
ilies
r
ity
ent”
Fam
s
tte
to be
arette tax
26
a
activ
eedy
ram
bia
of certain
er rail
cig
porary
CRS-
ct M
cational
o
em
v
ent reform
lobal settlem
passeng
of new
Subje
ram
ediate transfer to
e health benefits
ernm
v
ssistance for N
m
o
tercity
rediting
ainst “g
Allowing
educational training
counted as a work
under the T
A
prog
Student loan prog
Im
Medicare Part B
hom
District of Colum
G
In
funding
C
ag
eport
b r
s or
s or
s or
s or
de
ond those
erence R
instructions
nf
o
Basis of
e in outlay
e in outlay
e in outlay
e in outlay
int of Or
ear bey
o
P
— continued
enues
ered by
enues
enues
chang
enues
endment(s)
crease in deficit or
o
m
No chang
rev
In
reduction of surplus in
fiscal y
cov
[no basis cited]
No chang
rev
No chang
rev
N
rev
1997
A
1997
a
ent No.
ent No.
r
Act of
de
ent No.
endm
endm
nsideration of
endm
ject of
o
Am
Am
r C
Ob
int of Or
a
o
B
in Am
Strike Provision(s) From Bill or C
P
o
ennedy
ennedy
o
T
Lev
482
K
490
K
504
T
Section 602
Section 702(d)
Section 1604(f)(3)
9. Balanced Budget Act of
10. Taxpayer Relief

---

r
de
ent fell
ent fell
ent fell
ent fell
ent fell
ent fell
)
int of Or
endm
endm
endm
endm
endm
endm
Disposition of
o
P
une 27, 1997)
une 27, 1997)
une 27, 1997)
une 27, 1997)
une 27, 1997)
une 27, 1997
Sustained; am
(J
Sustained; am
(J
Sustained; am
(J
Sustained; am
(J
Sustained; am
(J
Sustained; am
(J
c
tion
o
63
52
58
43
41
47
r M
Waive
ected, 37-
ected, 48-
ected, 42-
ected, 57-
ected, 59-
ected, 53-
Rej
Rej
Rej
Rej
Rej
Rej
et
ent
,
ent
ent
enues
enue
r
tax
tte
increases
27
a
et enforcem
for
ainst scoring
PAYGO budg
et enforcem
et enforcem
CRS-
ct M
n
ainst using
spending
et purposes, rev
Subje
tion i
ation of future rev
sale of certain federal
bi
ohi
andatory
Balanced budg
procedures
Prohibition ag
for budg
from
lands
Pr
process ag
increases to pay
m
Balanced budg
procedures
Balanced budg
procedures
Reserv
windfalls for tax or deficit
reduction
b r
s or
s or
s or
s or
s or
de
Basis of
e in outlay
e in outlay
e in outlay
e in outlay
e in outlay
int of Or
o
P
— continued
enues
enues
enues
enues
enues
endment(s)
m
No chang
rev
[no basis cited]
No chang
rev
No chang
rev
No chang
rev
No chang
rev
1997
A
.
o
.
No.
o
a
ent N
ent
r
Act of
ent
de
ent N
ent No. 571
endm
ohl
endm
nsideration of
endm
m
/K
ject of
o
endm
ent No. 570
Am
m
endm
r C
Am
Ob
m
ers A
int of Or
a
p
A
o
B
am
m
endm
P
o
u
raig
T
Gr
566
B
568
C
569
Brownback
Am
First Am
Abraham
No. 538
10. Taxpayer Relief

---

r
de
en
ent fell
ent fell
int of Or
endm
endm
Disposition of
o
P
28, 1999)
30, 1999)
30, 1999)
17, 2000)
uly
uly
uly
uly
Sustained; section strick
(J
[none raised]
Sustained; am
(J
Sustained; am
(J
Fell
(J
c
te
er
ly
o
u
tion
o
48
ice v
ed to a
reed to
o
52
46
r M
ade on J
ed, v
17, the waiv
ous consent
ly
u
Waive
ected, 51-
ected, 48-
ected, 54-
tion (m
o
Rej
Approv
Rej
Rej
On J
m
14) was chang
unanim
request and ag
enue-
ent
r
tte
estm
28
a
inv
the Medicare
isions
redit for
redit for
CRS-
ct M
ent of the Earned
the sense of the
the sense of the
ax C
arding
arding
ent of the Earned
ax C
Subje
e T
e Fund
e T
com
arried couples
com
arried couples
General extension of rev
reduction prov
Enhancem
In
m
Expressing
Senate reg
in education
Expressing
Senate reg
Reserv
Enhancem
In
m
eport
eport
b r
s or
s or
2000
de
s
s
erence R
ond those
erence R
nf
nf
o
instructions
o
Basis of
e in outlay
e in outlay
int of Or
t of 1999
ear bey
o
P
ered by
f Ac
crease in deficit or
enues
enues
crease in outlay
endment(s)
lie
In
reduction of surplus in
fiscal y
cov
In
m
No chang
rev
No chang
rev
Increase in outlay
A
Reconciliation Act of
ent
.
o
a r
de
fund and Re
endm
ent N
nsideration of
ject of
r Re
o
an Am
endm
r C
m
Ob
int of Or
a
am
o
Strike Provision(s) From Bill or C
B
Strike Provision(s) From Bill or C
P
o
o
o
T
Section 1502
Section 202
T
Bing
No. 1462
First A
1467
T
Section 4
11. Taxpaye
12. Marriage Tax Relief

---

r
de
ent fell
ent fell
int of Or
endm
endm
Disposition of
o
P
17, 2000)
17, 2000)
uly
uly
Sustained; am
(J
Sustained; am
(J
c
ent
ent
tion
o
47
endm
47
endm
tion also
)
tion also
r M
o
o
e)
er m
er m
Waive
ected, 48-
aiv
ected, 48-
aiv
Rej
(w
applied to am
listed below
Rej
(w
applied to am
listed abov
r
ision
ision
tte
29
a
CRS-
ct M
islation
islation
the sunset prov
the sunset prov
Subje
ing
ing
2001
Strik
in the leg
Strik
in the leg
2003
— continued
eport
eport
b r
2000
de
ond those
ond those
erence R
erence R
instructions
instructions
nf
nf
o
o
Basis of
Reconciliation Act of
int of Or
ear bey
ear bey
o
P
ered by
ered by
Reconciliation Act of
endment(s)
crease in deficit or
crease in deficit or
endment(s)
m
In
reduction of surplus in
fiscal y
cov
In
reduction of surplus in
fiscal y
cov
m
A
A
Reconciliation Act of
a r
th and Tax Relief
th Tax Relief
de
ent No.
ent No.
row
row
nsideration of
nsideration of
ject of
o
endm
endm
ic G
o
r C
r C
Ob
int of Or
a
a
o
B
Strike Provision(s) From Bill or C
B
Strike Provision(s) From Bill or C
P
o
o
o
o
T
Roth Am
3864
Roth Am
3865
T
[none]
T
[none]
T
[none]
12. Marriage Tax Relief
13. Econom
14. Jobs and G

---

e
e
:
)
m
an
th
in
ge
so
can
aking
er th
sional
ber)
es
m
ngua
u
tion
o
la
d
r
ongr
e n
e act. In
e act or to
ct”) rath
C
er m
er, thus m
de
th
f th
e
d lin
ecifie
rd
e A
aiv
th
ent fell
th
r sp
f o
IV o
e an
le w
d
313 of
g
fo
ate in
pag
in
(
int o
s
o
int of Or
endm
eb
nd
p
d
ection
te
Disposition of
o
P
itle III of
x
f a
t). A
) e
itles III an
er T
ce to
3
ber, or by
15, 2003)
T
d
n
acan
u
eren
ade to S
m
ts; (
aising o
s in
u
r
n
n
en
Sustained; am
(May
ref
y
as m
are v
m
the
isio
w
d
v
order “
ection
eats
en
r to
ro
e (b
ce
re;
u
s
m
c
p
t of
in
s;
o
rio
eren
or s
eas
;
r a
f n
s o
e p
tion
rder
eterm
ref
ction
m
ion
n
ad
o
title
is
f-o
a poin
rs, i
g
d
ic
y
ion
stru
is
e m
t-o
in
b
ato
r M
n
le to
ecif
e prov
) b
rais
sp
ated
ciliatio
n
Sen
poi
n
its in
th
0
(4
y
ssib
ereto.
o
en
le prov
h
ith
g
an
ator
p
of
esig
(6
Waive
ts
in
m
w
ts th
e reco
ip
s
Rejected, 51-49
Sen
ces
en
ce w
th
en
r
ent; and
are
a
is im
ersh
s (as d
dm
m
lian
in
pon
b
stan
n
p
n
ell as
ere
as
ally
en
re; o
end
h
ch
em
w
su
in
m
sio
T
u
e
isio
v
com
co
easu
(s
os
re am
clu
e m
r am
r
ro
ly
e, it u
th
o
t in
m
o
r in
etary
n
f th
ltiple as
e o
tte
ad
ly
re p
o
dg
u
30
a
. 644).
o
f
s o
m
.C
ce on
on
e or m
n
easur
r m
-bu
e
n
ciliatio
ess.
fifth
lv
U.S
isio
eren
o
n
lects
on
ittee is n
v
sn
o
CRS-
ct M
e o
v
(2
ces are m
n
ref
of
m
ro
e n
ree-
in
f the m
the sunset
eou
e o
r p
e reco
f th
ded
eren
n o
Subje
eral ref
tran
o
(2)
— continued
ing
th
en
en
table
strik
tal to th
y
te
atio
g
is
cted com
b
o
am
sideration
e title o
e ex
er
e to
in
e v
as
eral ref
, th
stru
th
1974;
2003
Apply
provision to the revenue
increase provisions
ciden
ered
en
tly
b
v
nsid
ay
in
ativ
of
e act by
g
en
e in
A
co
ly
itted
B
1974,
n
le m
th
m
firm
b
se co
erely
o
C
b
er th
o
sequ
en
e
r
n
n
ru
h
initial
ct of
d
it:
n
e
o
th
e af
h
rd
, or to bar con
th
at su
d
de
A
y
is m
le if
es;
n
u
o
s of
ond those
et
ell as
ade u
ich
ey
ires th
dg
. W
ed. C
e B
ereon
ru
d
en
h
lv
rd
e criteria to determ
u
ion
instructions
e
o
y
ittee th
th
is
Bu
lv
v
er th
m
es w
ear b
.
req
rt as w
Basis of
al
o
d
e decrease w
s are m
v
n
port th
e B
m
u
n
o
int of Or
ear bey
in
s or rev
u
s to
en
rity
prov
o
en
tio
ep
o
er
P
sion
tion
er u
e co
Reconciliation Act of
ered by
o
er th
iscal y
(s) in
ce re
tlay
rd
d
endment(s)
crease in deficit or
res
g
n
e act is
n
ou
f th
oth
r a f
ception
er m
ence r
m
In
reduction of surplus in
fiscal y
cov
n
f o
o
s or rev
o
er m
as
isio
th
feren
s u
o
u
n
aiv
A
v
of
t o
e in
ic ex
ell
nfer
e C
aiv
in
eo
g
tlay
Social Secu
h
ro
o
l w
an
ictio
u
w
t
ion
crease or rev
e p
ou
is
tran
eficit f
in
es in
th
f a p
risd
u
e in
e d
g
specif
le as
f the co
.
a
o
re or a con
g
r
th Tax Relief
ce a ch
tlay
an
rth
ccessf
313 of
prov
e j
n o
order or w
as ex
an
o
oot
de
n
ce to
rd ru
ich
ject
b
easu
ed
ou
f th
s ch
y
atio
row
io
of
h
o
m
d
nsideration of
ts
crease th
er
ect
eren
e
ard
e o
en
le, a su
e B
h
t produ
ject of
o
e) w
o
ces an
ces a ch
in
m
le sets f
ru
s S
T
n
tsid
order m
ld
nsid
r C
, poin
ic ref
u
u
rd
to th
Ob
is reg
o
y
t of
int of Or
a
le i
alon
le.
ciliation
n
rodu
rd ru
y
n
o
does
produ
is o
p
w
B
ces
ecif
d
ru
recom
e B
P
o
ugh co
rd ru
rd
isio
T
Sessions Amendment
No. 639
stan
sp
e B
o
y
y
v
)
)
h
e poi
in
b
Recor
B
a recon
ro
(1)
(2)
(3
(4)
(5
(6)
T
er th
(1) apply
thr
th
e By
d
h
p
14. Jobs and G
T
A
Un
a
b
c

---

A
A
t
ich
ich
ce
en
h
h
R
w
w
BR
B
f Oct.
O
O
dm
C
C
nferen
en
o
.) o
on
c
ed
1985,
t of
es. 286,
n
e am
e
ith
h
) of
.R
aily
A
tm
c
(d
R
te. T
d
ed S
a
n
ce report
ling w
a
o
OB
e
e
e
feren
d
th
ice v
le
o
Recor
ct (C
se
u
v
A
ate adopt
e con
r
en
rd
sional
th
es
e S
By
le.
h
of
e
u
r
ciliation
ongr
ses. Becau
f th
he
C
con
o
t No. 1004 by
e
e
er t
d
en
R
o Hou
sideration
n
et
u
dm
dg
er 19, 1985, t
b
e tw
e portion
en
en
ct.
th
ate con
m
th
A
s Bu
ly
een
Sen
eficit”; (see th
rity
ibu
ere tak
ell A
d
n
Decem
t.
e
ecu
irs
s w
On
betw
.
ore, on
ts
e f
ce th
ed Om
u
res
en
eref
cial S
at
u
h
o
id
dm
fectiv
t red
eas
o
e S
sol
en
e ef
th
n
m
o
ate adopted Mitch
es n
d am
o
e C
1985. No action
h
an
becam
at d
t
of
e Sen
2106 of
o
ciliation
A
ber 19, 1985. T
ill th
le t
BR
ection
31
recon
O
e b
ce reports
S
rd ru
of
ce reports
C
1989, th
th
Decem
of
m
ew
ro
CRS-
e By
feren
feren
on
ct of
h
g
A
a n
t
g
g
con
in
n
atter f
in
in
sideration
ith
in
m
w
sideration
tain
con
g
ciliation
all
e
ate
1985 to con
e con
t con
of
econ
dealin
rred beg
th
en
A
g
strik
le
et R
to
dm
rin
itial Sen
BR
, occu
7803(a) propos
dg
en
O
rd ru
as “
C
y
am
s Bu
ection
in
e B
ereon
se w
o
ibu
S
ion
th
applied du
n
rp
is
u
of
ses th
p
fered an
ses
of
le applied to in
e Om
th
at part of
rd
e prov
o Hou
rd ru
o Hou
y
th
e portion
of
st th
. By
e tw
e tw
ain
C
e B
s of
th
ill; its stated
th
, th
e b
1986, th
een
ed ag
obert
rm
een
sideration
th
R
o
portion
m
r
f
is
betw
of
ro
stain
ts
betw
con
u
ato
g
th
til early
n
en
ts
t s
en
en
rin
o
S
atter f
13349).
ed u
dm
en
dm
s m
e S
as n
en
u
1985,
eo
e application
d am
pag
24,
as delay
d am
tran
order w
ate adopted. In
ed th
an
d
ex
t of
ober
ck
e Sen
ten
1985 w
1985, an
Oct
th
ex
of
of
reports
October 13, 1989, du
stru
13, 1989, at
e poin
h
On
On
T
d
e
f

---

CRS-32
Appendix A. Text of the Byrd Rule
(Section 313 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974)
EXTRANEOUS MATTER IN RECONCILIATION LEGISLATION
Sec. 313. (a)
In General. — When the Senate is considering a reconciliation
bill or a reconciliation resolution pursuant to Section 310, (whether that bill or
resolution originated in the Senate or the House) or Section 258C of the Balanced
Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985 upon a point of order being made
by any Senator against material extraneous to the instructions to a committee which
is contained in any title or provision of the bill or resolution or offered as an
amendment to the bill or resolution, and the point of order is sustained by the Chair,
any part of said title or provision that contains material extraneous to the instructions
to said Committee as defined in subsection (b) shall be deemed stricken from the bill
and may not be offered as an amendment from the floor.
(b) Extraneous Provisions. — (1)
(A) Except as provided in paragraph (2), a provision of a reconciliation
bill or reconciliation resolution considered pursuant to Section 310 shall be
considered extraneous if such provision does not produce a change in outlays
or revenues, including changes in outlays and revenues brought about by
changes in the terms and conditions under which outlays are made or revenues
are required to be collected (but a provision in which outlay decreases or
revenue increases exactly offset outlay increases or revenue decreases shall not
be considered extraneous by virtue of this subparagraph);
(B) any provision producing an increase in outlays or decrease in revenues
shall be considered extraneous if the net effect of provisions reported by the
Committee reporting the title containing the provision is that the Committee
fails to achieve its reconciliation instructions;
(C) a provision that is not in the jurisdiction of the Committee with
jurisdiction over said title or provision shall be considered extraneous;
(D) a provision shall be considered extraneous if it produces changes in
outlays or revenues which are merely incidental to the non-budgetary
components of the provision;
(E) a provision shall be considered to be extraneous if it increases, or
would increase, net outlays, or if it decreases, or would decrease, revenues
during a fiscal year after the fiscal years covered by such reconciliation bill or
reconciliation resolution, and such increases or decreases are greater than outlay
reductions or revenue increases resulting from other provisions in such title in
such year; and
(F) a provision shall be considered extraneous if it violates Section
310(g).

---

CRS-33
APPENDIX A. Text of the Byrd Rule
(Section 313 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974) — continued
(2) A Senate-originated provision shall not be considered extraneous under
paragraph (1)(A) if the Chairman and Ranking Minority Member of the Committee
on the Budget and the Chairman and Ranking Minority Member of the Committee
which reported the provision certify that:
(A) the provision mitigates direct effects clearly attributable to a provision
changing outlays or revenues and both provisions together produce a net
reduction in the deficit;
(B) the provision will result in a substantial reduction in outlays or a
substantial increase in revenues during fiscal years after the fiscal years covered
by the reconciliation bill or reconciliation resolution;
(C) a reduction of outlays or an increase in revenues is likely to occur as
a result of the provision, in the event of new regulations authorized by the
provision or likely to be proposed, court rulings on pending litigation, or
relationships between economic indices and stipulated statutory triggers
pertaining to the provision, other than the regulations, court rulings or
relationships currently projected by the Congressional Budget Office for
scorekeeping purposes; or
(D) such provisions will be likely to produce a significant reduction in
outlays or increases in revenues but, due to insufficient data, such reduction or
increase cannot be reliably estimated.
(3) A provision reported by a committee shall not be considered extraneous
under paragraph (1)(C) if
(A) the provision is an integral part of a provision or title, which if
introduced as a bill or resolution would be referred to such committee, and the
provision sets forth the procedure to carry out or implement the substantive
provisions that were reported and which fall within the jurisdiction of such
committee; or
(B) the provision states an exception to, or a special application of, the
general provision or title of which it is a part and such general provision or title
if introduced as a bill or resolution would be referred to such committee.
(c)
Extraneous Materials. — Upon the reporting or discharge of a
reconciliation bill or resolution pursuant to Section 310 in the Senate, and again upon
the submission of a conference report on such reconciliation bill or resolution, the
Committee on the Budget of the Senate shall submit for the record a list of material
considered to be extraneous under subsections (b)(1)(A), (b)(1)(B), and (b)(1)(E) of
this section to the instructions of a committee as provided in this section. The
inclusion or exclusion of a provision shall not constitute a determination of
extraneousness by the Presiding Officer of the Senate.

---

CRS-34
APPENDIX A. Text of the Byrd Rule
(Section 313 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974) — continued
(d) Conference Reports. — When the Senate is considering a conference
report on, or an amendment between the Houses in relation to, a reconciliation bill
or reconciliation resolution pursuant to Section 310, upon —
(1) a point of order being made by an Senator against extraneous material
meeting the definition of subsections (b)(1)(A), (b)(1)(B), (b)(1)(D), (b)(1)(E),
or (b)(1)(F), and
(2) such point of order being sustained, such material contained in such
conference report or amendment shall be deemed stricken, and the Senate shall
proceed, without intervening action or motion, to consider the question of
whether the Senate shall recede from its amendment and concur with a further
amendment, or concur in the House amendment with a further amendment, as
the case may be, which further amendment shall consist of only that portion of
the conference report or House amendment, as the case may be, not so stricken.
Any such motion in the Senate shall be debatable for 2 hours. In any case in
which such point of order is sustained against a conference report (or Senate
amendment derived from such conference report by operation of this
subsection), no further amendment shall be in order.
(e)
General Point of Order. — Notwithstanding any other law or rule of the
Senate, it shall be in order for a Senator to raise a single point of order that several
provisions of a bill, resolution, amendment, motion, or conference report violate this
section. The Presiding Officer may sustain the point of order as to some or all of the
provisions against which the Senator raised the point of order. If the Presiding
Officer so sustains the point of order as to some of the provisions (including
provisions of an amendment, motion, or conference report) against which the Senator
raised the point of order, then only those provisions (including provisions of an
amendment, motion, or conference report) against which the Presiding Officer
sustains the point or order shall be deemed stricken pursuant to this section. Before
the Presiding Officer rules on such a point of order, any Senator may move to waive
such a point of order as it applies to some or all of the provisions against which the
point of order was raised. Such a motion to waive is amendable in accordance with
the rules and precedents of the Senate. After the Presiding Officer rules on such a
point of order, any Senator may appeal the ruling of the Presiding Officer on such a
point of order as it applies to some or all of the provisions on which the Presiding
Officer ruled.

---