The Budget Reconciliation Process: Motions to Instruct Conferees

The Budget Reconciliation Process: Motions to Instruct Conferees

.

The Budget Reconciliation Process:
Motions to Instruct Conferees
Robert Keith
Specialist in American National Government
July 20, 2009
Congressional Research Service
7-5700
www.crs.gov
R40686
CRS Report for Congress
P
repared for Members and Committees of Congress
c11173008

.
The Budget Reconciliation Process: Motions to Instruct Conferees

Summary
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
in conformity with the policies expressed in the budget resolution.
Under the usual practice, the House and the Senate initially consider and pass their own
reconciliation measures. In most years, a conference procedure is used to develop an agreement
between the two chambers. When a conference procedure is used, both the House and the Senate
have procedures whereby the full bodies may issue instructions to conferees on legislation. If a
motion instructing conferees is agreed to, the instructions are not binding on the conferees and no
point of order would lie against the conference report on the ground that the instructions had been
violated.
The first use of the reconciliation process by the House and Senate occurred in 1980 for the
FY1981 budget cycle. This report focuses on the 29-year time frame encompassing the FY1981
through FY2009 budget cycles. During this period, the reconciliation process was initiated in 19
different years. For the remaining 10 years, the process was not used (in four of those years there
was no final agreement on the budget resolution).
Both the House and the Senate have considered between them a total of 42 motions to instruct
conferees on reconciliation legislation during the past 29 years. The two chambers have
considered roughly the same number of motions, with the House considering a total of 19 such
motions and the Senate considering a total of 23.
Both chambers have employed such motions with increasing frequency. During the 10-fiscal-year
interval covering FY1980-FY1989, the House considered two motions and the Senate considered
one. During the next interval, covering FY1990-FY1999, the House considered six motions and
the Senate considered five. Finally, during the FY2000-FY2009 interval, the House and Senate
considered 11 and 17 motions, respectively. The pattern of usage in the two chambers differs in
that the House has resorted to such motions more regularly than the Senate.
In the House, the motion to instruct can be offered at three separate times in the legislative
process: (1) prior to the appointment of conferees; (2) after the conferees have been appointed for
20 calendar days and 10 legislative days, but before they report to the House; and (3) after the
conferees have reported, in conjunction with a motion to recommit the conference report.
In the Senate, the motion to instruct can only be offered prior to the appointment of conferees.
After conferees have been appointed, Senators can also instruct their conferees through simple
resolutions, amendments to legislation, or motions to recommit, but this is not a regular
occurrence.
The content of motions to instruct conferees on reconciliation legislation has varied widely in
both chambers, ranging from broad statements of policy to positions focused more narrowly on
one or a few specific issues or programs.
This report will be updated as developments warrant.

Congressional Research Service

.
The Budget Reconciliation Process: Motions to Instruct Conferees

Contents
Background ................................................................................................................................ 1
House and Senate Practices ......................................................................................................... 2
Number and Frequency of Motions ....................................................................................... 2
Success Rate of Motions ....................................................................................................... 3
Timing and Prerogative to Offer Motions .............................................................................. 4
Content of Motions ............................................................................................................... 5

Tables
Table 1. Motions in the House and Senate to Instruct Conferees on Reconciliation
Legislation, 10-Fiscal-Year Intervals ........................................................................................ 3
Table 2. Motions in the House to Instruct Conferees on Reconciliation Legislation:
FY1981-FY2009...................................................................................................................... 6
Table 3. Motions in the Senate to Instruct Conferees on Reconciliation Legislation:
FY1981-FY2009.................................................................................................................... 14

Contacts
Author Contact Information ...................................................................................................... 25

Congressional Research Service

.
The Budget Reconciliation Process: Motions to Instruct Conferees

Background
The Congressional Budget Act of 1974 (P.L. 93-344, as amended; 2 U.S.C. 621 et seq.)
established the congressional budget process. Under the act, the House and Senate are required to
adopt at least one budget resolution each year. 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 broad
overview of the appropriate levels of revenue, spending, the surplus or deficit, and the public debt
for each year covering the upcoming fiscal year and at least four additional fiscal years.1
The budget reconciliation process is an optional procedure that operates as an adjunct to the
budget resolution process.2 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
in conformity with the policies expressed in the budget resolution. Therefore, reconciliation can
be an effective budget enforcement tool for a large portion of the budget.
Reconciliation is a two-step process. First, reconciliation instructions are included in the budget
resolution, instructing a committee or committees to develop legislation achieving the desired
budgetary outcomes and providing a deadline for submission of legislation. If only one committee
is instructed, it may report its reconciliation legislation directly to its parent chamber. If multiple
committees are instructed, they must submit their reconciliation legislation to their respective
Budget Committees, which in turn incorporate them into an omnibus budget reconciliation bill
without making any substantive revisions.
In the second step, the House and Senate consider the reconciliation legislation under expedited
procedures. Under the usual practice, the two chambers initially consider and pass their own
reconciliation measures. In most years, a conference procedure is used to develop an agreement
between the House and Senate.
When a conference procedure is used, both the House and the Senate have procedures whereby
the full bodies may issue instructions to conferees on legislation.3 Conferees are expected
generally to uphold the position reflected in the legislation that was passed by the chamber they
represent. Motions to instruct the conferees usually urge them to support particular positions
taken by their chamber or urge them to oppose particular positions taken by the other chamber. At
the same time, it is understood that conferees must make concessions in order to reach a final
compromise. It is not uncommon, therefore, for instructions to urge conferees of one chamber to
recede to one or more positions of the other chamber.
If a motion instructing conferees is agreed to, the instructions are not binding on the conferees
and no point of order would lie against the conference report on the ground that the instructions
had been violated.4 As one scholar has noted:

1 For information on motions to instruct conferees on budget resolutions, see CRS Report RL31840, Congressional
Budget Resolutions: Motions to Instruct Conferees, by Robert Keith.
2 For additional information on the reconciliation process, see CRS Report RL33030, The Budget Reconciliation
Process: House and Senate Procedures, by Robert Keith and Bill Heniff Jr., and CRS Report R40480, Budget
Reconciliation Measures Enacted Into Law: 1980-2008, by Robert Keith.
3 For information on these procedures generally, see CRS Report RS20209, Instructing Senate Conferees, by Richard
S. Beth; and CRS Report 98-381, Instructing House Conferees, by Elizabeth Rybicki.
4 See House Practice: A Guide to the Rules, Precedents and Procedures of the House (108th Cong., 1st sess.) 2003,
(continued...)
Congressional Research Service
1

.
The Budget Reconciliation Process: Motions to Instruct Conferees

. . . conferees may disregard the instructions, particularly when they feel the need for room to
maneuver or compromise. The full House and Senate will still have an opportunity to accept
or reject the conference committee report on the bill, and a new conference may be requested
if either house feels that its conferees have grossly violated their instructions or authority.5
House and Senate Practices
The first use of the reconciliation process by the House and Senate occurred in 1980 for the
FY1981 budget cycle. This report focuses on the 29-year time frame encompassing the FY1981
through FY2009 budget cycles. During this period, the reconciliation process was initiated in 19
different years. For the remaining 10 years, the process was not used (in four of those years there
was no final agreement on the budget resolution).
The practices of the House and Senate regarding motions to instruct reconciliation conferees
during this period were similar in some regards but also differed in key respects. Some of the
similarities and differences are discussed below in terms of the number and frequency of motions,
their success rates, timing and the prerogative to offer them, and their content.
Number and Frequency of Motions
As Table 1 illustrates, both the House and the Senate have considered between them a total of 42
motions to instruct conferees on reconciliation legislation during the past 29 years. The two
chambers have considered roughly the same number of motions, with the House considering a
total of 19 such motions and the Senate considering a total of 23. More detailed information on
the motions is provided in Table 2 (for motions in the House) and Table 3 (for motions in the
Senate), at the end of the report.
Both chambers have employed such motions with increasing frequency. During the 10-fiscal-year
interval covering FY1980-FY1989, the House considered two motions and the Senate considered
one.6 During the next interval, covering FY1990-FY1999, the House considered six motions and
the Senate considered five. Finally, during the FY2000-FY2009 interval, the House and Senate
considered 11 and 17 motions, respectively.
The pattern of usage in the two chambers differs in that the House has resorted to such motions
more regularly than the Senate. In the House, one or more motions to instruct were considered
during 13 of the 19 years in which reconciliation was used (about 68% of the years). With one
exception, the House considered only one such motion per bill: for 11 different years, one motion
was considered; for one year, FY1998, two motions were considered (one motion for each of two
bills); and for another year, FY2006, six motions were considered (one motion for one bill and
five motions for a second bill). The exception, in which five motions were considered, involved

(...continued)
Chapter 13, Sec. 16, p. 344; and Riddick’s Senate Procedure: Precedents and Practices (101st Cong., 2nd sess.), S.Doc.
101-28, 1992, p. 480.
5 Walter J. Oleszek, Congressional Procedures and the Policy Process, 7th ed. (Washington, DC: CQ Press, 2007), p.
267.
6 As indicated previously, the House and Senate first used reconciliation in 1980 for the FY1981 budget cycle.
Congressional Research Service
2

.
The Budget Reconciliation Process: Motions to Instruct Conferees

the revenue reconciliation measure for FY2006 (H.R. 4297). There were six years for which the
House did not consider any motions to instruct conferees.
Table 1. Motions in the House and Senate to Instruct Conferees on Reconciliation
Legislation, 10-Fiscal-Year Intervals
House
Senate
10-Fiscal- Year
Interval
Agreed To
Failed
Total
Agree To
Failed
Total
1980-1989 2
0 2 1 0
1
1990-1999 3
3 6 4 1
5
2000-2009 4
7
11 13 4
17
Total
9
10
19 18 5
23
Source: Prepared by the Congressional Research Service from data provided in the Legislative Information
System.
Notes: The reconciliation process was first used by both chambers in 1980 for the FY1981 budget cycle. In the
House, for FY1994, a motion to instruct conferees offered by Representative Kasich was agreed to after it was
amended by a substitute offered by Representative Sabo; these two actions are counted in the table as a single
motion. In the Senate, for FY1996, a motion to instruct conferees offered by Senator Rockefel er was tabled by a
vote of 51-46; it is counted in the table as a failed motion.
In the Senate, one or more motions to instruct were considered during four of the 19 years in
which reconciliation was used (about 21% of the years). Senate use of such motions varied
considerably by year: for two years (FY1982 and FY1990), only a single motion was considered;
for another year (FY1996), four motions were considered; and, finally, for FY2006, 17 motions
were considered. There were 15 years for which the Senate did not consider any motions to
instruct conferees.
Success Rate of Motions
Table 1 also shows that the overall success rate of motions to instruct conferees on reconciliation
legislation differs for the House and Senate. In the House, 9 of 19 such motions were agreed to,
representing a success rate of about 43%, while in the Senate, 18 of 23 motions were agreed to,
reflecting a success rate of about 78%.
From the perspective of the three 10-fiscal-year intervals, the success rate declined in both
chambers. In the House, the success rate dropped from 100% for the FY1980-FY1989 interval, to
50% for the next interval, and to 35% for the final interval; in the Senate, the success rate over the
three intervals declined less markedly, from 100%, to 80%, and, finally, to 78%.
In the House, the average vote for all motions to instruct (excluding one voice vote) was 254 to
163, reflecting a margin of victory of 91 votes. Victories occurred with wider margins, however,
than defeats. The average margin of victory on a successful motion was 250 votes (327 to 78) and
the average margin of defeat on a failed motion was 37 votes (195 to 232). The widest margin of
victory or defeat was 418 votes (on a motion offered successfully by Representative Sabo for
FY1997) and the narrowest margin was eight votes (on a motion offered unsuccessfully by
Representative Rangel for FY2000).
Congressional Research Service
3

.
The Budget Reconciliation Process: Motions to Instruct Conferees

In the Senate, the average vote for all motions to instruct (excluding six voice votes) was 67 to
28, reflecting a margin of victory of 39 votes. As in the House, victories occurred with wider
margins than defeats. The average margin of victory on a successful motion was 58 votes (76 to
18) and the average margin of defeat on a failed motion was 6 votes (46 to 52).7 The widest
margin of victory or defeat was 97 votes (on a motion offered successfully by Senator Graham for
FY1996) and the narrowest margin was five votes (on a successful motion to table a motion to
instruct conferees offered by Senator Rockefeller for FY1996).
Timing and Prerogative to Offer Motions
In the House, the motion to instruct can be offered at three separate times in the legislative
process: (1) prior to the appointment of conferees; (2) after the conferees have been appointed for
20 calendar days and 10 legislative days, but before they report to the House; and (3) after the
conferees have reported, in conjunction with a motion to recommit the conference report. Only
one motion to instruct conferees is allowed prior to the appointment of conferees or in
conjunction with a motion to recommit the conference report, but multiple 20-day motions to
instruct may be made.
Members of the minority party are accorded preference in recognition to offer motions to instruct
in the first two instances (and a member of the majority party may offer an amendment thereto),
but are not accorded preference in recognition to offer the 20-day motion.
Most of the motions to instruct conferees listed in Table 2 were offered prior to the appointment
of conferees; they were offered, in most instances, by the ranking minority member of the House
Budget Committee or the House Ways and Means Committee, depending on whether the pending
legislation was an omnibus reconciliation measure reported by the House Budget Committee or a
reconciliation measure reported singly by the Ways and Means Committee.
In the case of a revenue reconciliation measure for FY2006, a series of five 20-day motions were
offered by minority members of the Ways and Means Committee from early February through
late April of 2006: (1) February 8, by Representative Neal; (2) March 15, by Representative
Tanner; (3) March 29, by Representative Rangel, the ranking minority member of the committee;
(4) April 6, by Representative Cardin; and (5) April 27, by Representative McDermott.
In the Senate, the motion to instruct can only be offered prior to the appointment of conferees.
After conferees have been appointed, Senators can also instruct their conferees through simple
resolutions, amendments to legislation, or motions to recommit, but this is not a regular
occurrence.
For three of the four years during this period in which motions to instruct conferees on
reconciliation legislation were used by the Senate, the motions were offered by Senators in the
minority party; in the remaining year, Senators from both parties offered such motions. As Table
3 shows, the first motion was offered by a minority Democrat (Senator Cranston, for FY1982),
the next by a minority Republican (Senator Domenici, for FY1990), and the next four by minority
Democrats (Senators Pryor, Rockefeller, Graham, and Kennedy, for FY1996). In the remaining
year, a total of 17 motions was offered to two different reconciliation measures: seven motions

7 A motion to instruct conferees, made by Senator Rockefeller (FY1996), was tabled by a vote of 51 to 46; it is counted
in this report as a failed motion to instruct.
Congressional Research Service
4

.
The Budget Reconciliation Process: Motions to Instruct Conferees

were offered to the spending reconciliation bill, S. 1932 (six by minority Democrats and one by a
majority Republican), and 10 motions were offered to the revenue reconciliation bill, H.R. 4297
(five by minority Democrats and five by majority Republicans).
Content of Motions
The content of motions to instruct conferees on reconciliation legislation has varied widely in
both chambers, ranging from broad statements of policy to positions focused more narrowly on
one or a few specific issues or programs.
A broadly-worded motion offered by Representative Tanner to revenue reconciliation legislation
for FY2006 instructed the conferees “to the maximum extent possible within the scope of
conference, to insist on a conference report which will neither increase the Federal budget deficit
nor increase the amount of the debt subject to the public debt limit.”
A more narrowly drawn motion, offered by Senator DeWine to spending reconciliation legislation
for FY2006 instructed the conferees “to insist that any conference report shall not include the
provisions contained in section 8701 of the House amendment relating to the repeal of section
754 of the Tariff Act of 1930.”
While motions to instruct usually are briefly stated, they may involve more lengthy and complex
instructions. A motion to instruct conferees on the spending reconciliation legislation for FY2006
offered by Senator Harkin, for example, instructed the conferees “to insist that any reconciliation
conference report not contain any cuts to Federal food assistance programs, including the food
stamp program established under the Food Stamp Act of 1977 (7 U.S.C. 2011 et seq.), for the
following reasons: ... ” The enumerated reasons that followed in the instructions amounted to six
paragraphs.
House and Senate practices require that Members avoid using argument or rhetoric in a motion to
instruct conferees.8
The content of a motion to instruct conferees may be changed by amendment, although this has
been a rare occurrence with respect to reconciliation legislation. One such motion was amended
in the House during the past 29 years, while none were amended in the Senate. On July 14, 1993,
a motion to instruct conferees on the Omnibus Reconciliation Act of 1993 (H.R. 2264) was
offered by Representative Kasich, the chairman of the House Budget Committee. An amendment
in the nature of a substitute, offered by the committee’s ranking member, Representative Sabo,
was approved by a vote of 253-183. The motion to instruct, as amended, was agreed to by a vote
of 415-0.

8 House Rule XXII, Clause 7(d), states: “Instructions to conferees in a motion to instruct or in a motion to recommit
to conference may not include argument.”
Congressional Research Service
5

.
The Budget Reconciliation Process: Motions to Instruct Conferees

Table 2. Motions in the House to Instruct Conferees on Reconciliation Legislation: FY1981-FY2009
Fiscal
Congress/
Sponsor of
Disposition
Date of
Year
Session
Bill number
Motion
Nature of Instruction
(Vote)
Action
1981
96/2
H.R. 7765
Spel man
To insist on disagreement with Section 201 and 601 of Senate
Agreed to
09-18-1980
amendment (semi-annual cost of living increase for Federal
civilian and military retirees).
(300-73)
1982 97/1
H.R.
3982
—
[none]
—
—
1983 97/2
H.R. 4961
Conable
To insist that the conference report result in attainment of
Agreed to
07-28-1982
expenditure reduction levels no lower than those required by
the conference report on the first concurrent resolution on the (299-89)
budget for FY1993, and revenue raising levels equal to those
required for FY1983 by the conference report on the first
concurrent resolution for the budget for FY1983.
H.R. 6955
—
[none]
—
—
1984 98/1
H.R.
4169
—
[none]
—
—
1985 98/2
—
—
[no
reconciliation directives]
—
—
1986 99/1
H.R.
3128
—
[none]
—
—
1987 99/2
H.R.
5300
—
[none]
—
—
1988 100/1
H.R.
3545
—
[none]
—
—
1989 100/2
—
—
[no
reconciliation directives]
—
—
1990
101/1
H.R. 3299
Frenzel
Instructed to: Recede from provisions of the House passed bill
Failed
10-18-1989
which would for either of the fiscal years 1990 and 1991 result
in a revenue decease; and Recede from those provisions of the
(181-228)
House passed bill which would result in an increase in
obligations of the government over those currently authorized
for either of the fiscal years 1990 and 1991; and Recede from
those provisions in the House passed bill which have no
budgetary impact; and Provided further, notwithstanding any
other instructions, that the managers on the part of the House
are hereby instructed to insist on the House passed
catastrophic health care provisions and the House passed
“Section 89 repeal” provisions.
1991 101/2
H.R.
5835
—
[none]
—
—
1992 102/1
—
—
[no
reconciliation directives]
—
—
CRS-6

.
The Budget Reconciliation Process: Motions to Instruct Conferees

Fiscal
Congress/
Sponsor of
Disposition
Date of
Year
Session
Bill number
Motion
Nature of Instruction
(Vote)
Action
1993 102/2
—
—
[no
reconciliation directives]
—
—
1994 103/1
H.R.
2264
Kasich
To reject increases in Federal spending within the scope of the
Agreed to
07-14-1993
conference report by excluding all provisions that increase
direct spending (except Social Security) and to accept the
(415-0)
higher thresholds on the treatment of Social Security benefits in
section 8215 of the Senate amendment.
Sabo
Amendment in the nature of a substitute for the Kasich motion. Agreed to
07-14-1993
The amendment would remove the instructions which require
(235-183)
the House conferees to reject increases in federal spending
within the scope of the conference by excluding from the
conference report all provisions that increase direct spending.
The amendment would retain the provisions of the motion
which instruct conferees to accept the higher thresholds on the
treatment of Social Security benefits of section 8215 of the
Senate Amendment.
1995 103/2
—
—
[no
reconciliation directives]
—
—
1996
104/1
H.R. 2491
Sabo
To instruct conferees on the part of the House to do
Failed
10-30-1995
everything possible, within the scope of the conference, to
minimize tax cuts for the wealthy and tax increases on low- and
(198-219)
middle-income working families, to preserve and protect the
health and income security of senior citizens, and to avoid
increasing the number of Americans lacking access to health
care; and to agree to the following Senate-passed provisions:
(1) require continued Medicaid coverage for low-income
pregnant women and children and disabled persons; (2)
continue to apply federal nursing home standards; and (3)
recede to the Senate position on pension reversions.
CRS-7

.
The Budget Reconciliation Process: Motions to Instruct Conferees

Fiscal
Congress/
Sponsor of
Disposition
Date of
Year
Session
Bill number
Motion
Nature of Instruction
(Vote)
Action
1997
104/2
H.R. 3734
Sabo
To instruct conferees to do everything possible within the
Agreed to
07-24-1996
scope of the conference to eliminate any provisions in the
House and Senate bills which shift costs to States and local
(418-0)
governments and result in an increase in the number of children
in poverty; maximize the availability of food stamps and
vouchers for goods and services for children to prevent any
increase in the number of children thrown into poverty while
their parents make the transition from welfare to work; ensure
that the bill preserves Medicaid coverage so that the number of
people without access to health care does not increase and
more children and old people are not driven into poverty; and
provide that any savings that redound to the Federal
Government as a result of this legislation be used for deficit
reduction.
1998
105/1
H.R. 2014
Rangel
To work in a bipartisan fashion to provide fair and equitable tax
Failed
07-10-97
relief to working families and avoid large and growing out-year
revenue costs. In doing so, the conferees shall, within the scope
(199-233)
of the conference,—
1. Recede from their insistence on the provision of the House
bill that provides for indexing of capital assets,
2. Support tax relief that provides a family credit commonly
referred to as the $500-per child credit, to working families,
who pay Federal taxes,
3. Support tax provisions designed to assist working families in
meeting the costs of college education and those provisions
shall—
a. Include a HOPE Scholarship credit for the first 2 years of
postsecondary education consistent with the objectives of the
HOPE Scholarship credit proposed by the President so that
students attending low-cost community colleges are not
disadvantaged,
b. Include tax benefits for families paying tuition costs for the
second 2 years of postsecondary education out of wages and
salary income, and
c. Not include the provisions of the House bill that impose new
taxes on graduate students receiving tuition waivers.
CRS-8

.
The Budget Reconciliation Process: Motions to Instruct Conferees

Fiscal
Congress/
Sponsor of
Disposition
Date of
Year
Session
Bill number
Motion
Nature of Instruction
(Vote)
Action
H.R. 2015
Spratt
Be instructed as fol ows:
Agreed to
07-10-97
(1) On the matters pertaining to increasing the age of eligibility
(414-14)
for Medicare, reject the provisions contained in section 5611 of
the Senate amendment.
(2) On the matters pertaining to the minimum wage, worker
protections, and civil rights—
(A) insist on paragraphs (2) and (3), and reject the remainder,
of section 417(f) of the Social Security Act, as amended by
sections 5006 and 9006 of the bill, as passed the House, and
(B) reject the provisions contained in sections 5004 and 9004 of
the bill, as passed the House.
1999
105/2
—
—
[no final agreement on budget resolution]
—
—
2000
106/1
H.R. 2488
Rangel
To the extent permitted within the scope of conference, to
Failed
08-02-99
insist on limiting the net 10-year tax reduction provided in the
conference report to not more than 25 percent of the
(205-213)
currently projected non-Social Security surpluses (or if greater,
the smal est tax reduction permitted within the scope of the
conference).
2001
106/2
H.R. 4810
Cardin
To the maximum extent permitted within the scope of
Failed
07-18-00
conference—
(203-222)
(1) to maximize the amount of marriage penalty relief provided
to middle and low income taxpayers,
(2) to minimize the additional marriage bonuses provided to
taxpayers already receiving marriage bonuses under current
law, and
(3) to resolve the differences in effective dates and phase-in
amounts in a way which takes into account fiscal responsibility.
CRS-9

.
The Budget Reconciliation Process: Motions to Instruct Conferees

Fiscal
Congress/
Sponsor of
Disposition
Date of
Year
Session
Bill number
Motion
Nature of Instruction
(Vote)
Action
2002
107/1
H.R. 1836
Stark
Be instructed to produce a Conference Report in which—
Failed
05-23-01
1. The revenue losses and associated debt service costs do not
(198-210)
grow as a percentage of gross domestic product on either a
long or short term basis. In order to do so—
A. The Conference Report shal not include phase-ins longer
than 5 years, delayed effective dates, or sunsets.
B. The Conference Report shall include provisions on all of the
following issues: marriage penalty relief, increasing per-child tax
credit, estate tax relief, pension reform legislation, and
permanent extension of the research credit.
C. The Conference Report shall adjust the current law
alternative minimum tax so that it does not disallow the
benefits of the tax reductions contained in the bill.
2. The Conference Report shal be designed so that its revenue
loss and associated debt service costs for each fiscal year do
not exceed the projected non-Social Security/non- Medicare
surplus for such fiscal year. For purposes of the preceding
sentence, the projected non-Social Security/non-Medicare
surplus for any fiscal year is the projected amount of the
surplus for such year determined by disregarding the receipts
and disbursements of the Social Security and Medicare Trust
Funds and by reducing the projected surplus for any year by its
ratable portion of $300 billion over the 10-year budget period.
3. The Conference Report provides benefits to every family
with children that has income or payroll tax liability and the
Conference Report includes inflation adjustments so that the
benefits provided to families with children are not reduced over
time.
4. The conference committee shal be required to meet in
preparing the Conference Report pursuant to House Rule 22.
2003
107/2
—
—
[no final agreement on budget resolution]
—
—
CRS-10

.
The Budget Reconciliation Process: Motions to Instruct Conferees

Fiscal
Congress/
Sponsor of
Disposition
Date of
Year
Session
Bill number
Motion
Nature of Instruction
(Vote)
Action
2004
108/1
H.R. 2
Stenholm
To require the managers on the part of the House to include in
Agreed to
05-22-2003
the conference report the fiscal relief provided to States by
section 371 of the Senate amendment and to the maximum
(voice vote)
extent possible within the scope of conference, agree to a
conference report that will neither increase the Federal budget
deficit nor increase the amount of the debt subject to the public
debt limit.
2005
108/2
—
—
[no final agreement on budget resolution]
—
—
2006 109/1
S. 1932
Spratt
To require the managers on the part of the House to recede to Agreed to
12-16-2005
the Senate by eliminating House provisions reducing eligibility
for food stamps; reducing funding for child support
(246-175)
enforcement; repealing the Continued Dumping and Subsidy
Offset; modifying the Mining Law of 1972; eliminating the
sections of the House amendment that reduce Medicaid
benefits and al ow increases in beneficiary costs; reducing to the
maximum extent possible increases in interest rates and fees
paid by student and parent borrowers on student loans;
adopting the Senate provision eliminating the stabilization fund
that makes payments to Medicare Advantage Regional Plans;
adopting the Senate provision on Medicare Advantage risk
adjustment; and adopting the Senate provision on Medicare
physician payments.
H.R. 4297
Neal
Be instructed as follows:
Failed
02-08-2006
(1) The House conferees shall agree to the provisions of
(185-297)
section 106 of the Senate amendment (relating to extension and
increase in minimum tax relief to individuals).
(2) The House conferees shall recede from the provisions of
the House bill that extend the lower tax rate on dividends and
capital gains that would otherwise terminate at the close of
2008.
(3) To the maximum extent possible within the scope of
conference, the House conferees shall insist on a conference
report that would not increase the Federal deficit for any year.
Tanner
To the maximum extent possible within the scope of
Agreed to
03-15-2006
conference, to insist on a conference report which will neither
increase the Federal budget deficit nor increase the amount of
(222-187)
the debt subject to the public debt limit.
CRS-11

.
The Budget Reconciliation Process: Motions to Instruct Conferees

Fiscal
Congress/
Sponsor of
Disposition
Date of
Year
Session
Bill number
Motion
Nature of Instruction
(Vote)
Action
Rangel Be
instructed—
Failed
03-29-2006
(1) to insist on the provisions of section 106 of the Senate
(192-229)
amendment (relating to extension and increase in minimum tax
relief to individuals),
(2) to recede from the provisions of the House bill that extend
the lower tax rate on dividends and capital gains that would
otherwise terminate at the close of 2008, and
(3) to the maximum extent possible within the scope of
conference, to insist on a conference report which will neither
increase the Federal budget deficit nor increase the amount of
the debt subject to the public debt limit.
Cardin
To instruct the mangers: (1) to agree to the provisions of
Failed
04-06-2006
section 102 (relating to credit for elective deferrals and IRA
contributions), and section 108 (relating to extension and
(196-232)
modification of research credit), of the Senate amendment, (2)
to agree to the provisions of section 106 of the Senate
amendment (relating to extension and increase in minimum tax
relief to individuals), (3) to recede from the provisions of the
House bill that extend the lower tax rate on dividends and
capital gains that would otherwise terminate at the close of
2008, and (4) to the maximum extent possible within the scope
of conference, to insist on a conference report which will
neither increase the Federal budget deficit nor increase the
amount of the debt subject to the public debt limit.
McDermott Be
instructed—
Failed
04-27-2006
(1) to agree to the following provisions of the Senate
(190-232)
amendment: section 461 (relating to revaluation of LIFO
inventories of large integrated oil companies), section 462
(relating to elimination of amortization of geological and
geophysical expenditures for major integrated oil companies),
and section 470 (relating to modifications of foreign tax credit
rules applicable to large integrated oil companies which are dual
capacity taxpayers), and
(2) to recede from the provisions of the House bill that extend
the lower tax rate on dividends and capital gains that would
otherwise terminate at the close of 2008.
CRS-12

.
The Budget Reconciliation Process: Motions to Instruct Conferees

Fiscal
Congress/
Sponsor of
Disposition
Date of
Year
Session
Bill number
Motion
Nature of Instruction
(Vote)
Action
2007
109/2
—
—
[no final agreement on budget resolution]
—
—
2008
110/1
H.R. 2669
Hoekstra
To require the managers on the part of the House to agree to
Agreed to
09-04-2007
the provisions contained in section 801 of the Senate
amendment, relating to the sense of the Senate on the
(305-83)
detainees at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.
2009 110/2
—
—
[no
reconciliation directives]
—
—
CRS-13

.
The Budget Reconciliation Process: Motions to Instruct Conferees

Table 3. Motions in the Senate to Instruct Conferees on Reconciliation Legislation: FY1981-FY2009
Congress/
Sponsor of
Disposition
Fiscal Year
Session
Bill number
Motion
Nature of Instruction
(vote)
Date of Action
1981 96/2
H.R.
7765 —
[none]
—
—
1982
97/1
H.R. 3982
Cranston
To insist that funding for the Head Start Program
Agreed To
07-14-1981
be set at the fol owing levels: $950,000,000 for
FY1982, $1,007,000,000 for FY1983, and
(voice vote)
$1,058,357,000 for FY1984.
1983 97/2
H.R. 4961
—
[none]
—
—
H.R. 6955
—
[none]
—
—
1984 98/1
H.R.
4169 —
[none]
—
—
1985 98/2
—
—
[no
reconciliation directives]
—
—
1986 99/1
H.R.
3128 —
[none]
—
—
1987 99/2
H.R.
5300 —
[none]
—
—
1988 100/1
H.R.
3545 —
[none]
—
—
1989 100/2
—
—
[no
reconciliation directives]
—
—
1990
101/1
H.R. 3299
Domenici
To insist on the Senate amendment and to accept
Agreed To
10-13-1989
no House language which does not result in savings
or in revenue increases.
(voice vote)
1991 101/2
H.R.
5835 —
[none]
—
—
1992 102/1
—
—
[no
reconciliation directives]
—
—
1993 102/2
—
—
[no
reconciliation directives]
—
—
1994 103/1
H.R.
2264 —
[none]
—
—
1995 103/2
—
—
[no
reconciliation directives]
—
—
1996
104/1
H.R. 2491
Pryor
To insist upon maintaining the Federal nursing
Agreed to
11-13-1995
home reform provisions of law that were enacted
as part of the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act
(95-1)
of 1987 and that provide the Federal quality
standards and mechanisms for enforcement of such
standards for nursing homes under the Medicare
and Medicaid programs without an option for a
State to receive a waiver of such standards.
CRS-14

.
The Budget Reconciliation Process: Motions to Instruct Conferees

Congress/
Sponsor of
Disposition
Fiscal Year
Session
Bill number
Motion
Nature of Instruction
(vote)
Date of Action
Rockefeller
Instructed not to agree to any reductions in
Tabled
11-13-1995
Medicare beyond the $89 billion needed to
maintain the solvency of the trust fund through
(51-46)
2006, and reduce tax breaks for upper-income
taxpayers and corporations by the amount
necessary to ensure deficit neutrality.
Graham [Instructed
to]:
Agreed to
11-13-1995
(1) honor section 13301 of the Budget
(97-0)
Enforcement Act of 1990,
(2) not to include in the conference report any
language that violates this section, and thus
(3) not to include the $12 billion in Social Security
cuts that were included as an offset for on-budget
spending in the Finance Committee’s amendment.
CRS-15

.
The Budget Reconciliation Process: Motions to Instruct Conferees

Congress/
Sponsor of
Disposition
Fiscal Year
Session
Bill number
Motion
Nature of Instruction
(vote)
Date of Action
Kennedy
To insist upon removal of the following provisions
Not tabled
11-13-1995
included in the House or Senate bills:
(48-49)
(1) Provisions eliminating requirements in the
Medicaid law providing drug discounts to State
Agreed To
Medicaid programs, public hospitals, other
(voice vote)
programs or facilities serving low income people,
such as community and migrant health centers,
health care for the homeless centers, Ryan White
AIDS programs, pediatric AIDS demonstrations,
family planning clinics, black lung clinics, and public
housing clinics;
(2) Provisions benefitting unscrupulous health care
providers at the expense of Medicare and private
patients by: (a) repealing current prohibitions
against additional charges (balance billing) by
physicians and other providers rendering services
to Medicare beneficiaries enrolled in private
insurance plans; (b) weakening current statutory
provisions to prevent and combat fraud and abuse,
including such abusive practices as self-referral and
kickbacks, and such proposals to weaken anti-fraud
efforts as establishing more lenient standards for
imposing civil money penalties;
(3) Provisions threatening the quality and
affordability of care in nursing homes by: (a)
weakening or eliminating Federal nursing home
standards by repealing such standards or allowing
state waivers from such standards and Federal
enforcement of such standards; (b) repealing
prohibitions against nursing homes charging
Medicaid patients fees for covered services in
addition to the payment made by the State; (c)
repealing current prohibitions against States placing
liens on the homes of nursing home patients.
(4) Provisions providing greater or lesser Medicaid
spending in states based upon the votes needed for
the passage of legislation rather than the needs of
the people in those states.
CRS-16

.
The Budget Reconciliation Process: Motions to Instruct Conferees

Congress/
Sponsor of
Disposition
Fiscal Year
Session
Bill number
Motion
Nature of Instruction
(vote)
Date of Action
1997 104/2
H.R.
3734 —
[none]
—
—
1998 105/1
H.R. 2014
—
[none]
—
—
H.R. 2015
—
[none] —
—
1999
105/2
—
—
[no final agreement on budget resolution]
—
—
2000 106/1
H.R.
2488 —
[none]
—
—
2001 106/2
H.R.
4810 —
[none] —
—
2002 107/1
H.R.
1836 —
[none]
—
—
2003
107/2
—
—
[no final agreement on budget resolution]
—
—
2004
108/1
H.R. 2
—
[none]

2005
108/2
—
—
[no final agreement on budget resolution]
—
—
2006 109/1
S.
1932 DeWine
To insist that any conference report shall not
Agreed to
12-14-2005
include the provisions contained in section 8701 of
the House amendment relating to the repeal of
(71-20)
section 754 of the Tariff Act of 1930.
Kohl
To insist that any conference report shall not
Agreed to
12-14-2005
include any of the provisions in the House
amendment that reduce funding for the child
(75-16)
support program established under part D of title
IV of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 651 et
seq.), which would reduce funds by $4,900,000,000
over 5 years and have the effect of reducing child
support col ections by $7,900,000,000 over 5 years
and $24,100,000,000 over 10 years, and to insist
that the conference report shal not include any
restrictions on the ability of States to use Federal
child support incentive payments for child support
program expenditures that are eligible for Federal
matching payments.
CRS-17

.
The Budget Reconciliation Process: Motions to Instruct Conferees

Congress/
Sponsor of
Disposition
Fiscal Year
Session
Bill number
Motion
Nature of Instruction
(vote)
Date of Action
Harkin
To insist that any reconciliation conference report
Agreed to
12-14-2005
not contain any cuts to Federal food assistance
programs, including the food stamp program
(66-26)
established under the Food Stamp Act of 1977 (7
U.S.C. 2011 et seq.), for the following reasons:
(1) The Federal food stamp program is the first-line
of defense in the United States against hunger and
food insecurity, providing nutrition assistance for
over 25,000,000 people in the United States.
(2) 80 percent of benefits under the food stamp
program, over $23,000,000,000 in 2005, are
provided to families with children, making the
program the most important form of nutrition
assistance for children in the United States.
(3) Hunger and food insecurity in the United States
are rising, with a recent study by the Department
of Agriculture finding that—(A) 38,200,000 people
in the United States live in households that were
food insecure in 2004; (B) the number of food
insecure individuals increased by nearly 2,000,000
between 2003 and2004; and (C) since 2000, the
number of individuals classified by Department of
Agriculture as food insecure rose by 7,000,000.
(4) The food stamp program plays an important
role during natural disasters and has provided
emergency food assistance to approximately
2,200,000 individuals affected by Hurricanes
Katrina, Rita, and Wilma, allowing disaster victims
to obtain critical food within days.
(5) The food stamp program operates efficiently
and effectively, with its error rate at an all-time
low.
(6) Reductions in funding for the food stamp
program would constitute cuts in or loss of
benefits to currently eligible individuals and families
and would not come out of waste, fraud or abuse.
CRS-18

.
The Budget Reconciliation Process: Motions to Instruct Conferees

Congress/
Sponsor of
Disposition
Fiscal Year
Session
Bill number
Motion
Nature of Instruction
(vote)
Date of Action
Baucus
To not report a conference report that would
Agreed to
12-14-2005
impair access to, undermine eligibility for, make
unaffordable by increasing beneficiary cost-sharing,
(75-16)
adversely affect Medicaid services, or in any way
undermine Medicaid’s Federal guarantee of health
insurance coverage with respect to low-income
children, pregnant women, disabled individuals,
elderly individuals, individuals with chronic illnesses
like HIV/AIDS, cancer, and diabetes, individuals
with mental illnesses, and other Medicaid
beneficiaries.
Carper
To insist that any conference report shall not
Agreed to
12-14-2005
include the provisions in the House amendment
relating to the reauthorization of the Temporary
(64-27)
Assistance for Needy Families Program, including
those which would increase work hours for single
mothers with young children, impose new cuts on
already inadequate child care funding and other
proven work supports such as child support,
restrict education and training, and reduce State
flexibility, and insist that Congress enact free
standing legislation that builds on the bipartisan
Senate Committee on Finance’s reported version
of the Personal Responsibility and Individual
Development for Everyone Act (the PRIDE Act, S.
667) to reauthorize the Nation’s welfare-to-work
laws.
CRS-19

.
The Budget Reconciliation Process: Motions to Instruct Conferees

Congress/
Sponsor of
Disposition
Fiscal Year
Session
Bill number
Motion
Nature of Instruction
(vote)
Date of Action
Kennedy
To insist that the Senate provisions increasing need Agreed to
12-14-2005
based financial aid in the bill S. 1932, which were
fully offset by savings in the bill S. 1932, be included (83-8)
in the final conference report and that the House
provisions in the bill H.R. 4241 that impose new
fees and costs on students in school and in
repayment be rejected in the final conference
report, for the fol owing reasons:
(1) The cost of public college tuition and fees has
increased by 46 percent since 2001.
(2) The lowest income student at a 4-year public
college faces an average of $5,800 in unmet need.
(3) For families in the lowest income quartile, the
average cost of attendance at a 4- year public
col ege represents 47 percent of their income.
(4) More than 5,300,000 students received Federal
Pel Grants in 2004 through 2005.
(5) The buying power of the maximum Federal Pel
Grant has decreased from 57 percent of public
college tuition to 33 percent in the last 20 years.
(6) The gap between the cost of attendance at a 4-
year public college and the maximum Federal Pell
Grant has increased from $5,282 in 2001 to $8,077
in 2005 through 2006.
(7) The typical student who borrows money
graduates with a bachelor’s degree from a public
college with $15,500 of debt.
(8) A person with a bachelor’s degree makes
$1,000,000 more over the course of the person’s
lifetime than a person with only a high school
degree.
CRS-20

.
The Budget Reconciliation Process: Motions to Instruct Conferees

Congress/
Sponsor of
Disposition
Fiscal Year
Session
Bill number
Motion
Nature of Instruction
(vote)
Date of Action
Reed
To insist on a provision that makes available
Agreed to
12-14-2005
$2,920,000,000 for the Low-Income Home Energy
Assistance Act of 1981 (42 U.S.C. 8621 et seq.), in
(63-28)
addition to the $2,183,000,000 made available for
such Act in the Departments of Labor, Health and
Human Services, and Education, and Related
Agencies Appropriations Act, 2006, for the
following reasons:
(1) High energy prices threaten to overcome low-
income households in the United States. On
average, households heating their homes primarily
with natural gas will likely spend 38 percent more
for home energy this winter than last winter.
Households heating their homes primarily with
heating oil will likely spend 21 percent more for
home energy this winter than last winter.
Households heating their homes primary with
propane will likely spend 15 percent more for
home energy this winter than last winter. For many
low-income households, including households with
individuals with disabilities or senior citizens living
on fixed incomes, those price increases will make
home energy unaffordable.
(2) An appropriation of $2,920,000,000 would
bring funding for the Low-Income Home Energy
Assistance Act of 1981 for FY2006 to
$5,100,000,000, the amount authorized in section
2602(b) of the Low-Income Home Energy
Assistance Act of 1981 (42 U.S.C. 8621(b)), as
amended by the Energy Policy Act of 2005, for
FY2006.
(3) In the United States, no family should be forced
to choose between heating its home and putting
food on the table for its children. No senior citizen
should have to decide between buying lifesaving
pharmaceuticals or paying the senior citizen’s
electric bill.
CRS-21

.
The Budget Reconciliation Process: Motions to Instruct Conferees

Congress/
Sponsor of
Disposition
Fiscal Year
Session
Bill number
Motion
Nature of Instruction
(vote)
Date of Action

H.R.
4
G
297 rassley
To insist on the inclusion in the final conference
Agreed to
02-13-2006
report of the funding to support the health needs
of America’s veterans and military personnel
(92-0)
contained in section 315 of the Senate amendment
and the funding to strengthen America’s military
contained in title VI of the Senate amendment.
Dodd
To insist on the inclusion in the final conference
Failed
02-13-2006
report of the funding to support the health needs
of America’s veterans and military personnel
(40-53)
contained in section 315 of the Senate amendment
instead of any extension of the tax breaks for
capital gains and dividends for individuals with
annual incomes greater than $1,000,000.
Grassley
To report a final conference report that includes
Agreed to
02-14-2006
the ‘‘hold-harmless’’ relief from the individual
alternative minimum tax in 2006 (sections 106 and
(53-47)
107 of the amendment passed by the Senate) to
protect middle class families and includes an
extension of lower tax rates on capital gains and
dividends (based on section 203 of the bill passed
by the House of Representatives) to protect tax
cuts for middle class families.
DeWine
To accept the veterans’ mortgage bonds expansion
Agreed to
02-14-2006
provisions contained in section 303 of the bill as
passed by the House of Representatives with such
(voice vote)
revisions as are necessary to provide veterans in all
50 States with access to lower-rate mortgages.
CRS-22

.
The Budget Reconciliation Process: Motions to Instruct Conferees

Congress/
Sponsor of
Disposition
Fiscal Year
Session
Bill number
Motion
Nature of Instruction
(vote)
Date of Action
Wyden
To insist on a provision that repeals accelerated
Agreed to
02-14-2006
depreciation for geologic and geophysical costs for
oil and gas exploration by the 5 major oil
(voice vote)
companies for the following reasons: (1) In April
2005, President Bush stated that ‘‘With $55 oil, we
don’t need incentives for oil and gas companies to
explore.’’ On February 10, 2006, oil futures trading
on the New York Mercantile Exchange closed at
$61.84 per barrel. (2) At a November 9, 2005,
joint hearing of the Committee on Energy and
Natural Resources and the Committee on
Commerce, Science, and Transportation, the Chief
Executives of ExxonMobil, ChevronTexaco,
ConocoPhillips, BP, and Shell all testified that the
new tax breaks in the Energy Policy Act of 2005
were unnecessary for their companies to explore
for oil. Accelerated depreciation for geologic and
geophysical costs for oil and gas exploration is one
of the new tax breaks provided by the Energy
Policy Act of 2005. (3) The Joint Committee on
Taxation estimates that this special interest tax
break for major oil companies costs the taxpayers
and the United States Treasury more than
$100,000,000 over the next 5 years and almost
$300,000,000 over 10 years. The United States
taxpayers will have to pay higher taxes to provide
this tax break for big oil companies.
(4) In 2005, the 5 major oil companies whose Chief
Executives testified before the joint hearing of the
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources and
the Committee on Commerce, Science, and
Transportation reported net profits of more than
$111,000,000,000.
(5) At a time of record high oil company profits
and high Federal budget deficits, hardworking
American taxpayers should not have to provide
record subsidies to major oil companies. Congress
should eliminate this special interest tax break for
the largest oil companies that even these oil
companies say is not needed.
CRS-23

.
The Budget Reconciliation Process: Motions to Instruct Conferees

Congress/
Sponsor of
Disposition
Fiscal Year
Session
Bill number
Motion
Nature of Instruction
(vote)
Date of Action
Talent
To insist on the inclusion in the final conference
Agreed to
02-14-2006
report of a permanent extension of the
modifications to the child tax credit made by the
(voice vote)
Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation
Act of 2001 and the Jobs and Growth Tax Relief
Reconciliation Act of 2003.
Hutchison
To insist on the inclusion in the final conference
Agreed to
02-14-2006
report of a permanent extension of the election to
deduct State and local general sales taxes (based on (75-25)
section 105 of the amendment passed by the
Senate).
Kennedy
To reject the extension of the capital gains and
Failed
02-14-2006
dividends rate reduction contained in section 203
of the bill as passed by the House of
(47-53)
Representatives.
Reed
To insist on the inclusion in the final conference
Failed
02-14-2006
report of the funding to strengthen America’s
military contained in title VI of the Senate
(45-55)
amendment instead of any extension of the tax
cuts for capital gains and dividends, which does not
expire until 2009, contained in section 203 of the
bill as passed by the House of Representatives.
Lautenberg
To report a final conference report that does not
Failed
02-14-2006
increase the national debt of the United States.
(46-54)
2007
109/2
—
—
[no final agreement on budget resolution]
—
—
2008 110/1
H.R.
2669 —
[none]
—
—
2009 110/2
—
—
[no
reconciliation directives]
—
—
Source: Prepared by the Congressional Research Service.
CRS-24

.
The Budget Reconciliation Process: Motions to Instruct Conferees

Author Contact Information

Robert Keith

Specialist in American National Government
rkeith@crs.loc.gov, 7-8659

Acknowledgments
Momoko Soltis, formerly an Analyst on Congress and the Legislative Process with CRS, coauthored the
initial version of this report.

Congressional Research Service
25