When Congress adopts a budget resolution, it establishes budgetary goals for the years covered in the resolution. In some cases, it is necessary to change existing revenue, direct spending, or debt-limit laws to achieve those goals. One method Congress may use to consider such legislation is through reconciliation—an expedited process made available under Section 310 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 (the Budget Act). A distinctive feature of reconciliation is that debate time is limited in the Senate, which means cloture (and its requisite three-fifths majority vote) is not necessary to reach a vote on final passage.
Reconciliation is a two-phase process. In the first phase, the House and Senate adopt a budget resolution containing reconciliation directives to one or more committees (also referred to as reconciliation instructions). There are three types of reconciliation directives: to change laws providing for spending, to change laws providing for revenues, and to change the public debt limit.
In the second phase, the named committees respond with recommended changes in law within their jurisdictions consistent with their directives in the budget resolution. No more than one reconciliation bill may include provisions in response to each type of instruction in one budget resolution, for a maximum of three reconciliation bills. In practice, Congress has generally combined the reconciliation submissions from every committee into a single, omnibus reconciliation measure.
Once a reconciliation bill is on a chamber's calendar, the House and Senate consider it under the rules and expedited procedures enumerated in the Budget Act. Any differences between the House and Senate are resolved via conference committee or an exchange of amendments between the two chambers, or one chamber may adopt the reconciliation legislation of the other without any changes.
The contents of a reconciliation bill are constrained by several rules—most notably, Section 313 of the Budget Act, known as the Senate's Byrd rule. This provision prohibits the inclusion of matter in a reconciliation bill that is extraneous to the purpose of reconciliation and a committee's directives. The Byrd rule establishes six tests used to identify extraneous matter. A point of order made under the Byrd rule is surgical—if sustained, the offending matter is stricken from the text but the rest of the measure remains before the Senate.
In the Senate, a reconciliation bill enjoys certain privileges unavailable to most other bills and resolutions: it is not required to lie over one day before it can be considered, and the motion to proceed is not debatable. Pursuant to the Budget Act, debate on a reconciliation bill is limited to 20 hours (10 hours for a conference report), which means cloture is not required to reach a final vote. Once all debate time has expired in the Senate, consideration may continue during a period referred to as "vote-arama." In the House, consideration is typically structured by a special rule reported from the House Rules Committee, which sets the terms for debate and may permit specified amendments to be offered from the floor.
The reconciliation process can be time consuming. Of the 23 reconciliation bills enacted into law since 1980, the length of time between adoption of a congressional budget resolution and enactment of the resulting reconciliation bill ranged from 28 to 385 days, with an average of 152 days.
When Congress adopts a budget resolution, it establishes budgetary goals for the years covered in the resolution.1 In some cases, it is necessary to change existing revenue, direct spending, or debt-limit laws to achieve those goals—to reconcile current law with the fiscal objectives of the budget resolution. One method Congress may use to consider such legislation is reconciliation—an expedited process made available under Section 3102 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 (the Budget Act). A distinctive feature of reconciliation is that debate time in the Senate is limited, which means cloture (and its requisite three-fifths majority vote) is not necessary to reach a vote on final passage.
Because reconciliation renders cloture unnecessary, it has become a frequent vehicle for advancing major fiscal policy legislation. It has been used to reform entitlement programs (1996), create new ones (2010), balance the federal budget (1997), and enact broad-based tax reform (2001, 2003, and 2017). In most years, the principal focus of reconciliation has been deficit reduction, but in some years—most recently in 2017 and 2021—reconciliation has increased the deficit.
In current practice, when Congress adopts a budget resolution, it typically includes reconciliation directives. Of the 11 budget resolutions adopted since the 107th Congress, one—for FY2009 (S.Con.Res. 70, 110th Congress,)—did not include reconciliation directives.3 Since its first use in 1980, Congress has considered 28 reconciliation bills—23 have been enacted into law, four have been vetoed, and one did not pass the Senate (see Table A-1).
Reconciliation is a two-phase process. In the first phase, the House and Senate adopt the same budget resolution containing reconciliation directives (also referred to as reconciliation "instructions") to one or more committees. In the second phase, the named committees respond with recommended changes in law within their jurisdictions consistent with their directives in the budget resolution. The committees that receive the directives vote to submit their reconciliation recommendations to the Budget Committees of their respective chamber. Those committees then assemble and report out the reconciliation bill without any substantive changes.4 The House and Senate may then consider the measure under the expedited procedures enumerated in the Budget Act.
Reconciliation directives (also known as reconciliation instructions) are a necessary step, if Congress seeks to exercise the expedited procedures enumerated in the Budget Act. They serve as the roadmap for the resultant reconciliation legislation by naming the committees expected to contribute legislative text and instructing them to report legislation that achieves a budgetary outcome. Specifically, reconciliation directives contain the following information:
Reconciliation directives cannot dictate the policy choices a committee must adopt to comply with its fiscal target. In general, a committee may report any matter within its jurisdiction, subject to the content restrictions imposed by the reconciliation process.
An example of a reconciliation directive to a committee is provided in Figure 1. For more information on reconciliation directives, see CRS Report R41186, Reconciliation Directives: Components and Enforcement, by Megan S. Lynch and CRS Report R41151, Budget Reconciliation Process: Timing of Committee Responses to Reconciliation Directives, by Megan S. Lynch.
Figure 1. Example of a Reconciliation Directive to a Committee |
Source: S.Con.Res. 14, the Concurrent Resolution on the Budget for Fiscal Year 2022. |
Once the budget resolution is adopted, committees that receive reconciliation directives begin developing legislation within their jurisdictions to satisfy their instructions. Often, this is an iterative process as drafters respond to the estimated budgetary effects of their draft language and the content constraints imposed by the rules of reconciliation.
There is no enforcement mechanism to require a committee to comply with its directives by the date specified in its instructions. In practice, committees have responded to their directives after the dates specified without penalty.
A committee may choose not to respond to its reconciliation directives at all. This may happen for a variety of reasons: the committee may have been unable to find majority support for any legislative changes; the priorities of Congress may have shifted in response to recent events; or there may have been political or strategic reasons not to respond.
If a committee does not report legislation, or such legislation is not in compliance with its instructions, the Budget Act provides methods to move forward with reconciliation legislation. In these instances, legislative language that falls within the non-compliant committee's jurisdiction can be added to a reconciliation bill during floor consideration that would bring the legislation into compliance with its reconciliation instructions.
In the House, Section 310(d)(5) of the Budget Act provides that the House Rules Committee may make in order amendments to a reconciliation bill that would bring a committee's legislative text into compliance with its directives.
In the Senate, current practice permits a Senator to offer a motion to recommit the reconciliation bill to the non-compliant committee with instructions that it report back the measure "forthwith" (immediately) with an amendment that would bring the committee's legislative text into compliance with its directive. If the motion is agreed to, the text of the aforementioned amendment is immediately before the body for consideration and amendment. In this case, however, the content of the resulting amendment is constrained only by the jurisdiction of the non-compliant committee and its directive. Subject matter within the committee's jurisdiction that the chair may wish to avoid or protect could be open to amendment.
The reconciliation directives in a budget resolution establish the budgetary and jurisdictional boundaries of the resultant reconciliation bill. The Budget Act provides points of order that, if raised by a Member and sustained by the Presiding Officer, help ensure that a reconciliation measure complies with these boundaries.
Points of order that apply in both the House and Senate:
Points of order that apply in the Senate only:
The rules of the House and Senate are not self-enforcing—a Member must raise a point of order during consideration while the measure containing the possible violation is pending.9 In addition, points of order can be waived. In the House, a special rule governing consideration of a reconciliation bill, if adopted, may pre-emptively waive points of order that lie against the reconciliation bill or its consideration. In the Senate, a motion to waive any of these points of order requires the affirmative vote of three-fifths of Senators, duly chosen and sworn (60 Members in a Senate with no more than one vacancy).10
Section 313 of the Budget Act11—also known as the "Byrd rule"—is intended to limit the content of a reconciliation bill to only those changes necessary to align federal spending and revenue laws with the levels adopted in the associated budget resolution. To accomplish this, the Byrd rule establishes a point of order against extraneous matter and sets forth six tests used to identify offending provisions.
Under subsection (b)(1) of the Byrd rule, a provision is considered extraneous in the Senate if it meets one or more of the following:
Unlike most points of order in the Budget Act, violations of the Byrd rule do not prevent the consideration of a reconciliation bill. Instead, because the text of the Byrd rule uses terms such as matter, part, provision, and material, it is applied surgically, and points of order identify language that may be in violation of the rule. Points of order have been raised against a subtitle, a section, a line, or a single word. If a point of order under this section is sustained, only the matter in question is stricken, and the remainder of the reconciliation bill remains before the Senate for further consideration.
A Senator may raise a point of order that includes one or multiple potential violations of the Byrd rule in the pending measure. However, the Presiding Officer rules on each potential violation separately. Some, all, or none may be sustained. Prior to the Presiding Officer ruling, a motion to waive the point of order can be made with respect to some or all of the potential violations and requires the affirmative vote of three-fifths of the Senate, duly chosen and sworn (60 Members in a Senate with no more than one vacancy).
In recent practice, reconciliation legislation to be considered in the Senate has received pre-emptive scrutiny by the Senate Parliamentarian in conjunction with Senate staff.12 This tradition, known as a "Byrd bath" or "Byrd scrub," allows for the identification of legislative text that would violate the Byrd rule in advance of its consideration on the floor. It also provides an opportunity to redraft or prepare curative amendments. For this reason, there are few formal precedents on Byrd rule violations.
For more information on the Byrd rule see CRS Report RL30862, The Budget Reconciliation Process: The Senate's "Byrd Rule," by Bill Heniff Jr.
As the Senate's expert on the chamber's rules, precedents, and practices, the Senate Parliamentarian advises the Presiding Officer on the floor regarding the Senate's rules, including the Byrd rule.
Off the floor, the Parliamentarian consults with Senators and their staff, to include the pre-emptive scrutiny of legislative language that, if included in reconciliation legislation, might violate applicable rules, including the Byrd rule.
A reconciliation bill from the House undergoes similar review by the Senate Parliamentarian. Although certain rules of reconciliation apply only in the Senate (e.g., the Byrd rule), in drafting reconciliation legislation, the House is generally mindful of the Senate's constraints to ensure the House product does not contain provisions that would imperil its privileged consideration in the Senate.
In the Senate, a reconciliation bill enjoys certain privileges unavailable to other bills and resolutions. Some are enumerated in the Budget Act, and some have been established by precedent. Specifically
The privilege of a reconciliation bill can be vulnerable. On several occasions, successive Senate Parliamentarians have advised that the inclusion of certain provisions in a House-passed reconciliation bill were sufficiently violative that, if transmitted to the Senate, would cause the measure to lose its privilege and be considered under the standing rules of the Senate—to include Rule XXII (cloture).13 For example, the Senate Parliamentarian has advised that to have privilege in the Senate, a House-passed reconciliation bill
Although either chamber may originate a budget resolution (the first phase of the reconciliation process), a reconciliation bill that includes revenue provisions must originate in the House—and is so identified by the bill's H.R. number. This is attributable to Article I, Section 7, clause 1, of the U. S. Constitution (the Origination Clause) which requires all revenue legislation to originate in the House.15
The Budget Act prescribes the rules for considering a reconciliation bill on the floor in the House and Senate. Over time, practices have emerged that also influence how a reconciliation bill is considered in each chamber.
In recent practice, consideration of reconciliation measures in the House has been governed by special rules reported from the House Rules Committee. These special rules establish the duration of general debate and specify which amendments (if any) may be offered. In recent years, these rules have permitted one to three hours of debate, with time equally divided and controlled by the majority and minority floor managers. The number of amendments made in order through the special rule has always been limited, and in some instances no amendments have been permitted.
Section 310(e) of the Budget Act provides that the procedures governing consideration of a reconciliation bill in the Senate are the same as those as for a budget resolution (which are provided in Section 305 of the Budget Act). There is one exception: debate time on a reconciliation bill is limited to 20 hours (10 hours for a conference report). This means
In practice, the Senate often relies on a series of unanimous consent agreements to structure the consideration of amendments to a reconciliation bill. These agreements typically specify which amendments will be offered, how much debate time will be allocated, and whether the vote threshold will be different from a simple majority (a quorum being present). These consent agreements may also specify how much of the 20-hour debate time will be accounted for each day. Once all debate time has expired, but before a vote on final passage, a Senate practice known as a "vote-arama" typically ensues.
Section 305 of the Budget Act—which governs consideration of reconciliation bill (as well as a budget resolution)—specifies a limit on debate, but not consideration. As a consequence, even after debate time has expired, Senators may continue to offer and decide additional amendments, but they cannot debate them.
In Senate rules, the term debate encompasses only the time allowed for discussion, whereas the term consideration includes debate time plus any time necessary to dispense with nondebatable actions such as motions, appeals, points of order, and votes. For example, the Senate's cloture rule (Rule XXII), once invoked, limits consideration of a matter to 30 hours, after which the Senate must dispose of any pending matter and proceed immediately to a final vote. Because the Budget Act already limits debate on a reconciliation bill, cloture is not necessary to end debate, but neither the Budget Act nor Senate rules provide structure for the period between the expiration of debate time and a final vote on the reconciliation bill. Vote-arama is the colloquial term used to describe the Senate's structure of legislative activity during this period.
During a vote-arama, the Senate typically uses unanimous consent agreements to make tranches of amendments in order and to set the parameters for their consideration—usually two minutes to identify and briefly summarize the amendment, evenly divided between sides, followed by a vote. This frequently results in a series of extended, back-to-back (or "stacked") votes. This process continues, usually without break, until there are no further amendments to be considered.
Because there is no limit on the number of amendments that can be offered to a reconciliation bill, the volume of amendments considered during vote-arama can vary. Moreover, amendments can be disposed of via roll call vote, a point of order (or motion to waive), voice vote, or unanimous consent, or they can be offered and withdrawn (and no vote occurs). See Figure 2.
Figure 2. Number and Disposition of Amendments to Reconciliation Legislation During a Vote-arama, 2000-2022 |
Source: Information compiled from Congress.gov and the Congressional Record. |
When the House and Senate adopt different versions of a reconciliation bill, they must resolve their differences before it can be presented to the President. Agreement can be accomplished one of three ways: by conference committee, by an exchange of amendments, or by one chamber passing the reconciliation legislation of the other without any change (see Table 1).16
Section 310(e) of the Budget Act provides for the consideration of a conference report to a reconciliation bill under the same rules as a conference report on a budget resolution in Section 305.
In the Senate, Section 305(c) limits debate on a conference report to 10 hours, equally divided, and debate on any motion or appeal is limited to one hour. By precedent, this time includes the motions or other actions necessary for resolving differences with the House, such as those for going to conference prescribed in Senate Rule XXVIII. Consideration of a conference report may also be structured by a unanimous consent agreement.
Section 305(a)(6) provides for consideration of a conference report in the House. In practice, however, the chamber uses a special rule, reported by the Rules Committee and agreed to by the House, to structure debate. Typically, such a rule limits debate to one hour, equally divided, and waives all points of order against the contents of the conference report or its consideration.
Rather than request a conference, the House and Senate may choose to exchange amendments instead. For example, the Senate may take up a House-originated reconciliation bill (H.R. 1), replace some or all of the text with its own preferred language, and send it back to the House. The House could then take up the Senate-amended reconciliation bill (H.R. 1, as amended), amend it further, and send it back to the Senate. A similar exchange could occur with a Senate-originated reconciliation bill. The Senate's 10-hour debate limit on the conference report to a reconciliation bill also applies to amendments between the houses.
Reconciliation Bill |
Method of Resolving Differences |
Marriage Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2000 (H.R. 4810)a |
Conference committee |
Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2001 (P.L. 107-16) |
Conference committee |
Jobs and Growth Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2003 (P.L. 108-27) |
Conference committee |
Deficit Reduction Act of 2005 (P.L. 109-171) |
Conference report was defeated in the Senate on a point of order. The Senate adopted a substitute amendment which was agreed to by the House |
Tax Increase Prevention and Reconciliation Act of 2005 (P.L. 109-222) |
Conference committee |
College Cost Reduction and Access Act of 2007 (P.L. 110-84) |
Conference committee |
Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act of 2010 (P.L. 111-152) |
House agreed to the Senate's substitute amendment without amendment |
Restoring Americans' Healthcare Freedom Reconciliation Act of 2015 (H.R. 3762)b |
House agreed to the Senate's substitute amendment without amendment |
Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017 (P.L. 115-97) |
Conference report was defeated in the Senate on a point of order. The Senate adopted a substitute amendment which was agreed to by the House |
American Rescue Plan Act of 2021 (P.L. 117-2) |
House agreed to the Senate's substitute amendment without amendment |
Inflation Reduction Act of 2022 (P.L. 117-169) |
House agreed to the Senate's substitute amendment without amendment |
Source: Information compiled from Congress.gov.
Notes:
a. The Marriage Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2000 (H.R. 4810) was vetoed by President Clinton on August 5, 2000. A House vote to override the President's veto did not achieve the requisite two-thirds vote threshold.
b. The Restoring American's Healthcare Freedom Reconciliation Act of 2015 (H.R. 3762) was vetoed by President Obama on January 8, 2016. A House vote to override the President's veto did not achieve the requisite two-thirds vote threshold.
The formal process of compiling and considering a reconciliation bill begins once Congress has adopted a budget resolution containing reconciliation directives, but the informal planning and drafting process may start months in advance. Of the 23 reconciliation bills enacted into law, the average length of time between adoption of a congressional budget resolution with reconciliation instructions and enactment of the resulting reconciliation bill was 152 days, and the range varied from 28 to 385 days (see Figure 3).
For more information on this topic, see CRS Report RL30458, The Budget Reconciliation Process: Timing of Legislative Action, by Megan S. Lynch.
Section 310 of the Budget Act provides for three types of reconciliation instructions for each budget resolution: to change revenues, to change spending, and to change the amount of the debt limit. The Senate Parliamentarian has advised that no more than one reconciliation bill can include provisions in response to each type of instruction, such that a single budget resolution could generate a maximum of three reconciliation bills: one each containing only revenue provisions, only spending provisions, or only a change in the statutory debt limit.17 In recent practice, these have been combined into a single omnibus reconciliation bill.
Because the House and Senate may consider more than one budget resolution during the two sessions of each Congress, it is possible to consider multiple reconciliation bills over this period. Six different Congresses have considered multiple reconciliation bills—97th, 101st, 104th, 106th, 115th, and 117th—but not all were enacted into law (see Table 2). In the 115th and the 117th Congresses, multiple reconciliation measures were considered within the same session of Congress.
Congress |
Budget Resolution |
Date Adopted |
Resultant Reconciliation Act(s) |
Date Enacted |
97th Congress (1981-1982) |
||||
1st sess. |
05/21/1981 |
Omnibus Reconciliation Act of 1981 (P.L. 97-35) |
08/13/1981 |
|
2nd sess. |
06/23/1982 |
Tax Equity and Fiscal Responsibility Act of 1982 (P.L. 97-248) Omnibus Reconciliation Act of 1982 (P.L. 97-253) |
09/03/1982 09/08/1982 |
|
101st Congress (1989-1990) |
||||
1st sess. |
05/22/1989 |
Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1989 (P.L. 101-239) |
12/19/1989 |
|
2nd sess. |
10/09/1990 |
Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1990 (P.L. 101-508) |
11/05/1990 |
|
104th Congress (1996-1996) |
||||
1st sess. |
06/29/1995 |
Balanced Budget Act of 1995 (Vetoed) |
— |
|
2nd sess. |
06/13/1996 |
Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996 (P.L. 104-193) |
08/22/1996 |
|
106th Congress (1999-2000) |
||||
1st sess. |
04/16/1999 |
Taxpayer Refund and Relief Act of 1999 (Vetoed) |
— |
|
2nd sess. |
04/13/2000 |
Marriage Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2000 (Vetoed) |
— |
|
115th Congress (2017-2018) |
||||
1st sess. |
01/13/2017 |
American Health Care Act of 2017 |
— |
|
10/26/2017 |
Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (P.L. 115-97) |
12/22/2017 |
||
2nd sess. |
— |
— |
— |
— |
117th Congress (2021-2022) |
||||
1st sess. |
02/05/2021 |
American Rescue Plan Act of 2021 (P.L. 117-2) |
03/11/2021 |
|
08/24/2021 |
Inflation Reduction Act of 2022 (P.L. 117-169) |
08/16/2022 |
||
2nd sess. |
— |
— |
— |
— |
Source: Information compiled from the Congressional Record and Congress.gov.
Reconciliation Act |
Public Law Number |
Statutes-at-Large Citation |
Date Enacted or Vetoed |
|
1 |
Omnibus Reconciliation Act of 1980 |
94 Stat. 2599-2695 |
12-05-1980 |
|
2 |
Omnibus Reconciliation Act of 1981 |
95 Stat. 357-933 |
08-13-1981 |
|
3 |
Tax Equity and Fiscal Responsibility Act of 1982 |
96 Stat. 324-707 |
09-03-1982 |
|
4 |
Omnibus Reconciliation Act of 1982 |
96 Stat. 763-807 |
09-08-1982 |
|
5 |
Omnibus Reconciliation Act of 1983 |
98 Stat. 157-162 |
04-18-1984 |
|
6 |
Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1985 |
100 Stat. 82-391 |
04-07-1986 |
|
7 |
Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1986 |
100 Stat. 1874-2078 |
10-21-1986 |
|
8 |
Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1987 |
101 Stat. 1330, 1-472 |
12-22-1987 |
|
9 |
Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1989 |
103 Stat. 2106-2491 |
12-19-1989 |
|
10 |
Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1990 |
104 Stat. 1388, 1-630 |
11-05-1990 |
|
11 |
Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1993 |
107 Stat. 312-685 |
08-10-1993 |
|
12 |
Balanced Budget Act of 1995 |
— |
(H.R. 2491, vetoed) |
12-06-1995 |
13 |
Personal Responsibility and Budget Reconciliation Act of 1996 |
110 Stat. 2105-2355 |
08-22-1996 |
|
14 |
Balanced Budget Act of 1997 |
111 Stat. 251-787 |
08-05-1997 |
|
15 |
Taxpayer Relief Act of 1997 |
111 Stat. 788-1103 |
08-05-1997 |
|
16 |
Taxpayer Refund and Relief Act of 1999 |
— |
(H.R. 2488, vetoed) |
09-23-1999 |
17 |
Marriage Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2000 |
— |
(H.R. 4810, vetoed) |
08-05-2000 |
18 |
Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2001 |
115 Stat. 38-150 |
06-07-2001 |
|
19 |
Jobs and Growth Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2003 |
117 Stat. 752-768 |
05-28-2003 |
|
20 |
Deficit Reduction Act of 2005 |
120 Stat. 4-184 |
02-08-2006 |
|
21 |
Tax Increase Prevention and Reconciliation Act of 2005 |
120 Stat. 345-373 |
05-17-2006 |
|
22 |
College Cost Reduction and Access Act of 2007 |
121 Stat. 784-822 |
09-27-2007 |
|
23 |
Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act of 2010 |
124 Stat. 1029-1083 |
03-30-2010 |
|
24 |
Restoring Americans' Healthcare Freedom Reconciliation Act of 2015 |
— |
(H.R. 3762, vetoed) |
01-08-2016 |
25 |
American Health Care Act of 2017 |
— |
(H.R. 1628)a |
— |
26 |
Tax Cuts and Jobs Actb |
131 Stat. 2054-2238 |
12-22-2017 |
|
27 |
American Rescue Plan Act of 2021 |
135 Stat. 4-245 |
03-11-2021 |
|
28 |
Inflation Reduction Act of 2022c |
136 Stat 1818-2090 |
08-16-2022 |
Source: Information compiled from the Congressional Record and Congress.gov.
Notes: Budget reconciliation measures in italics either were vetoed or did not pass the Senate.
a. On July 28, 2017, H.R. 1628 was returned to the Senate Calendar after an amendment (no. 667) in the nature of a substitute offered by Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell was rejected by a vote of 49-51. See Congressional Record, daily edition, vol. 163 (July 27, 2017), pp. S4399-S4415. No further action was taken on H.R. 1628 during the 115th Congress.
b. This short title, included in the conference report to the reconciliation act (H.Rept. 115-466, H.R. 1), was stricken on a point of order under the Byrd rule. As a result, the official title of the measure as enacted is "An Act to provide for reconciliation pursuant to titles II and V of the concurrent resolution on the budget for fiscal year 2018."
c. This short title, which was included in a substitute amendment (no. 5194, as modified) that was adopted by voice vote, was stricken on a point of order under the Byrd rule. As a result, the official title of the measure as enacted is "An Act to provide for reconciliation pursuant to title II of S.Con.Res. 14."
Budget Resolution |
Date Adopted |
Date Enacted |
||
1981 |
06/12/1980 |
Omnibus Reconciliation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-499) |
12/05/1980 |
|
1982 |
05/21/1981 |
Omnibus Reconciliation Act of 1981 (P.L. 97-35) |
08/13/1981 |
|
1983 |
06/23/1982 |
Tax Equity and Fiscal Responsibility Act of 1982 (P.L. 97-248) Omnibus Reconciliation Act of 1982 (P.L. 97-253) |
09/03/1982 09/08/1982 |
|
1984 |
06/23/1983 |
Omnibus Reconciliation Act of 1983 (P.L. 98-270) |
04/18/1984 |
|
1986 |
08/01/1985 |
Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1985 (P.L. 99-272) |
04/07/1986 |
|
1987 |
06/27/1986 |
Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1986 (P.L. 99-509) |
10/21/1986 |
|
1988 |
06/25/1987 |
Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1987 (P.L. 100-203) |
12/22/1987 |
|
1990 |
05/22/1989 |
Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1989 (P.L. 101-239) |
12/19/1989 |
|
1991 |
10/09/1990 |
Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1990 (P.L. 101-508) |
11/05/1990 |
|
1994 |
04/01/1993 |
Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1993 (P.L. 103-66) |
08/10/1993 |
|
1996 |
06/29/1995 |
Balanced Budget Act of 1995 (H.R. 2491)a |
— |
|
1997 |
06/13/1996 |
Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996 (P.L. 104-193) |
08/22/1996 |
|
1998 |
06/05/1997 |
Balanced Budget Act of 1997 (P.L. 105-33) Taxpayer Relief Act of 1997 (P.L. 105-34) |
08/05/1997 08/05/1997 |
|
2000 |
04/16/1999 |
Taxpayer Refund and Relief Act of 1999 (H.R. 2488)b |
— |
|
2001 |
04/13/2000 |
Marriage Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2000 (H.R. 4810)c |
— |
|
2002 |
05/10/2001 |
Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2001 (P.L. 107-16) |
06/07/2001 |
|
2004 |
04/11/2003 |
Jobs and Growth Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2003 (P.L. 108-27) |
05/28/2003 |
|
2006 |
04/28/2005 |
Deficit Reduction Act of 2005 (P.L. 109-171) Tax Increase Prevention and Reconciliation Act of 2005 (P.L. 109-222) |
02/08/2006 05/17/2006 |
|
2008 |
05/17/2007 |
College Cost Reduction and Access Act of 2007 (P.L. 110-84) |
09/27/2007 |
|
2010 |
04/29/2009 |
Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act of 2010 (P.L. 111-152) |
03/30/2010 |
|
2016 |
05/06/2015 |
Restoring Americans' Healthcare Freedom Reconciliation Act of 2015 (H.R. 3762)d |
— |
|
2017 |
01/13/2017 |
American Health Care Act of 2017 (H.R. 1628)e |
— |
|
2018 |
10/26/2017 |
Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (P.L. 115-97) |
12/22/2017 |
|
2021 |
02/05/2021 |
American Rescue Plan Act of 2021 (P.L. 117-2) |
03/11/2021 |
|
2022 |
08/24/2021 |
Inflation Reduction Act of 2022 (P.L. 117-169) |
08/16/2022 |
Source: Information compiled from the Congressional Record and Congress.gov.
Notes:
a. The Balanced Budget Act of 1995 (H.R. 2491) was vetoed by President Clinton on December 6, 1995.
b. The Taxpayer Refund and Relief Act of 1999 (H.R. 2488) was vetoed by President Clinton on September 15, 1999.
c. The Marriage Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2000 (H.R. 4810) was vetoed by President Clinton on August 5, 2000. A House vote to override the President's veto did not achieve the requisite two-thirds vote threshold.
d. The Restoring American's Healthcare Freedom Reconciliation Act of 2015 (H.R. 3762) was vetoed by President Obama on January 8, 2016. A House vote to override the President's veto did not achieve the requisite two-thirds vote threshold.
e. The American Health Care Act of 2017 (H.R. 1628) failed to pass the Senate on July 28, 2017.
CRS colleagues Jim Saturno, Bill Heniff, Megan Lynch, Elizabeth Rybicki, Jim Specht, and Mari Lee provided expert guidance and contributions to this report.
1. |
For more information on the congressional budget resolution, see CRS Report R48284, The Congressional Budget Resolution: Frequently Asked Questions, by Tori Gorman. |
2. |
2 U.S.C. §641. |
3. |
As a result, the reconciliation process was not an option for Congress under the FY2009 budget resolution. |
4. |
Section 310(b)(2). When only one committee receives reconciliation directives, it may report the measure directly to its chamber as it would legislation considered under regular order. |
5. |
"It shall not be in order to consider a concurrent resolution on the budget, or an amendment thereto, or a conference report thereon that contains reconciliation directives under section 310 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 that specify changes in law such that the reconciliation legislation reported pursuant to such directives would cause an increase in net direct spending (as the term is defined in clause 10) for the period covered by such concurrent resolution." Rule XXI, clause 7, Rules of the House of Representatives, 119th Congress, January 16, 2025. |
6. |
Second-order changes in payroll tax revenue or Social Security benefits resulting from changes in taxable income do not violate this point of order. |
7. |
Named after its principal sponsor, Sen. Robert C. Byrd (D-WV), who served in the Senate for over 50 years. |
8. |
Circumstances under which the Senate may impose subject matter restrictions on amendment: by invoking cloture under Rule XXII, under the terms of a unanimous consent agreement, or when it is required by the provisions of a statute governing the consideration of a measure (such as the Budget Act). |
9. |
If a curative amendment is pending, a point of order is not ripe to offer. |
10. |
For more on points of order see CRS Report R47413, Points of Order in the Congressional Budget Process, by James V. Saturno and Megan S. Lynch; CRS Report 98-306, Points of Order, Rulings, and Appeals in the Senate, by Valerie Heitshusen; and CRS Report 98-307, Points of Order, Rulings, and Appeals in the House of Representatives, by Valerie Heitshusen 98-307. |
11. |
2 U.S.C. §644. |
12. |
For more information on the role of the Senate Parliamentarian, see CRS Report RS20544, The Office of the Parliamentarian in the House and Senate, by Valerie Heitshusen. |
13. |
A discussion of occasions when such advice was proffered appears in U.S. Congress, Senate Budget Committee, The Congressional Budget Process, committee print, 117th Cong., 2nd sess., December 2022, S. Prt. 117-23, pp. 483-499. |
14. |
For example, legislative text that creates or amends a refundable tax credit would have both revenue and outlay effects and hence would violate a revenue-only directive. |
15. |
For more on revenue legislation and the Origination Clause, see CRS Report R46558, The Origination Clause of the U.S. Constitution: Interpretation and Enforcement, by James V. Saturno. |
16. |
For more on methods for resolving differences, see CRS Report 98-696, Resolving Legislative Differences in Congress: Conference Committees and Amendments Between the Houses, by Elizabeth Rybicki. |
17. |
U.S. Congress, Senate Budget Committee, The Congressional Budget Process, committee print, 117th Cong., 2nd sess., S.Prt. 117-23 (Washington: GPO, 2022), p. 483. |