The Budget Reconciliation Process: The Senate’s “Byrd Rule”

February 19, 2004 – September 28, 2022 RL30862

The Budget Reconciliation Process:
The Senate’s “Byrd Rule”
Updated September 28, 2022
Congressional Research Service
https://crsreports.congress.gov
RL30862

The Budget Reconciliation Process: The Senate’s “Byrd Rule”

Summary
Reconciliation is a procedure under the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 by which Congress
implements budget resolution policies affecting mainly permanent spending and revenue
programs. The principal focus in the reconciliation process has been deficit reduction, but in some
years reconciliation has involved revenue reduction generally and spending increases in selected
areas. Although reconciliation is an optional procedure, the House and Senate have used it in
most years since its first use in 1980 (23 reconciliation bills have been enacted into law and four
have been vetoed).
During the first several years’ experience with reconciliation, the legislation contained many
provisions that were extraneous to the purpose of implementing budget resolution policies. The
reconciliation submissions of committees included provisions that had no budgetary effect, that
increased spending or reduced revenues when the reconciliation instructions called for reduced
spending or increased revenues, or that violated another committee’s jurisdiction.
In 1985 and 1986, the Senate adopted the Byrd rule (named after its principal sponsor, Senator
Robert C. Byrd) on a temporary basis as a means of curbing these practices. The Byrd rule was
extended and modified several times over the years. In 1990, the Byrd rule was incorporated into
the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 as Section 313 and made permanent (2 U.S.C. 644).
A Senator opposed to the inclusion of extraneous matter in reconciliation legislation may offer an
amendment (or a motion to recommit the measure with instructions) that strikes such provisions
from the legislation, or, under the Byrd rule, a Senator may raise a point of order against such
matter. In general, a point of order authorized under the Byrd rule may be raised in order to strike
extraneous matter already in the bill as reported or discharged (or in the conference report), or to
prevent the incorporation of extraneous matter through the adoption of amendments or motions. A
motion to waive the Byrd rule, or to sustain an appeal of the ruling of the chair on a point of order
raised under the Byrd rule, requires the affirmative vote of three-fifths of the membership (60
Senators if no seats are vacant).
The Byrd rule provides six definitions of what constitutes extraneous matter for purposes of the
rule (and several exceptions thereto), but the term is generally described as covering provisions
unrelated to achieving the goals of the reconciliation instructions.
The Byrd rule has been in effect during Senate consideration of 23 reconciliation measures from
late 1985 through the present. Actions were taken under the Byrd rule in the case of 19 of the 23
measures. In total, 83 points of order and 69 waiver motions were considered and disposed of
under the rule, largely in a manner that favored those who opposed the inclusion of extraneous
matter in reconciliation legislation (73 points of order were sustained, in whole or in part, and 60
waiver motions were rejected).
This report has been updated to include the consideration of H.R. 5376 (referred to as the
Inflation Reduction Act of 2022).

Congressional Research Service

The Budget Reconciliation Process: The Senate’s “Byrd Rule”

Introduction
Reconciliation is a process established under Section 310 of the Congressional Budget Act of
1974 (P.L. 93-344, as amended).1 The purpose of reconciliation is to change substantive law so
that revenue and mandatory spending levels are brought into line with budget resolution policies.
Reconciliation has generally been used to reduce the deficit through spending reductions or
revenue increases, or a combination of the two. In some years, however, the reconciliation
process also encompassed revenue reduction generally and spending increases in selected
program areas.
Reconciliation is a two-step process. Under the first step, reconciliation instructions are included
in the budget resolution, directing one or more committees in each House to develop legislation
that changes spending or revenues (or both) by the amounts specified in the budget resolution. If
more than one committee in each House is given instructions, each instructed committee submits
reconciliation legislation to its respective Budget Committee, which incorporates all submissions,
without any substantive revision, into a single, omnibus budget reconciliation measure.
Reconciliation procedures during a session usually have applied to multiple committees and
involved omnibus legislation.
Under the second step, the omnibus budget reconciliation measure is considered in the House and
Senate under expedited procedures (for example, debate time in the Senate on a reconciliation
measure is limited to 20 hours and amendments must be germane). The process culminates with
enactment of the measure, thus putting the policies of the budget resolution into effect.
Reconciliation, which was first used by the House and Senate in 1980, is an optional procedure,
but it has been used in most years. Over the period covering from 1980 to the present, 23
reconciliation bills have been enacted into law and four have been vetoed.2
Between 1980 and 1985, the reconciliation legislation contained many provisions that were
extraneous to the purpose of reducing the deficit. The reconciliation submissions of committees
included provisions that had no budgetary effect, that increased spending or reduced revenues, or
that violated another committee’s jurisdiction.
In 1985 and 1986, the Senate adopted the Byrd rule (named after its principal sponsor, Senator
Robert C. Byrd) as a means of curbing these practices. Initially, the rule consisted of two
components, involving a provision in a reconciliation act and a Senate resolution. The Byrd rule
has been modified several times over the years.
The purpose of this report is to briefly recount the legislative history of the Byrd rule, summarize
its current features, and describe its implementation from its inception through the present.
Legislative History of the Byrd Rule
During the first five years that the Byrd rule was in effect, from late 1985 until late 1990, it
consisted of two separate components—(1) a provision in statute applying to initial Senate
consideration of reconciliation measures, and (2) a Senate resolution extending application of
portions of the statutory provision to conference reports and amendments between the two
houses. Several modifications were made to the Byrd rule in 1986 and 1987, including extending

1 For further information on the reconciliation process, see CRS Report R44058, The Budget Reconciliation Process:
Stages of Consideration.
2 For additional information on reconciliation measures that became law, see CRS Report R40480, Budget
Reconciliation Measures Enacted into Law Since 1980.
Congressional Research Service

1

The Budget Reconciliation Process: The Senate’s “Byrd Rule”

its expiration date from January 2, 1987, to January 2, 1988, and then to September 30, 1992, but
the two separate components of the rule were preserved. In 1990, these components were merged
together and made permanent when they were incorporated into the Congressional Budget Act
(CBA) of 1974 as Section 313. There have been no further changes in the Byrd rule since 1990.
The Byrd rule originated on October 24, 1985, when Senator Robert C. Byrd, on behalf of
himself and others, offered Amendment No. 878 (as modified) to S. 1730, the Consolidated
Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act (COBRA) of 1985.3 The Senate adopted the amendment by a
vote of 96-0.4 In this form, the Byrd rule applied to initial Senate consideration of reconciliation
measures.
Senator Byrd explained that the basic purposes of the amendment were to protect the
effectiveness of the reconciliation process (by excluding extraneous matter that often provoked
controversy without aiding deficit reduction efforts) and to preserve the deliberative character of
the Senate (by excluding from consideration under expedited procedures legislative matters not
central to deficit reduction that should be debated under regular procedures). He opened his
remarks by stating
we are in the process now of seeing ... the Pandora’s box which has been opened to the
abuse of the reconciliation process. That process was never meant to be used as it is being
used. There are 122 items in the reconciliation bill that are extraneous. Henceforth, if the
majority on a committee should wish to include in reconciliation recommendations to the
Budget Committee any measure, no matter how controversial, it can be brought to the
Senate under an ironclad built-in time agreement that limits debate, plus time on
amendments and motions, to no more than 20 hours.
It was never foreseen that the Budget Reform Act would be used in that way. So if the
budget reform process is going to be preserved, and more importantly if we are going to
preserve the deliberative process in this U.S. Senate—which is the outstanding, unique
element with respect to the U.S. Senate, action must be taken now to stop this abuse of the
budget process.5
The Byrd amendment was included in modified form in COBRA of 1985 (P.L. 99-272), which
was not enacted into law until April 7, 1986, as Section 20001 (100 Stat. 390-391). The Byrd rule,
in this form, thus became effective on April 7. As originally framed, the Byrd rule was set to
expire on January 2, 1987.

3 For a detailed legislative history of the Byrd rule, see the following print of the Senate Budget Committee: Budget
Process Law Annotated—1993 Edition, by William G. Dauster, 103rd Cong., 1st sess., S. Prt. 103-49, October 1993,
notes on pp. 229-246.
4 See the Senate’s consideration of and vote on the amendment in the Congressional Record, daily edition (October 24,
1985), pp. S14032-S14038.
5 See the remarks of Senator Robert C. Byrd in the Congressional Record, daily edition (October 24, 1985), p. S14032.
Congressional Research Service

2

link to page 6 The Budget Reconciliation Process: The Senate’s “Byrd Rule”

Table 1. Laws and Resolutions
Establishing the Byrd Rule
Over the years, the Senate has expanded and
P.L. 99-272, Consolidated Omnibus Budget
revised the Byrd rule through the adoption of
Reconciliation Act of 1985, Section 2001 (100 Stat.
two resolutions and the inclusion of provisions
390-391), April 7, 1986.
in four laws. Table 1 lists the laws and
S.Res. 286 (99th Congress, 1st Session), December
resolutions that have established and revised the
19, 1985.
Byrd rule.
S.Res. 509 (99th Congress, 2nd Session), October 16,
1986.
On December 19, 1985, the Senate adopted by
P.L. 99-509, Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of
voice vote a resolution (S.Res. 286), sponsored
1986, Section 7006 (100 Stat. 1949-1950), October
by Senator Alan Simpson and others, that
21, 1986.
extended the application of portions of the
P.L. 100-119, Increasing the Statutory Limit on the
statutory provision to conference reports and
Public Debt, Section 205 (101 Stat. 784-785),
September 29, 1987.
amendments between the two houses. Because
the enactment of COBRA of 1985 was delayed
P.L. 101-508, Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of
1990, Section 13214 (104 Stat. 1388-621 through
until early 1986, the portion of the Byrd rule
1388-623), November 5, 1990.
dealing with conference reports became
P.L. 105-33, Balanced Budget Act of 1997, Section
effective first. The provisions of S.Res. 286
10113(b)(1) (111 Stat. 688), August 5, 1997.
were set to expire on the same date as the
provision in COBRA of 1985 (January 2, 1987).
In the following year, the Senate was involved in two actions affecting the Byrd rule. First, the
Senate adopted S.Res. 509 by voice vote on October 16, 1986. The measure, offered by Senator
Alan Simpson and others, modified S.Res. 286 to clarify that its provisions were intended to
apply also to an amendment between the chambers. Second, the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation
Act of 1986 was enacted into law, as P.L. 99-509, on October 21, 1986. Section 7006 of the law
made several minor changes in the Byrd rule and extended its expiration date by one year—until
January 2, 1988.
Further changes in the Byrd rule were made in 1987. These changes were included in a measure
increasing the statutory limit on the public debt, modifying procedures under the Balanced
Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985, and making other budget process changes
(P.L. 100-119, signed into law on September 29; see Title II (Budget Process Reform)). Section
205 of the law added an item to the list of definitions of extraneous matter in the Byrd rule and
extended its expiration until September 30, 1992.
In 1990, Congress and the President agreed to further modifications of the budget process by
enacting the Budget Enforcement Act (BEA) of 1990 (Title XIII of the Omnibus Budget
Reconciliation Act of 1990). Section 13214 of the law made significant revisions to the Byrd rule
and incorporated it (as permanent law) into the CBA of 1974 as Section 313 (2 U.S.C. 644).
Finally, the Budget Enforcement Act of 1997 (Title X of the Balanced Budget Act of 1997) made
minor technical changes in Section 313 of the CBA of 1974 to correct drafting problems with the
BEA of 1990.
Current Features of the Byrd Rule
A Senator opposed to the inclusion of extraneous matter in reconciliation legislation has two
principal options for dealing with the issue. First, a Senator may offer an amendment (or a motion
to recommit the measure with instructions) that strikes such provisions from the legislation.
Second, under the Byrd rule, a Senator may raise a point of order against extraneous matter.
Congressional Research Service

3

The Budget Reconciliation Process: The Senate’s “Byrd Rule”

The Byrd rule is a relatively complex rule6 that applies to two types of reconciliation measures
considered pursuant to Section 310 of the CBA of 1974—reconciliation bills and reconciliation
resolutions.7 (A reconciliation resolution could be used to make changes in legislation that had
passed the House and Senate but had not yet been enrolled and sent to the President. The practice
of the House and Senate has been to consider only reconciliation bills.)
In general, a point of order authorized under the Byrd rule may be raised in order to strike
extraneous matter already in the bill as reported or discharged (or in the conference report), or to
prevent the incorporation of extraneous matter through the adoption of amendments or motions. A
point of order may be raised against a single provision or two or more provisions (as designated
by title or section number, or by page and line number), and may be raised against a single
amendment or two or more amendments. The chair may sustain a point of order as to all of the
provisions (or amendments) or only some of them. Once material has been struck from
reconciliation legislation under the Byrd rule, it may not be offered again as an amendment.
A motion to waive the Byrd rule, or to sustain an appeal of the ruling of the chair on a point of
order raised under the Byrd rule, requires the affirmative vote of three-fifths of the membership
(60 Senators if no seats are vacant).8 A single waiver motion can (1) apply to the Byrd rule as well
as other provisions of the Congressional Budget Act; (2) involve multiple as well as single
provisions or amendments; (3) extend (for specified language) through consideration of the
conference report as well as initial consideration of the measure or amendment; and (4) be made
prior to the raising of a point of order, thus making the point of order moot.
When a reconciliation measure, or a conference report thereon, is considered, the Senate Budget
Committee must submit for the record a list of potentially extraneous matter included therein.9
This list is advisory, however, and does not bind the chair in ruling on points of order. In practice,
the list has been inserted into the Congressional Record in some years but not in others. Further,
in some years, the chairman and the ranking minority member of the committee each have
submitted their own lists.10 Finally, in some cases the list has merely stated that no extraneous
matter was included in the measure.

6 Some of the complexities of the Byrd rule are examined in: (1) Riddick’s Senate Procedure (S.Doc. 101-28, 101st
Cong., 2nd sess., 1992), by Floyd M. Riddick and Alan S. Frumin, pp. 624-626; and (2) Budget Process Law
Annotated—1993 Edition, by William G. Dauster, op. cit., beginning on p. 198.
7 Part of the Byrd rule, Section 313(a), also applies to reconciliation measures considered pursuant to Section 258C of
the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985. This section, which never was invoked, provided for
the consideration of reconciliation legislation in the fall in order to achieve deficit reductions that would obviate the
need for an expected sequester under the original statutory pay-as-you-go (PAYGO) requirement (or, previously, the
deficit targets). The PAYGO requirement effectively expired at the end of the 107th Congress (see CRS Report
RS21378, Termination of the “Pay-As-You-Go” (PAYGO) Requirement for FY2003 and Later Years, by Robert Keith;
out of print; available to congressional clients upon request). A new statutory PAYGO requirement was enacted in P.L.
111-139, but it does not involve Section 258C of the 1985 act. All of the reconciliation measures considered by the
Senate thus far have originated pursuant to Section 310 of the CBA of 1974.
8 In the Senate, many points of order under the CBA of 1974 require a three-fifths vote of the membership to waive (or
to sustain an appeal of the ruling of the chair). Most of these three-fifths waiver requirements are temporary but are
extended from time to time; in the case of the Byrd rule, the three-fifths waiver requirement is permanent.
9 For an example of such a list, see the remarks of Senator Pete Domenici regarding the conference report on the
Balanced Budget Act of 1997 in the Congressional Record, daily edition (July 31, 1997), pp. S8406-S8408.
10 For example, see the lists provided by: (1) Chairman Pete Domenici and Ranking Minority Member James Exon
regarding the Balanced Budget Act of 1995, inserted into the Congressional Record, daily edition (October 26, 1995),
pp. S15832-S15834 and pp. S15834-S15840, respectively; and (2) Chairman Judd Gregg regarding the Deficit
Reduction Act of 2005, inserted into the Congressional Record, daily edition (November 8, 2005), pp. S12522-S12523,
and Ranking Minority Member Kent Conrad, inserted into the Congressional Record, daily edition (November 2,
Congressional Research Service

4

The Budget Reconciliation Process: The Senate’s “Byrd Rule”

Determinations of budgetary levels for purposes of enforcing the Byrd rule are made by the
Senate Budget Committee.
Definitions of Extraneous Matter
Subsection (b)(1) of the Byrd rule provides definitions of what constitutes extraneous matter for
purposes of the rule. The Senate Budget Committee, in its report on the budget resolution for
FY1994, noted “‘Extraneous’ is a term of art. Broadly speaking, the rule prohibits inclusion in
reconciliation of matter unrelated to the deficit reduction goals of the reconciliation process.”11
A provision is considered to be extraneous if it falls under one or more of the following six
definitions:
 it does not produce a change in outlays or revenues or a change in the terms and
conditions under which outlays are made or revenues are collected;
 it produces an outlay increase or revenue decrease when the instructed committee
is not in compliance with its instructions;
 it is outside of the jurisdiction of the committee that submitted the title or
provision for inclusion in the reconciliation measure;
 it produces a change in outlays or revenues which is merely incidental to the non-
budgetary components of the provision;
 it would increase the deficit for a fiscal year beyond the “budget window”
covered by the reconciliation measure;12 and
 it recommends changes in Social Security.
The last definition complements a ban in Section 310(g) of the CBA of 1974 against considering
any reconciliation legislation that contains recommendations pertaining to the Social Security. For
purposes of these provisions, Social Security is considered to include the Old-Age, Survivors, and
Disability Insurance (OASDI) program established under Title II of the Social Security Act; it
does not include Medicare or other programs established as part of that act.
Exceptions to the Definition of Extraneous Matter
Subsection (b)(2) of the Byrd rule provides that a Senate-originated provision that does not
produce a change in outlays or revenues shall not be considered extraneous if the chairman and
ranking minority members of the Budget Committee and the committee reporting the provision
certify that—

2005), pp. S12213-S12214. In some cases the lists have been fairly similar, but in other instances they have differed
significantly.
11 See the report of the Senate Budget Committee to accompany S.Con.Res. 18, Concurrent Resolution on the Budget,
FY1994 (S.Rept. 103-19, March 12, 1993), p. 49.
12 The “budget window” refers to the period covered by the budget resolution, and to any reconciliation directives
included therein and the resultant reconciliation legislation. Beginning in the late 1980s, the budget resolution is
required to cover at a minimum the “budget year” (the fiscal year beginning on October 1 in the session that the budget
resolution is adopted) and the four following fiscal years (the “outyears”). In addition, budget resolutions sometimes
cover the “current year” (the fiscal year preceding the budget year) and up to five additional outyears. Accordingly, the
longest budget window that has applied to a budget resolution and associated reconciliation legislation covered 11
years, including the current year.
Congressional Research Service

5

link to page 38 link to page 10 The Budget Reconciliation Process: The Senate’s “Byrd Rule”

 the provision mitigates direct effects clearly attributable to a provision changing
outlays or revenues and both provisions together produce a net reduction in the
deficit; or
 the provision will (or is likely to) reduce outlays or increase revenues: (1) in one
or more fiscal years beyond those covered by the reconciliation measure; (2) on
the basis of new regulations, court rulings on pending legislation, or relationships
between economic indices and stipulated statutory triggers pertaining to the
provision; or (3) but reliable estimates cannot be made due to insufficient data.
Additionally, under subsection (b)(1)(A), a provision that does not change outlays or revenues in
the net, but which includes outlay decreases or revenue increases that exactly offset outlay
increases or revenue decreases, is not considered to be extraneous.
The full text of the Byrd rule in its current form is provided in the Appendix.
Implementation of the Byrd Rule
Congress has considered 28 budget reconciliation measures (as shown in Table 2) between
calendar year 1980, when the reconciliation process was first used by the House and Senate, and
the present.13 As stated previously, 23 of these measures were enacted into law and four were
vetoed. The Senate did not complete action on the remaining reconciliation measure (H.R. 1628
in 2017).
The Byrd rule has been in effect during the consideration of the last 23 of these 28 measures,
covering from the end of calendar year 1985 through August 2022. The Byrd rule had not been
established when the first five reconciliation bills were considered. As discussed in more detail
below, actions were taken under the Byrd rule during the consideration of 19 of the 23
reconciliation measures.
The Byrd rule was only partially in effect during the consideration of the first of these 22
reconciliation bills. During consideration of the Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation
Act (COBRA) of 1985, the Byrd rule applied to the consideration of an exchange of amendments
between the two chambers, but not to initial consideration of the bill.
The 23 reconciliation bills considered by the House and Senate during this period stemmed from
reconciliation directives in 21 different budget resolutions. Two budget resolutions, in 1997 (for
FY1998) and 2005 (for FY2006), led to the enactment of two reconciliation measures in each
year.

13 The Senate also considered two measures linked to the reconciliation process. On December 15, 1975, the Senate
considered, amended, and passed H.R. 5559, the Revenue Adjustment Act of 1975, which reduced revenues by about
$6.4 billion pursuant to a budget resolution instruction. The measure was not regarded as a reconciliation bill when it
was considered by the House, but it was considered under reconciliation procedures in the Senate. The President vetoed
the measure later in the year and the House sustained his veto. See the remarks of Senator Russell Long and the
presiding officer on p. 40540 and the remarks of Senator Edmund Muskie and others on pp. 40544-40550 in the
Congressional Record of December 15, 1975, regarding the status of H.R. 5559 as a reconciliation bill.
The Deficit Reduction Act of 1984 (P.L. 98-369) was regarded as a reconciliation bill when it was considered in the
House, but was stripped of that classification when it was considered in the Senate (in April and May of 1984). The
House has also considered reconciliation measures that were not considered in the Senate.
For more information on the consideration of reconciliation measures, see CRS Report RL30458, The Budget
Reconciliation Process: Timing of Legislative Action.
Congressional Research Service

6

link to page 11 The Budget Reconciliation Process: The Senate’s “Byrd Rule”

Table 2. Budget Reconciliation Measures Considered by Congress, 1980-2022
Public Law
Statutes-at-Large
Date Enacted
Reconciliation Act
Number
Citation
(or Vetoed)
Byrd Rule Not in Effect
1
Omnibus Reconciliation Act of 1980
P.L. 96-499
94 Stat. 2599-2695
12-05-1980
2
Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1981
P.L. 97-35
95 Stat. 357-933
08-13-1981
Tax Equity and Fiscal Responsibility Act of
P.L. 97-248
96 Stat. 324-707
09-03-1982
3
1982
4
Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1982
P.L. 97-253
96 Stat. 763-807
09-08-1982
5
Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1983
P.L. 98-270
98 Stat. 157-162
04-18-1984
Byrd Rule in Effect (Partially for COBRA of 1985)
Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation
P.L. 99-272
100 Stat. 82-391
04-07-1986
6
Act of 1985
7
Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1986
P.L. 99-509
100 Stat. 1874-2078
10-21-1986
8
Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1987
P.L. 100-203
101 Stat. 1330, 1-472
12-22-1987
9
Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1989
P.L. 101-239
103 Stat. 2106-2491
12-19-1989
10
Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1990
P.L. 101-508
104 Stat. 1388, 1-630
11-05-1990
11
Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1993
P.L. 103-66
107 Stat. 312-685
08-10-1993
12
Balanced Budget Act of 1995
—
(H.R. 2491, vetoed)
12-06-1995
Personal Responsibility and Budget
P.L. 104-193
110 Stat. 2105-2355
08-22-1996
13
Reconciliation Act of 1996
14
Balanced Budget Act of 1997
P.L. 105-33
111 Stat. 251-787
08-05-1997
15
Taxpayer Relief Act of 1997
P.L. 105-34
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
Economic Growth and Tax Relief
P.L. 107-16
115 Stat. 38-150
06-07-2001
18
Reconciliation Act of 2001
Jobs and Growth Tax Relief Reconciliation Act P.L. 108-27
117 Stat. 752-768
05-28-2003
19
of 2003
20
Deficit Reduction Act of 2005
P.L. 109-171
120 Stat. 4-184
02-08-2006
Tax Increase Prevention and Reconciliation
P.L. 109-222
120 Stat. 345-373
05-17-2006
21
Act of 2005
College Cost Reduction and Access Act of
P.L. 110-84
121 Stat. 784-822
09-27-2007
22
2007
Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act
P.L. 111-152
124 Stat. 1029-1083
03-30-2010
23
of 2010
Restoring Americans’ Healthcare Freedom
—
(H.R. 3762, vetoed)
01-08-2016
24
Reconciliation Act of 2015
25
American Health Care Act of 2017
—
(H.R. 1628)a
—
Congressional Research Service

7

link to page 11 link to page 11 link to page 11 link to page 24 link to page 24 link to page 12 The Budget Reconciliation Process: The Senate’s “Byrd Rule”

Public Law
Statutes-at-Large
Date Enacted
Reconciliation Act
Number
Citation
(or Vetoed)
26
Tax Cuts and Jobs Actb
P.L. 115-97
131 Stat. 2054-2238
12-22-2017
27
American Rescue Plan Act of 2021
P.L. 117-2
135 Stat. 4-245
03-11-2021
To provide for reconciliation pursuant to title
P.L. 117-169
[not available]d
08-16-2022
28
II of S.Con.Res. 14c
Sources: 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 budget reconciliation act (H.Rept. 115-466, H.R.
1), was stricken on a point of order under the Byrd rule, as indicated in Table 4 below. As a result, the
measure as enacted is referenced by its official title, “An Act to provide for reconciliation pursuant to titles
II and V of the concurrent resolution on the budget for fiscal year 2018.”
c. Referred to as the “Inflation Reduction Act of 2022.” This short title, which was included in the Schumer
Modified Amendment No. 5194, was stricken on a point of order under the Byrd rule, as indicated in
Table 4.
d. As of the date of this CRS report, the Government Printing Office had not published the slip law, which
would include the Statutes-at-Large citation.
As Table 3 shows, there have been 83 points of order and 69 waiver motions, for a total of 152
actions, considered and disposed of under the Byrd rule. The 152 actions involve only those
instances in which the Byrd rule was cited specifically. Due to the manner in which budget
enforcement provisions operate in the Senate, the Byrd rule could have potentially been involved
in other instances which cannot be identified.14
There is not a one-to-one correspondence between points of order and waiver motions. A point of
order can be raised under the Byrd rule without a waiver motion being offered; conversely, a
waiver motion can be offered without a point of order having been raised.
On the whole, the points of order and waiver motions were disposed of in a manner that favored
by a large margin those who opposed the inclusion of extraneous matter in reconciliation
legislation, as discussed in more detail below.15

14 The Byrd rule is only one of many point-of-order provisions in Titles III and IV of the CBA of 1974, as amended (2
U.S.C. 644). In some instances, points of order or waiver motions are made under the act by general reference only
(such as a Senator raising a point of order “under Title III of the Act”) rather than by specific reference to the
provision(s) involved. When only general references are made, it is often impossible to determine (principally by
reference to debate in the Congressional Record) which provisions of the act are involved. In addition, a provision or
amendment may violate the Byrd rule and one or more other enforcement provisions; a Senator raising a point of order
may cite one of the other enforcement provisions as the basis for the action. Consequently, this report reflects only
those instances when specific reference was made to Section 313 of the act or to the Byrd rule and may undercount the
number of actions potentially involving the rule.
15 It is difficult, if not impossible, to accurately determine the deterrent effect of the Byrd rule, so this aspect is not
addressed in this report.
Congressional Research Service

8

Table 3. Budget Reconciliation Acts: Summary of Points of Order and Waiver Motions Under the Byrd Rule
Points of Order

Waiver Motions
Public Law (or
To Strike Provision(s) From
To Bar Consideration
Vetoed Bill)
Calendar Year(s)
Amendment, Bill, or Conference Report
of Amendment
Number
of Senate Action
Sustained
Fell
Total
Sustained
Fell
Total
Total Approved Rejected Total
P.L. 99-272
1985-1986
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
P.L. 99-509
1986
1
1
2
—
—
—
2
1
1
2
P.L. 100-203
1987
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
1
—
1
P.L. 101-239
1989
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
P.L. 101-508
1990
3
1
4
2
—
2
6
1
2
3
P.L. 103-66
1993
2
2
4
3
—
3
7
—
4
4
H.R. 2491
1995
4
—
4
4
—
4
8
—
7
7
P.L. 104-193
1996
4
1
5
1
—
1
6
1
3
4
P.L. 105-33
1997
2
2
4
3
—
3
7
2
3
5
P.L. 105-34
1997
1
2
3
6
—
6
9
2
6
8
H.R. 2488
1999
1
—
1
2
—
2
3
1
3
4
H.R. 4810
2000
—
1
1
2
—
2
3
—
2
2
P.L. 107-16
2001
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
P.L. 108-27
2003
—
—
—
1
—
1
1
—
1
1
P.L. 109-171
2005
1
—
1
—
—
—
1
—
1
1
P.L. 109-222
2005-2006
—
—
—
1
—
1
1
—
1
1
P.L. 110-84
2007
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
P.L. 111-152
2010
2
—
2
9
—
9
11
—
9
9
H.R. 3762
2015
1
—
1
4
—
4
5
—
5
5
H.R. 1628
2017
—
—
—
1
—
1
1
—
1
1
CRS-9

link to page 24
Points of Order

Waiver Motions
Public Law (or
To Strike Provision(s) From
To Bar Consideration
Vetoed Bill)
Calendar Year(s)
Amendment, Bill, or Conference Report
of Amendment
Number
of Senate Action
Sustained
Fell
Total
Sustained
Fell
Total
Total Approved Rejected Total
P.L. 115-97
2017
1
—
1
1
—
1
2
—
2
2
P.L. 117-2
2021
—
—
—
4
—
4
4
—
4
4
P.L. 117-169
2022
2
—
2
4
—
4
6
—
5
5
Total
25
10
35
48
—
48
83
9
60
69
Sources: Summary information compiled from the Congressional Record and Congress.gov. Detail on this summary information is provided in Table 4.
Note: Bill numbers in italics were either vetoed or did not pass the Senate.
CRS-10

link to page 12 link to page 12 The Budget Reconciliation Process: The Senate’s “Byrd Rule”

Five of the six definitions of extraneousness (the exception being recommending changes in
Social Security) have been cited as bases for points of order under the Byrd rule. The most
common basis, that the provision or amendment did not change outlays or revenues, was cited as
the sole basis in 40 instances and as one of two bases in three other instances. None of the other
bases were cited as often; the second-most cited basis, that the provision or amendment was
outside an instructed committee’s jurisdiction, was cited in 16 instances. In some instances, the
basis for the point of order was not cited.
The Byrd rule has been used primarily during initial consideration of a reconciliation measure. It
has been invoked only six times during consideration of a conference report—twice in 1993 and
once in each of 1995, 1997, 2005, and 2017:
 In 1993, two points of order against matter characterized as extraneous in a
conference report were rejected by the chair. In both instances, the chair’s ruling
was upheld upon appeal. The two motions to appeal the chair’s rulings were
defeated by identical votes, 43-57;
 In 1995, two sections included in a conference report were struck from the bill
after a motion to waive the point of order was rejected (54-45), and the two
chambers had to resolve the final differences with a further amendment between
them;
 In 1997, a section in the conference report was retained following a successful
vote (78-22) to waive a point of order;
 In 2005, three provisions included in a conference report were struck from the
bill (another provision was retained), after a motion to waive the point of order
was rejected (52-48), necessitating action on a further amendment between the
two chambers.
 Finally, in 2017, three provisions in a conference report were struck from the bill
after a motion to waive the point of order was rejected (51-48), and the two
chambers had to resolve the final differences with a further amendment between
them.
As shown in Table 3, points of order and waiver motions under the Byrd rule have occurred more
frequently in the 1990s (81) compared to the 1980s (5), 2000s (11), 2010s (36), or 2020s (19 by
August 31, 2022). The middle years of the decade of the 1990s, covering calendar years 1993
through 1997, were especially active in this regard, accounting for 65 of the total 81 points of
order and waiver motions during that decade. The most active single year was 2010, which
involved 20 points of order and waiver motions.
Points of Order
In total, 83 points of order were raised and disposed of under the Byrd rule. Points of order were
generally raised successfully; 73 were sustained (in whole or in part), enabling Senators to strike
extraneous matter from the legislation in 25 cases and to bar the consideration of extraneous
amendments in 48 cases.
Ten of the points of order fell, either upon the adoption of a waiver motion or upon the ruling of
the chair. Two points of order were withdrawn and are not counted in Table 3.
In two instances, a point of order was not raised because a waiver motion had previously been
offered and approved, thus making the point of order moot.
Congressional Research Service

11

link to page 12 link to page 24 The Budget Reconciliation Process: The Senate’s “Byrd Rule”

In many instances, a point of order was raised against multiple provisions, sections, or titles of the
bill, sometimes covering a variety of different topics. In a few cases, the chair ruled that most, but
not all, of the provisions violated the Byrd rule.
Waiver Motions
A total of 69 motions to waive the Byrd rule, to permit the inclusion of extraneous matter, were
offered and disposed of by the Senate. Waiver motions were generally not offered successfully;
nine were approved and 60 were rejected.
Two other waiver motions were withdrawn and a third waiver motion was changed to a
unanimous consent request; they are not counted in Table 3.
Eight of the nine successful motions were used to protect committee-reported language in the bill
or language in the conference report; only one motion to protect a floor amendment was
successful.
Eight of the successful waiver motions exceeded the required 60-vote threshold by between two
votes and 21 votes; on average, they exceeded the threshold by nearly 12 votes. The remaining
successful waiver motion was approved by voice vote.
With regard to the 60 unsuccessful waiver motions, 59 of them fell short of the threshold by
between one vote and 50 votes; on average, they fell short of the threshold by about 15 votes. The
remaining unsuccessful waiver motion was rejected by voice vote. Twenty-three of the
unsuccessful waiver motions garnered at least 51 votes.
In one instance, the Senate set aside the Byrd rule without employing a waiver motion. The
FY1988 budget resolution, in Section 4, set forth reconciliation instructions to various House and
Senate committees, including the House Ways and Means and Senate Finance Committees.
Section 6(a) of the budget resolution stated the assumption that in complying with their
instructions, the two committees would establish a “deficit reduction account.” Section 6(b)
waived the Byrd rule for the consideration of any legislation reported under the assumed
procedure:
(b) Legislation reported pursuant to subsection (a) shall not be considered to be extraneous
for purposes of section 20001 of the Consolidated Omnibus Reconciliation Act of 1985 (as
amended by section 7006 of the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1986) or Senate
Resolution 509 (99th Congress, 2d Session).16
The references in Section 6(b) were to the legislation that initially established the Byrd rule and
extended it temporarily, before it was incorporated into the CBA of 1974 act on a permanent basis
as Section 313.
Table 4, at the end of this section, provides more detailed information on points of order and
waiver motions made under the Byrd rule from 1985 through April 2021.
Instances in Which the Byrd Rule Was Not Invoked
The Senate considered four different reconciliation measures without taking any actions under the
Byrd rule. First, no points of order were raised, or waiver motions offered, under the Byrd rule
during final consideration of the Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act (COBRA) of

16 See the conference report to accompany the FY1988 budget resolution, H.Con.Res. 93 (H.Rept. 100-175, June 22,
1987, pp. 17 and 36).
Congressional Research Service

12

The Budget Reconciliation Process: The Senate’s “Byrd Rule”

1985 in late 1985 and early 1986; as previously mentioned, this was the first instance in which the
Byrd rule applied.17
In 1989, no actions involving the Byrd rule occurred, in large part because the Senate leadership
chose to use an amendment rather than the Byrd rule to deal with extraneous matter in the bill. On
October 13, 1989, during consideration of the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation of 1989, the
Senate adopted Mitchell Amendment No. 1004 by voice vote. The amendment struck extraneous
matter from the bill; its stated purpose was “to strike all matter from the bill that does not reduce
the deficit.”18
In 2001, no actions under the Byrd rule were taken during consideration of a significant revenue-
reduction measure, the Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2001. The
potential application of the Byrd rule to the measures was averted by the inclusion of “sunset”
provisions that limited the duration of the tax cuts, thereby preventing any projected deficit
increases beyond the applicable budget window.
Finally, the Byrd rule was not invoked during consideration of the College Cost Reduction and
Access Act of 2007.
In another instance, the Senate considered two reconciliation bills in 2005 (the Deficit Reduction
Act of 2005 and the Tax Increase Prevention and Reconciliation Act of 2005); final Senate action
on the tax measure carried over into 2006. While points of order were raised successfully under
the Byrd rule with regard to both measures in 2005, no actions under the rule occurred in 2006 as
the Senate completed action on the tax measure.19
Byrd Rule Controversies
Although the Byrd rule has advocates in the House and Senate, its use sometimes has engendered
much controversy, especially between the two houses. Several of the major controversies are
discussed below.
Impact on House-Senate Relations in 1993 and 1994
In 1993 and 1994, during the 103rd Congress, the stringent application of the Byrd rule by the
Senate significantly influenced the final shape of the reconciliation act and later affected the
deliberations of the Joint Committee on the Organization of Congress.

17 The Senate agreed to the conference report accompanying COBRA of 1985 (H.R. 3128) on December 19, 1985; see
the Congressional Record of that date at pp. 38503-38543. Later that day, the Senate adopted S.Res. 286, a measure
making the Byrd rule applicable to the consideration of conference reports and amendments between the two chambers
(pp. 38559-38560). Also that day, the House disagreed to the conference report on COBRA. Subsequently, the House
and Senate engaged in an exchange of amendments in order to resolve their differences regarding the measure. The
Senate considered the measure further on December 20, 1985 and several days in mid-March 1986 (despite the
enactment of COBRA into law on April 7, 1986, the designation “1985” was retained in the act’s title). Thus, the
portion of the Byrd rule contained in S.Res. 286 was not in effect when the Senate considered and agreed to the
conference report on COBRA, but it was in effect during Senate action on the subsequent amendment exchange with
the House.
18 See the Congressional Record (daily ed.) of October 13, 1989, p. S13349. The Senate leadership used an amendment
for similar purposes during consideration of the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1981.
19 Senate actions on the two measures is discussed in CRS Report RL33132, Budget Reconciliation Legislation in
2005-2006 Under the FY2006 Budget Resolution, by Robert Keith (out of print; available to congressional clients upon
request).
Congressional Research Service

13

The Budget Reconciliation Process: The Senate’s “Byrd Rule”

The House considered its version of the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1993, H.R. 2264,
on May 27. The Senate considered its version, S. 1134, on June 23 and June 24 (after completing
consideration of S. 1134, the Senate amended and passed H.R. 2264 for purposes of conference
with the House). Senator Pete Domenici, ranking minority member of the Senate Budget
Committee, inserted a list of potentially extraneous matters included in S. 1134 in the
Congressional Record of June 24 (at p. S7984).20 The list identified more than a dozen sections in
five titles of the bill as possibly being in violation of the Byrd rule, specifically Section
313(b)(1)(A) (i.e., producing no change in outlays or revenues).
At the House-Senate conference stage, the Senate leadership directed the parliamentarian and
Senate Budget Committee staff to thoroughly review the legislation to identify any provisions
originating in the House or Senate that might violate the Byrd rule.21 As a result of this review,
many provisions were deleted from the legislation in conference.
During Senate consideration of the conference report, Senator James Sasser, Chairman of the
Senate Budget Committee, discussed this process:
with regard to the Byrd rule, we worked very hard and very faithfully over a period of well
over a week in going over this bill to try to clarify and remove items that might be subject
to the Byrd rule.
As the distinguished ranking member indicated, I think over 150 items were removed from
the reconciliation instrument here, because it was felt that they would be subject to the
Byrd rule....
I might say some of our House colleagues could not understand, and I do not blame them
because there were a number of things that were pulled out of this budget reconciliation
that had been voted on and passed by large majorities in both houses. But simply because
they violated the Byrd rule, we had to go to the chairmen of the appropriate House
committees and tell them they had to come out. They simply did not understand it. I think
it made them perhaps have a little less high esteem for some of us here in the Senate.... In
the final analysis, their leadership had to demand that some of these provisions subject to
the Byrd rule come out.22
During House consideration of the conference report, several Democratic Members criticized the
Byrd rule and discussed its impact on the legislation. For example, Representative Dan
Rostenkowski, chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee, stated
I also have to express my grave concerns regarding the other body’s so-called Byrd rule.
As a result of this procedural rule, policies that would have significantly improved the
Medicare Program could not even be considered. Over 80 pages of statutory language were
stripped out of the Medicare title. Staff wasted countless hours, scrutinizing every line to
ensure that there is nothing that would upset our friends at the other end of the Capitol.
Even more absurd is the fact that most of the items stripped were minor and technical
provisions that received bipartisan support when they passed both the House and the Senate
last year.

20 This requirement was added by Section 13214 of the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1990. Consequently, its
first application was to consideration of the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1993.
21 See the discussion of “Preemptive Editing of the Conference Report” in Budget Process Law Annotated—1993
Edition, by William G. Dauster, op. cit., pp. 245-246. Also, see (1) Richard E. Cohen, “Running Up Against the ‘Byrd
Rule’,” National Journal, September 4, 1993, p. 2151; (2) George Hager, “The Byrd Rule: Not an Easy Call,”
Congressional Quarterly Weekly Report, July 31, 1993, p. 2027; and (3) Mary Jacoby, “Senate Parliamentarian Purges
Budget Bill of Measures That Could Violate Byrd Rule,” Roll Call, August 5, 1993, p. 9.
22 See the remarks of Senator Sasser in the Congressional Record, daily edition (August 6, 1993), p. S10662.
Congressional Research Service

14

The Budget Reconciliation Process: The Senate’s “Byrd Rule”

I hope that Members on both sides of the aisle share my grave concerns about how this rule
has been used, and its impact on reconciliation. I sincerely hope that this rule will be
reconsidered before we ever return to the reconciliation process again.23
Controversy over the Byrd rule persisted during late 1993 and into 1994. The Joint Committee on
the Organization of Congress, co-chaired by Representative Lee Hamilton and Senator David
Boren, was slated to make recommendations on congressional reform, including changes in the
budget process, in December of 1993. Representative Martin Olav Sabo, chairman of the House
Budget Committee, wrote to Co-Chair Hamilton in October, telling him that “widespread use [of
the Byrd rule] this year was extremely destructive and bodes ill for the reconciliation process in
the future.” Further, he stated that “the use of mechanisms like the Byrd rule greatly distorts the
balance of power between the two bodies” and that strict enforcement of the Byrd rule “requires
that too much power be delegated to unelected employees of the Congress.”24
Chairman Sabo attached two Budget Committee staff documents to his letter: (1) a 29-page
listing of reconciliation provisions “dropped or modified” in conference in order to comply with
the Byrd rule, and (2) a three-page statement identifying specific problems caused by the rule
(including a bar against including authorizations savings in reconciliation, the forcing of
piecemeal legislation, incentives to use counterproductive drafting techniques to mitigate effects,
and a bar against provisions achieving savings or promoting efficiency when the Congressional
Budget Office was unable to assign particular savings to them).
The Senate Members of the Joint Committee on the Organization of Congress recommended in
their final report that a provision clarifying “that the ‘Byrd rule’ is permanent, applies to
conference reports, requires sixty votes to waive, and applies to extraneous matters” be included
in a broad reform bill.25 Legislation embodying the Senate recommendations (S. 1824) was
introduced on February 3, 1994 (the recommendation pertaining to the Byrd rule was set forth in
Section 312 of the bill). The House Members of the Joint Committee did not include any
recommendations regarding the Byrd rule in their report or legislation (H.R. 3801, also
introduced on February 3, 1994).
The day after the two reform bills were introduced, the chairmen of 15 House committees wrote
to Speaker Tom Foley. They urged him to meet with Senate Majority Leader George Mitchell in
order to get Section 312 of S. 1824, dealing with the Byrd rule, removed from the reform
package.26
On July 19, 1994, Chairman Sabo introduced H.R. 4780. The bill would have amended the CBA
of 1974 to make the Byrd rule “applicable to the Senate only,” chiefly by removing references to
conference reports in Section 313 of the act.27
None of the three bills cited above were acted upon before the 103rd Congress adjourned.

23 See the remarks of Representative Rostenkowski in the Congressional Record, daily edition, (August 5, 1993), p. H
6126. He discusses specific programs dropped from the conference report because of the Byrd rule p. H6124. Also, see
the remarks that same day of Representatives de la Garza (p. H6143), Vento (p. H6235), and Stenholm (p. H6257).
24 Letter from Representative Martin Olav Sabo to Representative Lee H. Hamilton, October 26, 1993, 2 pp.
25 See Organization of the Congress, Final Report of the Senate Members of the Joint Committee on the Organization
of Congress, S.Rept. 103-215, vol. I, December 1993, pp. 14 and 15.
26 The letter is discussed in: Karen Foerstel, “Byrd Rule War Erupts Once Again,” Roll Call, February 24, 1994, pp. 1
and 13.
27 See the following article for a discussion of the Sabo bill: Mary Jacoby, “Sabo Bill Would Kill Byrd Rule For
Good,” Roll Call, July 25, 1994, p. 12.
Congressional Research Service

15

The Budget Reconciliation Process: The Senate’s “Byrd Rule”

Effects on Tax-Cut Legislation
During the 106th Congress, the budget resolutions for FY2000 and FY2001 included
reconciliation instructions directing the House Ways and Means and Senate Finance Committees
to develop legislation implementing substantial reductions in revenue.28 The reconciliation
instructions in the two budget resolutions called for total revenue reduction over five years of
$142 billion and $150 billion, respectively.29 Neither budget resolution included any instructions
regarding spending. This marked the first time that the House and Senate had recommended
substantial reductions in revenue through the reconciliation process without offsetting savings to
be achieved in spending programs. Any resultant reconciliation legislation was expected under
these budget resolutions to reduce large surpluses, not to incur or worsen deficits.
In each of these two years, there was controversy in the Senate regarding the appropriateness of
using reconciliation procedures under circumstances that worsened the federal government’s
fiscal posture. Some Senators argued that the use of reconciliation, with its procedural restrictions
that sharply curtail debate time and limit the offering of amendments in comparison to the usual
Senate procedures, could be justified only when it was necessary to reduce or eliminate a deficit
(or to preserve or increase a surplus). Other Senators maintained that reconciliation is neutral in
its orientation—the language in Section 310 of the CBA of 1974 refers to “changes” in spending
and revenue amounts, not increases or decreases—and is intended to expedite the consideration of
important and potentially complex budgetary legislation.
Against the backdrop of the larger issue of the appropriate use of reconciliation under these
circumstances, Senators also debated in particular the impact of the Byrd rule on the scope of the
resultant tax-cut legislation. One of the determinants of extraneousness under the Byrd rule is
whether the legislation reduces revenues or increases spending in the net beyond the budget
window (i.e., the period to which the reconciliation instructions apply). Changes in tax law,
however, are often made on a permanent basis. As a consequence, reconciliation legislation
recommending permanent tax cuts may run afoul of the Byrd rule.
During consideration of the Taxpayer Refund and Relief Act of 1999 and the Marriage Tax Relief
Reconciliation Act of 2000, the Byrd rule was used successfully to ensure the inclusion of sunset
provisions in the bills, limiting the effectiveness of the tax cuts to the period covered by the
reconciliation instructions.30
During the first session of the 107th Congress, the Senate again addressed these issues as it
considered H.R. 1836, largely embodying President Bush’s proposal for a $1.6 trillion tax cut.31
In addition to debating the appropriateness of using the reconciliation process to expedite tax-cut

28 See Sections 104 and 105 of H.Con.Res. 68, the FY2000 budget resolution (the conference report was H.Rept. 106-
91, April 14, 1999), and Sections 103 and 104 of H.Con.Res. 290, the FY2001 budget resolution (the conference report
was H.Rept. 106-577, April 12, 2000). The FY2001 budget resolution also included reconciliation instructions
directing the House Ways and Means Committee to develop legislation reducing the debt held by the public.
29 The instructions in the FY2000 budget resolution covered 10 fiscal years, while the instructions in the FY2001
budget resolution covered five fiscal years. The reconciliation instructions in the FY2000 budget resolution also
provided for total revenue reductions of $778 billion over 10 years.
30 Proceedings under this aspect of the Byrd rule, in the case of the Taxpayer Refund and Relief Act of 1999, occurred
on July 28, 1999; see the remarks of Senators Roth, Moynihan, Conrad, Gramm, and others in the Congressional
Record, daily edition (July 28, 1999), pp. S9478-S9484. With regard to the Marriage Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of
2000, see the remarks of Senator Roth in the Congressional Record (July 14, 2000), pp. S6782-S6784.
31 See, for example, the remarks of Senator Robert C. Byrd, “Reconciliation Process Reform,” in the Congressional
Record, daily edition (February 15, 2001), pp. S1532-S1536, and opening remarks of Senator Byrd and others during
Senate consideration of H.R. 1836 in the Congressional Record, daily edition (May 17, 2001), p. S5028.
Congressional Research Service

16

The Budget Reconciliation Process: The Senate’s “Byrd Rule”

legislation, Senators argued for and against the inclusion of the 10-year “sunset” provision
necessary to achieve compliance with the Byrd rule. Some Senators maintained that permanent
changes in tax law should be allowed under reconciliation procedures, just as they are often
customarily made in freestanding tax legislation. Other Senators praised the value of being able to
reexamine such significant modifications in budgetary policy in future years when economic
circumstances may have changed materially.
The sunset provision was retained in the final version of the legislation, as Section 901 (115 Stat.
150) of P.L. 107-16, the Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2001.
In 2003, during the first session of the 108th Congress, the Byrd rule influenced the form of
revenue reconciliation directives in the FY2004 budget resolution (H.Con.Res. 95).32 Initially,
House and Senate leaders indicated that they would settle on a conference agreement instructing
the House Ways and Means Committee to reduce revenues through reconciliation by $550 billion
or more for the period covering FY2003-FY2013 and the Senate Finance Committee to reduce
revenues by $350 billion for the same period. A majority of Senators had indicated their
opposition to revenue reductions greater than $350 billion.
The use of dual reconciliation instructions in the budget resolution would enable the leadership to
secure passage of the budget resolution while leaving open the possibility that a subsequent
conference on the differing versions of the revenue reconciliation measure passed by the two
houses might reach an acceptable compromise between these two amounts.
However, it soon became apparent that, if the Senate initially passed a revenue reconciliation
measure consistent with the directive in the budget resolution (i.e., reducing revenues by $350
billion), the later consideration of a conference agreement reflecting a compromise level of
revenue reductions greater than $350 billion could violate the Byrd rule. In particular, Section
313(b)(1)(B) defines as extraneous any provision reported by a committee that reduces revenues
(or increases outlays) if the net effect of all of the committee’s provisions is that it fails to achieve
its reconciliation instructions. Proposing revenue reductions greater than the level of reductions
set in the reconciliation instructions would be considered a failure to achieve the instructions.
In order to resolve the problem, the conference agreement on the FY2004 budget resolution
instructed both the House Ways and Means Committee and the Senate Finance Committee to
reduce revenues by $550 billion over FY2003-FY2013, but a point of order barred the initial
consideration in the Senate of a reconciliation measure (as distinct from a conference report)
containing revenue reductions in excess of $350 billion for this period.33 The FY2004 budget
resolution further provided that the Senate point of order could be waived only by the affirmative
vote of three-fifths of the Members duly chosen and sworn (i.e., 60 Senators, if no seats are
vacant). This procedural formulation strengthened the position of those who favored initial Senate
passage of a reconciliation measure limited to $350 billion in revenue reductions, but removed
the potential Byrd rule hurdle should a majority of Senators later choose to support a conference
agreement providing as much as $550 billion in revenue reductions.34

32 See H.Rept. 108-71 (April 10, 2003).
33 The reconciliation directives are set forth in Section 201 of H.Con.Res. 95; the Senate point of order is set forth in
Section 202. A portion of the reconciled amounts is set forth as outlay increases in order to accommodate changes in
tax programs (e.g., refundable tax credits) that are scored as outlays. Consequently, the aggregate instruction of $550
billion is actually $535 billion in revenue reductions and $15 billion in outlay increases in the House, and $522.524
billion in revenue reductions and $27.476 billion in outlay increases in the Senate.
34 For further discussion of this matter, see CRS Report RL31902, Revenue Reconciliation Directives in the FY2004
Budget Resolution, by Robert Keith (out of print; available to congressional clients upon request). Also, see (1)
Congressional Research Service

17

The Budget Reconciliation Process: The Senate’s “Byrd Rule”

Senator Max Baucus, the ranking minority member of the Senate Finance Committee, questioned
whether the directive to the committee should be regarded as $350 billion or $550 billion.35
Ultimately, Senator Charles Grassley, chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, indicated that
he had reached agreement with other Senators to adhere to the $350 billion level in the
conference on the reconciliation measure, notwithstanding the fact that the limitation in Section
202 of the budget resolution only applied to initial consideration of the measure.36 The resultant
reconciliation measure (H.R. 2), according to final estimates of the Congressional Budget Office
and Joint Tax Committee, contained $349.7 billion in revenue reductions and related outlay
changes.37 The bill, which became P.L. 108-27, the Jobs and Growth Tax Relief Reconciliation
Act of 2003, on May 28, 2003, included sunset provisions in Section 107 (117 Stat. 755-756) and
Section 303 (117 Stat. 764).
During the 109th Congress, the House and Senate considered separate revenue and spending
reconciliation bills pursuant to the FY2006 budget resolution. The budget resolution provided for
a revenue reconciliation bill that reduced revenues by up to $70 billion over the five-year budget
window (FY2006-FY2010) used in the budget resolution. The conference agreement on the
revenue reconciliation bill, H.R. 4297, recommended significant revenue reduction beyond the
budget window, principally with respect to extensions of current capital gains and dividends
provisions through December 31, 2010.38 Instead of incorporating sunset provisions in order to
comply with the Byrd rule, as had been done in the past, the conferees included offsets of the
revenue losses. The JCT estimated the total revenue loss over 10 years (FY2006-FY2015) at
$69.084 billion, an amount nearly $900 million smaller than the five-year revenue loss. The
measure became P.L. 109-222, the Tax Increase Prevention and Reconciliation Act of 2005, on
May 17, 2006.
Comprehensive Policy Changes: Health Care
and Education Reform
At the beginning of the 111th Congress, in 2009, President Barack Obama proposed a legislative
agenda focusing on health care reform, as well as broad initiatives in education and other policy
areas. An immediate point of contention was whether the proposals regarding health care reform
should be pursued through the regular legislative process or the expedited procedures available
under the reconciliation process. The Democratic leadership in the Senate was concerned, in
particular, that passage of the proposals in the Senate could be stymied by a filibuster conducted
by Republican opponents. Use of the reconciliation process, with its debate limitations and other
expedited features, would ensure that a filibuster could not be employed against the legislation.
On the other hand, in such a comprehensive reform proposal, many important provisions might be

“Concessions to Moderates Imperil Early GOP Tax Cutting Accord,” by Andrew Taylor, CQ Weekly, April 12, 2003;
and (2) “Grassley Promises GOP Moderates Final Tax Cut Will Not Top $350 Billion,” by Bud Newman, BNA’s Daily
Report for Executives, Monday, April 14, 2003, p. G-7.
35 See the remarks of Senator Max Baucus in the Congressional Record, daily edition (April 11, 2003), pp. S5296-S
5298, in which he inserts a letter from Senate Parliamentarian Alan Frumin to Senate Democratic Leader Thomas
Daschle regarding the potential application of the Byrd rule to the consideration of reconciliation legislation.
36 See the remarks of Senator Grassley in the Congressional Record, daily edition (April 11, 2003), pp. S5295-S5296.
37 See the CBO cost estimate on H.R. 2 (108th Cong.) of May 23, 2003, available at http://www.cbo.gov.
38 Although the capital gains and dividends provisions would sunset on December 31, 2010, they would incur revenue
losses in succeeding years (e.g., in FY2012, a $12.698 billion revenue loss for the capital gains provision and a $6.326
billion revenue loss for the dividends provision).
Congressional Research Service

18

The Budget Reconciliation Process: The Senate’s “Byrd Rule”

vulnerable to challenge under the Byrd rule and other enforcement procedures; the resulting
legislation might become like “Swiss cheese” if many parliamentary challenges were successful.
Congressional leaders decided to consider health care reform (and education reform) proposals
under the regular legislative process, but to include reconciliation directives in the FY2010
budget resolution so that reconciliation procedures could be used as a fallback if regular
legislative procedures failed. One of the factors influencing the decision was that, at the time, the
Democrats held a 60-seat majority in the Senate, exactly the minimum number of votes needed to
invoke cloture (i.e., to terminate a filibuster). Title II of the FY2010 budget resolution, S.Con.Res.
13, included reconciliation directives for FY2009-FY2014 to three House and two Senate
committees that would accommodate health care and education reform initiatives.39
The House and Senate passed separate versions of health care reform legislation in late 2009 but
did not resolve their differences before the session ended. The House passed H.R. 3962 on
November 7 by a vote of 220-215. The Senate chose another House-passed bill dealing with
unrelated subject matter, H.R. 3590, and transformed it into a health care reform measure; the
Senate passed the bill on December 24 by a vote of 60-39. (In addition, the House passed an
education reform measure in 2009, H.R. 3221, but the Senate did not.)
In early 2010, the Democratic leadership in the Senate found an altered political situation; a
special election held in Massachusetts in January to fill a vacant seat (due to the death of Senator
Ted Kennedy) resulted in a changeover to Republican control of the seat, thereby reducing the
Democratic majority in the Senate to 59 seats. In assessing how to resolve the House-Senate
differences in the health care reform legislation, the Democratic leadership faced a dilemma: the
Democrats no longer held the 60-seat majority necessary to thwart a filibuster (and Republican
opposition to the measure was unified), and the House could not pass the Senate version without
change, thereby sending it to the President, because that version was not acceptable to a majority
of House Members.
The solution to the dilemma settled on by the Democratic leadership was for the House to pass
the Senate version of health care reform legislation, H.R. 3590, while simultaneously passing a
reconciliation measure (referred to colloquially as a “sidecar”) that would amend H.R. 3590 in a
manner acceptable to majorities in both chambers. In this manner, comprehensive health care
reform legislation could be enacted without concern about challenges under the Byrd rule that
could strip away many of its provisions, while the revisions to the measure necessary to
accommodate the political agreement could be achieved through an expedited reconciliation
process that relied upon a simple majority vote in the Senate rather than a 60-vote supermajority.
Education reform provisions would also be included in the reconciliation measure. Compared
with the comprehensive health care reform measure, the reconciliation bill was much more
narrow in scope and focused on budgetary matters.40
To execute this strategy, the House on March 21, 2010, adopted a special rule reported by the
House Rules Committee, H.Res. 1203, by a vote of 224-206. Under the terms of the special rule,
the House then concurred in the Senate amendments to H.R. 3590 (thus clearing the bill for the
President) by a vote of 219-212. Finally, the House passed H.R. 4872, the reconciliation measure,
by a vote of 220-211.

39 The instructions included the House Education and Labor, House Energy and Commerce, and House Ways and
Means Committees and the Senate Finance and Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committees.
40 One measure of the different scope of the two bills is that, in enrolled form, the health care and education reform bill
was 906 pages in length and the reconciliation bill was 55 pages in length.
Congressional Research Service

19

The Budget Reconciliation Process: The Senate’s “Byrd Rule”

Following the House’s actions on March 21, the Senate considered H.R. 4872 on March 23, 24,
and 25, passing the measure on March 25 by a vote of 56-43. Republican opponents of the
measure offered a series of amendments and motions to recommit to the bill, all of which were
defeated by motions to table or points of order. Nine of the amendments fell when points of order
raised under the Byrd rule were sustained (in each instance, after a waiver motion had been
rejected). All but one of the points of order were raised on the ground that the amendment
included provisions outside the jurisdiction of the instructed committees.41
Toward the end of Senate consideration of the reconciliation measure on March 25, Senator Judd
Gregg successfully raised two points of order under the Byrd rule, striking two brief provisions in
the education reform portion of the measure dealing with the Pell grant program.42 The provisions
were judged to be in violation of the Byrd rule on the ground that they produced no changes in
outlays or revenues.
As required under the Byrd rule, the Senate then returned the reconciliation measure (with the
two provisions pertaining to the Pell grant program removed) to the House for further action. On
March 25, the House agreed to a special rule, H.Res. 1225, providing for the consideration of a
motion for the House to concur in the Senate amendment to H.R. 4872. The House agreed to the
motion by a vote of 220-207, thus clearing the measure for the President.
President Obama signed H.R. 3590, the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, into law on
March 23 as P.L. 111-148, and H.R. 4872, the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act of
2010, into law on March 30 as P.L. 111-152.

41 For example, two of the amendments included tax-related provisions with offsets in the form of rescissions of
appropriations provided in the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 under the jurisdiction of the Senate
Appropriations Committee.
42 See the Congressional Record, daily edition (March 25, 2010), p. S2086. In addition, Senator Chuck Grassley
submitted for the record a list of five points of order, four of them involving the Byrd rule; the chair indicated that, had
the points of order been raised, they would not have been sustained (see pp. S2084-S2085).
Congressional Research Service

20

link to page 36 link to page 36 link to page 36 link to page 36 link to page 37
Table 4. Listing of Actions Under the Senate’s Byrd Rule, by Act: 1985-2022
Waiver
Disposition of
Object of Point of Ordera
Basis of Point of Orderb
Subject Matter
Motionc
Point of Order
1. Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1985 (P.L. 99-272; 4/7/1986)d
a. To Strike Provision(s) from Bill or Conference Report
[none]
b. To Bar Consideration of Amendment(s)
[not applicable]
2. Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1986 (P.L. 99-509; 10/21/1986)
a. To Strike Provision(s) from Bill or Conference Report
Section 403
Outlay increase when
Conservation programs
Rejected, 32-61
Sustained; section struck
committee not in compliance
(September 19, 1986)
p. 139, line 1-p. 161, line 17;
Outside committee’s
Program fraud civil remedies
Approved, 79-15
Fell
and p. 162, lines 1-24
jurisdiction
(September 19, 1986)
b. To Bar Consideration of Amendment(s)
[none]
3. Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1987 (P.L. 100-203; 12/22/1987)
a. To Strike Provision(s) from Bill or Conference Report
[none]
b. To Bar Consideration of Amendment(s)
Byrd-Dole Amendment No.
[specific basis not cited]
[various topics]
Approved, 81-13
[none raised]
1254; Kassebaum
Amendment No. 1259; and
Gramm Amendment No.
1260
4. Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1989 (P.L. 101-239; 12/19/1989)e
a. To Strike Provision(s) from Bill or Conference Report
[none]
CRS-21

link to page 36 link to page 36 link to page 36 link to page 37
Waiver
Disposition of
Object of Point of Ordera
Basis of Point of Orderb
Subject Matter
Motionc
Point of Order
b. To Bar Consideration of Amendment(s)
[none]
5. Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1990 (P.L. 101-508; 11/5/1990)
a. To Strike Provision(s) from Bill or Conference Report
Section 7405(j)
Outside committee’s
Apportionment of highway funds between states
None
Sustained; subsection
jurisdiction
struck
(October 17, 1990)
p. 1017, line 5-p. 1018, line
Budgetary changes merely
Occupational Safety and Health Administration
None
Sustained; provisions
19; and p. 1018, line 22-p.
incidental to non-budgetary
(OSHA) penalties
struck
1019, line 18
components
(October 18, 1990)
Sections 4003-4016
No change in outlays or
Harvesting of timber in the Tongass National Forest in None
Sustained; sections struck
revenues
Alaska
(October 18, 1990)
Title III, Subtitle B (as
No change in outlays or
National aviation noise policy, limitations on airport
Approved, 69-31
Fell
modified)
revenues
improvement program revenues, high density traffic
(October 18, 1990)
airport rules, and related matters
b. To Bar Consideration of Amendment(s)
Graham Amendment No.
No change in outlays or
Authorize Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation
Rejected, voice
Sustained; amendment fell
3025
revenues
(FDIC) to develop risk-based insurance system
vote
(October 18, 1990)
Symms Amendment No.
No change in outlays or
Deposit of all increased motor fuel taxes (other than
Rejected, 48-52
Sustained, amendment fell
3039
revenues
taxes on railroads) into Highway Trust Fund
(October 18, 1990)
6. Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1993 (P.L. 103-66; 8/10/1993)
a. To Strike Provision(s) from Bill or Conference Report
Section 1105(c)
No change in outlays or
Commercial use of bovine growth hormone in other
Rejected, 38-60
Sustained; subsection
revenues
countries
struck
(June 24, 1993)
Section 7801; Section
No change in outlays or
Childhood immunizations and tax return preparer
None
Sustained; most provisions
7803(a) (proposing in part
revenues
standards
struckf
new Sections 2106 and
(June 24, 1993)
2108(b)(2) of the Social
Security Act); and Section
8252(a)(2), (b), and (c)
CRS-22

link to page 36 link to page 36 link to page 36
Waiver
Disposition of
Object of Point of Ordera
Basis of Point of Orderb
Subject Matter
Motionc
Point of Order
Section 13631(b) (proposing
No change in outlays or
Childhood immunizations
None
Fell. Motion to appeal
in part a new Section 1928 of revenues; budgetary changes
Chair’s ruling rejected,
the Social Security Act)
merely incidental to non-
43-57
budgetary components
(August 6, 1993)
Section 1106(a)
Budgetary changes merely
Imposition of domestic content requirements on U.S.
None
Fell. Motion to appeal
incidental to non-budgetary
cigarette manufacturers
Chair’s ruling rejected,
components
43-57
(August 6, 1993)
b. To Bar Consideration of Amendment(s)
Domenici/Nunn Amendment
No change in outlays or
Extend discretionary caps on defense, international,
Rejected, 53-45
Sustained; amendment fell
No. 544
revenues
and domestic spending through FY1995
(June 24, 1993)
Bradley Amendment No. 542 No change in outlays or
Separate enrollment requirement for appropriations
Rejected, 53-45
Sustained; amendment fell
revenues
and tax expenditures
(June 24, 1993)
Gramm Amendment No. 557 No change in outlays or
Restoration of maximum deficit amounts
Rejected, 43-55
Sustained; amendment fell
revenues
(June 24, 1993)
7. Balanced Budget Act of 1995 (H.R. 2491; vetoed 12/6/1995)
a. To Strike Provision(s) from Bill or Conference Report
Section 7171
No change in outlays or
Raising the age of Medicare eligibility
None
Sustained; section struck
revenues
(October 27, 1995)
Section 7191(a)
No change in outlays or
Bar against the use of federal funding of abortions
Rejected, 55-45
Sustained; subsection
revenues
under Medicaid
struck
(October 27, 1995)
49 provisions in various titles [various bases cited]
[various topics, dealing primarily with welfare reform]
Rejected, 53-46
Sustained against 46
of the bill
provisions, which were
struck; not sustained
against 3 provisions, which
remained in bill
(October 27, 1995)
CRS-23

link to page 36 link to page 36 link to page 36
Waiver
Disposition of
Object of Point of Ordera
Basis of Point of Orderb
Subject Matter
Motionc
Point of Order
Section 8001 (proposing in
No change in outlays or
Application of antitrust rule to provider-sponsored
Rejected, 54-45
Sustained; provisions
part a new Section 1853(f) to revenues; budgetary changes
organizations (MedicarePlus) and exemption of
struck from the bill
the Social Security Act) and
merely incidental to non-
physician office laboratories.
(November 17, 1995)
Section 13301 (as included in budgetary components
the conference report
[H.Rept. 104-350] to
accompany the bill)
b. To Bar Consideration of Amendment(s)
Dorgan Amendment No.
[specific basis not cited]
Ending deferral for U.S. shareholders on income of
Rejected, 47-52
Sustained; amendment fell
2977
controlled foreign corporations attributable to
(October 26, 1995)
imported property
Specter Modified
No change in outlays or
Expressing sense of the Senate regarding a flat tax
Rejected, 17-82
Sustained; amendment fell
Amendment No. 2986
revenues
(October 27, 1995)
Bumpers Amendment No.
No change in outlays or
Prohibition against the scoring of assets sales as
Rejected, 49-50
Sustained; amendment fell
3028
revenues
budget savings
(October 27, 1995)
Byrd/Dorgan Amendment
No change in outlays or
Increase time limit on debate in Senate on
Rejected, 47-52
Sustained; amendment fell
No. 2942
revenues
reconciliation legislation
(October 27, 1995)
8. Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996 (P.L. 104-193; 8/22/1996)
a. To Strike Provision(s) from Bill or Conference Report
Section 2923 (proposing a
Outlay increase when
Medicaid supplemental umbrella fund
None
Sustained; provision
new Section 1511 of the
committee not in compliance
struck
Social Security Act), p. 772,
(July 18, 1996)
line 13-p. 785, line 22
Section 408(a)(2)
No change in outlays or
Family cap (no additional cash assistance for children
Rejected, 42-57
Sustained; provision
revenues
born to families receiving assistance)
struck
(July 23, 1996)
Section 2104
No change in outlays or
Social services provided by charitable or private
Approved, 67-32
Fell
revenues
organizations
(July 23, 1996)
Section 2909
No change in outlays or
Abstinence education programs
Rejected, 52-46
Sustained; provision
revenues
struck
(July 23, 1996)
CRS-24

link to page 36 link to page 36 link to page 36
Waiver
Disposition of
Object of Point of Ordera
Basis of Point of Orderb
Subject Matter
Motionc
Point of Order
22 provisions in various titles [various bases cited]
Various topics involving the Food Stamp, School
None
Sustained against 21
of the bill
Lunch, and Child Nutrition programs and welfare
provisions, which were
reform
struck from the bill; not
sustained against 1
provision, which remained
in the bill
(July 23, 1996)
b. To Bar Consideration of Amendment(s)
First Modified Amendment
No change in outlays or
Expressing the sense of Congress that the President
Rejected, 55-43
Sustained; amendment fell
No. 4914
revenues
should ensure approval of state welfare reform waiver
(July 19, 1996)
requests
9. Balanced Budget Act of 1997 (P.L. 105-33; 8/5/1997)
a. To Strike Provision(s) from Bill or Conference Report
Section 5611
No change in outlays or
Raising the age of Medicare eligibility
Approved, 62-38
Fell
revenues
(June 24, 1997)
Section 5822
Budgetary changes merely
Enrollment eligibility (Welfare-to-Work Grant
[waiver motion
Sustained; provision
incidental to non-budgetary
Program)
withdrawn]
struck
components
(June 25, 1997)
Section 1949(a)(2)
No change in outlays or
Bar against the use of federal funding of abortions
None
[point of order
revenues
under Medicaid
withdrawn]
Sections 5713, 5833, and
Outside committee’s
[various topics]
None
Sustained; sections struck
5987
jurisdiction
(June 25, 1997)
Section 5001
No change in outlays or
Establishment of a Medicare Choice program
Approved, 62-37
Fell
revenues
(balanced billing protection)
(June 25, 1997)
b. To Bar Consideration of Amendment(s)
Levin Amendment No. 482
No change in outlays or
Allowing vocational educational training to be counted Rejected, 55-45
Sustained; amendment fell
revenues
as a work activity under the Temporary Assistance for
(June 25, 1997)
Needy Families program
Kennedy Amendment No.
Increase in deficit or
Student loan programs
Rejected, 43-57
Sustained; amendment fell
490
reduction of surplus in fiscal
(June 25, 1997)
year beyond those covered by
instructions
CRS-25

link to page 36 link to page 36 link to page 36
Waiver
Disposition of
Object of Point of Ordera
Basis of Point of Orderb
Subject Matter
Motionc
Point of Order
Kennedy Amendment No.
[no basis cited]
Immediate transfer to Medicare Part B of certain
Rejected, 38-62
Sustained; amendment fell
504
home health benefits
(June 25, 1997)
10. Taxpayer Relief Act of 1997 (P.L. 105-34; 8/5/1997)
a. To Strike Provision(s) from Bill or Conference Report
Section 602
No change in outlays or
District of Columbia Government reform
[waiver motion
Sustained; section struck
revenues
withdrawn]
(June 26, 1997)
Section 702(d)
No change in outlays or
Intercity passenger rail funding
Approved, 77-21
Fell
revenues
(June 27, 1997)
Section 1604(f)(3) (as
No change in outlays or
Crediting of new cigarette tax against “global
Approved, 78-22
Fell
included in the conference
revenues
settlement”
(July 31, 1997)
report [H.Rept. 105-220] to
accompany the bill)
b. To Bar Consideration of Amendment(s)
Gramm Amendment No. 566 No change in outlays or
Balanced budget enforcement procedures
Rejected, 37-63
Sustained; amendment fell
revenues
(June 27, 1997)
Bumpers Amendment No.
[no basis cited]
Prohibition against scoring, for budget purposes,
Rejected, 48-52
Sustained; amendment fell
568
revenues from sale of certain federal lands
(June 27, 1997)
Craig Amendment No. 569
No change in outlays or
Prohibition in PAYGO budget process against using
Rejected, 42-58
Sustained; amendment fell
revenues
tax increases to pay for mandatory spending increases
(June 27, 1997)
Brownback/Kohl
No change in outlays or
Balanced budget enforcement procedures
Rejected, 57-43
Sustained; amendment fell
Amendment No. 570
revenues
(June 27, 1997)
First Amendment No. 571
No change in outlays or
Balanced budget enforcement procedures
Rejected, 59-41
Sustained; amendment fell
revenues
(June 27, 1997)
Abraham Amendment No.
No change in outlays or
Reservation of future revenue windfalls for tax or
Rejected, 53-47
Sustained; amendment fell
538
revenues
deficit reduction
(June 27, 1997)
11. Taxpayer Refund and Relief Act of 1999 (H.R. 2488; vetoed 9/23/1999)
a. To Strike Provision(s) from Bill or Conference Report
Section 1502
Increase in deficit or
General extension of revenue-reduction provisions
Rejected, 51-48
Sustained; section struck
reduction of surplus in fiscal
(July 28, 1999)
year beyond those covered by
instructions
CRS-26

link to page 36 link to page 36 link to page 36
Waiver
Disposition of
Object of Point of Ordera
Basis of Point of Orderb
Subject Matter
Motionc
Point of Order
Section 202
Increase in outlays
Enhancement of the Earned Income Tax Credit for
Approved, voice
[none raised]
married couples
vote
b. To Bar Consideration of Amendment(s)
Bingaman Amendment No.
No change in outlays or
Expressing the sense of the Senate regarding
Rejected, 48-52
Sustained; amendment fell
1462
revenues
investment in education
(July 30, 1999)
First Amendment No. 1467
No change in outlays or
Expressing the sense of the Senate regarding the
Rejected, 54-46
Sustained; amendment fell
revenues
Medicare Reserve Fund
(July 30, 1999)
12. Marriage Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2000 (H.R. 4810; vetoed 8/5/2000)
a. To Strike Provision(s) from Bill or Conference Report
Section 4
Increase in outlays
Enhancement of the Earned Income Tax Credit for
On July 17, the
Fell
married couples
waiver motion
(July 17, 2000)
(made on July 14)
was changed to a
unanimous
consent request
and agreed to
b. To Bar Consideration of Amendment(s)
Roth Amendment No. 3864
Increase in deficit or
Striking the sunset provision in the legislation
Rejected, 48-47
Sustained; amendment fell
reduction of surplus in fiscal
(waiver motion
(July 17, 2000)
year beyond those covered by
also applied to
instructions
amendment listed
below)
Roth Amendment No. 3865
Increase in deficit or
Striking the sunset provision in the legislation
Rejected, 48-47
Sustained; amendment fell
reduction of surplus in fiscal
(waiver motion
(July 17, 2000)
year beyond those covered by
also applied to
instructions
amendment listed
above)
13. Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2001 (P.L. 107-16; 6/7/2001)
a. To Strike Provision(s) from Bill or Conference Report
[none]
b. To Bar Consideration of Amendment(s)
[none]
CRS-27

link to page 36 link to page 36 link to page 36
Waiver
Disposition of
Object of Point of Ordera
Basis of Point of Orderb
Subject Matter
Motionc
Point of Order
14. Jobs and Growth Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2003 (P.L. 108-27; 5/28/2003)
a. To Strike Provision(s) from Bill or Conference Report
[none]
b. To Bar Consideration of Amendment(s)
Sessions Amendment No.
Increase in deficit or
Applying the sunset provision to the revenue increase
Rejected, 51-49
Sustained; amendment fell
639
reduction of surplus in fiscal
provisions
(May 15, 2003)
year beyond those covered by
instructions
15. Deficit Reduction Act of 2005 (P.L. 109-171; 2/8/2006)
a. To Strike Provision(s) from Bill or Conference Report
Section 5001(b)(3) and
No change in outlays or
Requiring the Secretary of Health and Human Services Rejected, 52-48
Sustained against first
(b)(4), a portion of Section
revenues (Section 5001(b)(3)
to submit to Congress by August 1, 2007, a report on
(waiver motion
three provisions, which
6043(a), and Section 7404 (as and (b)(4)), and budgetary
the plan for the hospital value based purchasing
applied to first
were struck from the bill;
included in the conference
changes merely incidental to
program under Medicare (Section 5001(b)(3);
three provisions,
not sustained against
report [H.Rept. 109-362] to
non-budgetary components (a requiring the Medicare Payment Advisory Commission but did not apply
Section 7404, which
accompany the bill)
portion of Section 6043(a)
to submit to Congress by June 1, 2007, a report that
to Section 7404)
remained in the bill
and Section 7404)
includes detailed recommendations on a structure of
(December 21, 2005)
value based payment adjustments for hospital services
under Medicare (Section 5001(b)(4); the negligent
standard for hospitals and physicians who treat
Medicaid patients (a portion of Section 6043(a); and
eligibility for foster care maintenance payments and
adoption assistance (Section 7404)
b. To Bar Consideration of Amendment(s)
[none]

16. Tax Increase Prevention and Reconciliation Act of 2005 (P.L. 109-222; 5/17/2006)
a. To Strike Provision(s) from Bill or Conference Report
[none]

b. To Bar Consideration of Amendment(s)
Grassley Amendment No.
No change in outlays or
Sense of the Senate statement on extension of tax
Rejected, 53-45
Sustained; amendment fell
2654
revenues
policy and health care reform
(November 17, 2005)
CRS-28

link to page 36 link to page 36 link to page 36
Waiver
Disposition of
Object of Point of Ordera
Basis of Point of Orderb
Subject Matter
Motionc
Point of Order
17. College Cost Reduction and Access Act of 2007 (P.L. 110-84; 9/27/2007)
a. To Strike Provision(s) from Bill or Conference Report
[none]

b. To Bar Consideration of Amendment(s)
[none]

18. Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act of 2010 (P.L. 111-152; 3/30/2010)
a. To Strike Provision(s) from Bill or Conference Report
Section 2101(a)(2)(C) (page
No change in outlays or
Limitation on decreases under the formula setting the
None
Sustained; provision
118, lines 15-25), in part
revenues
maximum Pell grant amount annually
struck
proposed a new Section
(March 25, 2010)
401(b)(8)(C)(iv) to the
Higher Education Act of
1965
Section 2101(a)(2)(D) and (E) No change in outlays or
Repeal and redesignation of subparagraphs pertaining
None
Sustained; provision
(page 120, lines 3-5),
revenues
to technical aspects of Pell grant funding
struck
proposed striking Section
(March 25, 2010)
401(b)(8)(E) of the Higher
Education Act of 1965 (and
the redesignating
subparagraph (F) as (E))
b. To Bar Consideration of Amendment(s)
Grassley/Roberts
Outside committee’s
To make sure the President, Cabinet Members, all
Rejected, 43-56
Sustained; amendment fell
Amendment No. 3564
jurisdiction
White House Senior staff and Congressional
(March 24, 2010)
Committee and Leadership Staff are purchasing health
insurance through the health insurance exchanges
established by the Patient Protection and Affordable
Care Act
LeMieux Amendment No.
Outside committee’s
To enroll Members of Congress in the Medicaid
Rejected, 40-59
Sustained; amendment fell
3586
jurisdiction
program
(March 24, 2010)
Roberts Amendment No.
Budgetary changes merely
To protect Medicare beneficiary access to hospital
Rejected, 42-54
Sustained; amendment fell
3577
incidental to non-budgetary
care in rural areas from recommendations by the
(March 24, 2010)
components
Independent Payment Advisory Board
CRS-29

link to page 36 link to page 36 link to page 36
Waiver
Disposition of
Object of Point of Ordera
Basis of Point of Orderb
Subject Matter
Motionc
Point of Order
Grassley Amendment No.
Outside committee’s
To provide a temporary extension of certain
Rejected, 40-56
Sustained; amendment fell
3699
jurisdiction
programs
(March 24, 2010)
Hutchison Amendment No.
Outside committee’s
To repeal the sunset on marriage penalty relief and to
Rejected, 40-55
Sustained; amendment fell
3635
jurisdiction
make the election to deduct State and local sales taxes
(March 24, 2010)
permanent (with an offset from the rescission of
certain unobligated balances under the American
Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009)
Ensign Amendment No. 3593 Outside committee’s
To improve access to pro bono care for medically
Rejected, 40-55
Sustained; amendment fell
jurisdiction
underserved or indigent individuals by providing
(March 25, 2010)
limited medical liability protections
Coburn Amendment No.
Outside committee’s
To help protect Second Amendment rights of law-
Rejected, 45-53
Sustained; amendment fell
3700
jurisdiction
abiding Americans
(March 25, 2010)
Vitter Amendment No. 3665
Outside committee’s
To prevent the new government entitlement program
Rejected, 39-56
Sustained; amendment fell
jurisdiction
from further increasing an unsustainable deficit
(March 25, 2010)
Murkowski Amendment No.
Outside committee’s
To provide an inflation adjustment for the additional
Rejected, 42-57
Sustained; amendment fell
3711
jurisdiction
hospital insurance tax on high-income taxpayers (with
(March 25, 2010)
an offset from the rescission of certain unobligated
balances under the American Recovery and
Reinvestment Act of 2009)
19. Restoring Americans' Healthcare Freedom Reconciliation Act of 2015 (H.R. 3762; vetoed 1/8/2016)
a. To Strike Provision(s) from Amendment, Bill, or Conference Report
Section 105(b) in Enzi (for
Budgetary changes merely
Sunset risk corridors for plans in individual and small
Rejected, 52-47
Sustained; provision
McConnell) Amendment No. incidental to non-budgetary
group markets program established by Section 1342 of
struck
2916
components
the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act
(December 3, 2015)
b. To Bar Consideration of Amendment(s)
Cornyn Amendment No.
Outside committee’s
Relating to the Protect America Act
Rejected, 55-44
Sustained; amendment fell
2912
jurisdiction
(December 3, 2015)
Feinstein Amendment No.
Outside committee’s
To increase public safety by permitting the Attorney
Rejected, 45-54
Sustained; amendment fell
2910
jurisdiction
General to deny the transfer of firearms or the
(December 3, 2015)
issuance of firearms and explosives licenses to known
or suspected dangerous terrorists
CRS-30

link to page 36 link to page 36 link to page 36 link to page 37
Waiver
Disposition of
Object of Point of Ordera
Basis of Point of Orderb
Subject Matter
Motionc
Point of Order
Grassley Amendment No.
Outside committee’s
To address gun violence, improve the availability of
Rejected, 53-46
Sustained; amendment fell
2914
jurisdiction
records to the National Instant Criminal Background
(December 3, 2015)
Check System, address mental illness in the criminal
justice system, and end straw purchases and trafficking
of illegal firearms
Manchin/Toomey
Outside committee’s
To protect Second Amendment rights, ensure that all
Rejected, 48-50
Sustained; amendment fell
Amendment No. 2908
jurisdiction
individuals who should be prohibited from buying a
(December 3, 2015)
firearm are listed in the National Instant Criminal
Background Check System, and provide a responsible
and consistent background check process
20. American Health Care Act of 2017 (H.R. 1628)
a. To Strike Provision(s) from Bill or Conference Report
[none]
b. To Bar Consideration of Amendment(s)
Enzi (for Heller) Amendment No change in outlays or
Expressing sense of the Senate regarding Medicaid
Rejected, 10-90
Sustained; amendment fell
No. 288
revenues
expansion and improving Obamacare
(July 26, 2017)
21. Tax Cuts and Jobs Actg (P.L. 115-97; 12/22/2017)
a. To Strike Provision(s) from Bill or Conference Report
Subsection 11000(a);
No change in outlays or
Short title; 529 account funding for expenses in
Rejected, 51-48
Sustained; provisions
Subparagraph (B) of Section
revenues (Subsection
connection with a homeschool; and criteria for excise
struck from the bill
11032, starting on page 75,
11000(a)), and budgetary
tax based on investment income of private colleges
(December 19, 2017)
line 17 and all through page
changes merely incidental to
and universities
76; and phrase “tuition-
non-budgetary components
paying” as it appears on page
(Subparagraph (B) and phrase
309, line 12, and page 309,
“tuition-paying”)
lines 14 through 15 (as
included in the conference
report [H.Rept. 115-466] to
accompany the bill)
b. To Bar Consideration of Amendment(s)
McConnell (for Sanders)
No change in outlays or
To create a point of order against legislation that cuts
Rejected, 46-54
Sustained; amendment fell
Amendment No. 1720
revenues
Social Security, Medicare, or Medicaid benefits
(December 1, 2017)
CRS-31

link to page 36 link to page 36 link to page 36 link to page 37
Waiver
Disposition of
Object of Point of Ordera
Basis of Point of Orderb
Subject Matter
Motionc
Point of Order
22. American Rescue Plan Act of 2021 (P.L. 117-2; 03/11/2021)
a. To Strike Provision(s) from Bill or Conference Report
[none]
b. To Bar Consideration of Amendment(s)
Sanders Amendment No.
Budgetary changes merely
To provide for increases in the Federal minimum wage Rejected, 42-58
Sustained; amendment fell
972
incidental to non-budgetary
(March 5, 2021)
components
Collins Amendment No.
Budgetary changes merely
[not specified]
Rejected, 48-51
Sustained; amendment fell
1242
incidental to non-budgetary
(March 5, 2021)
components
Lankford Amendment No.
Budgetary changes merely
[not specified]
Rejected, 52-47
Sustained; amendment fell
1031
incidental to non-budgetary
(March 5, 2021)
components
Tuberville Amendment No.
Budgetary changes merely
To prohibit funds made available under title II to
Rejected, 49-50
Sustained; amendment fell
1386
incidental to non-budgetary
States, local educational agencies, and institutions of
(March 5, 2021)
components
higher education that permit any student whose
biological sex is male to participate in an athletic
program or activity designated for women or girls
23. To provide for reconciliation pursuant to title II of S.Con.Res. 14h (P.L. 117-169; 08/16/2022)
a. To Strike Provision(s) from Amendment, Bill, or Conference Report
Page 744, line 7 through page Budgetary changes merely
Health insurance coverage of selected insulin products Rejected, 57-43
Sustained; provision
755, line 4 in Schumer
incidental to non-budgetary
struck (August 6, 2022)
Modified Amendment No.
components
5194
Page 43, lines 3 through 8;
No change in outlays or
Policy statement related to tax increases on certain
None
Sustained; provisions
page 1, lines 3 through 5;
revenues (first three
taxpayers; short title; tax treatment of certain
struck (August 6, 2022)
page 547, line 18, through
provisions), and budgetary
payments to farmers; and funding for certain activities
page 548, line 25; and page
changes merely incidental to
under the Clean Air Act
689, lines 8 through 16, in
non-budgetary components
Schumer Modified
(last provision)
Amendment No. 5194
CRS-32

link to page 36 link to page 36 link to page 36
Waiver
Disposition of
Object of Point of Ordera
Basis of Point of Orderb
Subject Matter
Motionc
Point of Order
b. To Bar Consideration of Amendment(s)
Sanders/Merkley Amendment Outside committee’s
To establish a cap on costs for covered prescription
Rejected, 1-99
Sustained; amendment fell
No. 5210 (to Amendment
jurisdiction
drugs under Medicare parts B and D
(August 6, 2022)
No. 5194)
Tester Amendment No.
No change in outlays or
To establish a procedure for terminating a
Rejected, 56-44
Sustained; amendment fell
5480 (to Amendment No.
revenues
determination by Surgeon General to suspend certain
(August 6, 2022)
5194)
entries and imports from designated places
Capito/Inhofe Amendment
Budgetary changes merely
To expedite consideration of permits and provide
Rejected, 49-50
Sustained; amendment fell
No. 5383 (to Amendment
incidental to non-budgetary
regulatory certainty for infrastructure and energy
(August 6, 2022)
No. 5194)
components
projects
Warnock Amendment No.
Outside committee’s
To make health care coverage available to low-income Rejected, 5-94
Sustained; amendment fell
5262 (to Amendment No.
jurisdiction
adults in States that have not expanded Medicaid
(August 6, 2022)
5194)
Sources: Information compiled from the Congressional Record and Congress.gov.
a. The Byrd rule is Section 313 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, as amended (2 U.S.C. 644). There are many point-of-order provisions in Titles III and IV of the
act. In some instances, points of order or waiver motions are made under the act by general reference only (such as a Senator raising a point of order “under Title III
of the Act”) rather than by specific reference to the provision(s) involved. When only general references are made, it is usually impossible to determine (by reference
to debate in the Congressional Record alone) which provision of the act is involved. Consequently, this table reflects only those instances when specific reference was
made to Section 313 of the act or to the Byrd rule. The object of a point of order under the Byrd rule may be to strike one or more provisions (as designated by title
or section number, or by page and line number) in an amendment, reconciliation measure, or conference report thereon, or to bar consideration of one or more
amendments thereto.
b. A provision is regarded as extraneous under the Byrd rule if it:
(1) does not produce a change in outlays or revenues;
(2) produces an outlay increase or revenue decrease when the instructed committee is not in compliance with its instructions;
(3) is outside of the jurisdiction of the committee that submitted the title or provision for inclusion in the reconciliation measure;
(4) produces a change in outlays or revenues which is merely incidental to the non-budgetary components of the provision;
(5) would increase the deficit for a fiscal year beyond those covered by the reconciliation measure; or
(6) recommends changes in Social Security.
The Byrd rule sets forth specific exceptions to the criteria to determine extraneousness.
c. Under the Byrd rule, a successful waiver motion requires the affirmative vote of three-fifths of the membership (60 Senators, if no seats are vacant). A single waiver
motion can: (1) apply to the Byrd rule as well as other provisions of the CBA of 1974; (2) involve multiple as well as single provisions or amendments; (3) extend (for
specified language) through consideration of the conference report as well as initial consideration of the measure or amendment; and (4) be made prior to the raising
of a point of order, thus making the point of order moot.
d. On October 24, 1985, Senator Robert C. Byrd offered an amendment containing the Byrd rule to the Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act (COBRA) of
1985, which the Senate adopted. In this form, the Byrd rule applied to initial Senate consideration of reconciliation measures. On December 19, 1985, the Senate
adopted S.Res. 286, which extended the application of portions of the provision in COBRA of 1985 to conference reports and amendments between the two houses.
CRS-33

Because the enactment of COBRA of 1985 was delayed until early 1986, the portion of the Byrd rule dealing with conference reports became effective first. Senate
consideration of the conference report on COBRA of 1985, and amendments between the two houses thereon, occurred beginning on December 19, 1985.
Therefore, only the portion of the Byrd rule dealing with conference reports and amendments between the two houses applied during the consideration of COBRA of
1985. No actions were taken under the rule.
e. On October 13, 1989, during consideration of the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1989, the Senate adopted Mitchell Amendment No. 1004 by voice vote. The
amendment struck extraneous matter from the bill; its stated purpose was “to strike all matter from the bill that does not reduce the deficit.” See the Congressional
Record, daily edition (October 13, 1989), p. S13349.
f.
The point of order was not sustained against that part of Section 7803(a) proposing a new Section 2106 of the Social Security Act.
g. This short title, included in the conference report to the budget reconciliation act (H.Rept. 115-466, H.R. 1), was stricken on a point of order under the Byrd rule, as
indicated in the table. As a result, the measure as enacted is referenced by its official title, “An Act to provide for reconciliation pursuant to titles II and V of the
concurrent resolution on the budget for fiscal year 2018.”
h. Referred to as the “Inflation Reduction Act of 2022.” This short title, which was included in the Schumer Modified Amendment No. 5194, was stricken on a point of
order under the Byrd rule, as indicated in the table.

CRS-34

The Budget Reconciliation Process: The Senate’s “Byrd Rule”

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

35

The Budget Reconciliation Process: The Senate’s “Byrd Rule”

(C) a reduction of outlays or an increase in revenues is likely to occur as a result of the
provision, in the event of new regulations authorized by the provision or likely to be
proposed, court rulings on pending litigation, or relationships between economic indices
and stipulated statutory triggers pertaining to the provision, other than the regulations,
court rulings or relationships currently projected by the Congressional Budget Office for
scorekeeping purposes; or
(D) such provisions will be likely to produce a significant reduction in outlays or
increases in revenues but, due to insufficient data, such reduction or increase cannot be
reliably estimated.
(3) A provision reported by a committee shall not be considered extraneous under paragraph
(1)(C) if
(A) the provision is an integral part of a provision or title, which if introduced as a bill or
resolution would be referred to such committee, and the provision sets forth the
procedure to carry out or implement the substantive provisions that were reported and
which fall within the jurisdiction of such committee; or
(B) the provision states an exception to, or a special application of, the general provision
or title of which it is a part and such general provision or title if introduced as a bill or
resolution would be referred to such committee.
(c) Extraneous Materials.—Upon the reporting or discharge of a reconciliation bill or resolution
pursuant to Section 310 in the Senate, and again upon the submission of a conference report on
such reconciliation bill or resolution, the Committee on the Budget of the Senate shall submit for
the record a list of material considered to be extraneous under subsections (b)(1)(A), (b)(1)(B),
and (b)(1)(E) of this section to the instructions of a committee as provided in this section. The
inclusion or exclusion of a provision shall not constitute a determination of extraneousness by the
Presiding Officer of the Senate.
(d) Conference Reports.—When the Senate is considering a conference report on, or an
amendment between the Houses in relation to, a reconciliation bill or reconciliation resolution
pursuant to Section 310, upon—
(1) a point of order being made by an Senator against extraneous material meeting the
definition of subsections (b)(1)(A), (b)(1)(B), (b)(1)(D), (b)(1)(E), or (b)(1)(F), and
(2) such point of order being sustained, such material contained in such conference report or
amendment shall be deemed struck, and the Senate shall proceed, without intervening action
or motion, to consider the question of whether the Senate shall recede from its amendment
and concur with a further amendment, or concur in the House amendment with a further
amendment, as the case may be, which further amendment shall consist of only that portion
of the conference report or House amendment, as the case may be, not so struck. Any such
motion in the Senate shall be debatable for 2 hours. In any case in which such point of order
is sustained against a conference report (or Senate amendment derived from such conference
report by operation of this subsection), no further amendment shall be in order.
(e) General Point of Order.—Notwithstanding any other law or rule of the Senate, it shall be in
order for a Senator to raise a single point of order that several provisions of a bill, resolution,
amendment, motion, or conference report violate this section. The Presiding Officer may sustain
the point of order as to some or all of the provisions against which the Senator raised the point of
order. If the Presiding Officer so sustains the point of order as to some of the provisions
(including provisions of an amendment, motion, or conference report) against which the Senator
raised the point of order, then only those provisions (including provisions of an amendment,
Congressional Research Service

36

The Budget Reconciliation Process: The Senate’s “Byrd Rule”

motion, or conference report) against which the Presiding Officer sustains the point or order shall
be deemed struck pursuant to this section. Before the Presiding Officer rules on such a point of
order, any Senator may move to waive such a point of order as it applies to some or all of the
provisions against which the point of order was raised. Such a motion to waive is amendable in
accordance with the rules and precedents of the Senate. After the Presiding Officer rules on such a
point of order, any Senator may appeal the ruling of the Presiding Officer on such a point of order
as it applies to some or all of the provisions on which the Presiding Officer ruled.

Author Information

Bill Heniff Jr.

Analyst on Congress and the Legislative Process

Acknowledgments
This report was written by Robert Keith, formerly a Specialist in American National Government at CRS.
The analyst listed on the cover of this report, and under the “author contact information,” has updated the
report since 2011 and assumes full responsibility for its contents.

Disclaimer
This document was prepared by the Congressional Research Service (CRS). CRS serves as nonpartisan
shared staff to congressional committees and Members of Congress. It operates solely at the behest of and
under the direction of Congress. Information in a CRS Report should not be relied upon for purposes other
than public understanding of information that has been provided by CRS to Members of Congress in
connection with CRS’s institutional role. CRS Reports, as a work of the United States Government, are not
subject to copyright protection in the United States. Any CRS Report may be reproduced and distributed in
its entirety without permission from CRS. However, as a CRS Report may include copyrighted images or
material from a third party, you may need to obtain the permission of the copyright holder if you wish to
copy or otherwise use copyrighted material.

Congressional Research Service
RL30862 · VERSION 19 · UPDATED
37

Download PDF

Download EPUB

Revision History

Sep. 28, 2022

HTML · PDF

May. 4, 2021

HTML · PDF

Dec. 1, 2020

HTML · PDF

Nov. 22, 2016

HTML · PDF

5% changed