Budget reconciliation process in U.S. Congress

Budget reconciliation in U.S. Congress

A comprehensive resource on the process and use of budget reconciliation with details on the laws and rules governing the process, summaries and analysis of historical use, and coverage of reconciliation bills during the second Trump administration

What is budget reconciliation?
Budget reconciliation is a legislative process that can be used to override the filibuster and expedite the approval of a package of legislation in Congress that changes spending, revenues, or the debt limit. Budget reconciliation bills have limits on debate so they require a simple majority (51 votes) instead of the three-fifths majority (60 votes) usually needed in the Senate to bring bills to a vote.

The reconciliation process occurs if Congress passes a budget resolution for the fiscal year that gives reconciliation instructions. The provisions of reconciliation bills are crafted by committees or added through amendments. The Congressional Budget Act of 1974 and the budget resolution limit the content of the reconciliation bill. Those limitations are enforced through the Byrd Rule.
Why does it matter?
Since budget resolutions and budget reconciliation have limits on debate so that they cannot be filibustered in the Senate, the package of bills passed through reconciliation requires support from 51 senators instead of 60. Republicans had as of February 10, 2025, a 53-47 majority in the Senate and a 218-215 majority in the House.

Between 2010 and 2024, Democratic trifectas passed three budget reconciliation bills, Republican trifectas passed one, and one was passed by a Republican-controlled Congress and vetoed by a Democratic president in a divided government. Reconciliation is most frequently used when one party has trifecta control of the House, the Senate, and the Presidency, but does not have a 60% majority in the Senate.
What is the background?
The budget reconciliation process was created by Title III of the Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act of 1974. The law, in addition to the budget reconciliation process, created congressional budget committees and the Congressional Budget Office. President Richard Nixon (R) signed the law into effect on July 12, 1974. The Byrd Rule, which provides senators with a mechanism to attempt to remove or block provisions from a reconciliation bill by raising points of order against them, was adopted in the 1980s and formally included in the Congressional Budget Act in 1990. The Senate Parliamentarian is tasked with advising the Vice President as to whether points of order should be sustained or not.

Explore the topics below for detailed information:

• How does reconciliation work and why are 51 Senate votes needed instead of 60?
  Read more
• What limitations do reconciliation bills have and what is the Byrd Rule?
  Read more
• What is the role of committees in the reconciliation process?
  Read more

• What are the roles of the Vice President and the Parliamentarian in the Byrd Rule?
  Read more
• What can and cannot be included in budget reconciliation bills?
  Read more
• What is the status of the 2025 budget reconciliation bill and what is in it?
  Read more

• What have Democrats and Republicans done through reconciliation?
  Read more
• How and when was the budget reconciliation process created and how has it changed?
  Read more
• What significant laws have been passed through budget reconciliation in the past?
  Read more

Budget reconciliation process

Budget reconciliation is a legislative process that can be used to expedite the passage of a package of legislation related to spending, taxes, and the debt limit. It requires a simple majority (51 votes) instead of the 60 votes usually needed in the Senate to bring a bill to a vote and pass it.

How does the reconciliation process begin and what are reconciliation instructions?

This process is only conducted if it is called for in a budget resolution passed by the House and the Senate. A budget resolution can give reconciliation instructions to specific committees. The instructions initiate the reconciliation process and set limitations on the content of the legislation included in a reconciliation bill.

The process for budget resolutions limits debate time to 50 hours, preventing filibuster, and can be brought to a vote and approved by a simple majority in both the House and the Senate, similar to reconciliation bills.

What are the limitations on reconciliation bills?

The budget resolution that provides reconciliation instructions limits the content of a reconciliation bill. Budget resolutions can provide reconciliation instructions for legislation that changes federal spending, changes federal revenue, changes the federal debt limit, or some combination of the three. Provisions addressing spending, revenue, or the debt limit can be combined into one bill, but multiple separate bills cannot be used to satisfy the same budget resolution instructions. It also prohibits changes to social security through the reconciliation process.

The restrictions on reconciliation are enforced through the Byrd Rule, through which senators claim provisions are extraneous and should be removed or excluded from the omnibus reconciliation bill, and the Vice President as presiding officer of the Senate makes a determination. The Vice President can be overruled by a 60% Senate vote.

The Senate Parliamentarian advises the Vice President on Byrd Rule points of order. Through what is referred to as the Byrd Bath, the Senate Parliamentarian can also preemptively advise committees and legislators on the content of reconciliation bills and whether they are likely to meet the requirements of the Byrd Rule before the legislation comes to the floor.

• Click here for a detailed explanation of the Byrd Rule.
  Read more
• Click here for examples of the Byrd Rule in practice.
  Read more
• Click here for a detailed explanation of the Byrd Bath.
  Read more

How often can reconciliation be used?

The budget reconciliation process and resulting legislation packages originate with budget resolutions. Since there is generally only one budget resolution per fiscal year, this means that in most cases, there can only be one reconciliation process per fiscal year. The Senate Parliamentarian has advised, however, that reconciliation could be conducted more than once for the same fiscal year if Congress passed a revised budget resolution due to changed economic conditions or an emergency and the revised budget resolution also called for reconciliation.

Each reconciliation process can result in up to three separate bills: a maximum of one each for budget resolution instructions on (1) spending, (2) taxes and revenues, and (3) the debt limit. More frequently, provisions are combined into a single bill addressing all three topics of the resolution instructions. Multiple reconciliation bills cannot be used to satisfy the same instruction.

How are reconciliation bills drafted and how are committees involved?

Budget resolutions call for reconciliation using clauses called reconciliation directives. If these directives are included in the budget resolution, the House and Senate committees that receive them draft bills to change laws within their jurisdiction that affect spending, tax, and debt limits so that the proposed budgetary goals can be accomplished. Reconciliation directives are not specific as to what types of legislation the committees are supposed to draft; rather, they provide guidelines for what sort of monetary effect the legislation should have. Reconciliation instructions can be specific or general. Instructions on revenue and spending have been combined to provide instructions to decrease or increase the deficit. The reconciliation bill must follow the instructions of the reconciliation directive.

Budget resolutions can be drafted specifically to allow intended reconciliation legislation by anticipating spending and revenue levels or by authorizing the levels in the resolution to be adjusted to fit a reconciliation bill that meets other requirements.

After the committees draft their legislative recommendations, all of the committees' reconciliation bills are then sent to the House and Senate Budget Committees, who compile them into an omnibus budget reconciliation bill. This is only necessary if multiple committees have received reconciliation directives. If reconciliation instructions were given to one committee, the Budget Committee has no need to compile any legislation and the lone reconciliation bill goes directly from its committee to the floor.

Occasionally, the Senate has skipped the committee process and has taken the House reconciliation bill straight to the floor. This occurred in 2021 and 2017, for example.

Through what is called a Byrd Bath, the Senate Parliamentarian can also preemptively advise committees and legislators on the content of reconciliation bills and whether they are likely to meet the requirements of the Byrd Rule before the legislation comes to the floor.

What are reconciliation rules in the House?

The reconciliation process does not affect procedures in the House as much as in the Senate because the House does not have the 60% vote requirement for ending debate and bringing a bill to the floor for a vote as the Senate does. During the consideration of reconciliation bills as with other significant legislation, the House Rules Committee usually sets limitations for debate and amendments.

What are reconciliation rules in the Senate and why are only 51 votes needed?

Reconciliation bills are unique in the Senate because they can be moved to a floor vote and passed by a simple majority, bypassing the 60% cloture requirement. This is because they are not subject to the filibuster due to the 20-hour time limit on floor debate and the requirement that any proposed amendments be relevant. The filibuster is a strategy of preventing or delaying action on a bill in the Senate by speaking at length on a proposal, introducing multiple procedural motions, or engaging in other obstructive actions. To end debate on a non-reconciliation bill, and end a filibuster, which could be continued indefinitely, 60% of the Senate has to vote in favor.

What is the Byrd Rule?

The Byrd Rule is found in 2 U.S. Code § 644 and provides senators with a mechanism to attempt to remove or block provisions from a reconciliation bill. If any Senators believe provisions in the reconciliation omnibus bill or in proposed amendments to the bill are extraneous to the reconciliation directives, they can raise a point of order under the Byrd Rule. A point of order under the Byrd Rule is a motion to delete the specified provision before consideration is resumed. The Vice President as the presiding officer of the Senate rules on Byrd Rule points of order. The Senate Parliamentarian advises the Vice President on Byrd Rule points of order.

• Click here for a detailed explanation of the Byrd Rule.
  Read more
• Click here for examples of the Byrd Rule in practice.
  Read more

How do amendments work for reconciliation bills and what are vote-a-ramas?

See also: Vote-a-ramas in the U.S. Senate

After debate has ceased in the Senate, amendments to a reconciliation bill can still be proposed and voted on. Senators briefly explain the amendment before the Senate proceeds to a roll call with a 10-minute duration. This process, sometimes called the vote-a-rama, has no procedural limit on the number of amendments that can be proposed. Amendments are supposed to be germane (relevant to the contents of the bill). Points of order under the Byrd Rule can still be made during this time.

As of December 2024, there had been 63 vote-a-ramas, defined as instances of legislation receiving 15 or more votes in one day, in the Senate from 1977 to 2024. At least 26 of these instances were regarding either a budget resolution or a budget reconciliation bill. Vote-a-ramas do not only occur when the Senate is considering budget resolutions or reconciliation bills and can happen when the Senate is considering other types of legislation as well.

How are reconciliation bills enacted after amendments are finalized?

After floor debate ceases and all amendments have been proposed and voted on, the House and Senate have to adopt the same version of the reconciliation bill. If different versions of the bill have been adopted by the House and Senate, then a either House-Senate conference committee is required or the two chambers could exchange amendments until they are in agreement.

Budget reconciliation bills, unlike the budget resolutions that precede them, are sent to the president to be either signed or vetoed. If a budget reconciliation bill is vetoed, then the process is over. A new budget resolution would have to be drafted in order to trigger the budget reconciliation process again.

The Byrd Rule

What provisions are extraneous and can be removed according to the Byrd Rule?

The Byrd Rule, which is established in statute, states that any provision that meets one of the following criteria can be excluded as extraneous through a point of order made by a senator and sustained by the presiding officer of the Senate (the Vice President):

• it does not make any changes to spending or revenue or to the terms and conditions under which spending or revenues are accomplished;
• it does make changes to spending or revenue but not in compliance with the reconciliation instructions given to the committee in the budget resolution;
• it is not in the jurisdiction of the committee that submitted the provision;
• the changes in spending or revenue are merely incidental to the nonbudgetary policy changes of the provision;
• it increases the deficit for a fiscal year after the fiscal years (a 10-year window) covered by the specific budget resolution and reconciliation instructions; or
• it makes changes to Social Security.

The three most common reasons that points of order have been sustained and provisions removed as extraneous according to the Byrd Rule are:

• no change in outlays or revenues,
• budgetary changes merely incidental to non-budgetary components, and
• outside committee’s jurisdiction.

How are provisions removed by Byrd Rule points of order?

Any Senator can raise a point of order under the Byrd Rule saying that a provision of a reconciliation bill or proposed amendment is extraneous. This can be done concerning any number of provisions; there is no limit to a single point of order. The Vice President as the presiding officer of the Senate then determines whether to sustain the point of order and remove the targeted provision or provisions as extraneous. The Vice President can sustain a point of order under the Byrd Rule for all or some of the provisions challenged through a point of order. When the Vice President sustains a point of order, the extraneous material is excluded from the reconciliation bill and consideration of the legislation resumes.

Points of order are the only enforcement method for the Byrd Rule and the removal of extraneous provisions. For example, Congress has passed changes to the budget process itself through a reconciliation bill even though the changes were not designed to change revenue or outlays directly. Since no point of order was made against the provisions, no determination regarding whether they were extraneous was made.

What is the role of the Senate Parliamentarian?

See also: Senate Parliamentarian

The Senate Parliamentarian is a nonpartisan advisor to the chamber on procedural issues, interpretation of Senate rules, and legislative activity. For budget reconciliation and the Byrd Rule specifically, the Senate Parliamentarian advises the Vice President about whether a provision challenged through a point of order is extraneous under the Byrd Rule.

When has the Vice President ruled contrary to the Parliamentarian's advice?

Vice President Nelson Rockefeller overruled the Parliamentarian in 1975 regarding procedures for voting to change the Senate's filibuster rules. Vice President Hubert H. Humphrey ruled contrary to the Parliamentarian's determination regarding the filibuster threshold in 1967 and 1969.

In March 2021, 24 Democratic members of Congress wrote a letter to President Joe Biden (D) and Vice President Kamala Harris (D) requesting that Harris overrule the Senate Parliamentarian's determination that a provision raising the national minimum wage to $15 per hour proposed for the 2021 reconciliation bill was extraneous and had to be removed according to the Byrd Rule. Ultimately, Harris ruled in accordance with the Parliamentarian and removed the provision.

The Senate majority leader has twice dismissed the Senate Parliamentarian. Sen. Robert Byrd (D) dismissed Parliamentarian Robert B. Dove in 1987. Dove was reinstated in 1995. Sen. Trent Lott (R) again dismissed Dov in 2001. Click here to read more details.

How do motions to waive the Byrd Rule work?

Senators can move to waive the Byrd Rule for a provision, allowing inclusion in the reconciliation bill whether or not it is extraneous. Senators can also move to overrule the Vice President's determination on a Byrd Rule point of order. Motions to waive the Byrd Rule or overrule the Vice President require a 60% vote in the Senate, which means they need the same number of votes as would be required to end a filibuster and bring a bill to the Senate floor normally.

Since 1985, 69 motions to waive were made during the 27 reconciliation processes that made it through both the House and the Senate, and nine of them (13%) were approved with the required 60%, while 60 (87%) were rejected.

What does Byrd Bath refer to?

The Senate Parliamentarian can also preemptively advise committees and legislators on the content of reconciliation bills and whether they are likely to meet the requirements of the Byrd Rule before the legislation comes to the floor. This is referred to as a Byrd Bath. During a Byrd Bath, decisions regarding what to include or not include in a reconciliation bill are made by a small number of senators and Senate staff with determinations about whether or not a provision will likely be deemed in compliance with the Byrd Rule made by the Parliamentarian. This means provisions are not put before the Vice President for an official determination through points of order and that proposed provisions and decisions regarding noncompliance made during a Byrd Bath are not published in records or available to the public.

What are examples of provisions removed or kept based on Byrd Rule determinations?

Point of order rejected: provisions kept

• In 1993, a provision of the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1993 was challenged on the basis that it caused no changes in budgetary outlays or revenues to its nonbudgetary components. The provision was designed to require each state to establish a program to distribute pediatric vaccines and to require the Secretary of State to negotiate contracts with companies to provide vaccines to the state programs. The budgetary component was that the Secretary could not accept contracts on behalf of the states if the CDC had a contract for the same vaccine from the same company at a lower price.

The point of order was initially sustained, and the provision was rejected. Similar provisions accompanied by a Congressional Budget Office estimate that they would have some unquantified effect on prices for the federal government were again considered and again challenged by a Byrd Rule point of order on the basis that it caused no changes in budgetary outlays or revenues and that its budgetary changes were merely incidental. The point of order was rejected and the motion to appeal the ruling was rejected with 43 votes in favor and 57 against. The provision remained in the bill. This could have an effect on the price the CDC pays for vaccines and therefore makes a budgetary change even though the extent of that change couldn't have been known at the time the legislation was enacted.

• Another point of order was raised against a section of the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1993 designed to create a tobacco tax assessment. Section 1106(a) created an assessment for cigarette manufacturers that imported more than 25% of the tobacco they used. Money was collected from these companies under the assessment at a rate that made triggering the assessment unprofitable. The revenue from the assessment was estimated at $6 million. This provision was challenged on the basis that its budgetary changes were merely incidental to its nonbudgetary components. As advised by the Parliamentarian, the Vice President rejected the point of order. The motion to appeal the ruling on this section, Section 1106(a), was rejected by a 43-57 vote margin.

• A point of order was raised against four provisions of the Deficit Reduction Act of 2005 on the basis that the provisions would result in no change in budgetary outlays or revenues and that the budgetary changes made by these provisions were merely incidental. The point of order was sustained against three of the provisions in question but was not sustained against Section 7404, which remained in the reconciliation bill. Section 7404 was designed to require states that accept Medicaid funds to make foster care maintenance payments on behalf of each child who has been removed from the home of a relative and to expand adoption assistance.

• In 2015, the Senate Parliamentarian advised that Republicans could not use budget reconciliation to repeal the individual and employer mandates that were established by the Affordable Care Act. The budget reconciliation bill was instead used to set the penalties for noncompliance with the individual and employer mandates to $0, which the Parliamentarian did not advise against.

Point of order sustained: provisions struck

• In 1995, a point of order was raised under the Byrd Rule against Section 7191(a) of the Balanced Budget Act of 1995 on the basis that the provision in question would result in no change in budgetary outlays or revenues. This section of the reconciliation bill would have banned the use of federal funding for abortions under Medicaid. Robert Dove, the Senate Parliamentarian at the time, advised that the provision was extraneous, and the point of order was sustained. A motion to waive the Byrd Rule for this provision was defeated with 55 votes in favor and 45 against. Dove said, "In my view, that was not there to save money but to implement a huge social policy. It was knocked out of the bill. But such calls are incredibly difficult, because you’re going into motive. It’s not just what a provision does, but why was it put there.”

• In 2015, a point of order was raised and sustained against Section 105(b) of the Restoring Americans' Healthcare Freedom Reconciliation Act of 2015. This section would have repealed Section 1342 of the Affordable Care Act, which had to do with the establishment of risk corridors from 2014 to 2016. It was ruled that the budgetary changes made by this section were merely incidental to its non-budgetary components. A motion to waive the Byrd Rule was defeated with 52 votes in favor and 47 votes against.
  • The Congressional Research Service also lists four amendments to the Restoring Americans' Healthcare Freedom Reconciliation Act of 2015 that had points of order raised and sustained against them. The first three of these amendments all had to do with firearm regulation. The other amendment had to do with the Protect America Act. All four points of order were raised on the basis that the proposed amendments were outside the committee's jurisdiction. None of the motions to waive the Byrd Rule for these amendments were successful.

• In 2017, the Senate considered an amendment to the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act with provisions that would make it out of order to consider any legislation that would cut Medicare, Medicaid, or Social Security. If an action is out of order in the Senate, that means that it is against Senate rules and Senators can make points of order against the action. A Byrd Rule point of order was raised and sustained against the amendment on the basis that it made no change in budgetary outlays or revenues. The motion to waive the Byrd Rule failed with 46 votes in favor and 54 against.

• Amendment no. 972 of the American Rescue Plan Act of 2021 sought to raise the federal minimum wage. A point of order was raised against the amendment on the basis that its budgetary changes were merely incidental to its non-budgetary components. The point of order was sustained and the motion to waive the Byrd Rule was defeated with 42 votes in favor and 58 against.

Overview of budget reconciliation bills in 2025

See also: Budget resolutions proposed during the 2025 U.S. Congress reconciliation process

Republican party leaders have said they will use the budget reconciliation process in 2025 to pass priority policies, including provisions concerning taxes, the border and immigration, and the debt limit.

The reconciliation process could originate in the House or the Senate. Two different approaches and been proposed and discussed:

• one reconciliation bill that addresses as many policy priorities as possible, and
• a two-bill approach that would address energy, border, and immigration with one bill and use a second bill to address taxes.

House Speaker Mike Johnson (R) has supported the one-bill approach. Senate Majority Leader John Thune (R) has supported separating the effort into two bills.

House budget resolution proposal

See also: 2025 U.S. House budget resolution proposal

February 25, 2025: The House voted 217 to 215 to adopt their budget resolution. All republicans voted in favor except for Thomas Massie (R), who voted against. All democrats voted against the resolution except for Raúl Grijalva (D), who did not vote.

February 19, 2025: President Donald Trump (R) expressed support for the House budget resolution proposal in favor of the Senate proposal.

“

The House and Senate are doing a SPECTACULAR job of working together as one unified, and unbeatable, TEAM, however, unlike the Lindsey Graham version of the very important Legislation currently being discussed, the House Resolution implements my FULL America First Agenda, EVERYTHING, not just parts of it! We need both Chambers to pass the House Budget to ‘kickstart’ the Reconciliation process, and move all of our priorities to the concept of, ‘ONE BIG BEAUTIFUL BILL.'

”

February 13, 2025: The House Budget Committee released a proposal for the budget resolution on February 12, the text of which is provided below. The House Budget Committee voted to advance the resolution to the House floor during their markup meeting on Thursday, February 13.

The U.S. House budget resolution proposal approved by the House Budget Committee on February 13, 2025, includes taxes, the border, defense, and energy, as some of its main policy areas of focus.

Click here for more details.

Senate budget resolution proposal

See also: 2025 U.S. Senate budget resolution proposal

February 21, 2025: The Senate voted 52-48 to pass the budget resolution. Before the final vote, the Senate held a vote-a-rama on the Senate budget resolution (S.Con.Res.7). There were 25 roll call votes on amendments to the resolution.

February 12, 2025: Chairman of the Senate Budget Committee, Lindsey Graham (R) released a proposal for the budget resolution on February 7, the text of which is provided below. Meetings for markup of the budget resolution proposal were scheduled for Wednesday, February 12, and Thursday, February 13. After the Wednesday meeting, the Senate Budget Committee voted to advance the budget resolution proposal to the Senate floor and cancelled the Thursday meeting.

The U.S. Senate budget resolution proposal approved by the Senate Budget Committee on February 12, 2025, includes the border, defense, and energy, as some of its main policy areas of focus.

Click here for more details.

President Donald Trump and Republican leadership comments on reconciliation plan

January 27, 2025: President Trump commented on his plans to include provisions related to the border in the 2025 reconciliation package.

“

In the coming weeks, I’m looking forward to working with Congress on a reconciliation bill that financially takes care of our plan to totally and permanently restore the sovereign border of the United States once and for all. This should include full funding for a record increase in border security personnel and retention bonuses for ICE and border patrol.

”

Trump also said,

“

We don’t want to get hung up on the budget process … whether it’s one bill, two bills, I don’t care. They’re going to work it out one way or the other. But the bottom line, the end result, is going to be the same.

”

Historical usage of budget reconciliation

See also: Uses of budget reconciliation in Congress

In total since 1985, Congress has passed 27 reconciliation bills. Twenty-three (23) of the bills were signed by the president and enacted. Four of the reconciliation bills passed both chambers of Congress but were vetoed by the President.

Between 2010 and 2024, Democratic trifectas passed three budget reconciliation bills, Republican trifectas passed one, and one was passed by a Republican-controlled Congress and vetoed by a Democratic president in a divided government. Reconciliation is most frequently used when one party has trifecta control of the House, the Senate, and the Presidency, but does not have a 60% majority in the Senate.

Democrats used reconciliation to pass the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act of 2010 -- including the final version of the Affordable Care Act (Obamacare) -- and the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022 -- including funding for environmental and climate-related policies and projects, increased corporate taxes, and the extension of Medicaid expansion.

Republicans used reconciliation in 2018 to pass the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, including decreased individual income and corporate taxes and allowances for oil and gas drilling on certain federal land.

Democrats tried to enact gun control measures and increase the federal minimum wage to $15 per hour through reconciliation bills in 2015 and 2021, respectively, but Republican senators filed points of order against the amendments according to the Byrd Rule, and the provisions were removed.

Republicans proposed cutting certain Social Security, Medicare, or Medicaid benefits as part of a reconciliation bill in 2017, but Democrats filed points of order against the amendments according to the Byrd Rule, and the provisions were removed.

The following chart provides an overview of the uses of budget reconciliation since 2010 that passed both chambers, including vetoed bills.

Budget reconciliation bills since 2010 that passed both chambers
Bill name	Bill number	Action date	President	Presidential action	Federal trifecta status
Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act of 2010	S.Con.Res. 13	March 30, 2010	Barack Obama (D)	Signed into law	Democratic
Restoring Americans' Healthcare Freedom Reconciliation Act of 2015	S.Con.Res. 11	January 8, 2016	Barack Obama (D)	Vetoed	Divided
Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2018	H.Con.Res. 71	December 22, 2017	Donald Trump (R)	Signed into law	Republican
American Rescue Plan Act of 2021	S.Con.Res. 5	March 11, 2021	Joe Biden (D)	Signed into law	Democratic
Inflation Reduction Act of 2022	S.Con.Res. 14	August 16, 2022	Joe Biden (D)	Signed into law	Democratic

• Click here for an overview of past budget reconciliation use.
  Read more

The creation and development of the budget reconciliation process

How and when was the budget reconciliation process created?

See also: Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act of 1974

The budget reconciliation process was created by Title III of the Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act of 1974. The law, in addition to the budget reconciliation process, created congressional budget committees and the Congressional Budget Office.

President Richard Nixon (R) signed the law into effect on July 12, 1974, to establish a congressional budget process. The bill, in part, amended the Budget and Accounting Act of 1921, which sponsors of the Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act argued "gave too much power to the president, at the expense of Congress."

Click here to read more about the provisions of the law outlining the budget reconciliation process.

How has the budget reconciliation process changed since it was created?

Since its creation in 1974, the budget reconciliation process has changed in several ways. Below are some of those key changes.

Addition of the Byrd Rule

The Byrd Rule was first introduced in 1985 as a Senate rule to prevent non-budgetary provisions from being included in reconciliation bills. Initially, it was a procedural guideline, but it was codified into law in 1990 through the Budget Enforcement Act. The addition and codification of the Byrd Rule created a mechanism — most often employed by the minority party — to challenge and remove provisions not directly focused on budgetary matters. The Byrd Rule is one of the only enforcement mechanisms for limiting the scope of reconciliation bills.

• Click here for a detailed explanation of the Byrd Rule.
  Read more
• Click here for examples of the Byrd Rule in practice.
  Read more

Expansion of Reconciliation Beyond Deficit Reduction

The budget reconciliation process was originally designed to streamline the budget process and focus on deficit reduction. Over time, its use expanded to include broader fiscal policies. In the 1980s, reconciliation was used for both spending cuts and tax increases, which showed a shift in its role in federal budget management. The 2001 tax cuts were one of the first major reconciliation bills focused on reducing revenue rather than cutting spending, signaling a shift in how the process was applied. Since then, reconciliation has been used for a range of fiscal measures, including both tax and spending policies.

Text of statute governing reconciliation and the Byrd Rule

U.S. statute governing reconciliation

2 U.S. Code § 641 details and provides for the execution of the reconciliation process:

“ (a) Inclusion of reconciliation directives in concurrent resolutions on the budget A concurrent resolution on the budget for any fiscal year, to the extent necessary to effectuate the provisions and requirements of such resolution, shall— (1) specify the total amount by which— (A) new budget authority for such fiscal year; (B) budget authority initially provided for prior fiscal years; (C) new entitlement authority which is to become effective during such fiscal year; and (D) credit authority for such fiscal year, contained in laws, bills, and resolutions within the jurisdiction of a committee, is to be changed and direct that committee to determine and recommend changes to accomplish a change of such total amount; (2)specify the total amount by which revenues are to be changed and direct that the committees having jurisdiction to determine and recommend changes in the revenue laws, bills, and resolutions to accomplish a change of such total amount; (3) specify the amounts by which the statutory limit on the public debt is to be changed and direct the committee having jurisdiction to recommend such change; or (4) specify and direct any combination of the matters described in paragraphs (1), (2), and (3) (including a direction to achieve deficit reduction). (b) Legislative procedure If a concurrent resolution containing directives to one or more committees to determine and recommend changes in laws, bills, or resolutions is agreed to in accordance with subsection (a), and— (1) only one committee of the House or the Senate is directed to determine and recommend changes, that committee shall promptly make such determination and recommendations and report to its House reconciliation legislation containing such recommendations; or (2) more than one committee of the House or the Senate is directed to determine and recommend changes, each such committee so directed shall promptly make such determination and recommendations and submit such recommendations to the Committee on the Budget of its House, which, upon receiving all such recommendations, shall report to its House reconciliation legislation carrying out all such recommendations without any substantive revision. For purposes of this subsection, a reconciliation resolution is a concurrent resolution directing the Clerk of the House of Representatives or the Secretary of the Senate, as the case may be, to make specified changes in bills and resolutions which have not been enrolled. (c) Compliance with reconciliation directions (1) Any committee of the House of Representatives or the Senate that is directed, pursuant to a concurrent resolution on the budget, to determine and recommend changes of the type described in paragraphs (1) and (2) of subsection (a) with respect to laws within its jurisdiction, shall be deemed to have complied with such directions— (A) if— (i) the amount of the changes of the type described in paragraph (1) of such subsection recommended by such committee do not exceed or fall below the amount of the changes such committee was directed by such concurrent resolution to recommend under that paragraph by more than— (I) in the Senate, 20 percent of the total of the amounts of the changes such committee was directed to make under paragraphs (1) and (2) of such subsection; or (II) in the House of Representatives, 20 percent of the sum of the absolute value of the changes the committee was directed to make under paragraph (1) and the absolute value of the changes the committee was directed to make under paragraph (2); and (ii) the amount of the changes of the type described in paragraph (2) of such subsection recommended by such committee do not exceed or fall below the amount of the changes such committee was directed by such concurrent resolution to recommend under that paragraph by more than— (I) in the Senate, 20 percent of the total of the amounts of the changes such committee was directed to make under paragraphs (1) and (2) of such subsection; or (II) in the House of Representatives, 20 percent of the sum of the absolute value of the changes the committee was directed to make under paragraph (1) and the absolute value of the changes the committee was directed to make under paragraph (2); and (B) if the total amount of the changes recommended by such committee is not less than the total of the amounts of the changes such committee was directed to make under paragraphs (1) and (2) of such subsection. (2) (A) Upon the reporting to the Committee on the Budget of the Senate of a recommendation that shall be deemed to have complied with such directions solely by virtue of this subsection, the chairman of that committee may file with the Senate appropriately revised allocations under section 633(a) of this title and revised functional levels and aggregates to carry out this subsection. (B) Upon the submission to the Senate of a conference report recommending a reconciliation bill or resolution in which a committee shall be deemed to have complied with such directions solely by virtue of this subsection, the chairman of the Committee on the Budget of the Senate may file with the Senate appropriately revised allocations under section 633(a) of this title and revised functional levels and aggregates to carry out this subsection. (C) Allocations, functional levels, and aggregates revised pursuant to this paragraph shall be considered to be allocations, functional levels, and aggregates contained in the concurrent resolution on the budget pursuant to section 632 of this title. (D) Upon the filing of revised allocations pursuant to this paragraph, the reporting committee shall report revised allocations pursuant to section 633(b) of this title to carry out this subsection. (d) Limitation on amendments to reconciliation bills and resolutions (1) It shall not be in order in the House of Representatives to consider any amendment to a reconciliation bill or reconciliation resolution if such amendment would have the effect of increasing any specific budget outlays above the level of such outlays provided in the bill or resolution (for the fiscal years covered by the reconciliation instructions set forth in the most recently agreed to concurrent resolution on the budget), or would have the effect of reducing any specific Federal revenues below the level of such revenues provided in the bill or resolution (for such fiscal years), unless such amendment makes at least an equivalent reduction in other specific budget outlays, an equivalent increase in other specific Federal revenues, or an equivalent combination thereof (for such fiscal years), except that a motion to strike a provision providing new budget authority or new entitlement authority may be in order. (2) It shall not be in order in the Senate to consider any amendment to a reconciliation bill or reconciliation resolution if such amendment would have the effect of decreasing any specific budget outlay reductions below the level of such outlay reductions provided (for the fiscal years covered) in the reconciliation instructions which relate to such bill or resolution set forth in a resolution providing for reconciliation, or would have the effect of reducing Federal revenue increases below the level of such revenue increases provided (for such fiscal years) in such instructions relating to such bill or resolution, unless such amendment makes a reduction in other specific budget outlays, an increase in other specific Federal revenues, or a combination thereof (for such fiscal years) at least equivalent to any increase in outlays or decrease in revenues provided by such amendment, except that a motion to strike a provision shall always be in order. (3) Paragraphs (1) and (2) shall not apply if a declaration of war by the Congress is in effect. (4) For purposes of this section, the levels of budget outlays and Federal revenues for a fiscal year shall be determined on the basis of estimates made by the Committee on the Budget of the House of Representatives or of the Senate, as the case may be. (5) The Committee on Rules of the House of Representatives may make in order amendments to achieve changes specified by reconciliation directives contained in a concurrent resolution on the budget if a committee or committees of the House fail to submit recommended changes to its Committee on the Budget pursuant to its instruction. (e) Procedure in Senate (1) Except as provided in paragraph (2), the provisions of section 636 of this title for the consideration in the Senate of concurrent resolutions on the budget and conference reports thereon shall also apply to the consideration in the Senate of reconciliation bills reported under subsection (b) and conference reports thereon. (2) Debate in the Senate on any reconciliation bill reported under subsection (b), and all amendments thereto and debatable motions and appeals in connection therewith, shall be limited to not more than 20 hours. (f) Completion of reconciliation process It shall not be in order in the House of Representatives to consider any resolution providing for an adjournment period of more than three calendar days during the month of July until the House of Representatives has completed action on the reconciliation legislation for the fiscal year beginning on October 1 of the calendar year to which the adjournment resolution pertains, if reconciliation legislation is required to be reported by the concurrent resolution on the budget for such fiscal year. (g) Limitation on changes to Social Security Act Notwithstanding any other provision of law, it shall not be in order in the Senate or the House of Representatives to consider any reconciliation bill or reconciliation resolution reported pursuant to a concurrent resolution on the budget agreed to under section 632 or 635 of this title, or a joint resolution pursuant to section 907d of this title, or any amendment thereto or conference report thereon, that contains recommendations with respect to the old-age, survivors, and disability insurance program established under title II of the Social Security Act [42 U.S.C. 401 et seq.]. ”

The Byrd Rule in U.S. statute

Below is the text of 2 U.S. Code § 644, which constitutes the Byrd Rule:

“ (a)In general When the Senate is considering a reconciliation bill or a reconciliation resolution pursuant to section 641 of this title (whether that bill or resolution originated in the Senate or the House) or section 907d of this title, upon a point of order being made by any Senator against material extraneous to the instructions to a committee which is contained in any title or provision of the bill or resolution or offered as an amendment to the bill or resolution, and the point of order is sustained by the Chair, any part of said title or provision that contains material extraneous to the instructions to said Committee as defined in subsection (b) shall be deemed stricken from the bill and may not be offered as an amendment from the floor. (b) Extraneous provisions (1) (A) Except as provided in paragraph (2), a provision of a reconciliation bill or reconciliation resolution considered pursuant to section 641 of this title 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 641(g) of this title. (2) A Senate-originated provision shall not be considered extraneous under paragraph (1)(A) if the Chairman and Ranking Minority Member of the Committee on the Budget and the Chairman and Ranking Minority Member of the Committee which reported the provision certify that: (A) the provision mitigates direct effects clearly attributable to a provision changing outlays or revenues and both provisions together produce a net reduction in the deficit; (B) the provision will result in a substantial reduction in outlays or a substantial increase in revenues during fiscal years after the fiscal years covered by the reconciliation bill or reconciliation resolution; (C) a reduction of outlays or an increase in revenues is likely to occur as a result of the provision, in the event of new regulations authorized by the provision or likely to be proposed, court rulings on pending litigation, or relationships between economic indices and stipulated statutory triggers pertaining to the provision, other than the regulations, court rulings or relationships currently projected by the Congressional Budget Office for scorekeeping purposes; or (D) such provision will be likely to produce a significant reduction in outlays or increase 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 641 of this title in the Senate, and again upon the submission of a conference report on such a 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 641 of this title, upon— (1)a point of order being made by any Senator against extraneous material meeting the definition of subsections (b)(1)(A), (b)(1)(B), (b)(1)(D), (b)(1)(E), or (b)(1)(F), and (2) such point of order being sustained, such material contained in such conference report or amendment shall be deemed stricken, and the Senate shall proceed, without intervening action or motion, to consider the question of whether the Senate shall recede from its amendment and concur with a further amendment, or concur in the House amendment with a further amendment, as the case may be, which further amendment shall consist of only that portion of the conference report or House amendment, as the case may be, not so stricken. Any such motion in the Senate shall be debatable for two hours. In any case in which such point of order is sustained against a conference report (or Senate amendment derived from such conference report by operation of this subsection), no further amendment shall be in order. (e) General point of order Notwithstanding any other law or rule of the Senate, it shall be in order for a Senator to raise a single point of order that several provisions of a bill, resolution, amendment, motion, or conference report violate this section. The Presiding Officer may sustain the point of order as to some or all of the provisions against which the Senator raised the point of order. If the Presiding Officer so sustains the point of order as to some of the provisions (including provisions of an amendment, motion, or conference report) against which the Senator raised the point of order, then only those provisions (including provisions of an amendment, motion, or conference report) against which the Presiding Officer sustains the point of order shall be deemed stricken pursuant to this section. Before the Presiding Officer rules on such a point of order, any Senator may move to waive such a point of order as it applies to some or all of the provisions against which the point of order was raised. Such a motion to waive is amendable in accordance with the rules and precedents of the Senate. After the Presiding Officer rules on such a point of order, any Senator may appeal the ruling of the Presiding Officer on such a point of order as it applies to some or all of the provisions on which the Presiding Officer ruled. ”

See also

Reconciliation process and details:

• Budget reconciliation in U.S. Congress
• Filibuster and reconciliation in the United States Congress
• The Byrd Rule
• Senate Parliamentarian

Reconciliation origin, historical use, and analysis:

• Uses of budget reconciliation in Congress
• Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act of 1974
• Vote-a-ramas in the U.S. Senate
• What happens during Donald Trump's presidential transition process, 2024-2025
• Donald Trump presidential transition, 2024-2025

Related videos from Ballotpedia:

External links

• Congressional Research Services, "The Budget Reconciliation Process: Timing of Legislative Action," accessed December 23, 2024
• Congressional Research Service, "The Budget Reconciliation Process: The Senate’s 'Byrd Rule.'"
• Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, "Introduction to Budget “Reconciliation”, May 6, 2022
• Committee for Responsible Federal Budget, "Reconciliation 101," November 18, 2024
• Brownstein, "Reconciliation 101 and What It Means for 2025," November 13, 2024
• The Center for Children & Families (CCF) at the McCourt School of Public Policy at Georgetown University, "The Budget Resolution and Reconciliation Process Explained," December 11, 2024
• Reuters, "Explainer: How Republicans plan to pass Trump's agenda through 'reconciliation'," December 16, 2024
• Tax Foundation, "Questions About Tax Cuts, Tariffs, and Reconciliation After the Election," November 13, 2024

Footnotes