Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Budget Reconciliation Procedures. From www.rules.house.gov

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU
 
drm604 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-20-10 06:28 PM
Original message
Budget Reconciliation Procedures. From www.rules.house.gov
These are from http://www.rules.house.gov/archives/bud_rec_proc.htm

Maybe between us we can figure out what it's saying. I think the "Byrd Rule" mentioned in the next to last paragraph may be a stumbling block. The same paragraph also says that reconciliation legislation can't be filibustered "on the Senate floor". However, the Byrd Rule and other points of order need a 3/5s vote to override which brings us back to the need for 60 votes.

I don't know enough about the arcane parliamentary rules that govern all of this to say anything for sure about what is and isn't possible.

Created in a budget resolution in 1974 as part of the congressional budget process, the reconciliation process is utilized when Congress issues directives to legislate policy changes in mandatory spending (entitlements) or revenue programs (tax laws) to achieve the goals in spending and revenue contemplated by the budget resolution. First used in1980 this process was used at the end of a fiscal year to enact legislation to fine tune revenue and spending levels through legislation that could not be filibustered in the Senate. The policy changes brought about by this part of the budget process have served as constraints on the levels of mandatory spending and federal tax revenues which also has served since 1981 as a vehicle for deficit reduction. The reconciliation process is an optional procedure and not a required action by Congress every fiscal year as is passage of the concurrent budget resolution. However, during the eighteen year period from 1980 to 1998 thirteen reconciliation measures have been enacted into law and numerous others have been considered by Congress. Occasionally, reconciliation legislation has included certain such enforcement mechanisms as extensions of the discretionary spending limits and PAYGO requirements or even reforms to the budget process. Whether for tax reduction, tax increases, deficit reduction, mandatory spending increases or decreases or adjustments in the public debt limit, this process has been used to focus many agents on one goal.

Reconciliation Instructions: The process begins with the inclusion of reconciliation instructions in the budget resolution. These instructions require authorizing committees with jurisdiction over mandatory spending and revenue policies (usually more than one) to make legislative changes in those programs to effect a specified level of budgetary savings provisions. The instructions typically cover the same fiscal years as the budget resolution, with separate dollar amounts specified for each of the years in the budget resolution. While the Budget Committees develop these instructions based on policy assumptions for changes in programs and laws (which are often printed in the committee reports on the budget resolution), the authorizing committees have complete discretion over the specific programs to be changed and the substance of those changes. An authorizing committee must only meet the specified spending and/or revenue directive given it. The budget resolution normally includes a timetable by which the authorizing committees must report legislation that meets these saving targets. These committees generally hold hearings and mark-up these legislative products which are sent to the Budget Committees.

Budget Committees' Role: Once the relevant authorizing committees have reported their legislation to the Budget Committees, it is the Budget Committees’ responsibility to combine those bills into an omnibus package (or packages) as specified by the budget resolution. The legislative products of the authorizing committees are packaged together with report language and the Congressional Budget Office’s and the Joint Committee on Taxation’s cost estimates. This function of the Budget Committees is largely administrative, since the Budget Act provides that the Budget Committees may not make substantive changes in the legislation. However, if one or more authorizing committees do not meet these targets, certain procedures are used to bring the legislation into compliance. In the House, these legislative "fixes" are usually incorporated into the reconciliation package via a special rule granted by the Rules Committee. In the Senate, these violations of the reconciliation instructions may be remedied through the adoption of an amendment on the Senate floor or the adoption of a motion to recommit the bill with instructions to report back forthwith with an amendment containing legislative language which satisfies the original instruction.

House and Senate Floor Consideration: The Budget Act specifies that Congressional Action on reconciliation legislation should be completed by June 15. It provides specific expedited procedures and restrictions for floor consideration of reconciliation measures, to ensure timely completion. In the House, reconciliation legislation is normally brought from the Budget Committee to the Rules Committee, which grants a special rule governing floor consideration of the measure. Under the Budget Act and traditionally under these special rules no amendment is in order that would increase spending or decrease revenue levels relative to the base bill without equivalent decreases in spending or increases in revenues. In other words, amendments must be deficit neutral. Also, non-germane amendments may not be offered to the package absent a waiver from the Rules Committee.

In the Senate, total debate on a reconciliation bill is limited to 20 hours, although the actual time for consideration of the omnibus package often exceeds this time limit set in the Budget Act. Motions and amendments may be offered and considered without debate at the end of this time period. There are also restrictions on the content of a reconciliation package and on the amendments which may be offered to it. For example, any amendment to the bill that is not germane, would add extraneous material, would cause deficit levels to increase, or that contains recommendations with respect to the Social Security program, is not in order. The Budget Act also maintains that reconciliation provisions must be related to reconciling the budget. For example, section 313 of the Budget Act, more commonly known as the "Byrd Rule", provides a point of order in the Senate against extraneous matter in reconciliation bills. Determining what is extraneous is often a procedural and political quagmire navigated in part by the Senate Parliamentarian. The Byrd Rule and other points of order in the Budget Act may only be waived in the Senate by a three-fifths vote. Furthermore, the Budget Act prevents reconciliation legislation from being filibustered on the Senate floor.

Conference Process: Once a reconciliation bill is passed in the House and Senate, members of each body meet to work out their differences. A majority of the conferees on each panel must agree on a single version of the bill before it can be brought back to the full House and Senate for a vote on final passage. Approval of the conference agreement on the reconciliation legislation must be by a majority vote of both Houses. In the House, the conference report is usually given a special rule from the Rules Committee to govern floor consideration. In the Senate, the floor debate is governed by Senate rules and specific provisions of the Budget Act. In contrast to the concurrent budget resolution, a reconciliation bill is sent to the President for approval or disapproval.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
FiveGoodMen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-20-10 06:34 PM
Response to Original message
1. Shocked will hardly cover my reaction if they actually use that for good.
There's been no sign of good in all the wrangling so far.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
drm604 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-20-10 07:36 PM
Response to Reply #1
2. I put it up here because there are a lot of folks on here talking like they're experts on it.
I thought that maybe we could try to clarify what is and isn't possible. Whether or not they'd actually use it for good is a whole other question.

My suspicion is that it can't be used in the way some people here think, but I could easily be wrong.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
drm604 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-20-10 10:30 PM
Response to Original message
3. Wow, I honestly thought that this would get some interest and discussion.
Everyone's talking about reconciliation, but nobody wants to talk about reconciliation? :shrug:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
lamp_shade Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-21-10 03:39 AM
Response to Reply #3
5. I hear you. Too many here are wearing blinders and prefer ignorance over understanding.
Most chanting "Reconciliation" have no idea what it means. I'm bookmarking your post and may refer to it now and then. Thanks.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SanchoPanza Donating Member (410 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-21-10 09:56 AM
Response to Reply #3
7. You expected more?
The truth is that reconciliation can't be used to pass anything that doesn't affect the budget (which means no exchanges, no insurance reforms, no delivery reforms) and the expedited nature of the process means that anything more than a "Sense of the House/Senate" amendment will not make it into the final package. It will give full control over the process to a handful of committee chairmen. Then you have to sit back and watch the Senate parliamentarian decide whether or not each provision is acceptable.

The inept will believe what they want to believe, just to preserve their own unexamined biases. It should come as no shock to anyone that the Coakley loss has magically confirmed every contradictory pet theory put forward by both centrist and progressive Democrats, which is a clear sign that most people are just full of shit. So having their own little echo chamber to feed their misplaced outrage is the order of the day, and anyone who's interested in a rational discussion on anything related to policy or politics should probably avoid DU like the plague for a while.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ProgressiveEconomist Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-20-10 10:48 PM
Response to Original message
4. I think it's time for another Obama Middle Class Tax Cut
Dumbya could govern like a king with barely 51 Senators because he emphasized regressive tax cuts rather than progressive spending measures.

IMO nothing but a suicidal effort at "bipartisanship" has stopped Obama from emphasizing the progressive Middle Class Tax Cuts he ran on. Out of foolish deference to Republicans, his stimulus bill last year whittled his proposal to cut payrolll taxes sharply down to almost nothing. And then almost NO Republicans voted for it!

I think it's time for Round 2, with virtually the same mechanism used last time: elimanating the first X dollars of payroll tax. And X needs to be welll north of $1000 IMO.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
drm604 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-21-10 09:42 AM
Response to Original message
6. Kick for the morning crowd. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Sat May 04th 2024, 04:45 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC