So, what is a Reconciliation Bill? You’ve probably read about this in the news as a way for Congress to pass a bill dealing with spending, revenues, or the national debt. Reconciliation bills provide a means for Congress to skirt the 60-vote requirement in the US Senate to bring a bill to a vote. The House of Representatives has no such super majority requirement concerning regular legislation. A simple majority is all that is required to pass a House bill. However, before a bill can be considered in the Senate, at least 60 senators must vote to bring the bill to the floor. After that, the bill can pass with a simple majority, as in the House.
The 60-vote requirement, known as cloture, allows the Senate to proceed forward with a vote on the bill. Absent 60 votes, you have what is called a filibuster. To bypass a filibuster, Congress can resort to a reconciliation bill that only needs a simple majority in both houses of Congress to pass. But there is a catch.
Reconciliation bills must be solely reserved for topics dealing with spending, revenues or national debt bills, all of which must originate in the House as required by the Constitution. So, if the House passes a reconciliation bill, when it arrives in the Senate, it only needs a simple majority. But there is yet another catch in the Senate.
Only three reconciliation bills—one per topic for spending, revenue, or the federal debt limit—can pass per year. Even then, any policy changes that are extraneous to any one of the three types of bills are also limited by the “Byrd Rule,” a requirement formulated by Senator Robert Byrd (D-WV) years ago, when he was the majority leader of the Senate. That rule also prohibits reconciliation bills from increasing the federal deficit after a ten-year period or making changes to Social Security.
So, who decides what is “extraneous?” That falls to the Senate parliamentarian—normally appointed by the majority party—who evaluates the legislation to ensure it does not stray from strictly dealing with spending, revenues, or national debt. If it meets the parliamentarian’s standards then it can pass with a simple majority in the Senate.
Why is this important to know? Here’s why. The Republicans now control the Senate and are looking to a reconciliation bill to pass many of President-elect Trump’s priorities without allowing the Democrats to filibuster—deny the precious 60 votes—and stop his legislative agenda. Democrats will, of course howl if Republicans do this, calling it “ramrodding” legislation that is “racist, misogynistic, fascist, anti-women, -child, -dog, -cat, and -snail darter.” Not a precious thing will be left out of their accusations. Never mind that Democrats used reconciliation to pass Obama-care and President Biden’s so-called “Inflation Reduction Act.” As such, they will have zero credibility in opposing the procedure now, but that won’t matter. They will bitterly resist the reconciliation option. Welcome to the “what comes around, goes around” political reality.
So, how should the Republicans use reconciliation to advance spending, revenue, and debt policy that the Democrats are vowing to block? First, they should do a spending reconciliation bill to provide the President with the power to withhold any Congressionally-appropriated funding from states and their jurisdictions that refuse to assist in the removal of illegal aliens or otherwise harbor them. That could involve withholding public safety, infrastructure, or transportation funding. Second, if a state refuses to provide school choice options to parents seeking to remove their children from failing public schools, the President should be authorized to withhold education funding until states comply. Third, if a state attempts to block any energy infrastructure project that involve fossil fuels, it will be subject to withheld transportation and infrastructure funding.
Is that stark? Yes, it is. But if we are to solve our immigration, border, failing schools, and energy problems, we cannot do so if state governors and mayors insist on perpetuating these problems. To be sure, none of these withholds would prevent states from doing as the choose. But to be sure their choices will have federal funding consequences that they are more than welcome to explain to their citizens.
There is a right way and a wrong way to go about this. Presidential executive orders that attempt to do these withholds is wrong. It is the Congress who holds the purse strings constitutionally and it must be Congress that assumes the responsibility to grant the President the authority to execute the spending as Congress dictates.
Congress can do so constitutionally by using the reconciliation process they have in their hands. Democrats will oppose them despite having used the procedure many times. Republicans must not allow them to derail necessary reforms. Reconcile them to a new national agenda.
0 Comments