Skip to main content

Welcome to the 20th installment of "Considered Forthwith."

This weekly series looks at the various committees in the House and the Senate. Committees are the workshops of our democracy. This is where bills are considered, revised, and occasionally advance for consideration by the House and Senate. Most committees also have the authority to exercise oversight of related executive branch agencies.

Since we are all interested in passing the public option through reconciliation, this seems an opportune time to look at the House and Senate Budget committees that have jurisdiction over reconciliation. This process, which has existed since 1974, is not used every year, but is being actively considered this year. The major function of the budget committees, however, is to handle the budget resolution, which was done months ago. (CF regrettably missed that opportunity to discuss the Budget Committees.)

Members and Jurisdiction

Normally I list all of the members of the committees and their jurisdictions here. This will be a lengthy and substantive entry, so here are links to the House members, Senate Democratic and Republican members and official statements of jurisdiction of the House and Senate committees.

Kent Conrad is the chair and Judd Gregg is the ranking member of the Senate Committee. John Spratt is the House committee chair and Paul Ryan is the ranking member.

Neither committee has any subcommittees.


Reconciliation is not the main function annual function of the committees. That would be writing the annual budget resolution, which is discussed below. The Budget and Impoundment Control Act of 1974 established the modern budget process including the optional reconciliation process and the budget resolution. Reconciliation... 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.

Reconciliation is immune to a filibuster because debate is limited to 20 hours by the statute. That's why we are considering using reconciliation to pass health care reform, or at least the public option. With out the filibuster threat, the Democrats only need to muster 50 votes plus the vice president's tie breaker for passage.

The health care reform bill was included in both the House and Senate budget resolutions for fiscal year 2010. More on the process of this below. The important point is that reconciliation was included in the budget resolutions, so the reconciliation process may take place this year.

Under the rules of reconciliation, the budget committees direct the authorizing committees to submit their pieces of the reconciliation bill. It is up to the budget committees to combine these bills into one omnibus bill to be reported to the full chamber with fiscal reports from the Congressional Budget Office and the Joint Committee on Taxation. (Honestly, I cannot make heads or tales of the current reports on the reform bills. However, I do see a few key Blue Dogs, including Max Baucus and Kent Conrad on the committee.) The work of the Budget committees, however, is largely administrative since they are not allowed to make substantive changes to the bills that make up the omnibus. If the public option, for example, is in one bill, then it will be in the omnibus.

From there, the bill goes through the normal floor votes and conference report process with the exception of the 20 hour limit on debate in the Senate and the possibility of points of order outlined next.

At the moment, our current debate is not so much whether the public option can pass under reconciliation. The current whip count seems to indicate that a majority are in favor of establishing a public health insurance agency. The real problem is whether the public option may even be included in a budget reconciliation bill. This is due to the Byrd Rule. The Byrd Rule rule, originally propagated by Senator Robert Byrd in the mid 1980s, defines what constitutes "extraneous matter" that would be subject to a point of order by any Senator. These six tests for identifying extraneous matter are:


* do not produce a change in outlays or revenues;

   * produce changes in outlays or revenue which are merely incidental to the non-budgetary components of the provision;

   * are outside the jurisdiction of the committee that submitted the title or provision for inclusion in the reconciliation measure;

   * increase outlays or decrease revenue if the provision's title, as a whole, fails to achieve the Senate reporting committee's reconciliation instructions;

   * increase net outlays or decrease revenue during a fiscal year after the years covered by the reconciliation bill unless the provision's title, as a whole, remains budget neutral;

   * contain recommendations regarding the OASDI (social security) trust funds.

A point of order can be waived if 60 members vote in favor of waiving it. If the point of order is upheld, the provision would be struck from the bill. Of course, that essentially defeats the point of running the public option through reconciliation to get around the filibuster threat. Now, there are some exceptions to the Byrd Rule that can eliminate the point of order. They are:


* a provision that mitigates direct effects attributable to a second provision which changes outlays or revenue when the provisions together produce a net reduction in outlays;

   * 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;

   * the provision will likely reduce outlays or increase revenues based on actions that are not currently projected by CBO for scorekeeping purposes; or

   * such provision will likely produce significant reduction in outlays or increase in revenues, but due to insufficient data such reduction or increase cannot be reliably estimated.

When a member makes a point of order, the presiding member rules whether or not it is in order (i.e may even be voted upon). In making this decision, the presiding member confers with the parliamentarian. The parliamentarian is a non-partisan professional who has gone through years of training in the rule and procedures of Congress. When the parliamentarian makes a decision it is highly likely that the presiding officer will rule the same way. The presiding officer, of course, may rule the other way. However, this sets a dangerous precedent. Essentially, the presiding officer is saying that it is fine to disregard the finer points of the chamber rules as interpreted by the person who was hired to know this information.

It seems very likely that the public option would violate one or more of the tests of the Byrd Rule. Therefore, the supporters will need to show that it meets one of the exceptions. In other words, they will need to show that it will save money in the long run despite the required start up costs. This will also necessarily require splitting the bill into the financial components and the sections that do not affect the federal budget.

In this case, the parliamentarian's decision would be heavily influenced by estimates from the Congressional Budget Office and the Joint Committee on Taxation (linked above and the subject of next week's entry). This seems like a good time to discuss CBO, over which the committees have jurisdiction.

Congressional Budget Office

CBO was also created by the 1974 budget reform act to serve as a source of objective budget information and long-term spending and revenue projections for Congress. Their reports do not include policy recommendations. In other words, the numbers are what they are. However, the CBO director, under Congressional testimony can be pressed for recommendations based on the office's reports and studies.

CBO is not to be confused with theOffice of Management and Budget (OMB), which does similar work for the President. The CBO budget for FY 2009 is $44.1 million and employs 235 people, most of whom hold advanced degrees in public policy or economics. OMB's FY 2009 budget is about $72.8 million and has a work force of 489 full time equivalents, meaning that their employees work the equivalent of 489 40-hour weeks. Why have two budget offices? Long-term budget projections are as much art as science. Two sets of experts can come to radically different conclusions on budget forecasts. Therefore it is advisable to essentially get a second opinion.

One major role of the CBO is to produce a cost estimate on every bill that is reported from any committee. In mid July, CBO released a report on the Democrats' health care reform plan. The Senate Budget Committee promptly held a hearing with CBO director Douglas Elmendorf. The result of this hearing was the revelation that the current plan might be a drain on the budget, which sent the fiscal conservatives into a panic and made them waver in their support for a government-run health insurance company. The July 16 hearing was really a turning point in the debate. This hearing also illustrates another key power of the Budget  committees: through their hearings the members have the opportunity to shape budget debates.

Like any economic projection, these numbers are only estimate. Furthermore, CBO is quick to point out that the July projections are not based on complete information:

The figures released yesterday do not represent a complete cost estimate for the legislation. In particular, the estimated impact of the provisions related to health insurance coverage is based on specifications provided by the committee staff, rather than on a detailed analysis of the legislative language.

That means that additional information may change the budget forecasts. I have also heard an argument that allowing the Bush tax cuts (which were also passed under reconciliation incidentally) could cover the costs of the public option.

To be accurate, the July time line looked like this: CBO released a preliminary analysis of the House bill July 14. The Senate Budget Committee held their hearing July 16. CBO released it's latest report July 17.

To keep up to date with CBO's health care reform reports, bookmark this page. The climate change reports are here.

The other major roles of CBO include overseeing the Troubled Assets Relief Program (TARP, or the bank bailout), making long-term projections on the budget and entitlement programs, issuing monthly budget reports to Congress on current incomes and outlays, and assisting with the annual budget resolutions.

Budget resolutions

For a full rundown of the budget process, please see my primer on the budget process.

A major role of the Budget committees is to produce the annual budget resolutions. These are brief statements outlining the amount of money that may be spent on each of 21 "budget functions." The budget functions are listed herehere. If the President and Congress are of the same party, the budget resolutions will be largely based on a President's budget. If relations between Congress and the President are strained, the budget could be declared "dead on arrival" and the budget resolution will be radically different from the President's budget.

In addition, any reconciliation plans must be included in the budget resolution. Under the original 1974 budget reform act, two resolutions were required and reconciliation happened in the second resolution in the fall. This was problematic, The point of reconciliation is to reduce spending or increase resolution. However, by the fall the appropriations committees have already settled on the outlays and it proved difficult to cut funding that had already been appropriated. After that experience, Congress shifted to using only a single budget resolution in early spring.

Once the Budget committees report the budget resolutions, they go to the full chamber for a vote. The resolution is not subject to a filibuster in the Senate as debate is limited to 50 hours. These resolutions become rules of the chamber and it takes a supermajority votes to exceed spending limits to spend more than the amount listed in the resolution.

Ongoing studies

Finally, the committees continue to oversee the budget process and study proposals to change the current budget or the process in general. For example, the House Budget Committee has held hearings on PAYGO (a law requiring all spending to be covered by revenue or spending cuts elsewhere), the economic case for health care reform, and Budgeting for Nuclear Waste Management. The Senate Committee has held fewer hearings and several recent ones have focused on Chairman Conrad's home state of North Dakota.

Finally, if anyone is still under the delusion that the Republicans operated like the party of fiscal responsibility under George W. Bush, consider these numbers from the House Budget Committee which were current as of November, 2008 just after the election:

Budget Surplus or Deficit:
Fiscal Year 2001: surplus of $128 billion
Fiscal Year 2008 as projected in 2001: surplus of $635 billion
Fiscal Year 2008 (actual): deficit of $455 billion
Fiscal Year 2009 projected in the Administration's July 2008 Mid Session Review: deficit of $482 billion

Debt held by the public in January 2001: $3.4 trillion
Debt held by the public in November 2008: $6.3 trillion
Statutory debt limit* in January 2001: $5.6 trillion
Statutory debt limit* now: $11.3 trillion
*(Statutory debt limit includes debt held by the public and intragovernmental holdings)

Foreign-Held Debt:
Foreign-held debt: $2.7 trillion - more than two and half times its level in 2001
More than 80 cents of every dollar of new debt is bought by foreign investors

Interest on National Debt:
Fiscal Year 2008 debt service as projected in 2001: $27 billion
Fiscal Year 2008 debt service (actual): $249 billion

For more about other committees, check out my previous work:
Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee
Senate and House Armed Services Committees
Small Business Committees
Senate Environment and Public Works Committee
House Select Committee on Energy Independence and Global Warming
The Committee Primer
House Education and Labor Committee
Senate Finance Committee
Senate HELP Committee
Senate Judiciary Committee
House Energy and Commerce Committee
House Ways and Means Committee
House and Senate Appropriations Committees
House Intelligence Committee
House Judiciary Committee
House and Senate Ethics Committees
House Science and Technology Committee
House Financial Services Committee
House Rules Committee
The Role of Committees

Crossposted on my own blog, Congress Matters, Docudharma, and now Progressive Electorate.

Originally posted to Casual Wednesday on Sun Aug 23, 2009 at 06:28 PM PDT.

Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags


More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  Thank you (4+ / 0-)

    . . . for this very useful, insightful analysis of an issue much noised about but little understood.

  •  Awesome, thank you (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    sc kitty, Casual Wednesday

    so much for this. I haven't read yet. I'm doing so now. Just wanted to say thanks, tipped and recommended.

    I've been really curious about how the reconciliation process works, especially since we may use it in the health care fight.

    (And, really, because I'm a geek who likes to read stuff like this, honestly.)

    "ENOUGH!" - President Barack Hussein Obama

    by indiemcemopants on Sun Aug 23, 2009 at 06:52:29 PM PDT

  •  Hotlisted, timely, brilliant, and thank you (3+ / 0-)

    I posted this same comment in Cuse Dem's diary above yours I Grilled Sen. Schumer Face to Face on Public Option Today, CasWeds, but I did so with a mind to give you the same compliment

    IF anybody knocks my diary off the Reclist, this

    is it, as well as Casual Wednesday's usual and timely awesomeness right behind this one.

    Considered Forthwith: Budget Committees and reconciliation

    Both of you rock, and we are not worthy.

    Tipped and Rec'd.


    The object of persecution is persecution. The object of torture is torture. The object of power is power. Now do you begin to understand me?' - 1984

    by MinistryOfTruth on Sun Aug 23, 2009 at 06:59:31 PM PDT

  •  Thanks so much for this. (3+ / 0-)

    I just posted a diary asking that we all get informed about reconciliation and it turns out that you have already posted a terrific diary about this.  I am going to link to this in my diary.  Thanks again.

  •  Thanks For Giving Us the Real Poop.. (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Casual Wednesday, dakinishir

    on how the budget reconciliation process works and how it might be applied to pass budgetary aspects of the health legislation.  I'm sure you corrected many misunderstandings and mis-conceptions.  

    However, you kinda left me hanging.  you said that the public option would initially get booted by the Byrd rule, but that it might be allowed under one of the rule's exceptions if it can be proven that it will result in a budgetary savings in the long run.  You than indicated that the CBO report would mainly form the basis of such proof, but you didn't indicate how the CBO report portrays the public option.  I have heard that the CBO indicates it would be something like a $100 billion savings over the 10 year budget period.  Is this true?  And if so, do you think that is enough to qualify for one of the Byrd rule exceptions?

    "Some men see things as they are and ask, 'Why?' I dream of things that never were and ask, 'Why not?"

    by Doctor Who on Sun Aug 23, 2009 at 07:25:58 PM PDT

    •  The problem at this point (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      maggiejean, dakinishir

      is that CBO is still working with incomplete information. According to the CBO director's blog that I linked to in the diary, Here's more from that entry:

      By the end of the 10-year period, in 2019, the coverage provisions would add $202 billion to the federal deficit, CBO and JCT estimate. That increase would be partially offset by net cost savings of $50 billion and additional revenues of $86 billion, resulting in a net increase in the deficit of an estimated $65 billion.

      By my reading of that, the government still needs to come up with another $65 billion over ten years, which is not an insignificant sum.

      However, the CBO estimates are only based on partial information, likely because they do not include "modifications" (i.e. amendments) made in committee. I am also guessing that, without setting the cost of premiums in the bill, the actual income projects are a low estimate.

      I can't fault CBO for this an incomplete analysis it is a massive undertaking without all of the facts.

      Naturally, the real impact could be dramatically different from the projections.

      When it comes right down to it, though, the Dems will probably need to come up with additional cost savings or revenue generators to take the reconciliation route.

      On what planet do you spend most of your time?

      by Casual Wednesday on Sun Aug 23, 2009 at 07:42:42 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Brilliant. Thank you. (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Casual Wednesday, dakinishir

    Now if people would read it...

    No public option? Let the motherf*cker BURN!!!!!!!!

    by andrewj54 on Sun Aug 23, 2009 at 07:35:11 PM PDT

  •  Perhaps you should change your title to... (4+ / 0-)

    Reconciliation for DUMMIES!  It will be catchy and get more people to read this...  We really need to get educated on this instead of just yelling "reconciliation" louder and louder.

  •  Very timely subject (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Casual Wednesday, dakinishir

    and, as always, well done. Glad to hear your "syndicated"... it's well-deserved!

    As long as prejudice exists in this country - in this world - we are all its victims. ~~ Keith Olbermann

    by Purple Priestess on Sun Aug 23, 2009 at 09:24:42 PM PDT

  •  I hope somebody can clarify something... (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Casual Wednesday

    that I've been wondering about ever since Howard Dean was on Morning Joe (I believe it was Aug 17).  Paraphrasing him, he suggested to get the bill out of the Senate the administration might support a weaker health care reform bill (one without a public option).  Meanwhile, the House would pass a stronger bill with a public option.  Then during conference, the administration would work to ensure the public option was included in the final bill that went back to both chambers for a final vote.  

    On the surface this sounds like a great way to do it but I'm not an expert and am curious what the drawbacks are to this approach. The big problem I see is that Republicans are obviously aware this approach could be used and would block any health care reform bill no matter how weak. I assume this is at least part of the reason Senator Enzi was asking for a guarantee that any compromises reached by the Senate Finance Committee would be included in the final bill.  Of course, blocking a health care reform bill that gave the Republicans everything they wanted would pose some political challenges.  

    Questions I have are:

    1. Is this plan actually viable?
    1. Is the final bill coming out of conference subject to a fillibuster? Or would it only need 50 votes to pass?
    1. On Morning Joe, Dr. Dean repeatedly used the term "reconciled bill."  I assume he meant "reconciled" as in "differences being reconciled during conference" and not the formal process of reconciliation.  Am I correct?
    •  To answer your questions (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      bradams, dakinishir
      1. It might be viable. My concern is that the public option would be lost or severely diluted in conference. That would all be dependent upon the members chosen for the committee. Pelosi is not a concern. She would appoint PO supporters. Again, the problem is in the Senate. Traditionally, they come from the committees that reported the bill. That means some members from the dreaded Finance Committee. With Baucus recently changing his tune, we might be in good shape, but it is way to early to celebrate that.

      At any rate, this will be going to conference. It will not get through both chambers without amendments. However, the conference committee cannot add new material nor can it remove items present in both versions. That's why it is imperative we have the PO in at least one version and ideally in both.

      1. Conference Committee bills are happily not subject to a filibuster.
      1. The answer is that I don't know. I haven't seen that interview. Reconciled can mean combining bills (i.e. combine the Finance and HELP bills) or a reconciliation bill. Not knowing the context, I can't answer that.

      On what planet do you spend most of your time?

      by Casual Wednesday on Sun Aug 23, 2009 at 10:02:52 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  thanks for this very imformative and timely (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Casual Wednesday

    diary. Good to have even a slighly more clear grasp of what may happen to the PO during reconciliation.

    I always feel like I've learned enough for several weeks after reading one of these.

    ::brain hurts::

    When I was young, I admired clever people. Now that I am old, I admire kind people. ~Abraham Joshua Heschel

    by dakinishir on Mon Aug 24, 2009 at 10:00:23 AM PDT

  •  Good gracious, you're wonderful. What a great (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Casual Wednesday

    piece of work. I'm sorry, I'm tired but had to read it and will do better tomorrow... but do you think we have the votes, assuming there are no other problems?  

    And, ah the ironies, Bush used reconciliation to screw over more Americans than any other President.. And he did it every time he could. The tax breaks that made the wealthy soooo wealthy expire in 2010 so it looks like Bush loved them and whoever lets them expire is mean. What is so bad about that is he nearly broke the back of the middle class shifting the tax burden to everyone else and those taxes don't expire.

    And Bill Clinton signed an Ominbus Spending bill 2 days before he left office. Just before he signed it Phil Gramm stuck 270 pages (roughly) of deregulation in the back of the bill. Gramm discussed it briefly on the floor, said how great it would be, help banks and all, but no one read the bill. That is how they blame Clinton for the deregulation that he never would have written much less signed if he hadn't let Gramm get away with that. Republicans are just crap. In fact, the Wall Street Journal (lying piece of junk) did a big piece explaining how the collapse came about It didn't blame him for any of it... because he WROTE the peice. And had the nerve to show a picture of Clinton signing the bill  

    Support President Obama so that his coattails can carry progressives into Congress in 2010. Build on all success.

    by Plain Speaking on Mon Aug 24, 2009 at 08:56:46 PM PDT

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site