The reconciliation process, introduced by the Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act (ICA), was originally a technical mechanism designed to align spending and revenue with the annual budget resolution. Reconciliation was envisioned as a means to enforce fiscal discipline. It allowed Congress to make targeted adjustments to existing laws to ensure that federal revenue and spending stayed within the parameters set by the annual budget resolution. Key aspects of its original design included a narrow scope, focused on adjusting existing programs or tax laws to meet budgetary goals, and addressing discrepancies between anticipated and actual fiscal outcomes.

In its early years, reconciliation was rarely used and primarily addressed modest budgetary concerns, such as reducing deficits or correcting revenue shortfalls. Unfortunately, reconciliation has become less about budgetary fine-tuning and more about sidestepping Senate filibusters to pass major policy and spending changes on a partisan basis. Key procedural advantages of reconciliation include:

• Filibuster-Proof: Reconciliation bills are protected from Senate filibusters, meaning they can pass with a simple majority instead of the usual 60 votes.
• Expedited Consideration: Debate on reconciliation is limited to 20 hours, significantly reducing opportunities for obstruction.
• Amendment Restrictions: The process restricts the scope of amendments, allowing bills to move through Congress with fewer changes.

These features make reconciliation an attractive option in a politically divided Senate, where securing a 60-vote supermajority is increasingly difficult. Modern reconciliation bills often go far beyond their original budgetary intent, encompassing major policy changes in areas like health care, taxes, and climate initiatives. Notable examples include:

• Affordable Care Act Amendments (2010): While not the original ACA, key amendments to the law were passed through reconciliation to bypass Senate opposition.
• Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (2017): This sweeping tax reform, passed under reconciliation, included significant changes to corporate and individual tax rates, far exceeding the original budgetary focus of the process.
• Inflation Reduction Act (2022): This legislation included provisions for climate change mitigation, health care reforms, and tax changes—policies with wide-ranging implications beyond immediate budgetary concerns.

These examples illustrate how reconciliation has become a vehicle for enacting landmark legislation. In each example one party controlled the House, Senate, and White House, making the need to attain bipartisan support unnecessary. Reconciliation’s expanded use has drawn criticism for undermining Senate norms and allowing significant policy shifts without broader debate or consensus. Some concerns about the use of reconciliation include:

• Bypassing Deliberation: The process’s fast-tracked nature limits debate, reducing opportunities for thorough consideration of complex policies.
• Budgetary Loopholes: Lawmakers use creative interpretations of the Byrd Rule, which restricts non-budgetary provisions in reconciliation bills, to include far-reaching policies.
• Partisan Legislation: Reconciliation is often used to advance controversial policies without bipartisan support, exacerbating political polarization.