Latest news with #BudgetAct
The Hill
30-06-2025
- Business
- The Hill
Graham claims sole authority to decide if GOP megabill complies with budget laws
The Senate's presiding Republican chairman has ruled that Senate Budget Committee Chair Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) has the sole authority to decide if provisions of the One Big, Beautiful Bill Act violate the 1974 Congressional Budget Act or other budget laws, a controversial ruling that Democrats tried to overturn but failed. Sen. Bill Hagerty (R-Tenn.), who was presiding over the Senate at the time, ruled that the chair will not sustain any budgetary points of order against the massive bill unless Graham as Budget chairman says they are valid objections — drastically limiting the power of Democrats, who are in the minority. Hagerty announced that the presiding chair 'must rely on determinations made by the Budget Committee in assessing the budgetary effects' of the 940-page Senate bill, which Graham has determined will not add to future deficits by extending the 2017 tax cuts, according to a 'current policy' baseline. Hagerty said that unless Graham asserts that a provision of the bill or an amendment causes a violation of the 1974 Budget Act, the presiding chair will not sustain any budgetary point-of-order objection against the bill. Graham told colleagues that his exercise of power over the bill was justified by Section 312 of the Congressional Budget Act. Sen. Jeff Merkley (D-Ore.), the ranking member of the Budget Committee, immediately appealed the ruling of the chair. He pointed to a letter he received from Congressional Budget Office Director Phillip Swagel asserting that the Finance portion of the bill would increase federal deficit by $3.5 trillion between 2025 and 2034 and increase deficits beyond the 10-year budget window, which ends in 2034. 'The ability of the chair to create a phony baseline has never been used in reconciliation, not ever,' Merkley argued. 'This breaks a 51-year tradition of the Senate for honest numbers,' he declared. Merkley's appeal of the chair's ruling empowering Graham failed by a party-line vote. Senators rejected it by a vote of 53 to 47. The Senate is holding a day-long series of amendment and other votes on the GOP tax and spending bill that is expected to culminate with a vote on final passage Monday night.
The Hill
20-06-2025
- Politics
- The Hill
Budget reconciliation bill strikes blow against activist judges
Sometimes the most powerful part of a bill isn't a sweeping mandate but a single, strategic sentence. Deep in the House reconciliation package is just such a provision. It bars courts from enforcing injunctions through contempt unless plaintiffs post the required bond. That may look minor, but this clause is the rampart that will repel the courtroom assault on President Trump's agenda. The language needs tightening, but it would save the taxpayers billions, meets Senate budget reconciliation criteria — and must be passed. The provision works not by making new law, but by simply enforcing the current law governing federal courts. Rule 65(c) requires parties seeking a pre-trial injunction to post bond to cover damages if the defendant is later found to have been wrongfully enjoined. The rule is designed both to make defendants whole and to deter frivolous claims. The text and history make clear that bonds are mandatory, but district judges exhibit a disturbing level of defiance. One judge declared himself 'simply unwilling' to impose a 'burdensome' bond on 'public interest' litigants. But invoking the 'public interest' is a purely subjective exercise. Those challenging a government policy have no stronger claim to the public good than the millions who voted to implement that policy in an election. The House finally had enough of activist judges evading the bond requirement, but the provision still must survive the 'Byrd Rule' in the Senate. Because budget reconciliation bills can pass the Senate with only a simple majority, there is a strong incentive to include non-budgetary policy matters. To prevent this, Section 313 of the Budget Act bars any provision that results in budgetary changes that are 'merely incidental' to the provision's non-budgetary goals. For example, in 2021, the Senate parliamentarian blocked a measure to grant amnesty to 8 million illegal immigrants, reasoning that the policy change 'substantially outweighs' its estimated $120 billion budgetary impact. The injunction bond provision is not remotely in that situation. It is not a policy change — it merely enforces an existing policy whose express purpose is to protect defendants' wallets. This protection is essential because the Supreme Court has said that a 'party injured by the issuance of an injunction later determined to be erroneous has no action for damages in the absence of a bond.' Right now, because judges are systematically ignoring the bond rule, the federal government is being forced to make outlays of billions of dollars that are irrecoverable. For example, in February, a federal judge issued a temporary restraining order requiring, in the words of Justice Samuel Alito's eventual dissent, the 'United States to pay out (and probably lose forever) 2 billion taxpayer dollars' to reinstate cancelled USAID contracts. There are many such cases. A California district court required the government to reinstate 16,000 fired probationary employees. The government warned the court this would inflict 'massive financial costs that cannot be recouped.' Still, no bond was ordered. A Maryland court issued a similar ruling covering 24,000 employees. Although both were later stayed, the government had to comply for over 3 weeks, at an estimated cost of $41 million. Had these plaintiffs posted the required bond, these multimillion-dollar losses would have been prevented. To the extent the provision's 10-year budgetary impact is hard to estimate precisely, it is not because it lacks direct effect, but because the number of activist judges' injunctions is unpredictable. Each time an injunction is sought, the provision will trigger, thus saving compliance costs. While its frequency is uncertain, its direct budgetary effect will be clear once activated. That said, baseline estimates are possible. Recently, a federal judge blocked planned layoffs of some 180,000 positions at 22 federal agencies. Assuming conservatively that the positions are all paid at the lowest government wage of $22,360, this preliminary injunction is costing the government $350 million each month. But the judge in the case claimed she had no way to determine the financial impact and ordered a bond of $10. The plaintiffs in the case also attest that as many as 700,000 jobs are threatened. If we accept that figure and use the average government salary of $106,000, the bond provision could save taxpayers, in this instance alone, $74 billion if the litigation lasts a year. This House provision makes an injunction without a sufficient bond unenforceable. This would substantially decrease government outlays by ensuring the government always gets its money back when wrongfully enjoined. This is a clear and direct budgetary consequence, and the savings are not 'merely incidental' but are the whole point of the provision. However, the language needs refining before passage. First, explicitly limit it to preliminary injunctions and TROs to address constitutional concerns about curbing courts' remedial powers. Second, it should include temporary administrative stays to prevent circumvention. Third, align with Rule 65(c) in requiring a bond amount 'proper to pay the costs and damages,' to preclude judges from setting trivial bonds. Finally, extend the enforcement ban to executive branch officials, who have far greater incentive to obey than the activist judges whose brazen defiance of Rule 65(c) necessitated this congressional action. Daniel Huff worked as a lawyer in the first Trump White House and is a senior legal fellow at the American Path Initiative.
Yahoo
16-05-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
Opinion - When it comes to reconciliation, there is no House versus Senate
As a former senior staffer and creature of the U.S. House, I take no pleasure in pointing out that it holds an inflated view of its role in the reconciliation process. This isn't a knee-jerk reaction to recent media reports suggesting that the Senate merely needs to 'take' what the House does and pass it. Rather, it is a reflection of the statutory framework that governs budget reconciliation in Congress. Reconciliation, as it operates in the House, exists to originate a revenue measure that maintains procedural privilege in the Senate. Its purpose is not to secure the House's wish list at the expense of Senate priorities, or even the very privilege itself. In fact, if the House includes provisions that don't comply with the Budget Act, this is called a fatality — it means the entire measure is no longer privileged in Senate, defeating the whole point of the exercise. This procedural reality does not diminish the political and strategic value of the countless hours House members and staff spent crafting reconciliation targets and instructions. But we must not lose sight of the fact that the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 created an expedited process for the Senate for considering legislation that changes existing revenue, mandatory spending, or the debt limit, provided it meets specific drafting requirements. The Budget Act is clear: If you want to use this expedited process — one that limits debate time and avoids the need for a 60-vote cloture threshold in the Senate — then the legislation must be written to conform to those requirements. By choosing reconciliation as the legislative vehicle to advance the priorities of the president and congressional Republican leadership, the House is, by design, deferring to the Senate's procedural needs. Reconciliation is not required to pass tax cuts, reduce spending or adjust the debt ceiling. But it is required if the goal is to pass such measures with a simple majority in the Senate. The House should fight to produce the best possible product, but ultimately, reconciliation is designed to make it easier for the Senate to pass legislation — not to empower the House to dictate the terms. If the House wants to negotiate as an equal partner, reconciliation is not the right tool. But if the goal is to get a bill to the president's desk by summer, then it must stay focused on the shared objective: preserving privilege. This isn't House versus Senate — it is House and Senate. Jennifer Belair is former staff director of House Rules Committee. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
The Hill
16-05-2025
- Business
- The Hill
When it comes to reconciliation, there is no House versus Senate
As a former senior staffer and creature of the U.S. House, I take no pleasure in pointing out that it holds an inflated view of its role in the reconciliation process. This isn't a knee-jerk reaction to recent media reports suggesting that the Senate merely needs to 'take' what the House does and pass it. Rather, it is a reflection of the statutory framework that governs budget reconciliation in Congress. Reconciliation, as it operates in the House, exists to originate a revenue measure that maintains procedural privilege in the Senate. Its purpose is not to secure the House's wish list at the expense of Senate priorities, or even the very privilege itself. In fact, if the House includes provisions that don't comply with the Budget Act, this is called a fatality — it means the entire measure is no longer privileged in Senate, defeating the whole point of the exercise. This procedural reality does not diminish the political and strategic value of the countless hours House members and staff spent crafting reconciliation targets and instructions. But we must not lose sight of the fact that the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 created an expedited process for the Senate for considering legislation that changes existing revenue, mandatory spending, or the debt limit, provided it meets specific drafting requirements. The Budget Act is clear: If you want to use this expedited process — one that limits debate time and avoids the need for a 60-vote cloture threshold in the Senate — then the legislation must be written to conform to those requirements. By choosing reconciliation as the legislative vehicle to advance the priorities of the president and congressional Republican leadership, the House is, by design, deferring to the Senate's procedural needs. Reconciliation is not required to pass tax cuts, reduce spending or adjust the debt ceiling. But it is required if the goal is to pass such measures with a simple majority in the Senate. The House should fight to produce the best possible product, but ultimately, reconciliation is designed to make it easier for the Senate to pass legislation — not to empower the House to dictate the terms. If the House wants to negotiate as an equal partner, reconciliation is not the right tool. But if the goal is to get a bill to the president's desk by summer, then it must stay focused on the shared objective: preserving privilege. This isn't House versus Senate — it is House and Senate. Jennifer Belair is former staff director of House Rules Committee.
Yahoo
04-04-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
GOP concerns about tax cut strategy and Medicaid loom over Senate budget
WASHINGTON — Senate Republicans managed to proceed to debate their massive budget plan Thursday night, but not before an unexpected delay caused by some of their own who have concerns about their strategy on tax cuts and potential cuts to Medicaid. The delay occurred as those Republicans met with Senate Majority Leader John Thune, R-S.D., to talk through their concerns. Some more centrist senators are worried about a budget change the party is using to slap a zero-dollar price tag on extending President Donald Trump's tax cuts, which are estimated by the official scorekeeper in Congress to cost $4.6 trillion over a decade. Republicans are delaying a reckoning over the issue after they bypassed the Senate parliamentarian on the question of whether they can use "current policy" baseline to treat extending Trump's 2017 tax cuts, which are set to expire this year, as costing nothing. But that means the move could be challenged later, and it would potentially blow up the bill if the parliamentarian rules against it — unless the Senate votes to overrule her, which some have likened to nuking the 60-vote filibuster rule. A handful of Republicans have concerns that they will be asked to do that later in the process. 'I will just speak for myself and say that I would never vote to overturn the parliamentarian,' Sen. Susan Collins, R-Maine, one of the senators who met with Thune, told NBC News. And Thune insists Senate Republicans are just following the law, as he expects to plow through debate, amendments and approve the resolution this weekend. That would just be the beginning of the process. 'We wouldn't have moved forward if we didn't think we were clearly following the law, the Budget Act,' Thune said. 'We got a long ways to go. But you know, the model that we've selected to pursue, we think checks all the boxes.' Thune said he was 'hearing folks out and obviously giving them a chance to one, explain their concerns and hopefully get some questions answered, and just make sure everybody had a comfort level with you know, proceeding.' Senate Budget Committee Chair Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., insists he has sole power to decide whether extending Trump's tax cuts should be scored as costing money and that the parliamentarian has no say. "It's not her decision, it's mine," he said. Graham said that as long as there are 51 Senate votes to use that budgeting method, that's all that matters. And if not? 'Then that approach would fail. And I'd hate for the party to suffer that because I think current policy is good policy for the economy. I think that's what President Trump wants, what I want,' he said in an interview. He didn't say what would happen if Democrats ask the parliamentarian to opine and she rules against the GOP approach, saying only that he doubts it will happen that way. Another senator, Josh Hawley, R-Mo., said he has "a big concern" about the bill slashing Medicaid — and took his concerns directly to Trump in a phone call Thursday evening before the vote. "I said there's this language in the bill. And he said, 'I want to be crystal clear about this: the House will not cut Medicaid benefits under any circumstance, the Senate will not cut Medicaid benefits under any circumstance, and I will not sign a cut to Medicaid benefits.' So that's good, and I hope our leadership will take that cue," Hawley told reporters before the vote. Twenty-one percent "of my state receives Medicaid — CHIP or Medicaid. So, I've made clear I'm not going to vote for Medicaid cuts. And I thought the president's assurance to me tonight was completely unequivocal," Hawley added, saying that assurance made him comfortable voting to begin the process. That's easier said than done. The House-approved budget, which Trump endorsed, makes it mathematically impossible for Republicans to achieve their targets without cutting Medicare or Medicaid. Lawmakers say they want to cut waste and fraud, along with imposing a potential work requirement for Medicaid. Beyond that, they haven't identified ways to reduce spending. Overall, GOP leaders say they want to find trillions of dollars in spending cuts to balance out the other side of the ledger after their tax breaks, as well as spending hikes on immigration enforcement and the military. But they continue to lack consensus on what to cut. Other Republicans remain optimistic that they'll work it out. Sen. Mike Rounds, R-S.D., who did not attend the meeting Thursday evening, said the leadership was 'not twisting arms,' but 'some folks wanted to make sure that they understood how the process worked. They sat down with a number of folks who were very familiar with it, and went through it. It took a little bit longer to get it done.' This article was originally published on
