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.