Redefining reconciliation

Webster’s dictionary defines reconciliation as bringing two parties back together on friendly terms. That’s not what it means on Capitol Hill.

Slim congressional majorities are more frequently using a process known as reconciliation, originally designed to reduce federal budget deficits, as a vehicle to pass party agenda items without any support from across the aisle. The Republican-controlled 119th Congress could become the first to pass three reconciliation bills in a single legislative term—and leaders have hinted at a fourth.

Former three-term Rep. Reid Ribble told me Washington’s current way of doing business shows U.S. politics have “entered a new era of tribalism.”

“The reconciliation process has been an abysmal failure to reduce spending,” said Ribble, a Wisconsin Republican and former member of the Problem Solvers Caucus. “They probably ought to abandon it entirely, but I doubt that they will because the partisans in Congress want to have that tool to spend on their priorities.”

The Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act of 1974 ­codified the reconciliation process, ­creating a fast-track legislative path that protected fiscal policy packages from ­filibuster in the Senate, limiting debate time and allowing passage by a simple majority. Originally, the focus of reconciliation was deficit reduction, but as time passed, both parties have increasingly used the streamlined process to pass priority agenda items—things like tax cuts for Republicans and welfare for Democrats. Through strategic congressional maneuvers, this dependence on reconciliation has reshaped how Congress operates in the modern era.

Gregory Koger, a professor of political science at the University of Miami, said the current use of reconciliation is part of a broader trend of congressional parties giving up on bipartisan cooperation, especially in budgetary matters.

“They believe that the costs of working with the other party are far greater than the benefits of having a bipartisan budgetary and spending consensus,” he said.

As reconciliation use has increased, the total number of bills Congress passes has dropped—from about 772 enacted by the 93rd Congress, to 274 enacted by the 118th. And now, because Congress is often working through reconciliation bills, which can be thousands of pages long, Koger says it’s harder to know what policies are being enacted.

“Congress used to pass bills that had names that told you what was in the bill. … When Congress works now, it is mostly in these omnibus reconciliation bills,” Koger said. “I’m guessing there are probably dozens of good policies or bad policies tucked in there that I just don’t know anything about—as a congressional expert.”

During his 16 years in Congress, former Rep. Dan Lipinski, D-Ill., one of the last prominent pro-life Democrats to serve in the House, saw seven reconciliation bills sent to the Oval Office. Lipinski says Congress has resorted to reconciliation because it’s become so partisan—on both the left and the right.

“The framers of the Constitution understood that we need to have a representative sit down and work out how we are going to do this together,” Lipinski said. “Today, in either party, if you compromise, you are gonna be faced with a primary election.”

In the House of Representatives, every member faces reelection every two years, unlike the Senate’s staggered six-year terms. That puts unique pressure on House members to respond to messaging from the White House. The most recent reconciliation bill, a $95 billion package that included national defense funding, aid for farmers, and elements of President Donald Trump’s prized voter ID bill—is a prime example of the political pressures facing the lower chamber.

The framework for the bill passed the House 216-214 on July 22 and awaits passage in the Senate. The only House Republicans to oppose the package were Reps. Warren Davidson of Ohio and Thomas Massie of Kentucky, who recently lost his primary to a Trump-backed candidate. Before the vote, Davidson issued a statement arguing that the current framework would add to the government deficit without requiring Congress to reduce spending.

Ribble echoed Davidson’s concerns: “[It] is just passing a higher tax onto our children. … It’s the ultimate taxation without representation.”

When Ribble won his first House election, his district was solidly purple, which Ribble said required him to take a more balanced approach. He hosted town halls and went out to meet voters—often seven days a week, “much to my wife’s chagrin,” he added.

If current legislators connected with their constituents more frequently, voting would be less difficult, Ribble argued. However, he said that even for Republicans, there’s a certain governance by fear with Trump in the White House—the president has supported primary challenges to Republicans who don’t vote his way. “It’s a challenge for these guys,” Ribble said. “They’re facing a lot of different pressures.”

Lipinski is working on two books, and his research has led him to ponder how America might bounce back from its polarized predicament. “Essentially, we’re going to need a president who says I’m not going to wield as much power as my predecessors did. I’m going to let Congress do its job,” Lipinski said.

Koger agreed: “Congress should also be more proactive in pushing against the executive and judicial branches that have encroached on the legislative authority.”

But Lipinski, a practicing Catholic, said that can’t be the whole solution. The country also needs a cultural change.

“The only type of cultural change that I think could really make a difference would have to come from people of faith who say this is not good where our country is right now and how we do politics,” said Lipinski.

Ribble, an evangelical and the son of a Baptist minister, pointed to something popular in Christian culture in the 1990s. “Back when I was younger, there was this bracelet that a lot of Christians wore, ‘WWJD—what would Jesus do?’ I think Christians need to ask that question when it comes to politics, not just about church.”

Sarah Binder, a professor of political science at George Washington University, says it’s no surprise reconciliation has become quite attractive to the majority party.

“Once you squeeze the toothpaste out of the tube, it’s really hard to get the toothpaste back,” she said. “It’s really hard to turn this around, to restore reconciliation to its original purpose of curtailing deficits and debt.”