The last decade or so has seen an almost unprecedented visibility into the sausage-making that is our legislative process. The American People have become much more comfortable with terms like "filibuster" in recent years, particularly since the use of that tactic has become increasingly aggressive over the last decade.

Due to the contentious Health Insurance Reform bill and the oft-touted loss of the filibuster-proof majority in the Senate, Americans have been forced to become more familiar with the term "reconciliation". In order to better explain it, I'm going to focus on the highlights of reconciliation. If you're interested in the arcane details of the process, here is a fantastic explanation written by someone who is quite knowledgeable about these things (and who has no connection to this blog whatsoever).

So, what is "reconciliation"? Reconciliation, in a nutshell, is a way to expedite a budget-related bill through the House and Senate without encumbering its passage with lengthy debate, filibuster opportunities, and a host of other things. In exchange for some significant limitations, reconciliation greases the proverbial legislative skids to help relevant bills move smoothly and quickly through the Legislature.

You may be asking yourselves at this point, "If it's so great, why don't they just use it all the time?" That's a great question, and the answer is this: there are significant limitations concerning what a reconciliation bill can do. In exchange for the fast track benefit, the Senate in particular takes on a number of restrictions when considering these bills. For example, reconciliation bills are not subject to filibuster. They can be amended, but amendments must be relevant to what the bill covers. Also, the bill can only be debated for 20 hours. At that point, a vote occurs, and life, as they say, goes on.

The most significant limitation, however, comes from something called the Byrd Rule, named, coincidently enough, after Senator Robert Byrd. According to the Byrd Rule, an item can't be included in a reconciliation bill if, generally speaking, it:

1. doesn't produce a change in spending or revenues,
2. produces an increase in spending or decrease in revenues that violates the instructions set forth in the terms of the reconciliation instructions (the syllabus
   of topics the reconciliation bill is intended to cover),
3. involves an area outside the jurisdiction of the Senate committee proposing the item (for example, the Armed Services Committee recommending changes to agriculture subsidies),
4. produces changes in spending or revenues that are "merely incidental" to the non-budgetary portions of the proposed change,
5. increases the spending or decreases the revenues in future years, except if those spending increases or revenue decreases are offset by other provisions in the reconciliation bill to produce an overall reduction in the deficit, or
6. makes changes to the Social Security Act.

It's not too difficult to see that these six items severely restrict what the reconciliation bill can do. It's also not difficult to see how our legislators would try to push the limits of the Byrd Rule, so a check was put into place. Any senator may object to any provision of the reconciliation bill if he feels that it is a violation of the Byrd Rule. At that point, the objection is ruled on by the Senate Parliamentarian. As the Parliamentarian's decision is not binding, the Senate can overrule the Parliamentarian on a 60-senator majority vote. Interestingly enough, the Vice President, in his role as President of the Senate, can also overule the Parliamentarian.

That's Reconciliation 101. I'm sure there are more details that I haven't included, but this should suffice as a basis for conversation.