What Just Happened to the Senate "Big Beautiful Bill"? A Primer on the "Byrd Bath"

The Senate Parliamentarian just ruled that key provisions of the “Big Beautiful Bill” now being debated in the Senate must removed in order for the Bill to passed by the simple majority. Since this is an important development, I thought a primer would be helpful.

For most legislation passed by the Senate, a bill can only move forward to a vote if at least 60 Senators agree. This effectively gives the minority party a veto on all legislation. This filibuster rule, however, has an exception: budget reconciliation bills are not subject to the 60 vote rule as long as they comply with the “Byrd Rule” (named for a former Senator from West Virginia). The Big Beautiful Bill is designed to comply with the Byrd Rule so it can be passed by a simple majority in the Senate. The key Byrd Rule restrictions are:

• The bill cannot make changes to Social Security

• The bill cannot increase the deficit outside the budget window (2034)

• The bill must produce a non-incidental change in the federal budget. It cannot be a policy change packaged as a budget issue.

The decision whether particular provisions in a budget reconciliation bill comply with the Byrd Rule is made by the Senate Parliamentarian and is affectionally called a “Byrd Bath” by congressional insiders. While the Senate technically can override the Parliamentarian, they seldom try to do so. The Republican leadership has already announced that they will not try to overcome the Parliamentarian on her “Big Beautiful Bill” decisions

The Byrd Bath of the Big Beautiful Bill was quite significant, and these decisions might well delay action on the bill. The New York Times has a complete summary, but I will highlight some important provisions that did not survive the Byrd Bath.

From a budget impact point of view, the biggest decision is that the restriction on provider taxes on Medicaid cannot be in the bill. This change alone was expected to generate much of the bill’s revenue—about $80 billion or more over ten years. As a result, the Senate must either accept a higher deficit or must find other offsetting cuts. Another significant provision from a budget point of view was a requirement that State’s pay a larger portion of SNAP food aid cuts, but Republicans are apparently proposing a revision of this provision to comply with the Byrd Rule. Other provisions found to violate the Byrd Rule are several that would limit the ability of some immigrants to receive premium tax credits for purchasing health insurance. The Joint Committee on Taxation estimates that these provisions would generate $129 billion through 2034.

Some other notable provisions that did not survive the Byrd Bath include:

• A provision punishing federal employees who did not accept “at will status” with an increase in contributions to their pension. (I discussed this provision in this post).

• A provision requiring that plaintiffs post potentially huge bonds in order for a temporary restraining order or injunction to be enforceable by contempt. (I discussed this provision in this post).

• A prohibition on grants to sanctuary cities.

• Repeal of the EPA tailpipe emission rule.

• Restriction on coverage of abortion in Obamacare plans.

• A large number of restrictions on healthcare coverage for immigrants,

The good news is that some truly nefarious provisions will now be removed from the bill. (I am especially happy about the removal of the provisions about requiring bonds on injunctions and forcing new federal employees to become at will employees). The most significant result of the Byrd Bath is that the significant loss in spending cuts will make it even more difficult for the Senate to pass a bill that would also be acceptable to the House Republicans.