Passed
215 Yea211 Nay4 Not voting1/2 required
SCONRES-33-119
On agreeing to the resolution Agreed to by the Yeas and Nays: 215 - 211, 1 Present (Roll no. 143). (text: CR H3147-3146)
Sponsored by Lindsey Graham (R-SC)
What it does
This concurrent resolution would set the federal government's budget framework for FY2026 and establish target spending and revenue levels for FY2027–FY2035. It would direct four congressional committees — House and Senate Judiciary and Homeland Security committees — to produce legislation that increases the deficit by no more than $70 billion over FY2026–FY2035, using the expedited reconciliation process that bypasses the Senate filibuster. It also establishes reserve funds allowing budget adjustments for immigration enforcement and border security legislation that does not increase the deficit.
Who benefits
Members of Congress and the majority party, who gain a procedural tool (reconciliation) to pass legislation with a simple majority in the Senate. Immigration enforcement agencies and contractors who may receive additional funding under the reserve fund provisions. Constituents who favor stricter border security policy. Lawmakers seeking to advance Homeland Security and Judiciary priorities without needing 60 Senate votes. Indirectly, any group that benefits from the specific spending or revenue levels set in the resolution's functional categories.
Who is hurt
The Senate minority party, which loses its ability to filibuster the resulting reconciliation legislation. Taxpayers and future generations who may bear the cost of up to $70 billion in additional deficit spending. Groups that benefit from programs that could be cut to offset spending elsewhere in the budget framework. Unauthorized immigrants and advocacy organizations, who may be adversely affected by the immigration enforcement legislation the reserve fund is designed to accommodate. Budget watchdog organizations and fiscal conservatives who oppose deficit increases.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue that the budget resolution is a necessary and routine step to establish fiscal discipline and a governing framework for federal spending. They contend that the reconciliation instructions — capped at $70 billion in deficit impact — provide a responsible, bounded mechanism to advance priority legislation on immigration enforcement and border security, areas where the executive branch has already taken significant action and where congressional authorization would strengthen legal footing. They further argue that the expedited reconciliation process is a legitimate constitutional tool that both parties have used repeatedly to enact major legislation.
Opponents argue
Opponents argue that using reconciliation to advance immigration enforcement spending — a policy area not traditionally tied to budget reconciliation's core purpose of deficit reduction — stretches the Byrd Rule's limits and sets a precedent for bypassing the Senate's deliberative process on contentious policy matters. They contend that authorizing up to $70 billion in new deficit spending, combined with reserve funds that could accommodate broad immigration enforcement changes, lacks sufficient fiscal offsets and could add meaningfully to the national debt. Critics also argue the resolution's ten-year budgetary targets are non-binding and provide little real constraint on future spending.
Constitutional context
Budget resolutions and reconciliation are creatures of statute (the Congressional Budget Act of 1974), not the Constitution directly, but they implicate Congress's Article I power of the purse. The Necessary and Proper Clause (Art. I, §8, cl. 18) supports Congress's authority to establish internal budget procedures. Any legislation produced through the reconciliation process — particularly on immigration enforcement — could face scrutiny under the Commerce Clause, the Tenth Amendment's anti-commandeering doctrine (Murphy v. NCAA, 2018), and post-Loper Bright independent judicial review of any agency rules funded or authorized by the resulting legislation.
Checks and balances
Congress — specifically the majority party — gains procedural power through the reconciliation process, which bypasses the Senate filibuster; checks include the Senate Parliamentarian's Byrd Rule enforcement, the President's veto power, and judicial review of any legislation enacted through reconciliation.
Historical precedent
Budget reconciliation has been used to enact major legislation across administrations, including the Deficit Reduction Act (2005), the Affordable Care Act's reconciliation sidecar (2010), the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (2017), and the Inflation Reduction Act (2022); however, using reconciliation primarily to advance immigration enforcement policy is less established and has been subject to Byrd Rule challenges.
Passed
Amendment Rejected (49-49)
Amendment Rejected (48-50)
Concurrent Resolution Agreed to (50-48)
Motion Rejected (46-52, 3/5 majority required)
Motion Rejected (49-49, 3/5 majority required)
Motion Rejected (48-50, 3/5 majority required)
Amendment Rejected (46-52)
Motion Rejected (50-48, 3/5 majority required)
Motion Rejected (48-50, 3/5 majority required)
Amendment Rejected (25-73)
Motion Rejected (48-50, 3/5 majority required)
Motion Rejected (49-49, 3/5 majority required)
Motion Rejected (47-51, 3/5 majority required)
Motion Rejected (47-51, 3/5 majority required)
Amendment Agreed to (98-0)
Motion Rejected (47-50, 3/5 majority required)
Motion Rejected (48-50, 3/5 majority required)
Motion to Proceed Agreed to (52-46)