"Big Beautiful Bill" Overhauled in Senate, Would Cause Even More Borrowing
Over the past month, I have highlighted portions of the federal “Big Beautiful Bill” as passed by the U.S House of Representatives.
Currently, the bill is under consideration by the U.S. Senate, but significant changes have been made, both by lawmakers and by the Senate Parliamentarian Elizabeth MacDonough. Many have discussed what this role entails and how a person hired by the legislative body can do this.
The Parliamentarian of the U.S. Senate is the official advisor to the senators on the interpretation of Standing Rules of the Senate and parliamentary procedure. This person helps determine if provisions are allowable within certain pieces of legislation.
A multipart “Byrd Rule” test – named for former West Virginia Sen. Robert Byrd – is used to examine legislation to determine whether the provisions are primarily budgetary in nature. Officially known as the “Byrd Rule against extraneous matter,” it is a Senate rule that aims to prevent reconciliation bills, which are used to pass budgetary measures with a simple majority instead of 60 votes, from including provisions not related to the federal budget.
This process has existed since the 1980s and, under the rule, each of the bill’s provisions must comply with three guidelines:
1) It must primarily be a change to spending or revenue. Provisions with no or minimal budgetary impact, or those that are mostly there for policy reasons, are supposed to be struck.
2) May not increase the deficit outside of the budget window. In this case, provisions cannot add to deficits past 2034.
3) May not make changes to Social Security.
The Parliamentarian ruled that Sect. 71120 of the bill covering health care provider taxes, among other provisions, violates the Byrd Rule. This section deals with the cap on health care provider taxes in both states that expanded Medicaid (including Oklahoma) and those that did not expand Medicaid under the Affordable Care Act. This is projected to save hundreds of billions of dollars over the next 10 years in federal funds but would have forced states to shoulder more of the cost for Medicaid coverage.
In Oklahoma, as Medicaid expansion was passed and placed in our state constitution, this would require state lawmakers to cover hundreds of millions in cuts with state tax dollars, a huge blow to our upcoming state budget.
This provision has generated strong pushback from several Senate Republicans, including Sens. Josh Hawley of Missouri, Susan Collins of Maine, Lisa Murkowski of Alaska, and Jerry Moran of Kansas. This group warned deep cuts to federal Medicaid spending could cause dozens of rural hospitals in their states, and here in Oklahoma, to close.
A few of the other areas of the budget bill challenged include a private school scholarships and a tax credit, removing taxes and regulations on silencers and certain guns, requiring states pay a portion of food aid costs in the SNAP program, vehicle emissions rule removal, increasing required contributions to the federal retirement system for those who do not give up some civil service protections, requiring workers and former workers to pay filing fees when they make complaints, and reducing Defense Department spending if plans are not submitted on time.
As you can see, much of this has nothing to do with spending and should be run in separate bills. In fact, Oklahoma’s Constitution requires legislation must comply with a single subject, and it is overdue that the federal government also implements something similar to avoid multiple issues being packed into one bill.
The Senate bill in its current form could add $3.5 to $4.2 trillion to the debt through Fiscal Year (FY) 2034, according to the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget. It could go even higher, causing $500 billion to $1.5 trillion more in borrowing than under the bill when it passed the House of Representatives. If you have concerns, please contact our federal delegation at https://tinyurl.com/OKCongDel.





