Keep Factually independent
Whether you agree or disagree with our analysis, these conversations matter for democracy. We don't take money from political groups - even a $5 donation helps us keep it that way.
Fact check: How did past uses of reconciliation (e.g., 2017, 2021) handle spending provisions versus policy riders?
Executive Summary
The historical record shows that reconciliation has been used to pursue both spending changes and policy riders, but with significant limits imposed by Senate rules, committee jurisdictions, and political bargaining that frequently strip or reshape policy riders during negotiations. In 2017 and 2021 Congress used reconciliation to advance large-scale fiscal changes—most visibly tax and spending measures—but the fate of discrete policy riders varied: some were attached or proposed in related appropriations language and reconciliation text, while many were removed or altered through negotiations and the budget process [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6].
1. How Republicans Tried to Use Appropriations to Block the ACA — And What Stuck
In the 2017 cycle Republicans attempted to use annual appropriations as a vehicle to restrict Affordable Care Act (ACA) implementation, inserting language that would deny new funding and bar discretionary funds for ACA-related activities; however, these provisions were removed during Senate negotiation and the final FY2017 Omnibus did not carry many of the high-profile “poison pill” riders. The record shows that appropriation riders can be a tool to pursue policy objectives tied to spending, but the ultimate inclusion of such riders depends on inter-chamber bargaining and the willingness of appropriators to accept controversial restrictions. Analysts documenting FY2011–FY2017 actions note the initial insertion of ACA-limiting language and its subsequent excision during negotiation, illustrating how appropriations-based policy riders face practical barriers even when written into initial proposals [1] [2].
2. Reconciliation’s Budgetary Mechanics Force Specificity — Which Shapes What Can Be Included
Reconciliation instructions must identify committees, specify changes in outlays or revenues, and indicate dollar amounts; this budgetary specificity constrains what policymakers can credibly place into reconciliation packages and elevates the role of the Budget Committee in defining scope. The EPIC FAQs and broader procedural explanations underscore that reconciliation targets budgetary consequences—mandatory spending, revenues, and the deficit—which makes it a strong vehicle for large-scale fiscal items but a weaker or legally vulnerable channel for unrelated policy riders without clear budgetary effect. That technical gatekeeping means architects of reconciliation must align riders to measurable budget impacts or risk being excluded under Byrd Rule challenges or committee jurisdictional limits [6] [5].
3. Build Back Better Demonstrates Reconciliation’s Flexibility — And Its Fragility
The 2021 Build Back Better effort showed reconciliation’s capacity to carry both spending investments and policy-oriented tax credits, such as electric bicycle credits and climate grants, demonstrating flexible use when proponents can tie policy to explicit spending or revenue changes. House reports and contemporaneous coverage document line items for e-bike incentives and climate equity grants, and committee materials show the Budget Committee’s central role in packaging those items within reconciliation’s fiscal framing. Yet the broader Build Back Better experience also highlights fragility: political disagreement among Senate Democrats and procedural hurdles ultimately prevented full passage, illustrating that reconciliation’s fiscal focus can accommodate policy riders only when the political coalition and procedural posture align [3] [4] [5].
4. Appropriations Riders Versus Reconciliation Riders — Different Tools, Different Constraints
Policy riders on appropriations bills operate under a different strategic calculus than reconciliation provisions: appropriations riders can attempt to impose programmatic conditions annually, but they depend on the appropriations calendar and negotiators’ appetite, whereas reconciliation binds policy to explicit budgetary metrics and committee instruction. The historical comparison between 2017 appropriations negotiations and 2021 reconciliation efforts shows this division: attempts to use appropriations to blockade ACA implementation faced negotiation-driven removal, while reconciliation in 2021 packaged substantive spending and tax measures but could not secure passage without sustained majority alignment. The broader literature on riders documents both their practical impact and legal limits, reinforcing that the choice between vehicles reflects tradeoffs among timing, scope, and enforceability [1] [2] [7] [6].
5. What This Means Going Forward — Strategy, Rules, and Political Realities
The combined evidence indicates that lawmakers will continue to attempt to pair policy aims with spending mechanisms, but success depends on procedural fit and politico-legislative bargaining: reconciliation excels for measures with clear budgetary impacts and cohesive majorities, while appropriations riders remain attractive for actors seeking program-by-program leverage but are vulnerable to cutbacks in negotiation. Observers should watch three constraints going forward: the Byrd Rule and budget specificity requirements, committee jurisdiction and Budget Committee control, and the practical politics of coalition management. Divergent agendas—those seeking to use riders to achieve policy ends versus those prioritizing raw fiscal outcomes—explain why the same tool produced very different results in 2017 and 2021 [6] [5] [2].