Balkinization   |
Balkinization
Balkinization Symposiums: A Continuing List                                                                E-mail: Jack Balkin: jackbalkin at yahoo.com Bruce Ackerman bruce.ackerman at yale.edu Ian Ayres ian.ayres at yale.edu Corey Brettschneider corey_brettschneider at brown.edu Mary Dudziak mary.l.dudziak at emory.edu Joey Fishkin joey.fishkin at gmail.com Heather Gerken heather.gerken at yale.edu Abbe Gluck abbe.gluck at yale.edu Mark Graber mgraber at law.umaryland.edu Stephen Griffin sgriffin at tulane.edu Jonathan Hafetz jonathan.hafetz at shu.edu Jeremy Kessler jkessler at law.columbia.edu Andrew Koppelman akoppelman at law.northwestern.edu Marty Lederman msl46 at law.georgetown.edu Sanford Levinson slevinson at law.utexas.edu David Luban david.luban at gmail.com Gerard Magliocca gmaglioc at iupui.edu Jason Mazzone mazzonej at illinois.edu Linda McClain lmcclain at bu.edu John Mikhail mikhail at law.georgetown.edu Frank Pasquale pasquale.frank at gmail.com Nate Persily npersily at gmail.com Michael Stokes Paulsen michaelstokespaulsen at gmail.com Deborah Pearlstein dpearlst at yu.edu Rick Pildes rick.pildes at nyu.edu David Pozen dpozen at law.columbia.edu Richard Primus raprimus at umich.edu K. Sabeel Rahmansabeel.rahman at brooklaw.edu Alice Ristroph alice.ristroph at shu.edu Neil Siegel siegel at law.duke.edu David Super david.super at law.georgetown.edu Brian Tamanaha btamanaha at wulaw.wustl.edu Nelson Tebbe nelson.tebbe at brooklaw.edu Mark Tushnet mtushnet at law.harvard.edu Adam Winkler winkler at ucla.edu Compendium of posts on Hobby Lobby and related cases The Anti-Torture Memos: Balkinization Posts on Torture, Interrogation, Detention, War Powers, and OLC The Anti-Torture Memos (arranged by topic) Recent Posts How Coronavirus Disaster Relief Will Move Through Congress, Part II
|
Wednesday, February 10, 2021
How Coronavirus Disaster Relief Will Move Through Congress, Part II
David Super
Following up on my
discussion
of the congressional budget resolution last week, this post charts the path
that the President’s coronavirus relief legislation is likely to take as it
moves toward enactment. Last week,
Congress approved the budget resolution very much as planned. The House passed it along party lines with no
amendments permitted. The Senate rejected
amendments that could have changed the course of the subsequent reconciliation
bill, also on party-line votes. The
Senate did accept
non-binding messaging amendments endorsing a long list of causes: sending aid to bars and restaurants affected
by the pandemic; preventing tax increases on small businesses; strengthening
extra-territorial tax collections; targeting relief to people affected by
COVID-19; supporting schools in areas losing revenues because of the President’s
oil and gas leasing moratoria; strengthening the Provider Relief Fund; stepping
up interventions against sexual assault, family violence, domestic violence,
dating violence, and child abuse; supporting the hospitality, convention, trade-show,
entertainment, tourism, and travel industries and their workers; keeping the
U.S. embassy in Jerusalem; increasing the federal minimum wage; funding a
variety of police activities; providing on-line information about how
coronavirus relief funds are spent; improving the solvency of federal trust
funds; entrenching certain environmental and water policies; discouraging state
and local recipients of coronavirus relief funds from discriminating against
houses of worship; preventing the U.S. from becoming more dependent for energy
on countries with weaker labor or environmental standards; expanding health
savings accounts; and fully inspecting every partridge found in any pear
tree. Although several of these
propositions may have little support within the Democratic caucus, Members
recognized that they are completely non-binding and declined to be side-tracked
into purely symbolic battles over them. The House
reconvened and ratified the Senate’s meaningless changes to expedite the
process without going to conference. As
a concurrent resolution that affects only Congress’s internal rules, it did not
require the President’s signature. With the budget resolution
in place, committees that received reconciliation instructions are free to
start working on reconciliation bills.
With Senate floor time largely occupied for the next week or so with President
Trump’s impeachment trial and the confirmation of senior Biden appointees, action
is beginning in the House. The drafts
House committees are releasing were, however, drafted in close consultation
with their Senate counterparts. The complexity
of this legislation may make a conference committee inevitable, but the Democratic
leadership of both chambers is exerting strong pressure on the committees to
minimize House-Senate differences as the bills move forward. Consistent with
the desire to save Members from taking difficult-but-unnecessary votes, such as
those in prior congresses on environmental and immigration measures that had
little chance of bicameral success, the Leadership and committee chairs are
consulting closely with the various wings of the party as they craft their
bills. Indeed, they did so prior to
releasing their budget resolution, which was crafted to fit a fairly precise
vision of what the final legislation would do.
Departing from the
past practices of both parties when crafting major legislation of this kind,
the Leadership and committees are giving a hard “no” to many popular proposals
being pushed on them. Prior Democratic
reconciliation bills have come close to exploding when leaders allowed groups
with irreconcilable demands to think that they still had a chance until late in
the process. The Republican 2017 tax cut
bill similarly almost collapsed – and ended up having to include some deeply
unpopular tax increases to free up money to meet the demands of the various business
lobbies to whom they had made commitments.
Although I am disappointed at some of the ideas the Leadership has
nixed, I am hopeful that this indicates the leaders are being similarly straightforward
with other interests and staying on course to craft a bill they can enact
quickly (and without the wrenching choices at the end that come from
over-promising). In accommodating
competing demands over what can go into this legislation, the Democrats are
aided immensely by the availability of a second reconciliation process over the
summer. That legislation, which
Democrats can trigger by passing a budget resolution for federal fiscal year
2022 in the spring, seems likely to carry more policies not as closely tied to
the current crisis. Thus, when the
leaders rule out particular proposals for the present reconciliation bill, their
message can be “not now” rather than “not ever.” With paper-thin
margins in both chambers, securing the support of moderates is crucial to the
legislation’s success. Media accounts have
focused overwhelmingly on Sen. Joe Manchin (D-WV). This is somewhat misguided. Although Sen. Manchin probably is the most
conservative Democratic senator, and has certainly rejected some proposals, he
is by no means Congress’s only moderate Democrat. Representing, as he does, a very red state, media
coverage of other Democrats’ frustration with him will actually benefit him
electorally. He has no risk of a primary
as everyone knows he is the only Democrat his state will elect to the Senate
for the foreseeable future. Other
moderates, on the other hand, seek to avoid policies that they see as electoral
liabilities while not alienating any of the Democratic factions they need to
hold together to win re-election. Having
Sen. Manchin appear as “Dr. No” benefits everyone. Although the Leadership
has maintained strict confidentiality concerning these consultations to avoid
getting Members entrenched in mutually incompatible positions, there is no
reason to believe that Sen. Manchin has obstructed efforts to get aid to those
harmed by the current economic downturn.
Indeed, because he has plenty of such people in West Virginia, he has
sought to strengthen those parts of the package. He and the other moderates are likely to become
more cautious as the discussion veers from economic relief and public health
measures. Once the Senate
finishes former President Trump’s impeachment trial, those of its committees
that received reconciliation instructions will begin to release drafts of, and
vote on, their reconciliation legislation.
When they are done, they will send both legislative language and report
content to the Budget Committee. The
Budget Committee then will knit them together into a unified reconciliation
bill and a single committee report. The
Budget Committee has no authority to edit any of what the committees send it,
although if another committee were to fail to comply with its reconciliation
instruction (unlikely in this context), Senate Budget Chair Bernie Sanders
would be expected to offer an amendment on the Senate floor to bring that
committee’s title of the reconciliation bill into line with budget resolution. The Budget Committee’s
sending the reconciliation instruction to the Senate floor will trigger twenty
hours of debate. It also initiate a “Byrd
bath” in which Republicans try to persuade the parliamentarian that one or
another provision of the reconciliation bill violates the strict limits on what
content may move through the expedited reconciliation procedures. Provisions that put a committee over its spending
ceilings (or under its revenue floor) as specified in the budget resolution are
subject to points of order. So are provisions
that either lack any budgetary impact at all or that only have budgetary effect
that is “merely incidental” to a larger non-budgetary purpose. For example, increasing penalties for carrying
an automatic weapon in the Capitol building might result in somewhat higher
fine revenues, but that money would be merely incidental to the non-fiscal
desire to banish those weapons from the seat of government. Once the
reconciliation bill is on the floor, senators may offer amendments, subject to
much harsher requirements of germaneness than the Senate usually applies. Amendments may change numbers or strike
provisions altogether but generally may not bring new ideas into the
legislation. Amendments, like the underlying
bill, are subject to the Byrd Rule. Typically, senators
will refrain from bringing their amendments to a vote until the permissible twenty
hours of debate have expired. From then
on, each amendment customarily will be allowed one or two minutes of debate
before senators must vote. This “vote-a-rama”
is a superb mechanism for adopting ill-considered policies with seductive soundbites. If the Senate bill
survives the committee process and vote-a-rama relatively intact, the House may
simply pass it. If, as is more likely,
Republicans successfully insert one or more unwelcome provisions, the legislation
will have to go to a conference committee.
Even if the prospective conferees are prepared to move quickly – indeed,
even if Democrats negotiate an agreement within hours after Senate passage –
the process of agreeing to go to conference, approving committee leaders as
conferees, and then receiving and bringing up a conference agreement takes a
fair amount of time. Those steps may prove
necessary, however, to secure the immunity from amendment in the Senate that
conference reports enjoy. Two other potential
issues hover over the coronavirus relief bill.
First, the Byrd Rule prohibits legislation that would increase the
deficit in any year beyond the budget “window” covered by the budget resolution
(in this case, ten years). That was no
problem for the Affordable Care Act, which was more than fully paid-for in both
the near-term and the long-term. It
does, however, limit the budget resolution’s ability to license deficit
increases. This restriction is why many
of the major tax cuts in Republicans’ 2001, 2003, and 2017 bills had to expire
prior to the end of their ten-year budgetary windows. Although the pending coronavirus relief
legislation is not paid-for, it is intended to focus on immediate responses to
this crisis. Short-term, fast-expiring
legislative changes should not raise the deficit beyond the ten-year
window. On the other hand, any permanent
changes to the decrepit unemployment compensation system or other steps to
prepare for the next economic downturn might have to include expiration dates. The other shadow
looming over the relief bill comes from statutory rules enforcing the “pay-as-you-go”
principle. These rules do not prevent
consideration or passage of deficit-increasing legislation, but they do require
the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) to eliminate the resulting deficit
increase by imposing automatic spending cuts.
Some programs targeting low-income people are exempt from sequestration
cuts; others are not. Medicare and farm
price supports would take heavy hits.
Neither the budget resolution nor reconciliation rules prevent a pay-go
sequestration, and the Byrd Rule prohibits including any changes to budget
process rules, such as suspending a future sequestration, in reconciliation
bills. Democrats have
several options here. They could include
a waiver of pay-go sequestration in the reconciliation bill and dare
Republicans to raise a point of order, noting that the only consequence of such
an objection succeeding would be to force cuts in Medicare and farm
programs. Democrats also could include a
pay-go waiver in another bill and, again, dare Republicans to block it when
doing so would only force unpopular sequestration cuts. This is what Republicans did to avoid the staggering
sequestrations that would have resulted from their 2001 and 2017 tax cuts. Democrats predictably acquiesced once the tax
cuts were law. One of the appropriations
bills for next fiscal year might well be a convenient vehicle for pay-go
waivers to cover this legislation (and perhaps the additional reconciliation
bill expected to move this summer). If
Republicans blocked that, they would trigger both a partial government
shutdown and deep automatic cuts in popular programs. @DavidASuper1
|
Books by Balkinization Bloggers Linda C. McClain and Aziza Ahmed, The Routledge Companion to Gender and COVID-19 (Routledge, 2024) David Pozen, The Constitution of the War on Drugs (Oxford University Press, 2024) Jack M. Balkin, Memory and Authority: The Uses of History in Constitutional Interpretation (Yale University Press, 2024) Mark A. Graber, Punish Treason, Reward Loyalty: The Forgotten Goals of Constitutional Reform after the Civil War (University of Kansas Press, 2023) Jack M. Balkin, What Roe v. Wade Should Have Said: The Nation's Top Legal Experts Rewrite America's Most Controversial Decision - Revised Edition (NYU Press, 2023) Andrew Koppelman, Burning Down the House: How Libertarian Philosophy Was Corrupted by Delusion and Greed (St. Martin’s Press, 2022) Gerard N. Magliocca, Washington's Heir: The Life of Justice Bushrod Washington (Oxford University Press, 2022) Joseph Fishkin and William E. Forbath, The Anti-Oligarchy Constitution: Reconstructing the Economic Foundations of American Democracy (Harvard University Press, 2022) Mark Tushnet and Bojan Bugaric, Power to the People: Constitutionalism in the Age of Populism (Oxford University Press 2021). Mark Philip Bradley and Mary L. Dudziak, eds., Making the Forever War: Marilyn B. Young on the Culture and Politics of American Militarism Culture and Politics in the Cold War and Beyond (University of Massachusetts Press, 2021). Jack M. Balkin, What Obergefell v. Hodges Should Have Said: The Nation's Top Legal Experts Rewrite America's Same-Sex Marriage Decision (Yale University Press, 2020) Frank Pasquale, New Laws of Robotics: Defending Human Expertise in the Age of AI (Belknap Press, 2020) Jack M. Balkin, The Cycles of Constitutional Time (Oxford University Press, 2020) Mark Tushnet, Taking Back the Constitution: Activist Judges and the Next Age of American Law (Yale University Press 2020). Andrew Koppelman, Gay Rights vs. Religious Liberty?: The Unnecessary Conflict (Oxford University Press, 2020) Ezekiel J Emanuel and Abbe R. Gluck, The Trillion Dollar Revolution: How the Affordable Care Act Transformed Politics, Law, and Health Care in America (PublicAffairs, 2020) Linda C. McClain, Who's the Bigot?: Learning from Conflicts over Marriage and Civil Rights Law (Oxford University Press, 2020) Sanford Levinson and Jack M. Balkin, Democracy and Dysfunction (University of Chicago Press, 2019) Sanford Levinson, Written in Stone: Public Monuments in Changing Societies (Duke University Press 2018) Mark A. Graber, Sanford Levinson, and Mark Tushnet, eds., Constitutional Democracy in Crisis? (Oxford University Press 2018) Gerard Magliocca, The Heart of the Constitution: How the Bill of Rights became the Bill of Rights (Oxford University Press, 2018) Cynthia Levinson and Sanford Levinson, Fault Lines in the Constitution: The Framers, Their Fights, and the Flaws that Affect Us Today (Peachtree Publishers, 2017) Brian Z. Tamanaha, A Realistic Theory of Law (Cambridge University Press 2017) Sanford Levinson, Nullification and Secession in Modern Constitutional Thought (University Press of Kansas 2016) Sanford Levinson, An Argument Open to All: Reading The Federalist in the 21st Century (Yale University Press 2015) Stephen M. Griffin, Broken Trust: Dysfunctional Government and Constitutional Reform (University Press of Kansas, 2015) Frank Pasquale, The Black Box Society: The Secret Algorithms That Control Money and Information (Harvard University Press, 2015) Bruce Ackerman, We the People, Volume 3: The Civil Rights Revolution (Harvard University Press, 2014) Balkinization Symposium on We the People, Volume 3: The Civil Rights Revolution Joseph Fishkin, Bottlenecks: A New Theory of Equal Opportunity (Oxford University Press, 2014) Mark A. Graber, A New Introduction to American Constitutionalism (Oxford University Press, 2013) John Mikhail, Elements of Moral Cognition: Rawls' Linguistic Analogy and the Cognitive Science of Moral and Legal Judgment (Cambridge University Press, 2013) Gerard N. Magliocca, American Founding Son: John Bingham and the Invention of the Fourteenth Amendment (New York University Press, 2013) Stephen M. Griffin, Long Wars and the Constitution (Harvard University Press, 2013) Andrew Koppelman, The Tough Luck Constitution and the Assault on Health Care Reform (Oxford University Press, 2013) James E. Fleming and Linda C. McClain, Ordered Liberty: Rights, Responsibilities, and Virtues (Harvard University Press, 2013) Balkinization Symposium on Ordered Liberty: Rights, Responsibilities, and Virtues Andrew Koppelman, Defending American Religious Neutrality (Harvard University Press, 2013) Brian Z. Tamanaha, Failing Law Schools (University of Chicago Press, 2012) Sanford Levinson, Framed: America's 51 Constitutions and the Crisis of Governance (Oxford University Press, 2012) Linda C. McClain and Joanna L. Grossman, Gender Equality: Dimensions of Women's Equal Citizenship (Cambridge University Press, 2012) Mary Dudziak, War Time: An Idea, Its History, Its Consequences (Oxford University Press, 2012) Jack M. Balkin, Living Originalism (Harvard University Press, 2011) Jason Mazzone, Copyfraud and Other Abuses of Intellectual Property Law (Stanford University Press, 2011) Richard W. Garnett and Andrew Koppelman, First Amendment Stories, (Foundation Press 2011) Jack M. Balkin, Constitutional Redemption: Political Faith in an Unjust World (Harvard University Press, 2011) Gerard Magliocca, The Tragedy of William Jennings Bryan: Constitutional Law and the Politics of Backlash (Yale University Press, 2011) Bernard Harcourt, The Illusion of Free Markets: Punishment and the Myth of Natural Order (Harvard University Press, 2010) Bruce Ackerman, The Decline and Fall of the American Republic (Harvard University Press, 2010) Balkinization Symposium on The Decline and Fall of the American Republic Ian Ayres. Carrots and Sticks: Unlock the Power of Incentives to Get Things Done (Bantam Books, 2010) Mark Tushnet, Why the Constitution Matters (Yale University Press 2010) Ian Ayres and Barry Nalebuff: Lifecycle Investing: A New, Safe, and Audacious Way to Improve the Performance of Your Retirement Portfolio (Basic Books, 2010) Jack M. Balkin, The Laws of Change: I Ching and the Philosophy of Life (2d Edition, Sybil Creek Press 2009) Brian Z. Tamanaha, Beyond the Formalist-Realist Divide: The Role of Politics in Judging (Princeton University Press 2009) Andrew Koppelman and Tobias Barrington Wolff, A Right to Discriminate?: How the Case of Boy Scouts of America v. James Dale Warped the Law of Free Association (Yale University Press 2009) Jack M. Balkin and Reva B. Siegel, The Constitution in 2020 (Oxford University Press 2009) Heather K. Gerken, The Democracy Index: Why Our Election System Is Failing and How to Fix It (Princeton University Press 2009) Mary Dudziak, Exporting American Dreams: Thurgood Marshall's African Journey (Oxford University Press 2008) David Luban, Legal Ethics and Human Dignity (Cambridge Univ. Press 2007) Ian Ayres, Super Crunchers: Why Thinking-By-Numbers is the New Way to be Smart (Bantam 2007) Jack M. Balkin, James Grimmelmann, Eddan Katz, Nimrod Kozlovski, Shlomit Wagman and Tal Zarsky, eds., Cybercrime: Digital Cops in a Networked Environment (N.Y.U. Press 2007) Jack M. Balkin and Beth Simone Noveck, The State of Play: Law, Games, and Virtual Worlds (N.Y.U. Press 2006) Andrew Koppelman, Same Sex, Different States: When Same-Sex Marriages Cross State Lines (Yale University Press 2006) Brian Tamanaha, Law as a Means to an End (Cambridge University Press 2006) Sanford Levinson, Our Undemocratic Constitution (Oxford University Press 2006) Mark Graber, Dred Scott and the Problem of Constitutional Evil (Cambridge University Press 2006) Jack M. Balkin, ed., What Roe v. Wade Should Have Said (N.Y.U. Press 2005) Sanford Levinson, ed., Torture: A Collection (Oxford University Press 2004) Balkin.com homepage Bibliography Conlaw.net Cultural Software Writings Opeds The Information Society Project BrownvBoard.com Useful Links Syllabi and Exams |