The adage “if you are in a hole, stop digging” aptly applies to the federal budget outlook. 

Left unchanged, the current federal budget is projected to see increasing debt and deficits well into the future. Prior to the adoption of the recent reconciliation bill — H.R. 1, commonly called the “One Big Beautiful Bill Act” — the federal budget debt held by the public was expected to grow over the next decade from $30.1 trillion (100 percent of GDP) today to more than $52.1 trillion (118 percent of GDP) by 2035. 

Post-H.R. 1, these metrics are expected to worsen. 

Federal policies enacted through the budget reconciliation process over the past many years have only dug the hole deeper. It may be time to take away the shovel.

As a former majority leader of the U.S. Senate (Frist) and a former director of the Senate Budget Committee (Hoagland), we can attest to the Senate’s rules, procedures and precedents that make it unique from the House of Representatives. We have both shepherded legislation through the intricate hurdles of reconciliation and agree the form it has taken today has strayed from its original intent.  

We’re not alone in this belief. The renowned master of Senate procedure and one of the original authors of reconciliation, Sen. Robert C. Byrd, reprimanded his own party for engaging in deficit spending under this budget process. During the heated debate over health care reform in 2009, he wrote to his colleagues: “Reconciliation was intended to adjust revenue and spending levels in order to reduce deficits.”  

For many years, it did just that.  

In the 52-year history of the budget reconciliation process established under the Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act of 1974, there have been 29 budget reconciliation bills; four were vetoed and 25 were enacted into law. 

The 13 reconciliation bills enacted through the Balanced Budget Act of 1997 adhered to the principle that reconciliation bills should reduce deficit projections. The Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2001 was projected to reduce taxes by $1.3 trillion. But the bill’s 10-year tax cuts were predicated on surplus projections. They were not designed to or expected to lead to deficits.

However, beginning with the six enacted reconciliation bills enacted after 2006 through the most recent H.R. 1, and with the exception of the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022, all have been estimated to add to the federal deficit, and by significant amounts. Further, beginning with the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act of 2010 (part of President Barack Obama’s health care reform efforts), all have been enacted along strict party-line votes, both when Republicans controlled the U.S. Senate and when Democrats were in control of the chamber.

Using the reconciliation process to dig the hole deeper has become an engineering feat with bipartisan concurrence.

Recently, Office of Management and Budget Director Russ Vought announced that President Donald Trump and GOP congressional leaders could once again increase spending using the reconciliation process. The focus would be defense spending, for which the president has indicated he will request a $500 billion increase — 50 percent over current-year funding in next year’s budget. 

Such action, should it come to pass, would undermine the historic and normal bipartisan authorization and appropriation process for national security spending. How the money would be spent would be at the discretion of the president and secretary of Defense — without congressional oversight. 

A simple amendment to the Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act, to at least prevent digging ourselves into an even deeper hole, is required. Lawmakers should amend reconciliation to codify the original intent of the process as Sen. Byrd stated. 

The amendment would specify that no reported reconciliation bill shall be in order in either the U.S. Senate or House if the Congressional Budget Office estimates it will add to current law projected debt and deficits covered by the bill.

The legislation could continue to be considered, but it would proceed without the current procedural and privilege protections afforded a reconciliation bill today. In other words, it would be fully amendable regardless of germaneness, Byrd rule limitations would not apply and there would be no time constraints on debate (currently 20 hours in the Senate). 

And yes, proceeding to consider the legislation would be subject to Senate filibuster rules, instead of requiring only a simple majority to pass. 

Would this basic amendment result in a more sustainable fiscal outcome? 

It is unclear that by itself it would, but at least a reformed reconciliation process would not allow for the hole to get any deeper. 

Bill Frist is a heart and lung transplant surgeon and former United States Senate majority leader, representing Tennessee in the U.S. Senate from 1995 through 2007. He currently serves as chair of the global board of the Nature Conservancy, the largest conservation organization in the world. 

William Hoagland is a senior vice president at the Bipartisan Policy Center. He previously served as staff to Frist, specifically as director of the U.S. Senate Budget Committee, and was one of the first employees of the Congressional Budget Office.