The Senate passes an overall budget resolution in the first half of the year that sets the general parameters of what the budget is going to look like for each of 13 different departments. Then, each of those departments, defense, agriculture, etc have their more exact and legally binding budgets pass before the Senate. (Each budget has to pass the House as well with identical language or else it won't be lawful.)
The process of producing these budget bills is called reconciliation and there are rules that govern what kind of amendments can be added to the different bills governing the different federal agencies. The bill, as passed by the Health,Education, Labor and Pension committee would almost certainly be subject to a challenge under the Byrd Rule for reconciliation. This rule deserves it's own explanation:
The Budget Reconciliation Process:
The Senate’s “Byrd Rule”
SummaryReconciliation is a procedure under the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 by
which Congress implements budget resolution policies affecting mainly permanent
spending and revenue programs. The principal focus in the reconciliation process has
been deficit reduction, but in some years reconciliation has involved revenue
reduction generally and spending increases in selected areas. Although reconciliation
is an optional procedure, it has been used most years since its first use in 1980 (19
reconciliation bills have been enacted into law and three have been vetoed).
During the first several years’ experience with reconciliation, the legislation
contained many provisions that were extraneous to the purpose of implementing
budget resolution policies. The reconciliation submissions of committees included
such things as provisions that had no budgetary effect, that increased spending or
reduced revenues when the reconciliation instructions called for reduced spending
or increased revenues, or that violated another committee’s jurisdiction.
In 1985 and 1986, the Senate adopted the Byrd rule (named after its principal
sponsor, Senator Robert C. Byrd) on a temporary basis as a means of curbing these
practices. The Byrd rule has been extended and modified several times over the
years. In 1990, the Byrd rule was incorporated into the Congressional Budget Act of
1974 as Section 313 and made permanent (2 U.S.C. 644).
A Senator opposed to the inclusion of extraneous matter in reconciliation
legislation may offer an amendment (or a motion to recommit the measure with
instructions) that strikes such provisions from the legislation, or, under the Byrd rule,
a Senator may raise a point of order against such matter. In general, a point of order
authorized under the Byrd rule may be raised in order to strike extraneous matter
already in the bill as reported or discharged (or in the conference report), or to
prevent the incorporation of extraneous matter through the adoption of amendments
or motions. A motion to waive the Byrd rule, or to sustain an appeal of the ruling of
the chair on a point of order raised under the Byrd rule, requires the affirmative vote
of three-fifths of the membership (60 Senators if no seats are vacant).
The Byrd rule provides six definitions of what constitutes extraneous matter for
purposes of the rule (and several exceptions thereto), but the term is generally
described as covering provisions unrelated to achieving the goals of the reconciliation
instructions.
SNIP
A provision is considered to be extraneous if it falls under one or more of the
following six definitions:
- it does not produce a change in outlays or revenues;
- it produces an outlay increase or revenue decrease when the
instructed committee is not in compliance with its instructions;
- it is outside of the jurisdiction of the committee that submitted the
title or provision for inclusion in the reconciliation measure;
- it produces a change in outlays or revenues which is merely
incidental to the non-budgetary components of the provision;
- it would increase the deficit for a fiscal year beyond the “budget
window” covered by the reconciliation measure;10 and
- it recommends changes in Social Security.
This is a very risky way to attempt to pass health insurance reform. Any piece of legislation is subject to a waiver vote of 3/5ths of the Senate or 60 votes. We could wind up with passing just a mandate, for instance.