For over two decades, Hazen Marshall has been a quiet force on Capitol Hill. He has helped shape some of the most consequential legislation in recent memory. Through his role as a policy director to Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell and a veteran of the Senate Budget Committee, Marshall became an expert in the arcane but crucial process of congressional budget reconciliation. In 2025, the Senate will have to manage the process under a slim majority, making Marshall’s insights useful for outsiders who want to understand the mechanics and politics of the reconciliation process.
Understanding Reconciliation
Reconciliation originated with the Congressional Budget Act of 1974. Before its enactment, Congress had no formal budgetary framework, and relied entirely on the executive branch to guide federal funding. The Act introduced a legislative budget process, useful for re-setting Congress’ Article I powers relating to federal spending priorities. The Act provided a reconciliation mechanism—a tool to align spending and revenue with Congress’ budget goals.
For decades, reconciliation was used in bipartisan efforts to manage deficits. Marshall describes it as “a way to do the heavy lifting of deficit reduction.”
But over time, it has evolved into a partisan instrument, wielded by whichever party controls the legislative and executive branches to advance major policy objectives. “Reconciliation provides a privileged vehicle in the Senate that bypasses the filibuster, enabling passage with a simple majority,” says Marshall.
The shift began in the 1990s and has since intensified. Recent examples include Republican-led tax reform under the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017 and Democratic efforts such as the Inflation Reduction Act in 2022.
The Senate adopted the "Byrd Rule, named after the late Senator Robert Byrd, to limit this trend. The rule provides guardrails for reconciliation, limiting provisions to those with significant budgetary impact. However, the process remains a battleground for policy and political maneuvering.
2025 Reconciliation Challenges
Marshall points out that current budget rules allow for two reconciliation bills in the same calendar year—one for the current fiscal year and another for the upcoming fiscal year. This creates strategic opportunities for lawmakers, but also challenges. “The question isn’t just procedural; it’s whether there’s political will to pull it off,” Marshall says.
He recalls similar circumstances in 2017 when Republicans used the reconciliation process to attempt an Obamacare repeal before successfully passing tax reform. Democrats employed the same playbook in 2021 to pass their key legislative priorities.
In 2025, debates have so far centered on whether to pursue multiple, narrowly focused reconciliation bills or a single comprehensive package. A piecemeal approach, Marshall suggests, may build coalitions more effectively but requires navigating additional procedural hurdles. Conversely, an omnibus-style bill consolidates efforts, but risks collapse under its own weight due to the difficulty of achieving consensus on a broad array of provisions.
A critical arbiter in the reconciliation process is the Senate parliamentarian, a position that Marshall holds in high regard. The parliamentarian ensures that reconciliation bills comply with the Byrd Rule’s strict tests, including the requirement that provisions primarily address budgetary rather than policy objectives.
“The parliamentarian’s role goes beyond simply enforcing rules,” Marshall explains. “They work closely with committees and members to vet legislation, often serving as the ultimate gatekeeper for what makes it into a reconciliation bill.”
The parliamentarian's meticulous review involves debates akin to a “moot court,” with arguments from proponents and opponents informing the final decisions.
A Broken Process
Marshall is candid about the shortcomings of the current budgetary process. “The system is broken,” he laments. “Congress rarely passes a budget resolution unless it’s to enable a reconciliation bill. The focus on the budget and deficits has completely fallen off the radar.”
He points to the challenges of sustaining political will for fiscal discipline. Deficit reduction often requires politically unpopular measures, such as cutting benefits or raising taxes. Despite growing federal debt and the looming cost of interest payments, Marshall notes a lack of urgency among lawmakers.
“You can’t build a mousetrap to force Congress to do what it doesn’t want to do,” he says. “At the end of the day, political will is what drives fiscal responsibility.”
The Shift Away from Regular Order
Reflecting on his decades of experience, Marshall highlights another fundamental shift: the decline of “regular order” in the legislative process. This traditional approach—where committees draft bills, amendments are debated on the floor, and votes proceed systematically—has given way to top-down leadership-driven agendas and omnibus measures.
“When regular order breaks down, you end up with massive omnibus bills that everyone hates,” he says. “Leadership makes most of the decisions, sidelining rank-and-file members and eroding the legislative process.”
The result is ever-growing government, political impediments to reducing regulations and executive branch encroachments, and erosion of Congress' constitutional authority.
Social media and the rise of political influencers have further disrupted governance. “It’s much easier now for one person or a small group to have an outsized impact,” Marshall observes. “This amplifies division and makes it harder to build consensus.”
From Oklahoma to the Nation’s Capitol
Marshall’s journey to becoming a budget expert began on a wheat and cattle farm in Hennessey, Oklahoma. A summer internship with Senator Don Nickles sparked his passion for policy and public service. Over the years, he rose through the ranks, serving as chief of staff to Nickles and later as staff director for the Senate Budget Committee.
“Working on the Hill has a way of capturing your imagination,” he recalls. “It did for me, and I knew I wanted to come back.”
Marshall’s tenure led to a deep understanding of budget policy and an ability to navigate the Senate’s labyrinthine rules. Now out of public service, he advises outsiders on federal legislative policy, including how to work with barriers maintained by the Byrd Rule.
Reconciliation may be a procedural tool, but under Marshall’s lens, it also represents the broader struggle of balancing political ambition with fiscal responsibility. As Congress faces mounting fiscal challenges, Marshall remains hopeful that lawmakers can refocus on sustainable budgeting. “There are members who want to restore fiscal discipline,” he says. “I hope they succeed.”
—##—
