Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Budget Language Reconciliation topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
House Appropriations Committee reviews reconciliation of budget language after BAA failure
Summary
Committee staff walked members through a working "Christmas tree" reconciliation showing where House, Senate and BAA language diverge in the FY26 budget, including consolidation of one‑time appropriations, removed appropriation language, and timing changes for reversions and transfers.
The House Appropriations Committee on May 1 reviewed a working reconciliation of budget language showing how House and Senate amendments — and a failed budget adjustment bill (BAA) — affect the FY26 “big bill.” Grady Nixon of the Joint Fiscal Office told the committee the one‑page map shows how the Senate folded second‑BAA provisions into the big bill after the BAA did not pass.
The reconciliation consolidates one‑time appropriations and moves section language into new locations in the draft statute. “So the first document we have is this 1 pager, the h 4 89 and big bill reconciliation. So this is just a map of how the senate works the second BAA,” Grady Nixon, Joint Fiscal Office, said.
The document the committee reviewed pulls only sections that either chamber changed from the governor’s recommendation; language left unchanged was excluded. Nixon warned the committee the staff working copy was pulled from annotated working documents rather than the final addenda, and that members should defer to the Senate addendum or the House as‑passed bill if they see discrepancies.
Among the items described, Nixon said the Senate moved FY25 one‑time appropriations into section c103 of the bill, removed a House amendment that reduced a treasurer appropriation, and struck a House provision that would have reserved $136 million from FY25 to FY26. The reconciliation also reallocated fund transfers that had been scheduled in the BAA into section c102 and moved a number of other BAA changes into long “F” sections that now sit in the big bill text. Nixon also noted statutory amendments that did not carry over — for example, a proposed DigSafe notice change was removed because identical language is carried in separate Senate legislation.
Committee members asked for clarifications about whether items removed from the working document would appear elsewhere; Nixon repeatedly said the working paper may lag the most recent amendments and that members should check the final addenda. The staff briefing repeatedly emphasized that many changes were technical realignments (moving language between sections) rather than new policy decisions taken by the House or Senate during this round.
The committee scheduled a short return after the floor session to continue work on related bill language and next steps.
The meeting was informational; no formal motions or votes were taken on the reconciliation document during this session.
