Maine Sen. Susan Collins wants to use it for a tax overhaul. Texas Sen. Ted Cruz, for entitlement reform and a massive “pro-growth” agenda. And Rep. Bill Flores of Texas, who chairs the conservative Republican Study Committee, insists it should be used only to gut President Barack Obama’s signature health law.

The fast-track reconciliation process — a rare budget procedure that would allow Republicans to jam sweeping legislation through the Senate with a simple majority — is quickly turning into a free-for-all. Dozens of members have different ideas for how to take advantage of the powerful tool, but the two chambers’ leaders will have to settle on a single set of priorities if they want to deploy it.


But even they seem divided.

Senate GOP leaders, who just took the majority a few months ago, want to take advantage of the 51-vote threshold and focus on repealing Obamacare. On the other side of the Capitol, House Republican leadership, which has orchestrated a nearly endless stream of repeal votes over the past five years, thinks that strategy is short-sighted.

As Republicans try to finalize a budget deal in the coming days and align their fiscal visions for the next decade, it’s apparent that there’s no partywide agreement on reconciliation.

Publicly, everyone is saying they should use the tool — which would allow the Senate to toss the usual 60-vote threshold and pass legislation without a single Democratic vote — for an Obamacare repeal.

“The absolute requirement is that … we use reconciliation for the Affordable Care Act,” Senate Budget Committee member Roger Wicker (R-Miss.) said. “It’s one of the only things that matters … putting a repeal on the president’s desk.”

But privately, senior House Republican sources say that’s a waste of time. And, of course, Obama is sure to veto any measure he doesn’t like, so Republicans may be able to score political points by forcing his hand, but they would need 67 votes in the Senate if they want to override a presidential veto to make a new law.

Behind the scenes, House Republican leadership has already started mapping out an ambitious agenda to take advantage of the procedure. If the Supreme Court strikes down health exchanges in nearly three dozen states in June, Republicans are looking at a host of options to respond, including a plan to let people buy insurance across state lines. If the Supreme Court upholds the exchanges, Republicans could consider other possibilities, including tax reform — an idea that’s received a lukewarm reception in the Senate.

Within the rank and file, there’s hope for a lot more beyond just Obamacare.

“I very strongly support tax reform … and entitlement reform … and we should use every tool possible to pursue both of those,” Cruz said in a brief interview. “What I hope Republicans do in both chambers is use every tool at our disposal to pass a big, bold pro-growth and pro-jobs economic agenda.”

Some really don’t like that idea, for fear of muddling the party’s message.

“I’d hate to see the tool fail because we were too broad,” said Flores. “If we focus just on Obamacare, it’s not like our discussion subject will become non-germane, but if you were to mix, say, Obamacare, regulatory reform and tax reform together, the parliamentarian could … determine something is non-germane, so your ability to use reconciliation is impaired.”

Bill Hoagland, a former longtime Senate Budget staff director who’s been advising Congress on reconciliation, speculated the House might want to keep its reconciliation options open to enact cuts in food stamps or other programs. But the Senate likely wouldn’t like the “mixed messaging” when it hits the president’s desk.

“From my perspective, it’s purely, completely political,” he said. “The big debate is: What is the message they want to come out of the president’s veto of reconciliation?”

The House version of the budget gives reconciliation instructions to about a dozen committees overseeing not just health care but things like agriculture and transportation, instructing them to find billions in savings in their domestic programs. GOP leaders say they want “flexibility” to finding savings down the road and are leaving their options open.

Senate budget writers, however, give instructions to just two committees with jurisdiction over health care. They want to keep the focus on the Affordable Care Act repeal because conservatives took back the Senate campaigning on such a promise.

Among lawmakers, however, budget loyalties aren’t strictly based on the chamber to which a member belongs. Some in the House — like Flores and Freedom Caucus Chairman Jim Jordan (R-Ohio) — back the Senate’s narrower approach against their own House budget blueprint.

“Congress must use reconciliation to repeal Obamacare, period,” Jordan said. “Our constituents expect and deserve no less from the new Republican Congress they elected last fall.”

Meanwhile, a large number of senators, like Cruz, want to go beyond just an Obamacare repeal with reconciliation and favor the House approach.

“Dealing with the ACA is the most important thing, but I’d be open to other possibilities, because you can do more than one thing,” said Sen. Pat Toomey (R-Pa.).

Sen. Jeff Flake (R-Ariz.) hesitated, then laughed at a question on the matter, seemingly aware that what he said went against his leaders’ position: “Let’s just say, I would explore” other options, he said.

As she jumped on the Senate tram late Wednesday night, Collins told POLITICO “reconciliation ought to be used for tax reform — to me that’s a natural fit.”

Sen. John Thune (R-S.D.) was originally a strong proponent of that idea, but now he’s backtracked, saying tax reform should go through regular order because you need bipartisan support. He’s also leery of using reconciliation for entitlement reform, which would force Republicans to take tough votes when so many of their own members are up for reelection in 2016.

“Nobody’s going to want to put us on that path when you don’t have a president” on board, said Thune, a member of Senate GOP leadership. “I mean, entitlement reform is going to require a president committed to that process. … That’s a discussion nobody’s going to” want.

There’s another option gaining traction with Republicans in both chambers: using the procedure for a King v. Burwell contingency plan. When it rules on the case in June, the Supreme Court could knock down Obamacare federal tax subsidies, throwing a wrench into the financial plans of millions of Americans who were receiving the health care tax credits.

“We want to make sure we have the opportunity to address the adverse impact the case represents to them,” said Rep. Thomas Reed (R-N.Y.), a Ways and Means Committee member.

And some Republicans are even hopeful the Supreme Court decision could stir up the perfect storm to pressure the president into signing their reconciliation bill.

“It’ll be that sweet spot where we’ll just barely be able to get it [passed in Congress], and we think the president will be in such a bind that he’ll sign,” Rep. Rob Woodall (R-Ga.) said.

Woodall had another take on why the House needs flexibility in reconciliation: What if repealing Obamacare, especially the ACA tax hikes, actually increases the deficit? Then Republicans, he continued, would need to find savings elsewhere to ensure they have a positive, not negative, impact on the deficit.

“We could end up … repealing some of the spending provisions or some of the tax provisions, combined with some other items at the same time,” he said. “As long as you end up with a positive debt impact — whether that be through more revenue or lower spending — you can get over that parliamentarian threshold they have in the Senate.”

Then there are members who don’t seem to care either way. Sen. Bob Corker (R-Tenn.) pooh-poohed reconciliation altogether when asked about how it should be used, arguing that “it’s not really as good of a tool as you think.”

“Any kind of reconciliation that’s going to become law takes bipartisan support … so you get the president to sign it,” he said. Reconciliation “is useful, but it’s not as useful as you think.”