Home > Take Action > Action Alert - 3/23/05 > Background

Background on FY 2006 Budget Resolution

In early April a House-Senate conference committee will work to iron out differences between the House and Senate versions. Conferees have yet to be named but likely will include senior Members of the Budget Committees and House and Senate Republican leaders. While House Agriculture Committee Chairman Goodlatte and Senate Agriculture Committee Chairman Chambliss are not likely to be on the conference committee they will have a critical behind the scenes role in the outcome of the negotiations.

Both the House and Senate versions of the FY 2006 Budget Resolution require “authorizing” committees, like the Agriculture Committees, to make spending cuts dictated by the Budget Resolution to programs under their jurisdictions (no later than June 6th in the Senate and September 16th in the House). The two bodies currently differ, however, on the level of cuts required for “reconciliation.” They must first agree on the level of cuts required of the Agriculture Committees in a joint Budget Resolution. Then the cuts would move to the “authorizing” committees to put into law and policy changes.

Neither version proposes a global (overall) spending cap on entitlement programs, but the Senate Resolution would impose a three-year cap on discretionary spending.

Agriculture Committee Reconciliation Instruction

In the Agriculture Committee area, the House proposes a five-year cut of $5.278 billion; the Senate proposes a five-year cut of $2.814 billion. What, if any number will apply, will depend on the outcome in conference. Copy of House budget document. Copy of Senate budget document.

Strong support from nutrition advocates across the county helped push the Senate number down from the President’s higher proposed cuts of $9 billion, and then secure a strong, albeit losing, vote on the amendment offered by Senator Max Baucus (D-MT) to remove the $2.814 billion reconciliation instruction to the Agriculture Committee. Republican Senator Arlen Specter (PA) joined all Senate Democrats in supporting the measure. Details of the 46 to 54 roll call vote.

The Baucus amendment was offered on the heels of a series of coalition letters from national nutrition, farm, conservation and other organizations opposed to any reopening of the 2002 Farm Bill. (See the three joint letters signed by 118, 218 and 41 groups, respectively). Joining Senator Baucus in speaking in support of the amendment were Senators Kent Conrad (D-ND), Byron Dorgan (D-ND), Mark Pryor (D-AR), Blanche Lincoln (D-AR) and Tom Harkin (D-IA). The debate on the Baucus amendment is reported in the March 17th Congressional Record, starting at page 2903.

While neither the House nor Senate Budget Committee Resolutions specify how the Agriculture Committees should achieve the required savings, nonbinding language in the Senate Budget Resolution suggests that Agriculture Committee cuts should come from limiting the size of payments to farmers. This is consistent with one component of what the President proposed. All together only 6 percent of the President’s proposed cuts to the Agriculture Committee’s programs were to come from nutrition programs. Secretary of Agriculture, Mike Johanns, recently reaffirmed the Administration’s position that Congress should not focus cuts on nutrition programs. News reports, however, indicate that some conservative lawmakers--particularly on the House side--are aiming for large cuts to the Food Stamp Program.

At a March 11th press briefing, Senate Agriculture Committee Chairman Saxby Chambliss (R-GA) explained his intention to hold to the $2.8 billion cut to Agriculture required by the Senate Budget Committee Resolution and to spread the cuts across the three major sectors (i.e. farm, conservation and nutrition). See a video clip of Chairman Chambliss’ March 11th 30 minute press briefing. He made similar statements in the floor debate on the Senate Budget Resolution on March 17th, reported in the March 17th Congressional Record, starting at page 2906.

Other Budget Resolution Provisions

Senate approval came after a major human needs victory on the Smith-Bingaman amendment to protect Medicaid (on a 52 to 48 vote), adoption of a Kennedy amendment to restore some education funding (on a vote of 51 to 49), and adoption of a Coleman Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) amendment (on a vote of 68 to 31), but after defeats on a series amendments, including Feingold (on a vote of 50 to-50) and Carper (on a vote of 49 to 51) amendments to moderate rules allowing tax cuts. Final Senate passage also followed on a surprising vote that nearly doubled the size of the tax cuts in the Senate Resolution from $70 billion to $133 billion over five years.
Among other challenges posed in the upcoming conference will be fending off House reconciliation instructions that threaten child nutrition, Medicaid and other programs that serve vulnerable people. Child nutrition programs are among those potentially affected by the House Budget Resolution reconciliation instruction to the House Education and the Workforce Committee ($21 billion). Similarly, House Budget Resolution reconciliation instructions to the House Energy and Commerce Committee ($20 billion) and Ways and Means Committee (nearly $19 billion) could adversely affect funding for Medicaid (which is under the former Committee’s jurisdiction) and TANF, Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC), SSI, foster care and adoption (which are under the latter Committee’s jurisdiction).

For further background on the impact of the Budget Resolutions on human needs programs, visit the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities.

(Back to Top)

Related Links:
» Take Action
» Previous alerts