By: Jennifer Shutt
WASHINGTON — U.S. Senate Democrats have succeeded in eliminating more than a dozen policy changes from Republicans’ “big, beautiful bill” after successfully arguing before the chamber’s parliamentarian that the elements didn’t comply with the strict rules that go along with writing a budget reconciliation bill.
Removed is language that would have transferred some of the cost of running the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program to state governments, potentially leaving states on the hook for billions in added spending on the food aid program for lower-income people.
Democrats also fended off a proposal to eliminate funding for the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, which fields complaints on banking and other financial institutions, and another that sought to bar federal district court judges from issuing nationwide injunctions.
Among the contested items that remained, Missouri Republican Sen. Josh Hawley announced in a social media post that his years-long effort to reauthorize the Radiation Exposure Compensation Fund, or RECA, passed what’s known on Capitol Hill as the “Byrd bath” test.
“Terrific news for Missouri, radiation survivors, and MAHA: RECA has passed the ‘Byrd bath’ – Democrats did not strip it – and will be in the final bill,” Hawley wrote, referring to the Trump administration’s Make America Healthy Again slogan. “Huge step forward #MAHA.”
Democrats to continue challenges
Budget Committee ranking member Jeff Merkley, D-Ore., has cheered many of the parliamentarian’s rulings, though Republican committee chairs say they’ll look for ways to rewrite the various proposals.
“Today, we were advised by the Senate Parliamentarian that several more provisions in this Big Beautiful Betrayal of a bill will be subject to the Byrd Rule — and Democrats plan to challenge every part of this bill that hurts working families and violates this process,” Merkley wrote in a statement released Saturday night. “Republicans’ relentless attack on middle class families in order to fund tax breaks for billionaires is a slap in the face to working families everywhere, and Democrats are fighting back.”
The changes could create several issues for Senate Majority Leader John Thune, R-S.D., and eventually for Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La., who need nearly every GOP lawmaker in Congress to vote for the sweeping tax and spending cuts package in order for it to become law.
The House voted 215-214 to approve its version of the bill in May, but since the Senate is making substantial changes, the House will have to vote on the measure again before it can go to President Donald Trump for his signature. GOP leaders hope to complete all that before the Fourth of July.
Republicans are using reconciliation, instead of moving the bill through the regular legislative process, to avoid needing Democratic votes to get past the Senate’s 60-vote legislative filibuster.
But the lower threshold for passing a reconciliation bill comes with several requirements, including that all of the proposals in the package have an impact on spending or revenues that’s not “merely incidental.”
The Senate parliamentarian, the chamber’s official scorekeeper who holds a detailed understanding of the rules and procedures, examines each of those policies and hears from both Republicans and Democrats before issuing the rulings.
The Byrd bath began last week behind closed doors and will continue for at least several more days. Once it concludes, Senate GOP leaders can move the bill to the floor, where members of both parties can call for votes on as many amendments as they want.
SNAP program
Agriculture, Nutrition and Forestry Committee Chairman John Boozman, R-Ark., released a written statement defending his committee’s bill after the parliamentarian ruled several provisions must go to comply with the rules.
“To rein in federal spending and protect taxpayer dollars the committee is pursuing meaningful reforms to the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) to improve efficiency, accountability and integrity,” Boozman wrote. “We are continuing to examine options that comply with Senate rules to achieve savings through budget reconciliation to ensure SNAP serves those who truly need it while being responsible stewards of taxpayer dollars.”
The parliamentarian ruled the committee erred in including language that would have shifted some of the cost of the SNAP program to state governments if they didn’t meet an efficiency benchmark before 2028.
A proposal to eliminate SNAP eligibility for “immigrants who are not citizens or lawful permanent residents, with certain exceptions,” was also determined not to comply with the rules, according to a press release from Merkley.
Minnesota Democratic Sen. Amy Klobuchar, ranking member on the committee, wrote the parliamentarian’s ruling “made clear that Senate Republicans cannot use their partisan budget to shift major nutrition assistance costs to the states that would have inevitably led to major cuts.
“While Republicans’ proposed cuts to SNAP will still be devastating to families, farmers, and independent grocers across the country, we will keep fighting to protect families in need. Instead of a rushed partisan process, Republicans should work with us to lower costs for Americans and pass a bipartisan Farm Bill that works for all farmers and rural America.”
Consumer financial agency victory for Dems
The Senate Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs Committee’s proposal to eliminate funding for the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, which Congress established in the 2010 Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act, also doesn’t comply with the rules, under the parliamentarian’s ruling.
Massachusetts Democratic Sen. Elizabeth Warren, ranking member on the panel, wrote in a statement that the GOP’s proposal for the CFPB represented “a reckless, dangerous attack on consumers and would lead to more Americans being tricked and trapped by giant financial institutions and put the stability of our entire financial system at risk–all to hand out tax breaks to billionaires.”
But committee Chairman Tim Scott, R-S.C., wrote in a separate statement that he remains “committed to advancing legislation that cuts waste and duplication in our federal government and saves taxpayer dollars.”
Scott listed provisions that he said will remain.
“As it stands now, the Banking Committee’s reconciliation provisions will delay the implementation of Section 1071 of Dodd-Frank, which reduces CFPB spending and protects the privacy and data of small business owners; rescind unused funds earmarked for green initiatives to give HUD discretion in funding critical housing programs; and save taxpayer dollars by eliminating an unnecessary reserve fund at the SEC,” Scott wrote. “My colleagues and I remain committed to cutting wasteful spending at the CFPB and will continue working with the Senate parliamentarian on the Committee’s provisions.”
Judges and injunctions
The parliamentarian told lawmakers that various elements of the Judiciary Committee’s bill don’t comply with the rules, including an attempt to block federal district court judges from issuing nationwide preliminary injunctions or temporary restraining orders.
The issue has become a thorn in Trump’s side during the past few months as he’s watched the courts block several of his executive orders and other unilateral administration actions.
The Judiciary Committee’s reconciliation bill cannot block the Department of Justice from awarding Byrne JAG and COPS grants to “sanctuary cities.” The bill also can’t send funding to local and state governments for the purpose of “apprehending aliens who are unlawfully present in the United States.”
Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, did not respond to a request for comment, but a committee spokesperson wrote in an email to States Newsroom that “Democrats are clinging to their radical open borders legacy by fighting to keep criminal migrants in the United States.
“Republicans are committed to enforcing the rule of law, and will continue using all available avenues to secure our borders, clean up the mess left by the Biden-Harris administration’s disastrous policies and ensure courts operate according to lawful and constitutional standards.”
Illinois Democratic Sen. Dick Durbin, ranking member on the committee, issued a statement calling the bill’s policies “an attempted power grab by our Republican colleagues that we would not stand for.”
“Here’s what Senate Republicans attempted to sneak into their so-called Big, Beautiful Bill: a provision intended to limit the ability of individuals and organizations to challenge lawless Trump Administration executive actions by putting those potential plaintiffs on the hook for millions of dollars; and a provision conditioning grant eligibility on a state or locality’s compliance with federal immigration policies,” Durbin wrote.
Artificial intelligence and states
The parliamentarian didn’t, however, remove all of the proposals contested by Democrats.
Language that would prevent local and state governments from regulating artificial intelligence for the next decade if those jurisdictions want to receive money from a $500 million fund does meet the reconciliation requirements and can remain in the Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation’s bill.
But that doesn’t mean the provision will stay in the bill moving forward, since several GOP lawmakers have expressed concern about potentially tying the hands of local and state governments when it comes to AI.
Georgia Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene wrote in a social media post after she voted for the House’s bill that she had no idea about the AI provision. That chamber’s package barred state and local AI regulation for a decade without tying it to any funding stream.
“We have no idea what AI will be capable of in the next 10 years and giving it free rein and tying states hands is potentially dangerous,” Greene wrote. “This needs to be stripped out in the Senate.
“When the OBBB comes back to the House for approval after Senate changes, I will not vote for it with this in it.”