2015 Budget Proposal

Daniel SheehanGood news out of Washington.  The president released his fiscal year 2015 federal budget proposal.  Obama recommends that NFJP be flat-funded next fiscal year.  That’s welcome news because the budget agreement Congress reached late last year provides far less sequestration relief in fiscal year 2015 as it did in the current fiscal year 2014.  The NFJP funding request, as well as many others, are helped by the fact that the president’s budget assumes Congress will adopt his proposal of an additional $56 billion in discretionary spending that would be split between defense and non-defense programs.  It’s unclear what mechanism the budget would employ to add spending while adhering to the budget agreement’s spending caps.  The White House said the spending would be offset with revenue generated by closing tax breaks, which is outside the sphere of discretionary spending, as well as alternative spending cuts.  The House Budget Committee is expected to reject much of what the president has proposed, while the Senate Budget Committee, arguing that last year’s budget agreement set in place a budget framework for fiscal year 2015, may not write a budget resolution this year.

Here are the NFJP specifics.  They are identical to those included in the fiscal year 2014 omnibus appropriations bill.

* $81,896,000 for migrant and seasonal farmworker programs under WIA section 167

That amount includes:

  • $75,885,000 for formula grants (of which not less than 70 percent shall be for employment and training services)
  • $5,517,000 for migrant and seasonal housing (of which not 10 less than 70 percent shall be for permanent 11 housing)
  • $494,000 for other discretionary purposes

* Funds will be available July 1, 2015 through June 30, 2016

* The language also includes this proviso:

“Provided, That notwithstanding any other provision of law or related regulation, the Department of Labor shall take no action limiting the number or proportion of eligible participants receiving related assistance services or discouraging grantees from providing such services.”

Daniel Sheehan,

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.