The House was unable to pass a farm bill with a nutrition title because the $20 billion in cuts to the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP/food stamps) approved by the House Agriculture Committee was not deep enough for some of the most right-wing members.  That proposal would have eliminated SNAP for 2 million very low-income people.  Instead, the House passed a very partisan farm bill with the nutrition provisions left out.  (For details, see the July 22 Human Needs Report.)  Now, the House leadership is reported to have crafted a new stand-alone bill including massive SNAP cuts – doubling the cuts to $40 billion, with 4 million more people losing SNAP and millions more seeing their benefits reduced.  The new bill may make it to the House floor in September.

The bill would retain all the harsh SNAP cuts in the original bill plus those that passed on the House floor before the nutrition title was axed from the farm bill.  One successful amendment would provide an incentive for states to drop unemployed people from SNAP even if they are actively looking for work but cannot find a job.  After cutting off the jobless person, the state would receive federal dollars.  The new bill according to reports would make millions more unemployed people without children eligible for SNAP for only three months out of every three years.  For the rest of the time, they cannot receive benefits unless they are working at least half-time.  Under current law, those harsh limits can be waived if the locality has a high unemployment rate.  The new legislation would end this waiver provision, now utilized in at least 45 states.  No matter how high the local unemployment rate is, 18-50 year olds not raising children would be denied SNAP benefits for 33 out of 36 months.  According to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, 4 million people could be affected, among them at least 1.6 million women.  The average income of these childless people is 22 percent of the federal poverty line (that is, only a little over $2,500 a year in income).

The farm subsidy provisions that passed the House increased benefits for certain farmers, including a $9 billion increase in crop insurance subsidies over 10 years.  Farm subsidies overwhelmingly are received by large corporate farms.  Three-quarters of the $23 billion in farm subsidies went to the largest 15-20 percent of farms.  One beneficiary of farm subsidies is Representative Stephen Fincher (R-TN), who attracted attention by defending the original SNAP cuts in the farm bill in a Memphis speech, saying:  “The role of citizens, of Christians, of humanity is to take care of each other, but not for Washington to steal from those in the country and give to others in the country.”  In 2012 alone, Rep. Fincher received $70,000 in farm subsidies; between 1999 and 2012, he accumulated $3.48 million in subsidies, according to the Environmental Working Group.  It is not known whether Rep. Fincher would support the doubling of SNAP cuts, targeted to the poorest of the poor.

(For more details about the proposed new SNAP cuts, see the Statement by Robert Greenstein, Center on Budget and Policy Priorities.)

The post Willing to Deny Food to 4 Million More Poor People: Rumors of House Plans to Double SNAP Cuts appeared first on Coalition on Human Needs.

Earlier this year, the Senate passed a bipartisan farm bill (S. 954), which created savings of $24 billion and cut $4.1 billion from SNAP over ten years. The House subsequently tried to push through their version, H.R. 1947, a bill that cut $20.5 billion from SNAP and included contentious provisions such as the Southerland Amendment, which mandated work for SNAP recipients.  The bill lost most Democratic support as well as 62 Republican House members, and failed 195-234.  Most of the Republican opponents wanted more cuts to SNAP; for Democrats, the SNAP cuts were too harsh. (For more information about recent action on the farm bill and SNAP, see this article from the June 1, 2013 edition of the Human Needs Report.)

The decision to remove nutrition programs from H.R. 2642 enabled House leadership to garner enough Republican votes for the bill’s passage, but has been heavily condemned by nutrition advocates, who fear that SNAP will be at risk of higher cuts if it is forced to stand on its own.  House leaders have promised that a separate nutrition bill will be forthcoming, which may have even deeper SNAP cuts than those included in the farm bill originally reported out of the House Agriculture Committee.  A working group convened by House Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-VA) is trying to come up with a nutrition bill.  House Nutrition Subcommittee Chair Steve King (R-IA) is expected to propose ending SNAP’s permanent authorization and replacing it with authorization that sunsets after 5 years unless Congress acts to extend it.

Opposition to SNAP for some in the House is very intense, often because it is seen as an illegitimate form of redistribution of wealth.  Representative Stephen Fincher (R-TN), speaking in Memphis after the vote, said “The role of citizens, of Christians, of humanity is to take care of each other, but not for Washington to steal from those in the country and give to others in the country.”  The Environmental Working Group, however, has identified Rep. Fincher as receiving more than $70,000 in direct farm subsidy payments in 2012, and $3.48 million from 1999 to 2012.

Rep. Jim McGovern (D-MA) and 27 other Democrats, including Ranking Nutrition Subcommittee member Marcia Fudge (D-OH), have sent a letter calling for a hearing about SNAP before voting on nutrition legislation.

The House sent its farm-only bill over to the Senate so that conferees can eventually be appointed to work out the large differences with the Senate bill.  The Senate and the White House are firm in rejecting the idea of a farm bill without a nutrition title.  As quoted in CQ, Senate Agriculture Chairwoman Debbie Stabenow (D – MI) has promised to work with the House on coming to an agreement on the farm bill, but has also stated that the new House bill “is not a real Farm Bill and is an insult to rural America.” Senate Majority Whip Dick Durbin (D – IL) has also stated that the Senate will not pass a farm bill without the nutrition title included, while Obama issued a veto threat for an agriculture-only farm bill earlier this month.

On Thursday, July 18 Stabenow sent the Senate farm bill back to the House.  The House has to decide whether it will pass a separate nutrition bill and take that and its farm legislation to a conference with the Senate, or negotiate off the Senate bill.

Because SNAP is permanently authorized, it continues unchanged if it is left out of the final farm bill.  But if no bill is agreed to by September 30, the farm provisions will expire and subsidies will revert to much lower amounts under decades-old legislation.

The challenges to SNAP illustrate the importance of SNAP’s current permanent authorization.  However, the program does require Congress to continue its funding through annual appropriations bills.  In the past, bipartisan support for this essential safety net program has always meant that funding has always been approved, even during the government shutdown triggered by appropriations brinksmanship under former Speaker Newt Gingrich in the 1990’s.  Advocates are hopeful that support for this essential nutrition program would prevent any disruption this time too.

The post CHN: House Removes SNAP and Other Nutrition Programs from Farm Bill to Enable Passage; Senate Sends Its Bill to House to Try to Force Conference Committee Action appeared first on Coalition on Human Needs.

Already modest, SNAP benefits are now set at less than $1.50 per meal per person and will be further reduced after a temporary increase expires on November 1, which will slash $25 in benefits per month for a family of three. Nutrition advocates hail H.R. 1947’s defeat in light of its deep cuts to the SNAP program.  The underlying bill would cut SNAP by $20.5 billion, denying benefits altogether to 2 million people and reducing benefits by $90 a month for another 850,000 households.  Amendments adopted on the floor would result in even more losing assistance.

A contentious amendment that severely weakened Democratic support for the bill, introduced by Representative Steve Southerland (R – FL), would allow state pilot programs to mandate work requirements for SNAP recipients. States participating in the program would be required to pay for the cost of training and employment up front. They would also share equally with the federal government any revenues from reducing expenditures on SNAP. Nutrition and low-income advocates fear that this would provide incentive for states to remove families from their SNAP participant rolls in order to increase revenue. The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities’ Stacy Dean was quoted in a Politico article saying “I can’t remember a time when policymakers ever considered giving states a kickback for refusing to serve unemployed mothers with young children.” The amendment, which Republicans praised as following in the footsteps of 1996 welfare reform, was approved almost entirely along party lines by a 227-198 vote – just minutes before the vote on the full farm bill.

Only one Democrat, Representative Jim Cooper (D – TN), voted in favor of the amendment. And of the sixty-two Republicans who voted against H.R. 1947, all but one had voted for it.

An amendment by Tim Huelskamp (R – KS), which sought to create extra work requirements for SNAP recipients and cut SNAP by an additional $9.5 million, was easily defeated 175-250. No Democrats voted in favor and 57 Republicans voted against it.

Another harsh amendment aimed at SNAP recipients was offered by Representative Richard Hudson (R – NC). It would make drug testing a requirement for all SNAP applicants. Currently, states are able to drug test applicants who have a prior history of drug crime, but this amendment would make such tests routine, adding another hoop for applicants to jump through. Nutrition advocates worry that this provision would impact the children of SNAP-eligible parents who might be deterred from applying for the program. Of the 48.5 million people in poverty, about half are children. Evaluations of drug-testing programs for TANF recipients showed that virtually no illegal drug use was detected, and were not found to be cost-effective. The amendment was approved by voice vote.

Long-term SNAP supporter Representative Jim McGovern (D – MA) introduced an amendment that would restore the $20.5 billion 10-year cut to SNAP.  The amendment had great support from House Democrats but did not have enough votes to pass; it failed 188 to 234, mostly along party lines. Anti-hunger advocates were pleased by the strong show of support for the amendment – and even some bipartisan support, with five Republicans voting yes.

The House leadership must now decide upon a path forward. Majority Leader Cantor (R-VA) has stressed his party’s desire to pass a bill before the August recess, but the feasibility of this wish is uncertain because appropriations bills are expected to require substantial amounts of floor time when Congress returns from the July 4^th recess.

Rep. Southerland has suggested that H.R. 1947 return to the floor without his amendment, although its removal might not be enough to pass the bill. Many in Congress consider a one-year extension of the 2008 farm bill the easiest and most viable option, although certain programs like the Wetland Reserves would lose authorization. The current farm bill has already been extended once, in January 2013.

In a recent development, some House conservatives have called to split the farm bill into two parts (farm policy and nutrition policy), ending years of precedent for passing the two issues together. Agriculture Chairman Frank Lucas (R –OK), along with many others in Congress, finds this idea unacceptable because farm provisions have always needed the votes of members more concerned about nutrition programs to pass. Instead, Lucas and his colleagues are deciding upon trying to pass a bill aimed at garnering more Republican votes or one that will win more Democrats to their side.

Congress has until September 30, when the farm bill expires, to make a decision. If nothing happens, SNAP will continue because SNAP is a permanently authorized program, but the various farm support and conservation provisions will end.

The post CHN: Farm Bill Fails on House Floor – What’s Next? appeared first on Coalition on Human Needs.

S. 954’s $4.1 billion cut to SNAP –achieved by limiting states’ ability to operate the “Heat and Eat” program and the addition of administrative burdens to states – will greatly affect certain low-income families nationwide. As estimated by the Congressional Budget Office, about 500,000 households will lose $90 in SNAP benefits each month under this proposal.

Many advocates are also deeply disappointed by the inclusion of the Vitter Amendment in the Senate farm bill. The Vitter Amendment precludes convicted sex offenders and murderers from participating in the SNAP program – no matter how long ago they committed the crime and in disregard for their penance and later contributions to society.  Further, the amendment will reduce or eliminate benefits for the whole household, including children, by requiring that individual’s income be counted  in determining the household’s eligibility or benefit levels for SNAP, while denying the ex-offender any SNAP benefits. It requires that all SNAP applicants write a statement disclosing whether any member of their household has been convicted of one of the aforementioned crimes, which may discourage some applications.  (For more, see this blog post from the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities’ President and Founder Bob Greenstein.)

It is considered almost certain that a similar amendment will be presented when the House bill comes to the floor.

On the House side, there was doubt that there were enough votes to pass the farm bill, with some right wing members wanting even deeper SNAP cuts, and a majority of Democrats opposing the harsh cuts already in the House Agriculture Committee’s bill (H.R. 1947).    However, the announcement that Speaker Boehner (R-OH) planned to vote for the measure signaled pressure by the House leadership to win enough votes for passage, and floor action in the House is now expected to begin on Wednesday, June 19, with a final vote possible the next day.The House Rules Committee will determine the amendments to be debated on the House floor.  One or more amendments are expected to make the SNAP cuts larger, such as increasing the reduction to $33 billion, as proposed in the House-passed Budget Resolution.  Speaker Boehner, although supporting the bill, has expressed opposition to its dairy provisions; amendments to alter these may also be considered.

Top House Agriculture Committee Democrat Collin Peterson (D-MN) has said that he expects 150 Republican votes for the House bill at best, while Republican Representative Robert Goodlatte (R-VA) calls this number optimistic.  It may be that more Republican votes will fall into line as the House leadership presses for passage.  Some Democratic votes are likely to be needed for passage, and they may be forthcoming, despite the harsh SNAP cuts.  Ranking Agriculture Committee Member Peterson supported H.R. 1947 in Committee and was joined by 12 other Committee Democrats in voting for the bill (8 Democrats voted no).  However, many Democrats oppose the SNAP cuts in the bill, and more might join the opposition if amendments succeed in making the cuts worse.

Nutrition advocacy groups such as the Food Research and Action Center (FRAC) strongly oppose the short- and long-term effects of the $20.5 billion cut, which would deny SNAP to around 2 million people currently eligible and take free school meals away from over 200,000 low-income children. (Read more about these cuts in a statement from FRAC.)

House Republicans are determined not to let the bill die on the floor, especially after last year’s humiliating stalemate which forced Congress to pass a temporary extension of the farm bill, delaying the House debate until this year.  Anti-hunger advocates will press their opposition to the bill, preferring its failure in the House as long as it includes large SNAP cuts.

The post CHN: Senate Passes Farm Bill with Cuts to SNAP as House Prepares to Bring Even More Devastating Bill to the Floor appeared first on Coalition on Human Needs.

With this extension (PL 112-24) expiring on September 30, Congress is deeply enmeshed in work on the new farm bill. Both the Senate and House Agriculture Committees have approved legislation, and now the Senate bill (S. 954) has been taken up on the Senate floor. Most disturbing to nutrition advocates is the fact that both bills cut the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) substantially, meaning added hardship for low-income people, including families, the elderly, and people with disabilities, who rely on nutrition assistance to get by.

The Farm Bill in the Senate

The full Senate took up the farm bill in the week before the Memorial Day recess, and voted on many of the nearly 200 amendments filed.  They were unable to complete their work but hope to wrap up consideration of the bill in the week after they return, starting June 3.

The Senate Agriculture Committee’s bill, the Agriculture Reform, Food and Jobs Act of 2013 (S. 954), includes a $4.1 billion cut to SNAP over ten years. While a smaller cut than the one proposed in the House plan, the cut would restrict the coordination of the Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program (LIHEAP) with SNAP.   Fifteen states and the District of Columbia have opted to provide SNAP households with a nominal LIHEAP payment, so that instead of having to provide burdensome monthly documentation of their shelter and heating/utility bills, they can deduct a standard allowance from their income, thereby increasing the amount of SNAP benefits they qualify for.  This “Heat and Eat” approach disproportionately helps seniors and those with disabilities, who pay a high proportion of their income on shelter costs. Without this coordinated approach, such households may lose $50 – $75 a month in SNAP benefits. Senator Kirsten Gillibrand (D –NY) spearheaded a failed effort to eliminate the cuts (see below).

SNAP-related Amendments to the Senate Farm Bill

The Senate rejected a number of amendments before the Memorial Day recess that attempted to make SNAP cuts as bad or worse as those in the House Agriculture Committee’s bill (see House bill description below).

Roberts Amendment (#948):  This would have increased the cut to SNAP from $4.1 billion to more than $30 billion. It was defeated by a vote of 40 to 58.

Inhofe Amendment (#960): This amendment would have converted SNAP into a block grant, similar to the extreme proposal in the House-passed Budget Resolution. The amendment was defeated 36 to 60.

Vitter Amendment (#1056): The Vitter Amendment bans for life convicted pedophiles, sex offenders and murderers from receiving SNAP benefits. It also requires SNAP applicants to submit a written statement of whether any member of the household has been convicted of any of these crimes.  If a household member has been convicted of any of these offenses, even decades before, his or her income counts in determining the family’s eligibility for SNAP, but the family’s total benefit will be reduced.  The amendment passed by unanimous consent.  Although constructed to exclude the most unpopular individuals, the amendment’s likely victims include children and other family members, as the household’s total food budget is reduced.  Asking applicants for a written statement about each household member could also have a chilling effect, deterring some families from completing an application despite need.

Franken/Blunt Amendment (#992): This amendment improves the bill by allowing homebound seniors and individuals with disabilities to use their SNAP benefits for home-delivery services, as long as the home-delivery service includes no additional costs over in-store service. This language is also included in the House farm bill and therefore should make it into the final bill. The amendment was approved by unanimous consent.

Gillibrand Amendment (#931): The Gillibrand Amendment would have dropped the $4.1 billion SNAP cut in the bill, replacing the lost savings by making cuts to crop insurance. The amendment was defeated, 26 to 70.

Many amendments to cut SNAP remain to be considered.  Among them are a Johanns Amendment (#1070), which limits categorical eligibility (“Cat-El”), in which families receiving Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) become eligible for SNAP as well; a Roberts Amendment (#949) that restricts the coordination of SNAP and LIHEAP well beyond the approach now in the Senate bill, and a Thune Amendment (#991) which cuts funds for SNAP nutrition education and obesity prevention.

The Farm Bill in the House

The House Agriculture Committee backed a five-year farm bill (H.R. 1947) that slashes $20.5 billion from SNAP over ten years. This cut is even deeper than last year’s House version, which cut $16.5 billion from SNAP. The total savings from the proposed House farm bill equals $39.7 billion, with over half coming from SNAP.

The bill passed out of Committee on a 30-10 vote, with 13 Democrats and all Republicans in favor.  An amendment by Representative Jim McGovern (D-MA) to eliminate the $20.5 billion SNAP cut in the bill failed by a vote of 17-27. All committee Republicans voted against it, as well as three Democrats: Ranking Member Collin Peterson (MN), Representative Sean Patrick Maloney (NY) and Representative Mike McIntyre (NC).

Nutrition advocates and most House Democrats are firmly set against H.R. 1947, however, motivated by the belief that nutrition benefits should be upheld for America’s low-income people.

Sixty percent of the $20.5 billion cut to SNAP would come from ending categorical eligibility as an option for states.; If the House bill were to become law, 2 million people would lose SNAP benefits and 280,000 children would lose access to free school meals because states would be unable to align their TANF and SNAP eligibility requirements. Low-income working families would be especially hard-hit by this cut.  Additionally, these reductions come on top of the across-the-board reduction that every SNAP recipient will have to endure starting in November 2013, when the 2009 American Recovery and Reinvestment Act’s short-term SNAP boost expires. For a family of three, this loss will likely mean $20-$25 less a month for a family of three, making the average benefit only $1.40 per person per meal. See more here from the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities.

As in the Senate, the Heat and Eat cut included in the House bill is very troubling for nutrition advocates. The House bill is harsher, creating a steeper requirement for maintaining Heat and Eat eligibility, mandating that households must receive at least $20 in LIHEAP funding in order to qualify for the standard deduction for shelter/utilities. About 850,000 low-income households, a total of about 1.7 million individuals, would lose an average of $90 a month in SNAP benefits as a result of this House Agriculture Committee provision.

The House bill does include some reinvestments, including:

• $217 million to TEFAP (emergency food) (in comparison to $250 last year)
• Community Food Projects are level-funded at $100 million
• $50 million is afforded for SNAP retailer trafficking prevention

The House will likely bring its bill to the floor in June – thus allowing the House and Senate to start conferencing the bill over the Independence Day recess.  However, the House bill is opposed by some on the right and the left; it is not clear yet whether there are enough votes to enact it.  For nutrition advocates, failure to pass a bill with such extreme SNAP cuts would be good news.

The post CHN: House and Senate Agriculture Committees Back Farm Bills with Significant Cuts to SNAP appeared first on Coalition on Human Needs.

The Politics.  The President’s budget includes $166 billion in job creation initiatives, investing in infrastructure improvements, clean energy, and a comprehensive re-building approach in 20 poor communities.  It commits modest funding towards all levels of education in addition to the early childhood initiative.  But by using the budget as a platform to put forward a deficit reduction offer already made to Speaker Boehner (R-OH) and rejected by him, it makes cuts in Social Security strongly opposed by most Democrats and raises less revenue than the Senate budget plan.  As a gambit to demonstrate his willingness to compromise and to smoke out Republican unwillingness, the budget seems to have worked.  Pundits praised the elements of compromise and Republicans scrambled away from previous support for the Social Security change in order to stay firmly opposed to the President.  (Last December, Bloomberg News reported that Speaker Boehner was “pressing harder for the CPI revision than for other entitlement changes…”  Senate Minority Leader McConnell (R-KY) was looking for higher Medicare premiums for upper-income retirees, raising the age to become eligible for Medicare, and reducing Social Security benefits by shrinking the adjustment for inflation (the “chained CPI”) in order to consider new revenue last winter.)  But although the President included the reduced inflation adjustment and higher Medicare payments for upper-income retirees, his budget was rejected out of hand by the Republican leaders.

The President has said that he will only agree to cut Social Security as part of an overall deal that increases revenues and includes some economic investments.  But many strong advocates for Social Security and other vital safety net programs strongly oppose the Social Security cut under any circumstances.  Even those who could imagine it as part of a plan with healthy doses of revenue and job creation are worried now that the Social Security cut will find its way into a far less helpful budget plan.

The Math.  The President proposes $3.78 trillion in spending and $3.03 trillion in receipts for FY 2014, leaving a deficit of $744 billion, down from a deficit of $973 billion this year.  The deficit will decline from 6 percent of GDP now, to 4 percent in FY 2014, and down to 1.7 percent of GDP in 2023.

Revenues.  The budget includes $583 billion in revenue increases over 10 years from limiting high-income deductions to 28 percent and from increasing taxes on millionaires.  It adds another $100 billion in revenues from the chained CPI proposal’s effects on tax payments, and adds $78 billion in tobacco taxes to pay for the early childhood initiative.  In a move disappointing to many human needs advocates, the President’s budget lists a large number of corporate tax loophole-closings, but holds them in reserve to pay for an unspecified reduction in corporate tax rates.  Advocates are seeking a net increase in revenues from any corporate tax reform agreement, but the President would make reform revenue-neutral.

Spending Overview:  The President’s budget would replace the multi-year cuts that started this year with sequestration with the new revenue, plus about $400 billion in health care savings (largely Medicare), $130 billion from spending cuts due to the chained CPI reduced inflation adjustment, another $200 billion in savings in other mandatory programs (such as farm subsidies), and $200 billion in appropriations cuts, split evenly between the Pentagon and other programs.  By reducing the deficit, interest payments will decline by $210 billion over the same 10-year period.  Together, the revenues and spending cuts will reduce the deficit by $1.8 trillion.  The Administration estimates prior deficit reduction at $2.5 trillion; adding in his new budget proposal, deficit reduction would total $4.3 trillion over 10 years.

Budget Comparisons:  The President’s budget raises less revenue than the Senate’s $975 billion from progressive sources over 10 years.  The President’s plan cuts mandatory spending more ($600 billion in health care and other savings); the Senate’s mandatory savings total $350 billion.  The President cuts discretionary spending (appropriations) less than the Senate.  The Senate cuts $240 billion from the Pentagon, compared with $100 billion in the President’s budget.  The Senate cuts domestic and international appropriations by $142 billion, compared with the President’s $100 billion.

The Administration’s and Senate’s plans both differ starkly from the House budget, which includes no net revenue increases, and cuts spending by about $5 trillion, plus another $700 billion in interest savings.  The Pentagon is not cut.  About two-thirds of the cuts affect low-income programs, including deep cuts in Medicaid and SNAP/food stamps.  (For more details about the House and Senate budgets see the March 18 Human Needs Report.)

Details on Low-Income Programs in the President’s Budget:

Early Childhood:   The $75 billion 10-year Preschool for All proposal to ensure that every low- and moderate-income four year old gets pre-kindergarten education is joined by $1.4 billion next year for Early Head Start and child care partnerships to increase high quality early learning programs for infants and toddlers through age three.  Further supporting young families, the budget would expand voluntary home visiting services for families with newborns, with $15 billion over ten years, starting in FY 2015.

Aid to Poor Communities:  The President’s budget attempts a comprehensive approach, putting together resources from multiple government agencies to attack both the causes and toxic by-products of poverty.  It would create 20 Promise Zones, coordinating housing, education, anti-violence, and other economic development initiatives.  The Choice Neighborhoods Initiative would provide $400 million to improve distressed HUD-assisted housing in very poor communities (up from $120 million this year).  Homelessness Assistance Grants are increased by about $350 million, not counting the extra across-the-board cuts now being made.  Apart from the early childhood education expansions, there are initiatives to improve high schools and to invest in community colleges, both targeted to low-income community needs.  Related to the Administration’s push to reduce gun violence, the budget includes $160 million in new funds for Project AWARE, providing for more trained mental health providers able to work with children and youth in school, as well as more public safety support in poor communities.

The budget repeats the President’s $12.5 billion Pathways Back to Work proposal, which would fund summer and year-round jobs and training for low-income youth and provide subsidized jobs and training for the long-term unemployed.  This initiative was part of the President’s unsuccessful American Jobs Act proposal last year.  In part, it builds on the success of subsidized jobs funded through a now-expired Temporary Assistance for Needy Families emergency fund, in which hundreds of thousands of temporary jobs were created.

There are broader job creation initiatives, with funding to rebuild infrastructure, invest in clean energy, and create manufacturing hubs.  These are not specially targeted to help the poor, but overall efforts to create jobs will be a help, especially if the Administration connects job training for low-income workers to these new plans.

Reverses SNAP Cuts:  Millions of poor people are now facing a reduction in SNAP/food stamp benefits scheduled to start in November.  The President’s budget would cancel that loss in food assistance, estimated to cost a family of three $20-$25 a month.  In another critical area where the budget at least partially reverses cuts to low-income programs, rental housing vouchers for low-income families are increased by more than $1 billion.  The automatic cuts now in effect could reduce the number of vouchers going to low-income families by 140,000, out of 2.2 million households now benefiting from this form of housing assistance.  The President’s budget would end these cuts.

Makes Low-Income Tax Credits Permanent:  While the last deficit reduction deal made the Bush tax cuts permanent for all but the richest 1 percent, the low-income tax credits were only extended for five years.  The Obama budget makes the current levels permanent for the Child Tax Credit, Earned Income Tax Credit, and the American Opportunity Tax Credit (the latter for college students).  The Child Tax Credit and EITC lifted more than 9 million people out of poverty in 2011.  However, the chained CPI proposal will reduce the value of the Earned Income Tax Credit over time.

Protects Health Coverage:   The budget protects Medicaid and the Children’s Health Insurance Program.  It continues implementation of the Affordable Care Act, showing states that they can count on the promised federal support for expanding their Medicaid programs.

Cuts to Low-Income Programs:  Unaccountably, despite the Administration’s emphasis on interconnected programs to maximize effectiveness, the budget repeats its proposal to slash the Community Services Block Grant to $350 million (down from $682 million this year, not counting the across-the-board cuts).  These funds support community action agencies nationwide, which administer Head Start, home energy assistance, emergency food, and local economic development and other anti-poverty initiatives.  These agencies leverage private dollars and do the kind of coordination of services the Administration is counting on.  The budget also cuts the Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program (LIHEAP) by more than $500 million, counting this year’s across-the-board cuts.

Scope:  By choosing to stick to the deficit reduction offer made and rejected last year, the budget cannot support enough job creation and economic development to meet the needs of the current weak economy.  There is no doubt that there is strong opposition to making the needed investments.  But just as President Obama’s leadership has maximized public support for gun legislation and helped to shape public support for immigration reform, his leadership in pressing for jobs and shared prosperity will matter.

The post CHN: The President’s FY 2014 Budget: Important Initiatives Face Uphill Battle appeared first on Coalition on Human Needs.

For weeks, it seemed a foregone conclusion that Congress would fail to agree on a way to replace these cuts by the March 1 deadline.  Negotiations among the Administration, House and Senate were non-existent.  But in the weeks approaching the deadline it was assumed that if cuts began to occur after March 1, pressure would intensify and a way to replace the cuts would be found in tandem with the next big deadline:  when the temporary spending bill covering all appropriations expires on March 27.  Instead, on March 1, the President met with House and Senate leaders and signaled that he was not interested in risking a government shut-down at the end of March.  Both the President and Senate Appropriations Chair Barbara Mikulski (D-MD) expressed the intention to handle the continued funding for FY 2013 appropriations separately, and few Republicans at this point would consider replacing the cuts if it means increasing revenues, no matter what the source.  While a loud outcry from the public once the cuts are felt could change the odds in Congress, right now the prospects for derailing the cuts before the end of the fiscal year are murky at best.

In a recent Senate Appropriations Committee hearing, witnesses from the Obama Administration were unified in their testimony that granting the Administration flexibility to move money around to reduce the indiscriminate nature of the across-the-board sequester cuts would not solve their problems.  But before the first full business day of living with sequestration had arrived, the Administration’s director of the Economic Policy Council, Gene Sperling, noted on weekend interview shows that the Senate would take up legislation to provide the Administration with more leeway to manage the cuts.  How that would affect the full range of human needs programs affected is not yet known.

The Sequester’s Beginnings.  Congress included sequestration – or across-the-board cuts in all but a number of exempted programs – in its deficit reduction legislation, the Budget Control Act of 2011.  The law set 10 years of appropriations caps, projected to save about $1.5 trillion through FY 2021.  Congress was supposed to agree on a plan to reduce the deficit another $1.2 trillion, which could be achieved by a combination of revenue increases and spending cuts.  To force itself to act, Congress included an enforcer – automatic cuts that would kick in if Congress could not agree on a plan.  Those cuts would be split 50-50 between Pentagon and domestic/international programs.

Congress had more than a year to come up with an alternative to cuts that would hit WIC nutrition, Head Start, public housing, unemployment benefits for the long-term unemployed, education, environmental and consumer protection, medical research, job training, air traffic and food safety, and a whole lot more.  The President and Congressional Democrats called for new revenues to play a part in replacing these cuts.  Congressional Republican leaders said no.

The House leadership pointed to legislation it had passed twice in 2012 to replace the sequester – which slashed SNAP/food stamps, Medicaid, the Affordable Care Act, federal employee benefits, the Child Tax Credit and other services.  House leaders said they would not do anything else, and would await action by the Senate.

The Senate was stymied by the fact that legislation can be held up by a minority, requiring 60 votes to pass most bills.  A sequester-replacement plan could not pass without bipartisan support, and it was not forthcoming.  Senate Democrats, led by Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV), Budget Chair Patty Murray (D-WA) and Appropriations Chair Barbara Mikulski (D-MD) developed the American Family Economic Protection Act (S. 388), which increased revenues by increasing taxes on millionaires and closing certain corporate loopholes, reduced farm supports, and made Pentagon cuts more gradual, while eliminating all the slated domestic cuts.  Senate Republicans introduced their version of sequester replacement (S. 16), which gave the President until March 15 to come up with other ways to cut $85 billion, without shifting cuts from domestic areas to the Pentagon or raising revenues, and giving Congress the opportunity to object to the President’s proposals.  Both bills were unable to overcome the hurdle of cutting off debate in order to get to an actual vote on the legislation when Congress took them up on February 28.  The vote to cut off debate on the Democrats’ bill was 51-49, 9 short of the 60 needed.  No Republicans supported moving forward with this bill; 3 Democrats also opposed it:  Hagan (D-NC), Landrieu (D-LA), and Pryor (D-AR).  In addition, Majority Leader Reid voted no in order to preserve the right to bring the bill up again.  The other three Democratic opponents objected to the reduced farm payments and/or some of the tax provisions.  The Republican alternative had far less support, with its own caucus divided about it.  It failed 38-62, with 9 Republicans voting “no” and 2 Democrats – Baucus (D-MT) and Warner (D-VA) – voting “yes”.  Republican opposition tended to center on seeing the bill as ceding legislative power to the President.

No Government Shutdown Now Expected Over FY 2013 Appropriations.  The House of Representatives plans to act on legislation during the week of March 4 to approve appropriations for the rest of the fiscal year (through the end of September).  It will start with the $1.043 trillion cap for total appropriations, as already established by Congress, and then subtract the domestic discretionary portion (some of the cuts are to mandatory programs) of the $85 billion in sequestration cuts, resulting in a $974 billion bill.  That is the level of funding the House had sought for FY 2013 appropriations last spring, but at that time was successfully opposed by the Senate and Administration.  The plan assembled by House Appropriations Chair Harold Rogers (R-KY) is expected to continue existing funding levels for most parts of government through an extended Continuing Resolution (C.R.), but to enact separate two full appropriations bills for Defense and Military Construction-Veterans Affairs.

The Senate Appropriations Committee is also at work on completing FY 2013 funding, but Chairwoman Mikulski (D-MD) is preparing an Omnibus bill.  Instead of extending mostly level funding in a Continuing Resolution, an Omnibus bill would incorporate 12 separate detailed appropriations bills.  These differences between the House and Senate approaches complicate the efforts to agree on final legislation.  Since Congress has a recess period scheduled for the week of March 25, the House and Senate must agree on the appropriations package by March 21 or 22.

While the President had previously stated he would veto any appropriations bill that was less than the $1.043 trillion cap, over the weekend he clarified that he would not veto a bill that encompassed the sequestration cuts.  Bipartisan comity is not easy to find, but it does extend to a reluctance to risk a government shutdown.

The post CHN: Senseless Cuts Begin: Wide Swath of Domestic Services and Pentagon Spending Will See $85 Billion Reduction This Year appeared first on Coalition on Human Needs.

The House Goes Home for Christmas: Its Top Priorities: Slash Health Care, Nutrition, and Federal Pay, Raise Taxes on Working Families, Preserve Pentagon Spending, and No Fingerprints on Tax Increases Even for the Very Rich

If you are reading this, the world did not come to an end on December 21.  Congressional action did, though, at least through Christmas.  Despite predictions by Speaker Boehner (R-OH) and Majority Leader Cantor (R-VA) that there would be enough Republican votes for Boehner’s plan to raise tax rates on income over $1 million, their caucus rebelled.  Without enough votes for passage, Speaker Boehner cancelled the vote, and the House went home.  They might come back before New Year’s, if a deal can be put together to avert the spending cuts, tax increases, and loss of unemployment benefits for 2 million long-term jobless people that will mark the start of 2013.

The House did cast votes on Thursday evening.  They re-adopted a bill they had passed last spring, which replaced the $110 billion in automatic spending cuts scheduled to start January 1 with a large number of domestic cuts.  That bill went nowhere last spring, and the President and Senate Majority Leader Reid (D-NV) confirmed its fate will be the same now.  The new-old bill, The Spending Reduction Act of 2012 (H.R. 6684), passed 215-209, with no Democrats voting for it and 21 Republicans joining all 188 Democrats to oppose.

The bill was not originally part of Speaker Boehner’s plan for Thursday.  He had hoped there would be enough support to pass an amendment he called “Plan B”, continuing the current tax rates for everybody except millionaires, whose income tax rates would rise to where they were before the Bush tax cuts were enacted.  Because other favorable treatment for millionaires and multi-million dollar estates would remain, those with incomes over $1 million would still get tax cuts averaging $50,000 each.  Treatment of 25 million low-income working families with children was not so favorable – they would see their taxes rise by an average of $1,000 each.  (For more detail, see below.)  Even Grover Norquist, originator of the anti-tax pledge that has a stranglehold on most Republicans, said that passing Boehner’s “Plan B” would be okay, because it would be preventing a tax increase on everybody else.  But that wasn’t enough to gather the near-unanimity among Republicans necessary to pass Boehner’s bill with little or no Democratic support.

Republican House members either objected to raising any taxes on anyone, balked at passing something that did nothing to stop the looming Pentagon and domestic spending cuts, or both.  To mollify enough of them, the Speaker agreed to let the House vote again on the bill to replace the “sequester,” or automatic spending cuts.  In voting for this, the majority made its priorities clear.  The bill would eliminate all the $55 billion in Pentagon sequestration cuts in 2013 and would replace about $38.5 billion in across-the-board cuts to domestic appropriations, in part by substituting $19.1 billion in spending reductions to be achieved by lowering the total cap on appropriations for FY 2013.  Medicare cuts of about $16 billion that were originally included in sequestration would stay in place.   The money lost by stopping the Pentagon cuts and some of the domestic reductions would be made up (and then some) by more than $217 billion in cuts over 10 years  to SNAP/food stamps, Medicaid, premium subsidies and other funding for the new health care law, the Child Tax Credit, and several consumer protection measures.  It also raised nearly $88 billion in revenues over 10 years by requiring federal employees to pay more of their retirement costs.  (More details about these provisions below.)

But although the House passed these spending cuts, it did not win over enough Republicans to get a majority for the Plan B increase in millionaire tax rates.

So what’s next?  Despite repeated assertions on the House floor by House Budget Committee Chair Ryan (R-WI) and others that President Obama has not come out with specific spending cut proposals in his deficit reduction plan, the President has put forth several offers in his negotiations with Speaker Boehner.  The President’s most recent proposal includes tax cuts for everyone, but reduces the tax breaks at the top, for a new revenue total of $1.2 trillion over ten years, and cuts spending by $930 billion, plus another $290 billion in debt interest savings.  Some of the savings are highly controversial among Democrats (see below).  If a solution is to be found, either before or soon after the beginning of the new year, it appears less likely to be achieved by legislation that can draw majority Republican support in the House.  Another option – passing a plan in the House with bipartisan support (lots of Democrats and some Republicans.  It remains to be seen whether Speaker Boehner will exercise leadership in pressing for that, or leave it to others to work around him.  In announcing the House’s departure, the Speaker did not seem to be signing up for a renewed battle to win over his caucus.  Instead, he said “Now it is up to the president to work with Sen. Reid on legislation to avert the fiscal cliff.”

Taxes

Taxes were a major issue during the Presidential campaign with a focus on the ’01 and ’03 Bush-era income tax rates set to expire at the end of this year.  On November 14, newly off an election victory where he campaigned for higher taxes on incomes over $250,000 and with opinion polls solidly favoring his position, the President at his first post-election news conference reiterated his position on income tax rates and pressed for $1.6 trillion in revenue as part of a comprehensive deficit reduction deal.  Democrats were buoyed by the President’s approach.  Republicans had strongly resisted any increase in personal income tax rates but some conceded that the election results would likely mean rates for high-income taxpayers would go up.  Others pressed for no rate increases and instead talked in vague terms about tax reform that included closing unspecified tax loopholes and ending some tax deductions.  In return they also wanted deep cuts in spending.

The President presented a more detailed deficit reduction plan on November 29, outlining nearly $1.6 trillion in addition tax revenue over 10 years.   Tax rates for income of less than $250,000 would remain the same while the two top rates of 33 and 35 percent would revert back to 36 and 39.6 percent; the rate on capital gains would increase from 15 percent to 20 percent and dividends from 15 percent to the ordinary income tax rate; the maximum value of tax deductions would be lowered to 28 percent (someone in the 35 percent tax bracket can currently deduct up to 35 cents for every dollar in deductions) and additional limits would be placed on itemized deductions for higher-income taxpayers; and the estate tax would revert back from its current $5 million exemption level and maximum rate of 35 percent to its 2009 exemption level of $3.5 million and 45 percent maximum rate .  The tax package would also continue the expansions made in the 2009 economic recovery act to the refundable Child Tax Credit and Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC) for low-income working families; extend for one year the 2 percent payroll tax cut for individuals; provide a one-year fix to the Alternative Minimum Tax (ATM), keeping new taxpayers from being hit with an average income tax increase of $2,250 according to the Tax Policy Center; and extend a number of business tax breaks.

In response to the President’s plan Speaker Boehner, the Republicans’ lead negotiator in deficit reduction talks with the President, offered $800 billion in revenue through limiting tax expenditures in tax reform that would occur next year.  His plan did not specify which tax expenditures would be limited.  Many of the most costly expenditures in terms of lost revenue are very popular and have powerful lobby shops supporting them, for example the home mortgage interest deduction, making them politically difficult to reduce significantly.

Under earlier House Republican tax proposals and plans proposed by Speaker Boehner, the 2009 improvements in the Child Tax Credit and EITC would be allowed to expire.  This means that 12 million families benefiting from the Child Tax Credit would see their taxes go up by $800, on average.  Six million families would pay an average $500 tax increase because of cuts to the EITC.

In early December deficit reduction talks between Speaker Boehner and the President continued.  On December 17, the President presented a new proposal containing both new savings on the spending side and a reduction in revenue.  The proposal reduced revenue by increasing from $250,000 to $400,000 the income threshold at which the lower tax rates would be extended.   The 33 percent income tax rate would be extended rather than reverting back to 36 percent.

Speaker Boehner seemed to be making a significant move toward the President on revenue when he indicated that he would let tax rates on income over $1 million expire.  However, coupled with extending the Bush-era tax rates on income up to $1 million, extending limits on certain tax deductions set to end on January 1, taxing dividends at 20 percent rather than at the rate of regular income, and continuing the current generous estate tax provisions, people with incomes of over $1 million would receive an average tax cut of $108,500 according to the Tax Policy Center.

In a high-risk strategy Speaker Boehner decided to take this so-called “Plan B” to floor of the House for a vote on December 20.  When conservative Republicans revolted, Speaker Boehner pulled the bill knowing that it would not pass.  It is not yet clear what the impact of his failure to pass the bill will have on future talks with the President.  Democrats and the White House are urging him to return to the negotiating table with the President.

See Citizens for Tax Justice report from December 20 comparing Speaker Boehner’s “Plan B” and the President’s original and December 17 proposals at: http://www.ctj.org/pdf/latestfiscalcliff.pdf.

The Real Cliff:  Unemployment Insurance About to Expire, Leaving 2 Million With No Help

The House spectacle before the abrupt departure was remarkable both in showing what the majority wanted to do and what it didn’t care to tackle.  Although 4 in 10 of the unemployed today have been out of work for more than six months (most for more than a year), and have run out of state unemployment benefits, the House took no action to continue the federal Emergency Unemployment Compensation program for the long-term jobless.  It will expire at the end of December.  Two million will be denied unemployment benefits right away, followed by another million by the end of the March in 2013.  The proportion of the long-term unemployed has risen dramatically over the years.  After the 1980’s recession, 26 percent of the unemployed were out of work six months or more.  The President’s plan includes the extension of unemployment benefits for a year, at a cost of $33 billion.

Shrinking the Adjustment for Inflation:  “The Chained CPI”

One of the most controversial provisions in President Obama’s deficit reduction package is a change in the way the Consumer Price Index (CPI) would be calculated for purposes of calculating benefits for Social Security, and also affecting many other low-income programs that rely on annual inflation adjustments for eligibility or benefit levels.  In what ultimately turned out to be abortive negotiations with Speaker Boehner, the President responded to the demand that benefits to entitlement programs be cut by agreeing to this change, which is called the “chained CPI.”  It reduces the inflation rate by assuming that when certain prices go up, consumers are likely to switch to other comparable but cheaper products.  Some research questions whether the elderly, or low-income people generally are able to make such substitutions as easily as the population as a whole.  According to the Center for Economic and Policy Research, after 10 years, the Chained CPI would result in a 3 percent cut in Social Security benefits, about 6 percent after 20 years, and nearly 9 percent after 30 years.  For an average worker retiring at 65, this reduced measure of inflation would result in benefits being cut $1,130 a year at age 85.  Women would be disproportionately affected, because they live longer and are more likely to be poor.  The Administration’s Chained CPI proposal, which is estimated to save $130 billion over 10 years, does provide exemptions for low-income elderly and disabled making use of Supplemental Security Income (SSI), but that alone does not offer adequate protection to low-income people.  If the revised calculation is applied to the federal poverty guidelines, it will lower the annual increases in the poverty line, which would be likely to reduce benefits or shrink eligibility for means-tested programs.  Many progressive groups, including labor, have strenuously opposed making use of the Chained CPI.

SNAP in Farm Bill and House Bill 

Prospects for a 5-year reauthorization of a farm bill including the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP, formerly known as food stamps) before this Congress ends on January 2 has all but disappeared. There is not time for action on a separate bill and prospects for attaching it to the elusive larger deficit reduction package are fading.  The full Senate passed a 5- year farm bill extension in June with $23 billion in savings over 10 years, including $4.5 billion in cuts to SNAP.  In July the House Agriculture Committee approved bipartisan farm bill legislation with $35 billion in savings over 10 years, including $16 billion in cuts to SNAP.  The House Republican leadership has refused to allow a floor vote to happen because some Republicans want deeper cuts to SNAP while many Democrats do not support any cuts to the program.  The commodities provisions in the two bills that subsidize farmers also split members, more along geographic than party lines.  The Senate bill tends to favor northern commodities like corn and soybeans and the House bill rice, peanuts and wheat grown in the southern states.

Absent a full reauthorization, there is faint hope that a shorter-term extension of the current farm bill might pass.  The SNAP program will continue to operate uninterrupted without an extension of the full bill because the rules governing the program will not expire and funding was included in the continuing resolution through March 2013.  However, some programs would be affected.  Dairy subsidies would revert back to a 1949 law, likely doubling milk prices.  Dairy products are a large portion of the Women, Infants and Children (WIC) federally-funded nutrition program, and the price increase would lessen the buying power of WIC recipients.

The Spending Reduction Act passed by the House on Thursday night included $32.3 billion in cuts to SNAP/food stamps.  The House majority would return SNAP benefits to their old level of about $1.30 per meal, an amount judged by nutrition experts to be inadequate.  While current law would have started that reduction in November of 2013, this bill moves it up to February.  Recent analysis estimates that this cut will result in a loss of $8 – $10 per person per month.  The House will also deny SNAP to 2 million people who now get benefits because their low incomes qualify them for programs such as Temporary Assistance for Needy Families.  This change will also result in 280,000 low-income children losing free school meals.  In addition, the House agreed to make it harder to streamline eligibility for SNAP benefits, which now can be received without additional documentation if certain households already qualify for Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (expected to cut assistance to 1.8 million individuals).  This change will also result in 280,000 low-income children losing free school meals.  These restrictions were estimated last spring to save $11.7 billion over 10 years.  Further, this bill would reduce SNAP benefits to people who now receive a small benefit from the Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program, said last spring to reduce SNAP spending by over $14 billion.  Despite this time of high unemployment, the House would drop certain federal spending for SNAP employment and training programs (saving about $3.1 billion over 10 years) and would end federal bonus payments to states to encourage good performance in administering SNAP.

Health Care Spending Reductions

The President’s most recent offer calls for $400 billion in savings in health care programs over 10 years, said to come mainly from Medicare, with relatively little from Medicaid (although details were not available).  The House Spending Reduction Act keeps the $16 billion in Medicare cuts scheduled to take place as part of the automatic FY 2013 cuts imposed by the Budget Control Act ( 2011 legislation that set up the “sequestration” cuts to start in January 2013 if Congress could not agree on a deficit reduction plan).  In addition, the House bill slashes health care premium subsidies under the Affordable Care Act for 350,000 people, and cut Medicaid funding to Puerto Rico and other territories even though Puerto Rico, despite its disproportionate poverty, receives far lower federal Medicaid payments than any state (a high of 35 percent in 2010; states receive no less than 50 percent of Medicaid costs).  The amendment also allows states to make cuts in their Medicaid programs below the levels in place when the Affordable Care Act passed, which could reduce eligibility or benefits for millions of people.  Further, it includes a number of funding cuts aimed at undermining the Affordable Care Act (the major new health care legislation now being implemented).  These savings are estimated at $47.3 billion over ten years by the Congressional Budget Office.

The President’s plan is said to assume at least one-year funding for continued higher payment levels to physicians under Medicare.  Their payments were supposed to be cut by Sustainable Growth Rate (SGR) reductions passed by Congress some years ago, but Congress has not been willing to implement these cuts.

Debt Ceiling

President Obama has been emphatic in not wanting to undergo another crisis negotiation in which Republicans insist on spending reductions commensurate with increases in the debt ceiling.  The debt ceiling is expected to be reached within the next month or two.  If Congress does not authorize continued borrowing, the crisis would stall spending, spook federal bond-holders, with threats of catastrophe for our economy, according to people like Federal Reserve Chair Ben Bernanke.  Holding spending on domestic priorities hostage to deeper and deeper cuts to get the debt ceiling increased would be very dangerous to human needs programs.  Obama’s position initially would have reduced Congress’ role in debt ceiling increases permanently; more recent proposals have called for a two-year debt ceiling increase.

Appropriations

The President’s most recent offer called for cuts of $100 billion to defense and $100 billion to non-defense appropriations over 10 years, beyond the $1.5 trillion in cuts to these programs already set in motion over the next decade.  These cuts are much lower than the approximately $1 trillion in additional Pentagon, domestic, and international program cuts that are now scheduled to start in January and continue over 10 years.  Still, domestic appropriations are being cut deeply already, affecting education, housing, child care, WIC, Head Start, home energy assistance, and much more, and many groups oppose any further cuts.  On the other hand, many military spending experts believe that much more could be cut from military spending than the $100 billion called for in the President’s plan.

As noted above, the House spending reduction bill cuts appropriations by another $19.1 billion in FY 2013 by lowering the appropriations cap by that amount.  The bill also prohibits further military cuts.

The post CHN: The House Goes Home for Christmas appeared first on Coalition on Human Needs.

Senate Agriculture Committee Chairwoma n Debbie Stabenow (D-MI) explained in a recent conference call with reporters that producing a five-year farm bill during the lame-duck session might be difficult but it would not be impossible.  Both chambers in Congress have agreed to act on the stalled legislation when they return after the November 6th elections. But the deep divides  have held up the bill so far.  The farm bill expires on September 30th but the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP, formerly known as food stamps) continues to operate uninterrupted because the rules governing SNAP will not expire at that time and funding was included in the continuing resolution  through March 2013 (see Congress Passes 6-Month Spending Bill for Fiscal Year 2013 in this issue). The Commodity Supplemental Food Program is also protected.  The September deadline will no t a ffect farmers immediately either but Congress must act by the end of the year in order for farmers to plan next year’s crop season. If Congress fails to strike a deal by December 31st crop subsidies will revert back to 1940’s farm bill levels. This would include substantial reductions subsidies for dairy and soy farmers and increased subsidies for wheat farmers.

In July the House Agriculture C ommittee approved bipartisan farm bill legislation with $35 billion in savings over 10 years, including $16 billion in cuts to SNAP. The full Senate had passed a five – year farm bill extension in June with $23 billion in savings over 10 years, including $4.5 billion in cuts to SNAP over the same period of time.  The House Republican leadership has refused to allow a floor vote to happen because of several disagreements. Some Republicans want deeper cuts to SNAP; most House Democrats do not support any cuts to the program. Speaker John Boehner was quoted in a September 20th CQ article saying that the House would consider a multi-year measure or an extension of the current law, including a one – year or a three – month extension.

Although the bill has been punted to the lame-duck session, it has become a major election issue for some farm state lawmakers who must return home this week without certainty for their constituents. A discharge petition has been circulated to House members that would force a vote later this year should the petition attract 218 signatures. Over 50 Representatives including members from both major parties have signed on already. The petition gained attention on September 14th when two new Republicans, Representative Scott Tipton (R-CO) and Representative Renee Ellmers (R-NC) added their names. Later that same day both withdrew their signatures. Tipton, who is in a competitive reelection race, cited that his initial signature was “just to send a message that we need to move on this”.  House members in North Dakota and other Midwestern states are also using this petition to show constituents concerned about the lack of action that they support moving the bill.

House agricultural leaders told CQ reporters that they are already concerned that an agreement on a five-year farm bill may not be reached when Congress returns. The committee’s ranking Democratic member, Representative Collin Peterson (D-MN) and Chairman Frank Lucas (R-OK) have agreed to move a bill forward in February 2013 if no earlier action occurs in Congress.

The post CHN: Farm Bill Programs (Mostly) Will Expire September 30; SNAP is Protected: Congressional Leaders Opting to Delay a Fight Over the Farm Bill until after the Elections appeared first on Coalition on Human Needs.

Congress left for the August recess without coming to agreement on a Farm Bill.  The current 5-year bill is set to expire on September 30th. That leaves the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP, formerly known as food stamps) funding and other farm programs unresolved until Congress returns in September. On August 2nd, House Speaker John Boehner (R-OH) told Congressional Quarterly reporters that “the House is pretty well divided” because of proposed cuts to SNAP. The farm bill contained over $16 billion in cuts to SNAP and the free school lunch program over 10 years.  Conservatives want that number to go higher and Democrats would prefer it to go lower.

Nutrition cuts weren’t the only thing dividing Congress on the Farm Bill. Despite a severe drought and sense of urgency to deal with disaster relief aid for farmers, the House and Senate also failed to agree on an aid package for drought relief. House Republicans proposed a one-year extension (H.R. 6228) in order to move the Farm Bill forward before the August recess, but did not get support from farmers or nutrition advocates for the plan. On July 26, House Republicans decoupled the farm bill from the disaster relief aid, pushing the Farm Bill to the sidelines and passing an aid-only bill instead (H.R. 6233). This House tactic could have forced the Senate to pass a bill before recess began, but Senate Democrats refused to take up the stand-alone bill because of many dividing factors. Senate Agriculture Committee Chairwoman Debbie Stabenow (D-MI) said that she would not pass a bill that only covers help for some producers. In particular she was concerned that the aid package did not include fruit and vegetable growers and dairy producers, many of whom are her constituents. The House-passed aid bill would cut the Conservation Stewardship Program and the Environmental Quality Incentives Program by $639 million, providing $383 million to disaster aid and using the remainder for deficit reduction. Farm groups are concerned that this would just add to the cuts they are already expecting in a new Farm Bill. Some were also concerned that passing a short-term measure might delay a long-term, comprehensive bill.

It is unclear how the House and Senate will come to agreement on an extension of the Farm Bill before it expires but Chairwoman Stabenow has reiterated her commitment to working out a deal before the end of September. Agriculture Committee leaders could bypass House floor action, write their own compromise bill and attach it to “must-pass” legislation, but it is unlikely that this process will occur because Stabenow has said that the House must take action on the Farm Bill before a deal can be struck.

The post CHN: Congress Leaves Without Passing Farm Bill appeared first on Coalition on Human Needs.