Uninsured individuals can use these websites to shop for and enroll in insurance plans that offer a basic package of benefits on health care exchanges, also known as marketplaces, where insurers compete for business.  Under the ACA all policies sold in the exchanges must cover what physicians and consumer advocates call “essential health benefits.”  They include hospitalization, ambulatory services, emergency services, maternity and newborn care, mental health and substance abuse services, prescription drugs, lab tests, wellness and preventive services, pediatric services including dental and vision care, and rehabilitative services.  (See more information on benefits.)

Sixteen states and the District of Columbia opted to set up their own exchanges; 7 states are doing a partnership with the federal government; and the other 34 states are relying on the federal government to set up their exchanges.  Lower and moderate income families and individuals with incomes between 100 and 400 percent of poverty will be able to apply for subsidies to offset the cost of premiums they cannot now afford.  Premiums and out-of-pocket costs will vary depending on the level of insurance coverage: bronze, silver, gold and platinum.

The ACA was signed into law by President Obama on March 23, 2010.  Since then, certain provisions of the ACA have already gone into effect.  Insurance companies are now required to provide their customers with free preventive care and screenings for illnesses, discounts for seniors for prescription drugs, wellness visits with no co-pays, the option for those up to 26 years of age to remain on their parents’ health care policy, an end to denying coverage to children with pre-existing conditions, and the requirement that they reimburse customers if they spend less than 80 percent of premiums on care.

On January 1, 2014, coverage purchased through the exchanges will take effect.  Insurance companies will then no longer be able to deny coverage to adults with pre-existing conditions or charge higher premiums based on sex or medical history.

The ACA includes an individual mandate that requires most individuals to have insurance so the system no longer bears as heavy a burden for providing coverage for the uninsured.  Annual penalties for failure to be insured are $95 per adult and $47.50 per child, or up to one percent of a family’s income.  Businesses of 50 or more employees will be required to provide health benefits for their employees.  Starting in 2015, if employers do not provide health coverage they will pay a tax penalty.  The 6-month open-enrollment period for the exchanges ends on March 31 for the 2014 calendar year.  Subsequent years will have a 3-month enrollment period from October through December.

Included in the ACA was the requirement that states expand their Medicaid program to cover non-elderly poor people who are 133 percent below the poverty line, or about $31,300 for a family of four.  The federal government is committed to covering 100 percent of the cost of the expansion through 2016, no less than 93 percent of the cost between 2017 and 2019, and 90 percent of the cost thereafter.  Both the individual mandate to buy health insurance and the Medicaid expansion were challenged in court.  On June 28, 2012, the U.S. Supreme Court upheld the individual mandate but said that states could not be required to expand their Medicaid programs, thus making it optional.  Twenty-four states and the District of Columbia have opted to expand Medicaid.  States can reconsider and opt for expansion at any time.  The states that have declined to expand their Medicaid programs have a disproportionate number of poor blacks, single mothers and low-wage workers who are too poor to qualify for insurance subsidies in the exchanges (their incomes must be at least 100 percent of the poverty line).  The New York Times recently estimated that two-thirds of the poor African Americans and single mothers who now lack health insurance will not get coverage because their states so far have failed to expand their Medicaid programs.  The Congressional Budget Office estimates that in 2014, about 14 million uninsured will be covered by the ACA through the exchanges and Medicaid expansion.  By 2019, that number will have risen to 25 million.  That still leaves millions uninsured.

Members of the Tea Party in Congress have refused to acknowledge that ACA is the law of the land.  Under pressure from them, the House of Representatives has voted over 40 times to repeal the ACA.  As Congress struggles to extend funding for appropriated programs in a Continuing Resolution (see article in this Human Needs Report) the House has attempted to add provisions to defund the entire ACA, to delay implementation of the exchanges for one year, and to repeal its medical device tax.  Democrats and the White House have remained united and strong in opposing these attempts to undermine the ACA.

Republicans argue that a one-year delay will provide more time to iron out the bill’s kinks.  Democrats know that delaying implementation of the exchanges would have devastating consequences, giving strength to attempts to kill the law.  For more information see the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities analysis of the impact of delaying the ACA.

The medical device industry and others that would benefit from a flood of new customers were asked to make a contribution to offset the cost of expanding coverage to millions of uninsured.  The 2.3 percent medical device industry tax was that sector’s contribution to help pay for the ACA.  This lucrative industry has total sales of over $100 billion a year, concentrated on a small number of large companies.  They have lobbied heavily against the tax and their presence in both Democratic and Republican dominated states has given bi-partisan support to the repeal of the tax.  However, Senate Democrats are united in opposing any changes to the ACA in the context of resolving the continuing resolution.

Like the Medicare and Medicaid adoption in 1965 and the Medicare Part D prescription drug benefit in 2003, implementation of the ACA will have bumps in the road.  ACA opponents, including some Republican governors and legislators, are attempting to sabotage the law.  In some cases, they have refused to provide accurate information about the law to their constituents and have discouraged their participation in the exchanges.  The drumbeat of misinformation has contributed to public opinion polls indicating both a lack of support for the ACA and inaccurate information about it.  These efforts have been countered by national, state, and local organizations who are working to provide education and encourage enrollment in the exchanges.  Proponents of the ACA believe that, just as most of Medicare’s initial detractors came to support the program, once people experience the benefits of the ACA, support will quickly grow.

The post CHN: The Affordable Care Act – Enrollment Begins appeared first on Coalition on Human Needs.

Currently, less than 40 percent of American workers are eligible for an employer-provided temporary disability program. Due to this, as well as the fact that so few American workers are eligible for employer-paid family leave, many people are forced to make an impossible choice: take unpaid leave to care for a sick loved one (or see to their own care) or continue to work to earn the money they need to keep their families afloat. The FAMILY Act would provide working families with a better option, believe advocacy groups like the National Partnership for Women & Families.

On Friday, September 27 Senator Gillibrand stated her support for the bill in a Huffington Post article. She made the case that the FAMILY Act is desperately needed in today’s changing economy, in which forty percent of households with minor children have a woman as the primary breadwinner. (Read more about women’s participation in the American workforce in this fact sheet from the National Women’s Law Center.)

Administered through the Social Security Administration, the FAMILY Act would insure workers for benefits equal to 66 percent of their monthly income (up to a capped monthly amount). Eligibility for the program would be determined by a worker’s eligibility for Social Security disability benefits.

The insurance program is paid for through payroll contributions from both employers and their workers, with an extremely low premium of two cents for every $10 in income. For most workers, this means less than $2.00/week.

Advocates are pushing for passage of the FAMILY Act as an improvement on 1993’s Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA). The FMLA requires businesses employing fifty or more workers to provide their employees with the option of taking up to twelve weeks of unpaid leave to care for an infant less than one year of age, adopt a child, care for a sick family member, or tend to a personal illness.

Although the FMLA has protected millions of workers from losing their jobs, it only guarantees unpaid leave and fails to cover 40 percent of the US workforce. The FAMILY Act offers a much more comprehensive way of helping workers by providing millions of families as well as young, part-time and low wage workers with a much-needed safety net in times of great distress.

The legislation is expected to be introduced within the next few weeks, delayed temporarily because of the federal government shutdown. Advocates will continue to ramp up support for the bill in the coming weeks.

The post CHN: Family and Medical Leave Insurance Act to be Introduced Soon; Advocates Continue to Build Support for This National Program to Help Working Families appeared first on Coalition on Human Needs.

The influence of the extremists in the House was clear in the decision of the House leadership to put forward a temporary spending bill with a poison pill permanently defunding the 2010 health care law.  The Continuing Resolution (CR) extends spending on military, domestic and international appropriations at this year’s levels through December 15.  The House estimates the annualized costs of continuing this year’s spending at $986 billion.  This level continues the sequestration cuts begun in 2013.  If spending continues all year at this rate, domestic and international programs subject to appropriation will be cut by 17.8 percent compared to FY 2010.  (For more detail on the proposed CR, see The Approaching Crunch, in the August 7, 2013 edition of The Human Needs Report.)

The Senate and President Obama have both made clear that they will not accept defunding of the health care law.  The Senate will now take up the House bill (H.J. Res. 59) this week, and will move to delete the health care provision.  Senator Ted Cruz (R-TX) has threatened to filibuster to prevent the Senate from passing a version that does not defund the Affordable Care Act.  As a matter of Senate procedure, he will have to filibuster the bill that comes from the House, which is awkward because it contains the defunding provision he favors.  If there are 60 votes to move the bill forward, an amendment to strip the bill of the health law provisions will only require a simple majority.  Most observers believe the Senate will have the 60 votes to end a filibuster and will certainly have a majority to get rid of the ACA cuts.

Senate Appropriations Committee Chair Barbara Mikulski (D-MD) greatly prefers a CR that would last only till mid-November, at least if it is set at only current year funding.  The Senate Democrats and the President oppose permanent funding for FY 2014 at this year’s very low levels; their alternative is $1.058 trillion in appropriations, an amount that does not include continued sequestration cuts.  If a stopgap spending bill lasts until December 15, it is feared that Congress will not come to grips with making the changes needed and will simply keep extending current levels into the new calendar year.  As the months progress, it will be more and more difficult to undo the FY 2014 sequester reductions.  On the other hand, a November 15 deadline leaves more time to negotiate an end to sequestration.

Once the bill is returned to the House with changes including deletion of the ACA defunding, it will be perilously close to the end of the fiscal year.  With only a few days to spare, the House will have to decide (a) if it will insist on dismantling ACA or (b) agree to a cleaner extension.   Plan (a) will shut down much of the federal government.  The Wall Street Journal was not encouraging about this approach in a recent opinion piece:  “Kamikaze missions rarely turn out well, least of all for the pilots.”

A decision to agree to a cleaner extension will require Democratic votes in the House, on the assumption that many disgruntled extremists among the Republicans will vote no.  Getting to a majority may be difficult even without the ACA cuts, because members of the House Progressive Caucus do not want to vote for a spending bill that continues the sequester cuts.  Co-Chairs of the Progressive Caucus, Keith Ellison (D-MN) and Raul Grijalva (D-AZ) are “whipping” their 75 members to urge a no vote on a CR that continues the sequester cuts in this year’s spending.

Deadbeat Nation?  Not limiting their Affordable Care Act threats to a federal government shutdown, the House leadership has also announced plans to tie a set of conditions to a one-year extension of the debt limit.  To authorize the federal government to continue borrowing past November 2014, the House Republican plan is said to require a one-year delay in Affordable Care Act implementation.  It would also include cut proposals that have surfaced in previous deficit reduction negotiations, such as requiring higher contributions towards pension plans by federal workers, repeal of parts of the ACA, cuts in SNAP (see SNAP article in this issue), and charging higher-income Medicare recipients more for their coverage.  Reducing the cost of living adjustment for Social Security (using the “chained CPI”) has also been proposed in the past.  These proposals have all been vigorously opposed by organized labor and other advocates as well as by many Democrats.  The House proposal assumes that a year’s debt limit increase would be about $600 – $700 billion.  They would “pay” for that increase by cuts similar to those just described.

The Administration has been willing to consider some of these proposals in the past, but has said it will not agree to more cuts without an agreement to raise revenues.  The House leadership has told the Republican caucus that the debt limit bill will also include instructions to the tax-writing committees to come up with tax reform legislation.  If similar to language previously adopted in the House, the instructions will probably direct the House Ways and Means Committee to lower tax rates for individuals and corporations and be revenue neutral.  That would mean that revenue losses from reducing rates would be offset by closing loopholes or reducing other tax expenditures, but that there would not be a net revenue gain that could be used to replace sequester cuts or to meet other needs.  Such an approach would not sit well with Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) and many in his caucus.

If Congress does not increase federal borrowing authority by approximately mid-October, the government will be unable to pay all its bills.  The House bill to tie the debt ceiling to the ACA and other cuts could be introduced as early as September 25.  Here too, Democratic opposition will be firm.  In his Weekly Address on September 21, President Obama said “The United States of America is not a deadbeat nation.  We are a compassionate nation.  We are the world’s bedrock investment.  And doing anything to threaten that is the height of irresponsibility.  That’s why I will not negotiate over the full faith and credit of the United States.  I will not allow anyone to harm this country’s reputation, or threaten to inflict economic pain on millions of our own people, just to make an ideological point.”

Economists across the political spectrum have raised alarms about even threatening to tamper with the debt ceiling.  Martin Feldstein, chairman of the Council of Economic Advisors under President Reagan said “The debt ceiling is a very dangerous thing to play with.”  Alan Blinder, former vice chair of the Federal Reserve, said “In short, the consequences of hitting the debt ceiling are too awful to contemplate…A sane Congress wouldn’t even think about it.”  Republicans will have to think hard about how voters will react to this two-pronged threat to the economy.

The post CHN: House Extremists in the Pilot’s Seat: Hurtling Towards Government Shutdown and Debt Crunch appeared first on Coalition on Human Needs.

Direct care work is one of the fastest-growing industries in the nation, and almost two million people will benefit from this policy change.  Aides help America’s elderly and disabled populations by assisting with daily tasks such as dressing or bathing, doing chores and administering medications in their homes.

Currently, home care aides are preempted from receiving the federal minimum wage ($7.25/hour) and overtime protection because they are categorized as “companionship” workers – individuals who provide “companionship services for individuals who (because of age or infirmity) are unable to care for themselves” (as explained in this Huffington Post article). The need for revised regulations was underscored in 2007 when the Supreme Court ruled against Evelyn Coke, a New York home care worker who sued to reverse the federal regulations that exempt home care agencies from having to pay overtime.

Advocates and labor leaders praise this long-awaited measure as a way to ensure that home care workers are provided the same legal protections as nurses who perform similar tasks in a hospital setting.

With more minimum wage battles on the horizon, home care advocates and organizations like the Direct Care Alliance are happy to finally be able to claim victory with these regulations.

The post CHN: Minimum Wage and Overtime Protections Extended to Home Care Workers 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.

The bill, the Safe Communities, Safe Schools Act of 2013 (S. 649), is sponsored by Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV), expands the national system of background checks for gun purchases, toughens penalties for buying guns on behalf of others who would not be eligible to buy them, and boosts authorized funding for school safety programs.

Many amendments will be offered, including some that would have the effect of loosening, not tightening, the rules around gun purchases.  But in addition to decisions about gun purchases, the Senate may take up legislation to improve mental health services, especially in schools, in the hope of preventing violence.

One bill to improve mental health services was approved by the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee on April 11.  The bill, introduced by committee Chair Tom Harkin (D-IA) and Ranking Member Lamar Alexander (R-TN), is called the Mental Health Awareness and Improvement Act (S. 689).  It would encourage the development of school-wide mental health programs and allow grant funding to promote partnerships between schools and clinical mental health services.  The bill also provides suicide prevention and mental health awareness training, for early intervention to help students with mental health or substance abuse problems.  In addition, there would be GAO reports commissioned to examine access to mental health and substance abuse treatment, to look at mental health specifically for children, and to assess whether federal regulations or laws are obstacles to states’ and local communities’  efforts to provide mental health services.

The Harkin-Alexander bill is prominently mentioned as one likely to be added to the package of gun-related provisions headed for votes in the Senate.  Other mental health pieces are being introduced:  Senator Stabenow (D-MI) has sponsored the Excellence in Mental Health Act (S. 264), which would provide for federal certification of community behavioral health centers and make them eligible for Medicaid funding.

Advocates for improved mental health services want to see greater access to services, without demonizing the mentally ill.  Many advocates see these bills as important expansions, and hope that additional funding will be appropriated so that the new services can actually be implemented.

The post CHN: Expanded Mental Health Services May be Included in Gun Legislation 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.

On June 28, the Supreme Court made an historic decision: they upheld the individual mandate in the Affordable Care Act. This news came with a bitter pill for low-income advocates, however – that states now have the option to refuse to expand Medicaid to cover people with incomes up to 133 percent of the poverty line, choosing to forego federal funds provided to them for this purpose.

The Medicaid expansion is fully funded by ACA for its first three years (after which the federal match phases down to 90 percent by 2020). If a state chooses not to expand Medicaid however, many low-income people will remain uninsured. The Affordable Care Act was designed assuming that those individuals with incomes below the poverty line would be covered by Medicaid. Based on this assumption, Congress set the income eligibility range for subsidies aimed at helping people purchase coverage in insurance exchanges at 100 to 400 percent of the poverty line. If a state does not accept the Medicaid expansion, individuals living below the poverty line who are not now covered by their state’s Medicaid program will not be eligible for premium subsidies either.  The Congressional Budget Office estimates that because some states will refuse to expand Medicaid, 6 million people will not receive health coverage through that program.  Of these, CBO expects 3 million with incomes from 100 – 133 percent of the poverty line will get subsidized coverage through their state’s insurance exchange.  The remaining 3 million will fall into the “coverage gap” – left without any coverage at all. For further details, see this piece from Robert Greenstein at the Center for Budget and Policy Priorities and this blog post from the Center.

The expansion is a very favorable deal for states, and not only because it is almost fully federally funded. Hospitals also benefit from the expansion because they are ensured Medicaid payment for services that are not currently reimbursed. Essentially, for a small cost to states that would be partly offset by savings in uncompensated care, CBO had estimated that the Medicaid expansion with all states participating would cover an additional 17 million low-income people.

So why are so many states threatening not to take the Medicaid expansion? Governor Rick Perry of Texas, along with Republican governors from at least 10 other states, has announced that he will not expand Medicaid. Many advocates believe their opposition is based on partisan politics or ideology, although these governors claim that states would bear a financial burden by expanding Medicaid (see this color-coded map from ThinkProgress to see which way states are leaning).  The small proportion states would pay is expected to amount to a 2.8 percent increase over their Medicaid costs without the expansion, less the savings from reducing uncompensated care payments to hospitals (because more patients would have insurance).  To most anti-poverty advocates, accepting the expansion seems like a no-brainer for states because of the benefits it provides and the fact that is almost fully funded by the federal government. Health care providers who expected more insured patients through the ACA are already starting to exert pressure on states to accept the option.  How many states will refuse the expansion money is yet to be seen – while they decide, the coverage of millions of low-income Americans hangs in the balance.

The Supreme Court’s validation of most of the health care law does not change the fierce opposition to it among right-wing members of Congress.  The House of Representatives has taken more than 30 votes to repeal the law, all of which have been rebuffed by the Senate.  The House has also attempted to deny the funding required to implement the law, most recently by cutting about $8 billion from the Department of Health and Human Services in the appropriations bill that was approved by a House subcommittee (see Appropriations article, this issue).  The Senate and the President will prevent the law from being de-funded, but the partisan attacks on the law can be expected to continue.

The post CHN: Medicaid Expansion Favorable for States, Yet Some Still Refuse to Cooperate appeared first on Coalition on Human Needs.

H.R. 5652 combined the recommendations for cuts required of six different committees under the House-passed budget resolution.  There were no revenue increases and no tapping of farm subsidies, both strategies to share deficit reduction among people with high-incomes.  Instead, millions of low-income people would lose some or all of their SNAP/food stamp benefits, Medicaid coverage, Child Tax Credit, and/or social services.  In addition, 350,000 low- and middle-income people would go without health insurance because of restrictions placed on the new health care reform law.  Federal workers, already subject to two years of frozen pay, would see their earnings cut further by requiring them to pay a greater share of their retirement benefits.  (For a full description of low-income cuts in the bill, see the April 30 Human Needs Report).

The Sequester Replacement Act stops the military and other appropriations cuts scheduled for 2013, but allows the automatic cuts to Medicare to go forward.  It does not replace the remaining nine years of cuts required by the Budget Control Act.  The bill replaces an estimated $98 billion in FY 2013 cuts, but its reductions would total between $310 billion and $315 billion over ten years, depending on whether the legislation is assumed to be enacted in July or October of this year.  (See CBO estimate here). The bill passed the House on party lines, 218 – 199, with 1 voting present and 13 not voting (read more here).  No Democrats voted in favor; 16 Republicans voted no.

Democrats attempted to offer a substitute bill, but were rebuffed in the Rules Committee, which adopted a closed rule (no amendments or substitutes allowed on the floor).  Their alternative also only replaced one year of cuts (but replaced the Medicare and other mandatory cuts as well as the cuts to appropriations), and proposed revenue increases and an end to certain farm subsidies instead.  Revenue increases would come from limiting tax breaks for oil and gas companies ($38 billion over ten years) and applying a minimum tax on annual income over $1 million ($47 billion over ten years).  Ending direct payments to farms was estimated to produce a net $26.5 billion in savings over the next decade.  (For the CBO analysis of the Democratic substitute, click here).

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) was firm in announcing that he would allow the across-the-board cuts to take effect rather than adopt the House alternative.  That suggests, as many observers have surmised for some time, that replacing the Budget Control Act’s version of deficit reduction will be delayed, most likely until after the election.

The post CHN: House Votes to Replace 2013 Across-the-Board Cuts With Deep Slashes at Low-Income Programs appeared first on Coalition on Human Needs.

VAWA provides grants and programs that address the needs of victims of violence including specific population groups: women in the military, elderly women, women with disabilities, women of color, women living in rural communities, those on college campuses, runaway and homeless youth, and children who witness violence.  VAWA programs give police, prosecutors, and judges the tools they need to hold accountable perpetrators of domestic violence, dating violence, sexual assault and stalking.  It makes services available through grants to battered women’s shelters, rape crisis centers, community centers, transitional housing programs and services on tribal reservations.  VAWA funds provide mental health and legal services, job training for survivors, intervention, prevention, and recovery programs, and the National Domestic Violence Hotline.

Subsequent reauthorizations of VAWA strengthened protections.  In 2000 the main improvements related to law enforcement responses to domestic violence, enhanced education and training on issues related to violence against women, and services for certain populations of victims.  It also defined and addressed dating violence.  VAWA reauthorization in 2005 focused on victim assistance, especially the needs of victims of domestic violence and sexual assault.

The Senate’s Violence Against Women Reauthorization Act of 2011 (S. 1925) provides additional protection for three vulnerable groups who, according to the National Task Force to End Sexual and Domestic Violence Against Women, are currently underserved by the law: immigrants, Native Americans, and members of the lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) communities.

Abuse among immigrants often goes unreported due to fear of deportation, lack of understanding of the laws and legal system and visa dependence on the status of a spouse.  Immigrants married to a U.S. citizen or legal permanent resident often have their immigration status used as a tool by their abusers who either fail to file the necessary paperwork or threaten to withdraw their status.  “Self-petitioning” was created in the 1994 legislation so that immigrant victims could confidentially report crimes without fear of deportation.  In 2000 U-visas were created to provide special protections for undocumented immigrant victims of violence.  If victims cooperated with law enforcement on the prosecution of their perpetrator, they could apply for a U-visa allowing them to remain in the United Sates without depending on their spouse or partner to sponsor them.  Annually 10,000 U-visas may be granted.  Since 2007, a total of 5,000 U-visas went unused.  S. 1925 allows these to be used in upcoming years along with the annual allocation. The Senate bill also affirms that children of U-visa holders receive the same benefits as their parents.

Violence against Native American women has reached epidemic proportions and, according to the Census Bureau, 50 percent of all Native American married women have non-Indian husbands.  Federal law requires tribes to rely on federal or state officials to investigate cases involving domestic violence against a non-Indian perpetrator on tribal land; and in many cases, there is no investigation.  S. 1925 gives American Indian authorities limited power to prosecute non-Indians accused of abusing Indian women for crimes of domestic violence, dating violence, and violations of protection orders.  The defendant must reside or be employed in the Indian country or be the spouse or intimate partner of a member of the prosecuting tribe.

The Senate bill earmarks funds for community organizations that serve LGBT victims, prohibits discrimination against them by law enforcement and domestic violence shelters, and explicitly allows states to use federal money to help them.  VAWA protects victims of domestic violence, dating violence, sexual assault and stalking from eviction or denial of a housing benefit based on their status as victims or the actions of their perpetrators.  S. 1925 requires owners, managers and public housing authorities to relay these rights when serving eviction notices.

Previous authorizations of VAWA bills have been bi-partisan and most recently the 2005 reauthorization bill was unanimously supported.  This year however, some Republicans objected to the expansion of protections for LGBT victims, opposed granting more U-visas, and resisted giving Indian authorities the power to prosecute non-Indian abusers.  The Senate turned back a broad substitute amendment (37-62) sponsored by Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison (R-TX) that included new mandatory minimum sentences for sex crimes. After much partisan wrangling in the Senate, 15 Republicans joined all Democrats in supporting the bill passing it 61-38.

On May 8 the House Judiciary Committee marked up its bill, H.R. 4970, the Violence Against Women Reauthorization Act of 2012.  Advocates for victims of domestic violence and sexual assault have many concerns about the House bill. It eliminates confidentiality protections for victims that self-petition by requiring notification to the alleged abuser that his/her spouse has applied for a U-visa; it fails to recognize the authority of tribal courts to hold non-Indian perpetrators accountable; it has weak provisions that do not address the issues of the LGBT community; and it does not require owners, managers and public housing authorities to notify potential victims of their rights to avoid unlawful eviction. Furthermore, H.R. 4970 would require more VAWA resources to be diverted to pay for costly new audit requirements.

A number of Democratic amendments failed during committee consideration.  Among them, the committee rejected Representative Sheila Jackson Lee’s (D-TX) amendment that would have dropped language blocking U-visa recipients from gaining permanent residence.  It also turned back Delegate Pedro Pierluisi’s (D-P.R.) amendment adding 5,000 U-visas per year to the current 10,000 total.  The committee rejected Representative Zoe Lofgren’s (D-CA) amendment to replace the House bill immigrant language with that from the Senate bill.  The committee also rejected amendments to better serve the LGBT community and to strike the bill’s mandatory prison sentences for aggravated sexual assault convictions.  The bill passed the Judiciary Committee by a vote of 17-15 with Representative Ted Poe (R-TX) joining all Democrats in opposing it. The House bill is expected to be considered on the floor soon.

S. 1925 set an annual funding authorization level for VAWA programs of $659.5 million, a drop of $136.5 million from VAWA authorization in the 2005 bill.  However, appropriators have not provided full funding for VAWA; in fact, funds have steadily decreased over recent years.

The post CHN: Senate Passes Strong Violence Against Women Act; Weak Bill Advances in the House appeared first on Coalition on Human Needs.