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.

There is a sense of urgency among Congressional lawmakers and the Administration that they must enact legislation to address the looming mortgage crisis before leaving for the August recess.  Last month there were over 250,000 foreclosures nationwide adding to the 1.5 million families that have already lost their homes.  This follows a 17 percent drop in housing prices over the last year.  The housing bubble burst after an inflation-adjusted 70 percent increase in the price of homes from 2000 to 2006.  Home prices are still 30 percent above the 2000 level.

The House and Senate have been volleying a massive housing bill back and forth, the Foreclosure Prevention Act of 2008, H.R. 3221.  The bill passed the House in May and moved to the Senate where changes were made before the bill passed with bi-partisan support on July 11.  The bill is now back in the hands of the House.  A centerpiece of the bill is a $300 billion expansion of the Federal Housing Administration’s (FHA) program of loan insurance.

For borrowers at risk of foreclosure who cannot refinance their mortgages because the value of their home is now less than the mortgage, the bill provides an opportunity to renegotiate their loans if the lender voluntarily agrees.  It would allow FHA to insure and guarantee refinanced mortgages that have been restructured to a level that the borrower can reasonably be expected to pay.  The lender holding the initial mortgage would receive a cash payment from a FHA-approved lender of less than the original mortgage but more than they could collect from the borrower.  In exchange, lenders would be relieved of further risk from the mortgages and borrowers must share with the government any profit from the resale of a refinanced home.  The program is estimated to serve only 400,000 of the 3 million homeowners who will likely lose their homes in the next year.  The estimated $1.7 billion cost for this new program, named the HOPE for Homeowners Program, is based on the assumption that ultimately approximately one-third of the refinanced mortgages will result in foreclosure for a second time.

Other provisions in the bill returned by the Senate to the House include $3.9 billion in Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) funding to assist localities in buying and rehabilitating foreclosed homes that can be resold, a one-time refundable tax credit of up to $8000 for first-time homebuyers, and an additional standard federal income tax deduction for state and local property taxes.  The bill also calls for a new regulator with broad powers to set capital standards and limits on the mortgage portfolios of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

The bill has taken on a new sense of urgency amid recent concerns about Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, government sponsored enterprises (GSEs) – privately held corporations created and backed by the federal government to reduce the cost of borrowing.  Fannie and Freddie are investor-owned, for-profit companies.  While they hold higher quality loans versus those purchased in the subprime market, the two secondary mortgage giants hold nearly half of the nation’s $12 trillion mortgage debt in their portfolios and those mortgages are also deteriorating as housing values drop.  All the loans they held were under $417,000 for a single-family home until Congress temporarily raised the limit to $730,000 in certain high-cost areas when it passed the economic stimulus package in late winter.  One of the differences in the House and Senate versions of H.R. 3221 is the $625,000 limit in the Senate bill and the desire of the House to raise it to $730,000 in high-cost areas.

Rescuing Fannie and Freddie
In recent weeks financial markets began losing confidence in Fannie and Freddie and their stock began to plummet in the midst of the continuing housing slump and anxieties about the companies’ finances.  On July 13, Henry Paulson, Secretary of the Treasury Department, announced the Administration’s plan to keep the two financial institutions sound by increasing their line of credit and allowing the Treasury to buy stock in the companies.  The Administration’s plan would also give the Federal Reserve a supervisory role over the two GSEs along with the new regulator created in the legislation evolving in the House and Senate.

Congress must provide authority to the Treasury for its plan.  The Administration is asking Congress to fold its proposal into H.R. 3221.  There is concern among some in Congress that the plan places no cap on the size of the new line of credit nor on the amount of stock in the companies the government could buy.  Congressional leaders and the Administration will need to determine the cap on the credit and the limit on the amount of stock the government can purchase.  At the same time Fannie and Freddie, concerned that if the government owns stock in their companies it will tighten government regulation, insist on authority to sell sufficient stocks to the public and that the government offer to buy stock is a ‘backstop’ that will likely be unnecessary.

The viability of Fannie and Freddie is crucial to the financial health of the U.S. and there is widespread agreement that they must be shored up.  Anxieties remain, however, because ultimately it is taxpayers who will be exposed to huge additional risk if the GSEs are unable to be self-sustaining. 

Affordable Trust Fund Established
The bill also establishes a national affordable housing trust fund to construct, rehabilitate and preserve housing.  At least 90 percent of the funds must be used for rental housing, with at least 75 percent used to house people with income below 30 percent of the area median, and all of the funds would have to benefit people with incomes below 50 percent of area median income.  These provisions ensure that the fund focuses on the very lowest income households, who have the greatest housing affordability problems.

The housing trust fund is set up so that it can receive funding from multiple sources.  An initial source of funding identified in the bill is a fixed percentage of new business generated by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.  The first year 100 percent of the money would be diverted from the housing trust fund to pay for the HOPE for Homeowners Program discussed above.  The second year 75 percent and the third year 50 percent of the monies would be directed to the HOPE program.  Thereafter, all of the money will be placed in the affordable housing trust fund.

The House could act on H.R. 3221 as soon as this week, then quickly resolve differences with the Senate so the legislation could reach the President’s desk before the August recess.  Prior to the escalating concerns about Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the Administration threatened to veto H.R. 3221 if the $3.9 billion in CDBG funding remained in the bill.  The Administration’s overriding concerns regarding the need to move swiftly on legislation to shore up the GSEs are giving supporters of the CDBG funding confidence that money will remain in the bill.

The post CHN: Housing Legislation Imminent As Mortgage Crisis Deepens appeared first on Coalition on Human Needs.

Victories in adding funds for human needs programs. Two amendments were especially important. The Specter (R-PA)-Harkin (D-IA) amendment added $7 billion to the total funding for annually appropriated (“discretionary”) programs in FY 2007, with the assurance that those funds would be made available for education, health, and labor programs. Specter-Harkin passed 73-27 , showing widespread bipartisan rejection of the President’s cuts in these areas. The Reed (D-RI) amendment added $3.318 billion to the appropriations total for FY 2007, to be used to increase funding for the Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program (LIHEAP); it passed more narrowly, 51-49 .

Senators not only were willing to increase funding for important priorities; they soundly rejected attempts to make further cuts. An amendment proposed by Senator Inhofe (R-OK) would have frozen annually appropriated domestic programs at the FY 2006 level, starting in FY 2007 and continuing indefinitely, unless overturned by a two-thirds vote. This draconian proposal was rejected 35-62 .

Another unsuccessful amendment was an attempt to force the adoption of cuts in Medicare and other mandatory programs. Senators Cornyn (R-TX) and Graham (R-SC) co-sponsored an amendment to require the Senate Finance Committee to come up with $10 billion in cuts from FY 2008 through FY 2011. The expectation of the amendment was that at least half of these cuts would come from Medicare, although the Finance Committee could make the cuts from any program in its jurisdiction (including Medicaid, child welfare, child support, and Temporary Assistance for Needy Families). The amendment failed resoundingly, 43-57

The Cornyn-Graham amendment would have imposed a “reconciliation directive” on the Senate Finance Committee – forcing the Committee to produce legislation that would achieve $10 billion in cuts. The reconciliation legislation, like legislation adopted last year making substantial cuts in Medicaid and other programs, would be subject to limited debate in the Senate, and could therefore pass with a simple majority vote. The Senate rejected a replay of the painful debate around a reconciliation bill, except that it retained stand-alone reconciliation instructions intended to force the later approval of drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR), estimated to produce $3 billion in revenues.

A failed attempt to drop a provision limiting spending for mandatory programs. Senator Bingaman (D-NM) attempted to delete a provision in the Senate Budget Committee’s resolution that would require cuts in all mandatory programs (aka entitlements, such as Medicaid, Food Stamps, student loans, etc.) if more than 45 percent of Medicare’s costs were projected to be paid for out of general revenues. His amendment failed on a 50-50 tie, after Senator Coleman (R-MN) changed his vote from yes to no. Advocates objected to forcing cuts on a range of vital programs simply because more of Medicare’s costs were being paid for out of general revenues. Other sources of Medicare funding – the payroll tax and premiums or other fees for medical care – are borne far more by low- and middle-income people; general revenues are collected more according to ability to pay. This automatic trigger of spending cuts is a very one-sided approach to rising Medicare costs, leaving out solutions that might involve tax revenues.

A close vote on more evenhanded budgetary controls. Senator Conrad (D-ND) narrowly missed with an amendment to restore the Senate’s now defunct controls on new spending or new tax cuts – known as “Pay as You Go” or “Pay-Go.” These rules would require loss of revenue from tax cuts as well as the costs of increased spending to be paid for by other revenue increases or cuts in spending. Now, Congress requires new spending to be paid for by cuts in programs, but new tax cuts can be passed even though they will increase the deficit. Right wing members of Congress have been extremely insistent on continuing to pay for tax cuts with borrowed money. The Conrad amendment also failed on a 50-50 tie.

Medicare. Senator Snowe (R-ME) introduced a successful amendment to ensure that any savings that would occur if legislation is adopted to require the federal government to negotiate Medicare prescription drug prices goes either to deficit reduction or to improving the Medicare prescription drug program. The impact of this amendment is of course contingent on the passage of such legislation. The Snowe amendment passed 54-44 . Another provisional amendment successfully added was authored by Senator Grassley (R-IA), which provides a reserve fund to allow for deficit-neutral legislation to extend the enrollment period for the new Medicare prescription drug plan, should such legislation actually be adopted. That amended passed 76-22 .

Real Versus Suggested Restorations. The budget debate included a number of other amendments that purported to restore spending for certain purposes, but that did not increase total funding for annually appropriated programs. Without increasing the total, such amendments are just suggestions to the appropriators that, if followed, would require other programs to be cut still more deeply. The Specter-Harkin and Reed amendments, adding funds for education, labor, health, and energy assistance, added to the total funding available for FY 2007, and therefore are meaningful changes in the budget resolution. However, Specter-Harkin finds its funding by advancing appropriations from FY 2008, which deepens the funding hole for that year. Senator Specter acknowledged that this is a funding “gimmick” – but it is one that would prevent some cuts for the coming year and give advocates time to address the FY 2008 problems later.

Senator Specter defended his fight for more funding by recognizing that “health and education are the two major capital assets of this country.” The Senate budget still does not provide enough support for these essential assets. As Specter and Harkin acknowledged at a meeting with advocates before debate began on their amendment, the restoration of $7 billion would only bring the funding for education, health, labor, and social services back to their FY 2005 levels – not even adjusting for inflation. But some of the votes on the Senate floor were acknowledgements that Senators are getting the message from constituents that investments in such services are important, and that cuts are unpopular.

The post CHN: Senate Budget Resolution Squeaks Through, 51-49; Floor Action Rejects Some of the Cuts in Human Needs Services appeared first on Coalition on Human Needs.

Not everyone was satisfied with the level of funding for helping people in the Gulf Coast. Rep. Charlie Melancon (D-LA) offered an amendment that would increase the funds for levees by $260 million, which would have brought the funding to the level requested by the President. The House also rejected two amendments offered by Rep. William Jefferson (D-LA) that each would have increased the Community Development Block Grant funding for Gulf Coast recovery by about $2 billion dollars.

The bill also includes a LIHEAP provision sponsored by Rep. David Obey (D-WI) and added as an amendment during the House Appropriation Committee markup on March 8. The Obey provision would allow the $750 billion in LIHEAP funds provided for fiscal year 2007 in the recently enacted budget reconciliation bill to be used in either fiscal 2006 or fiscal 2007. The House rejected an amendment by Rep. Maurice Hinchey (D-NY) to require that all of the $750 million be spent in fiscal 2006, as well as an amendment by Rep. Michael Conway (R-TX) to strip the Obey provision.

The post CHN: House Passes Supplemental Spending Bill With Important Provisions for Gulf Coast, LIHEAP appeared first on Coalition on Human Needs.

The failure of the final conference agreement was a surprise to House leaders. All Democrats and 22 Republicans rejected the bill. Several Republican lawmakers voted no because their special projects had been eliminated. In addition, Democrats and some Republicans were concerned about cuts to rural health funding and education programs and the lack of increase for home energy assistance in the face of rising energy costs.

The bill includes $142.5 billion in discretionary funding, $329 million less than last year’s level. Several human needs services, such as mental health, child care, Title I education, workforce training and others are funded at levels not adjusted for inflation, or below last year’s level.

But the cuts contained in the legislation are not the end of the story. It is widely expected that Congress will approve an across-the-board cut, which would affect all discretionary programs (those that must be approved each year). The across-the-board cut, which could be in the neighborhood of one or two percent, would be attached to the only other unfinished appropriations bill — the one funding the Department of Defense. For an explanation of how such an across-the-board cut may harm human needs programs, see a recent Center on Budget and Policy Priorities report.

In coming days negotiators will try once again to come up with a final Labor-HHS-Education bill that can be approved on the House floor and Senate floor. But if House leadership is unable to round up the necessary votes, then appropriators will seek to attach the bill to the Department of Defense bill. The two bills joined together would be difficult for lawmakers to vote against.

For More Information

Conference report 109-300
Appropriations Committee Republican staff: Highlights of the bill  ***Page Not Found
Appropriations Committee Democratic staff: Democratic views of the bill  *** Page Not Found

The post CHN: Labor-HHS-Education Bill Must Clear One Last Hurdle appeared first on Coalition on Human Needs.

The difference between those two bills must be ironed out in the next few days. The final bill that emerges from the conference committee will be voted on in each chamber. The reconciliation bill represents the top priority for right-wing members – yet many representatives and senators have voiced concerns over a wide variety of provisions under consideration. It is not yet clear Republican leadership will find enough votes to pass any final bill. House Speaker Dennis Hastert (R-IL) has threatened to keep the House in session until December 20 or later until the House agrees to the budget cuts.

Although right-wing members claim the cuts are necessary to reduce the deficit, any money “saved” from cutting services is being directed to pay for new tax cuts benefiting the wealthy. In fact the coupling of two reconciliation bills – one cutting services and one cutting tax cuts – actually increase the deficit. For more information about the tax cuts, see related article in this issue.

To combat the budget cuts, low-income advocates are planning a National Week of Prayer and Action for Compassionate Priorities for December 12-16. Advocates are being encouraged to call their representatives and senators next week and the Emergency Campaign for America’s Priorities is staging more than 90 events across the country. The faith-based organization Sojourners will hold a prayer vigil at the U.S. Capitol on December 14. Dozens of other prayer vigils will be held elsewhere in the country that week.

There are stark differences between the House and Senate versions of the budget-cutting bill – and those differences could trip up negotiators. If Congress is not able to approve the final bill before the end of the year, they could attempt to bring it up again in January. The budget resolution for fiscal year 2006, which Congress approved in the spring and which granted authority for the reconciliation bill, will remain in effect until Congress passes the next budget resolution for fiscal year 2007.

The Senate budget cutting bill (S. 1932) was approved November 3 by a vote of 52 to 47 with all Democrats except Mary Landrieu (LA) and Ben Nelson (NE) opposed. All Republican senators but five voted for the cuts. The House budget-cutting bill (H.R. 4241) was approved November 18 with all Democrats opposed and all but 14 Republicans in favor.

Here is a brief summary of what is in the House and Senate bills. (This list is not comprehensive.)

Medicaid: The Senate would cut Medicaid by about $6.1 billion over the next five years – but the burden of those cuts would be borne by the drug and insurance industry. H.R. 4241, on the other hand, would cut $11.4 billion from Medicaid and would allow states to require poor mothers and children to pay more for their health care. A family of three earning $18,000 a year could face total Medicaid charges of as much as $900 per year. The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimates 80 percent of the savings generated from these changes will come from people not getting care because they can’t afford it. The CBO estimates 100,000 people will lose Medicaid altogether. Senator Gordon Smith (R-OR) pledges to oppose any Medicaid cuts that harm beneficiaries.

Food Stamps: The Senate chose not to cut Food Stamps. The House bill denies Food Stamps to at least 255,000 people . At least 185,000 low-income working families with children will lose assistance, plus 70,000 legal immigrants who have been in this country for five years or more. Several Republican senators signed a letter urging rejection of Food Stamp cuts in final bill: Gordon Smith, Mike DeWine (OH), Richard Lugar (IN), Susan Collins (ME), Arlen Specter (PA), Chuck Hagel (NE), Rick Santorum (PA), Olympia Snowe (ME), Jim Talent (MO), Norm Coleman (MN), Lincoln Chafee (RI), Elizabeth Dole (NC), and Charles Grassley (IA).

Child Support: The House bill cuts $5 billion from child support enforcement. As a result of this cut, children in families owed child support by an absent parent will lose $24 billion in support over ten years. The Senate bill does not cut child support enforcement. Forty senators have signed a letter objecting to cuts to child support enforcement.

Aid to Disabled: H.R. 4241 cuts $730 million from Supplemental Security Income (SSI). Poor people with severe disabilities will have to wait longer to receive the aid the federal government owes them. It often takes months or a year for a disabled person to be approved for SSI. Now he or she gets a lump sum payment that can help pay back rent or other bills for the period when no money was coming in. The House bill would spread out the owed benefits over many months – and if the disabled person dies while waiting, the government gets to keep the money. The Senate bill does not cut SSI.

TANF/Welfare Reform: The House bill requires many more families to participate for longer hours in paid or unpaid work. The bill provides an inadequate $500 million in new child care funds – half of what previous House bills proposed. As a result, 330,000 fewer children will receive child care help. The bill makes it harder for poor parents to get education, training, rehabilitation or other services to enable them to work at decent pay. S. 1932 does not include TANF provisions. Welfare advocates have been asking senators to object to including TANF in a reconciliation bill. Six Republican senators have signed a letter being circulated by Olympia Snowe (ME) asking Majority Leader Bill Frist (TN) to ensure TANF stays out of a final bill. Signers include: Senators DeWine, Chafee, Coleman, Specter, and Collins.

Foster Care: The House bill cuts $600 million from programs for abused and neglected children. The bill limits eligibility for federal foster care payments for grandparents taking care of their grandchildren. The Senate bill does not make cuts to child welfare programs.

LIHEAP: The House bill includes a $1 billion increase for home energy assistance for low-income households. Acknowledging predictions of sky-high heating oil and electricity costs this winter, Republican leaders added LIHEAP money as a sweetener to the bill to attract Northeastern and Midwestern moderates. The Senate bill does not include additional LIHEAP funds.

Arctic Drilling: The Senate bill would open the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to drilling; the House bill does not. To many observers, drilling in the Arctic will be a lynchpin issue in the negotiations. A group of House moderates vow to defeat any bill that includes arctic drilling but Senator Ted Stevens (R-AK) has said he would vote against a bill that does not include drilling.

For More Information

CHN: TANF Has No Place in Reconciliation   *** Page Not Found
CBPP: Judging the Outcome of House-Senate Negotiations
CHN alert on next week’s activities

The post CHN: House and Senate to Attempt Passing a Final Bill Cutting Aid to Poor appeared first on Coalition on Human Needs.

Lawmakers have yet to agree on the bill that funds the Departments of Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education (H.R. 3010). Typically the Labor-HHS-Ed bill is the most contentious. Disagreements remain over funding for the Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program (LIHEAP) and preparations for avian flu. The House version contains $2.4 billion for LIHEAP; the Senate bill has $2.2 billion. Because of sharply rising energy prices, pressure is growing to increase LIHEAP funds closer to the authorized level of $5.1 billion. The House spending reconciliation bill included a $1 billion increase in LIHEAP funding over the current year (to $3.16 billion).

Labor-HHS-Ed negotiators have agreed to a total discretionary level of $142.5 billion, which is $329 million less than fiscal 2005. Many human needs programs such as child care, Head Start, Title I education for low-income students, workforce training, mental health services and many others are funded through this bill. Many of these programs are funded either at last year’s levels or lower.

Other appropriations bills not yet passed include Defense, Military Construction and Veteran’s Affairs, and the Treasury, Transportation, and Housing bill (H.R. 3058). Several cuts to housing proposed by the President in his budget were rejected by the House and Senate. One victory in particular is the bi-chamber support of the Community Development Block Grant program. The President’s budget eliminated CDBG but the House bill provides $4.2 billion and the Senate provides $4.3 billion. (The fiscal 2005 level was $4.671 billion.)

An across-the-board cut that hits all domestic discretionary programs remains a possibility. Such a cut could be tacked onto any of the remaining appropriations bills and could affect even those appropriations bills already approved by Congress. End of the year across-the-board cuts are becoming standard operating procedure for appropriators. In 2003 the across-the-board cut was 0.65%, in 2004 it was 0.59% and in 2005 it was 0.8%. Across-the-board cuts mean that programs described as “flat-funded” are actually shrinking – even before taking inflation into account.

The post CHN: Appropriations Bills Moving Towards Completion; Across-the-Board Cuts Threatened appeared first on Coalition on Human Needs.

The discretionary level for fiscal 2006 is $164 million (0.1 percent) less than for fiscal 2005. In June the House passed its Labor-HHS spending bill, which also provided $142.5 billion in discretionary spending.

Several amendments were offered on the floor of the Senate to increase funding for services for low-income families, but the amendments failed.

Many services aimed at low-income families will receive the same or less funding as last fiscal year. Due to inflation and a series of across-the-board cuts in the last several years, many programs are funded at levels far below their 1990s’ levels.

Senators rejected several amendments that would have boosted spending for programs serving low-income individuals. An amendment sponsored by Sen. Jack Reed (D-RI) to increase spending for the Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program (LIHEAP) by $2.9 billion (bringing funding up to $5.1 billion) was defeated 54 to 43. The LIHEAP Coalition predicts dramatic increases in home heating expenses this winter.

Senators also defeated a proposal by Sen. Robert Byrd (D-WV) to add an additional $5 billion to Title I, which provides federal funds to low-income schools. The No Child Left Behind Act authorized Congress to provide $22.8 billion to Title I programs in fiscal 2006 – but the bill approved Thursday provides just $12.8 billion.

Funding for Head Start is $6.9 billion in the Senate bill, an increase of just $31 million over fiscal 2005 and not enough to cover inflation. The Senate defeated an amendment sponsored by Sen. Chris Dodd (D-CT) that would have boosted Head Start funding by an additional $153 million.

Sen. Hillary Clinton (D-NY) offered an amendment to increase spending on education for children with disabilities by $4 billion. The Senate’s bill provides $10.7 billion for Individuals with Disabilities Education Act , $100 million more than last year but far below the amount promised in the legislation authorizing the program.

By voice vote the Senate approved an amendment offered by Sen. John Sununu (R-NH) increasing funding to community health centers by $198.5 million. The Senate also accepted an amendment to increase spending to develop an avian flu vaccine.

The total discretionary level of the bill would have been $3 billion higher were it not for some accounting maneuvers by Sen. Arlen Specter (R-PA). The Senator shifted mandatory Supplemental Security Income (SSI) payments by a few days from fiscal 2006 to fiscal 2007. Advocates for the poor elderly and disabled who depend on SSI caution that recipients depend on receiving their benefits on a timetable and may not be able to easily adjust to a late benefit check. Sen. Specter used this same accounting measure last year, but it did not survive conference with the House.

A conference committee with the House is the next step for the bill. Conservatives in the House have been clamoring for across-the-board cuts that will affect all discretionary spending, including programs funded in this bill. Currently only three of twelve fiscal 2006 appropriations bills have been signed into law; most federal agencies are operating under a continuing resolution that is due to expire November 18.

The post CHN: Senate Approves Labor-HHS-Education Spending Bill appeared first on Coalition on Human Needs.

Actions by the House were part of their goal to trim $50 billion from entitlement programs – programs such as Medicaid and Food Stamps that are automatically funded. The budget resolution for 2006 passed earlier this spring directed several House committees to cut $35 billion from programs under their jurisdiction as part of a budget reconciliation process. This week conservatives attempted to take a non-binding vote to increase cuts to entitlement programs from $35 billion to $50 billion, to eliminate a list of programs, and to impose across-the-board cuts on others. But Republican leadership lacked the votes to pass the measure, in large part because of an outpouring of opposition from constituents. However, even without a formal vote of the House, committees can go ahead and cut more deeply than originally required. And they proceeded to do so through the week of October 24.

Once committee action is concluded, the next step is for the committee bills to be packaged together and approved by the House budget committee next week (possibly November 3). The unified budget reconciliation bill is expected to be sent to the floor for a vote the week of November 7. Here is how the cuts were made:

MEDICAID – House Energy and Commerce Committee

Early Friday morning the House Energy and Commerce Committee approved a bill that cut $9.5 billion from Medicaid over the next five years. The bill changes Medicaid to make children, families, elders, and people with disabilities pay more and/or receive less. Those with incomes at or above the poverty level will for the first time be subject to pay for premiums if states choose to impose them. Unlike the Senate, the House did not consider cutting Medicare, although Chairman Joe Barton (R-TX) indicated that cuts to Medicare may occur in conference with the Senate.

•  Except for children in families below the poverty line, pregnant women and a few others, the committee gave states the option to require Medicaid recipients to pay towards the cost of medical and prescription drug costs, up to 5 percent of their income. States will also gain the authority to restrict the Medicaid benefits package for some beneficiaries.

•  The bill imposes many restrictions related to people transferring assets in order to qualify for Medicaid nursing home care, some of which may exclude people who are not sheltering assets.

•  The bill provides 100 percent federal Medicaid matching payments to states for persons living in areas affected by the hurricanes.

FOSTER CARE – House Ways and Means Committee

While the budget resolution passed by Congress last May directed this committee to cut $1 billion, Chairman Thomas (R-CA) is complying with a House leadership push to cut far more – about $8 billion, the majority affecting low-income children, elders, and people with disabilities.

•  Certain poor grandparents or other relatives caring for their relative’s children are the targets for the Ways and Means cuts. If those children are living with their poor relatives because they were removed from their parents’ home, a federal appeals court ruled that their relative caregivers’ low income should qualify them for federal foster care assistance. The Ways and Means cut would overturn this ruling by requiring the child’s eligibility to be based on the financial circumstances of their parents when they were living with them (even though that’s not where the child now resides).

•  The bill also would limit foster care assistance to relatives by imposing strict licensing requirements on a fast timetable – those who couldn’t comply would lose support.

•  Together, these cuts would amount to about $600 million over 5 years. The impact on families: in the nine states under the appeals court’s ruling (including California and other western states), some states may replace foster care assistance with smaller TANF payments. Other states may pick up all the foster care costs. The twin restrictions on relative care will result in some children being separated from their family members and placed in other foster care homes – a further disruption in the children’s lives.

SSI – House Ways and Means Committee

The House Ways and Means proposal would cut $730 million over 5 years by making poor seniors or people with disabilities wait longer for the Supplemental Security Income (SSI) payments they are owed. In effect, the federal government would force poor elderly and/or sick people to lend it money that will be used to pay for tax cuts for the well-heeled.

•  SSI typically takes many months to approve new cases while applicants hang on, piling up bills with little or no other income coming in. Once approved, people now can receive a lump sum payment of up to 12 months of back benefits, helping them to pay off debt. The new proposal would only allow a lump sum of up to 3 months, with the rest paid out in installments.

•  Part of the savings to the federal government will occur because some people will die and never receive the remainder they are owed. (In contrast to the proposal to eliminate the estate tax for the richest 1 percent of estates, poor SSI recipients would in death be taxed at 100 percent of their still-owed benefits.)

•  Ironically, another Ways and Means proposal would increase the reviews of SSI applications, further delaying approval and increasing the amount that would be owed.

CHILD SUPPORT – House Ways and Means Committee

Child support payments lifted one million children out of poverty in 2002 and encourages work among single parents by providing an essential supplement to earnings. Every dollar invested in child support enforcement results in $4.38 in collections. Nearly $22 billion was collected in 2004 at a total cost of $5.3 billion. The Ways and Means bill cuts child support enforcement by nearly $5 billion over 5 years by steadily reducing the federal share of the costs.

•  According to an estimate by the Congressional Budget Office, slashing this much from enforcement efforts will mean a 5-year loss of $7.9 billion in collections that would otherwise have gone to support low-income children. Over 10 years, the loss to children in single-parent families is estimated at $24.1 billion.

•  The rationale for cutting is that the 66 percent federal share of enforcement costs (the rest paid by states) is higher than the match rates paid in other programs such as TANF or Medicaid. That is not uniformly true – the federal share of TANF and Medicaid costs can reach up to 80 percent. The current child support enforcement cost is a good deal for the federal government, because greater collections have saved billions in public assistance payments.

WELFARE and CHILD CARE- House Ways and Means Committee

The Ways and Means bill includes legislation to reauthorize Temporary Assistance for Needy Families and the child care block grant. The bill does not cover even the inflation costs of child care, much less the increased demands from the bill’s harsher work rules. That means in 2010 270,000 fewer children will receive child care assistance than in 2004.

•  The bill claims to add a net $1 billion in TANF spending over 5 years. In reality, no money is added over current expenditures. The bill continues the $319 billion a year in existing supplemental grants to low-income states which are counted misleadingly as new money.

•  The real new spending in the bill – a meager $500 million over 5 years for child care and $1 billion for marriage promotion activities – is paid for by eliminating current bonuses to states for high performance in job placement, retention, earnings, families’ access to certain support services, and reduction of out of wedlock births.

•  Earlier versions of the House TANF bill included double the new child care funding (still inadequate) and reduced but did not eliminate the bonus for states’ welfare to work high performance. Even though the bill effectively reduces the resources states will have to help parents find and keep jobs, the bill ratchets up the work requirements – rising to 70 percent of the caseload required to work 40 hours a week while receiving assistance, while reducing access to vocational education and other services that would help parents leave assistance for work at real jobs with decent pay.

FOOD STAMPS – House Agriculture

The House Agriculture Committee began to mark up its bill on Friday, October 28. Chairman Bob Goodlatte’s (R-VA) bill cuts $884 million from Food Stamps . In total, the committee plans to cut $3.7 billion from all agriculture programs – more than the $3 billion they were instructed to cut by the budget resolution.

•  The committee goes farther than President Bush’s proposed plans for Food Stamp cuts. The President proposed that 7 percent of the Agriculture Committee cuts come from Food Stamps. In contrast, under Chairman Goodlatte’s bill, Food Stamps bear 25 percent of the total cuts to the Agriculture Committee.

•  The Committee’s bill goes along with a cut proposed by the Bush Administration that the Congressional Budget Office now estimates would exclude an estimated 225,000 people from the Food Stamp Program – mostly low-income families trying to make the transition to work.

•  In addition, the bill will make legal immigrants ineligible for food stamps for seven years after entering this country legally, regardless of how poor they are. (Current law allows legal immigrants to receive food stamps after five years.) This change is expected to cut off benefits to an estimated 70,000 legal immigrants in an average month.

•  The House Agriculture Committee took an approach dramatically different from its Senate counterpart. Senators found the need for Food Stamps so compelling that they rejected all cuts to the program. They were right – Food Stamps is an effective program that serves 25 million low-income Americans, including 13 million children, providing for basic nutrition at an average cost of less than $1 per meal.

STUDENT LOANS – House Education and Workforce

The House Education and Workforce Committee approved legislation to cut $15 billion from student loans. Student groups estimate the cuts will result in an average increase of $3,800 in students’ loan payments.

The post CHN: House Committees Slash Medicaid, Child Support, SSI, and Foster Care; Reduce Planned Increases for Child Care, Welfare Programs appeared first on Coalition on Human Needs.

Not content with cutting mandatory programs such as Medicaid and Food Stamps by $35 billion (see story this issue), Congress is contemplating going after programs that are funded annually, also called discretionary programs. A two percent cut from all federal agencies and their discretionary programs, including defense and homeland security, would amount to a $16 billion loss in funding for fiscal year 2006.

House Budget Committee Chairman Jim Nussle (R-IA) said he supports a 2 percent across-the-board cut, but the appropriators who oversee defense and homeland security spending are unlikely to support cuts to defense. If Congress decides to hold homeland security and defense programs harmless from a sweeping cut, the domestic programs may be cut even more steeply.

In addition, the President is encouraging Congress to look more closely at the 150 programs his budget proposed eliminating, freezing or cutting in order to cut spending. Some of these programs are: Even Start, vocational education state grants, tech prep state grants, Upward Bound, Early Learning Opportunities Fund and universal newborn hearing and screening. A full list can be found on pages 17 and 18 of the PDF document “Major Savings and Reforms in the President’s 2006 budget”: http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/fy2006/pdf/savings.pdf

Although the fiscal year began October 1, Congress has finalized funding only for the Department of the Interior and for itself (as part of the legislative branch bill). The House has approved all of its appropriations bills but because the Senate has not finished its work, ten other bills that fund the rest of the government have not yet been approved in final form.

In order to keep the government running, Congress approved a continuing resolution (CR) that will last until November 18. (See September 30 Human Needs Report .) The CR already contains many cuts to human needs programs. For any appropriations bills not completed before November 18, Congress will have to approve another CR.

An across-the-board cut could be made at any time and could affect even those programs for which the funding was already approved by Congress. If, for example, the final housing appropriations bill is approved before November 18, Congress could later put into effect an across-the-board cut making rescissions to housing programs.

The total level of discretionary spending for fiscal year 2006 approved by Congress in the budget resolution is already lower than last year’s level. An additional across-the-board cut of 2 percent would translate into unprecedented cuts to domestic spending.

The post CHN: Low-Income Programs Threatened with Across-the-Board Cuts appeared first on Coalition on Human Needs.