On July 31, The House Budget Committee held a hearing anticipating the 50 year anniversary of the War on Poverty – the beginnings of Head Start, college prep programs, Work Study, and other programs for youth, and community action programs to seek community-wide economic development.  Food Stamps, Medicaid, and Medicare were also enacted in the mid-1960s.  Chairman Ryan (R-WI) framed the hearing in this way:  over the past 50 years, we’ve spent $15 trillion on anti-poverty programs.  But now 15 percent of our people are poor – 46 million people.  So evidently these programs have not worked.

In his opening statement, Chairman Ryan said “This isn’t about cutting spending.  This is about improving people’s lives.”  But some of the Committee members, including Ranking member Chris Van Hollen (D-MD), pointed out that Chairman Ryan’s budget (passed by the House) made extreme cuts in most anti-poverty programs.  Medicaid (not even counting the cuts proposed to eliminate the new health care law), was cut by $810 billion over 10 years, and the full Medicaid cut (including de-funding the health care law) would leave 40-50 million more poor-moderate income people uninsured.  SNAP/food stamps was cut by $135 billion over 10 years, resulting in millions of people losing food.  Cuts in domestic appropriations would leave them at their lowest share of the economy since before the War on Poverty’s start in 1964.

While Chairman Ryan’s track record suggests his enthusiasm for cutting spending on anti-poverty programs, his witnesses at the hearing did not for the most part propose cuts.  Witnesses including Jon Baron of the Coalition for Evidence-Based Policy and Douglas Besharov of the U. of Maryland’s School of Public Policy emphasized that we should be learning from what does and does not work, and re-directing funding towards improving programs.  Mr. Baron cited research that indicated the cognitive gains made by Head Start participants was short-lived, but then added that further research shows that some Head Start programs are more effective than others; he favored applying those lessons.

Professor Besharov also disagreed with the hearing’s main premise – that poverty hadn’t declined as a result of the War on Poverty.  He pointed out that major improvements in anti-poverty programs over the past decades have expanded food stamps, low-income tax credits, Medicaid and other programs that do not count in the official poverty measure.  By his calculation, when taking those expansions into account, poverty has really declined to 7.2 percent.

Opinions differ substantially among anti-poverty advocates as to how to measure poverty and hardship today (and many believe Besharov’s estimate is too low), but there is considerable agreement that the current measure is inadequate.  The Supplemental Poverty Measure has been developed by the U.S. Census Bureau as an experimental tool to take more income and expenditures into account in assessing the extent of poverty.  It shows fewer families with young children would be defined as poor and more seniors would be, after counting the benefits of SNAP and tax credits (helpful to families with children) and the costs of medical care (a hardship for a greater proportion of older people).

The thrust of recent analyses differ with the contention that anti-poverty programs have not worked, while still pointing out that poverty remains a problem in this country that must be addressed.  Sr. Simone Campbell, Executive Director of NETWORK, a National Catholic Social Justice Lobby, was the sole witness selected by Democrats on the Committee.  She described NETWORK’s “Nuns on the Bus” tours of many states, in which she met families with parents working at low wages, unable to make ends meet, other parents grappling with multiple problems including violence, depression, substance abuse and homelessness, and another woman who died of cancer for lack of health insurance.  She cited the value of SNAP and Medicaid expansions in these families’ lives, and made a strong case for raising the minimum wage and other work supports for low-wage workers.

The Coalition on Human Needs’ Executive Director Deborah Weinstein submitted written testimony at the request of Committee member Barbara Lee (D-CA).  She pointed out that even using just the official       poverty measure, poverty declined from 22.2 percent in 1960 to 11.1 percent in 1973.  Many factors contributed to cutting the poverty rate in half during that period, including more seniors benefiting from Social Security in their retirement (from 1965 to 1973, poverty among those 65 or older dropped by 43 percent).  Unemployment was generally low, and there were more manufacturing jobs with better (often union) pay.  Since 1973, erosion in the number of good-paying jobs and widening inequality has resulted in lost ground in wages and increased poverty.  But broadly shared economic growth has always been prompted by government actions – such as the building of the interstate highway system starting in the 1950s, increased funding for medical research and education, and worker protections such as raising the minimum wage.  Further progress in reducing poverty, especially in an era when corporations are not sharing their record-high profits through increased hiring or wages, will require more government investments, paid for in part by asking corporations and wealthy individuals to pay more of their share.

The hearing was an attempt to seize the terms of a national discussion about poverty expected as we head towards the January 2014 50-year anniversary of the War on Poverty.  But if the goal was to demonstrate that anti-poverty programs have not worked and were not worth the expenditure (about 12 percent of all government spending in the last 50 years, according to the Washington Post’s The Fact Checker column), the majority’s witnesses for the most part did not agree.

(For an excellent report on the hearing, see Greg Kaufmann’s This Week in Poverty blog for The Nation:  Chairman Ryan and the Real World.)        

The post War on Poverty Hearing in the House: Chairman Ryan’s Budget Committee Witnesses Don’t Quite Toe His Line appeared first on Coalition on Human Needs.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Farm Bill in the Senate

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

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

SNAP-related Amendments to the Senate Farm Bill

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Farm Bill in the House

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

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

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

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

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

The House bill does include some reinvestments, including:

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

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

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

Following the lead of the House-passed Budget Resolution, the Appropriations Committee divided up $967 billion in funding on May 21, making the assumption that a second year of cuts will take place.  While the deficit reduction legislation that mandated sequestration does call for this total, the House violates the law by ignoring the required subtotals for defense and non-defense spending.  The House committee approved $512.5 billion for defense, or about $15 billion more than the deficit reduction law allows in FY 2014.  The House committee also cuts $20.6 billion more than the law calls for in all the other programs subject to the sequester cuts.

The funding levels provided to each of the Appropriations subcommittees (called the “302(b) allocations”) make it possible for them to report out bills.  The first approved by the full House Appropriations Committee on May 21 was for Military Construction-Veterans’ Affairs.  This non-controversial bill is one of the few that receives more funding for FY 2014 than it got this year – a 3.4 percent increase, even assuming the lower sequestration total.

The House Appropriations Committee’s priorities are clearly with the military, veterans and homeland security – these are the only areas that get increases over current spending.  In marked contrast, the appropriations bill for the Departments of Labor, Health and Human Services and Education will be cut 18.6 percent below this year’s levels.  The Transportation-Housing and Urban Development spending bill will be cut 9 percent.  Interior-Environment spending will be cut 14 percent, and Energy-Water will be reduced by 11.2 percent.  Financial Services, which includes funding to implement the Dodd-Frank legislation for regulation and consumer protection related to the finance industry, is cut 14.6 percent.  (See the House allocations for each Appropriations subcommittee. See this table for more information on 302(b) subcommittee allocations, compiled by Democratic Staff of the House Committee on Appropriations.)

This year’s sequestration amounts to an approximately 5 percent cuts to domestic programs that are not exempt.  These reductions have resulted in early closings and cancelled summer programs in Head Start, followed by announcements around the country that classes will be shut down and enrollments reduced in the fall.  If a cut well over three times this size were inflicted in FY 2014, many more children would be denied Head Start.  Similarly, if cuts to meals for seniors were more than tripled, programs that are now reducing the number of days they deliver meals or closing dining rooms would have to make drastic additional reductions.  Rental housing voucher cutbacks so far have meant no new vouchers are available in many jurisdictions.  If these cuts were multiplied, housing authorities would be unable to avoid taking away vouchers that now keep people from becoming homeless.    (For more information about this year’s sequestration cuts, click here.)

Appropriations bills do not become law until final versions are negotiated between the House and Senate.  That will be harder than ever for FY 2014.  The House and Senate have not agreed on a total figure for appropriations – a key decision point in budget resolutions.  In contrast to the House budget’s $967 billion total, the Senate’s budget calls for $1.058 trillion, based on the assumption that the additional sequestration cuts will not occur.  (The Senate budget makes up well over $1 trillion in deficit reduction through FY 2021 by a combination of revenue increases and savings in areas mainly including Medicare, farm supports, the Pentagon, and some additional domestic appropriations cuts). The Senate budget resolution specifies that defense spending will total $552 billion in FY 2014, and domestic/international funding will add up to $506 billion.

The Senate Appropriations Committee has not yet divided up these totals into its own 302(b) allocations, but expects to do so during the week of June 17, when it also expects to take up the Military Construction-Veterans Affairs appropriations bill.  But its higher total means that there will be substantial differences between the House and Senate on most appropriations bills.  In the absence of an agreement between the two bodies, the deficit reduction law now in place will require the lower total of the House, but will also require the House to cut about $15 billion from its recommended funding for defense.

Neither House nor Senate appropriators are enthusiastic about this looming result.  Chairman Hal Rogers of the House Appropriations Committee called for “…a budget compromise that will undo the damaging sequestration law and give us a single, common top-line allocation with the Senate” when his committee passed its appropriations allocations on May 21.  Chairwoman Barbara Mikulski of the Senate Appropriations Committee is insisting on passing appropriations bills that are not subject to continuing sequestration cuts.  But, while appropriators are trying to pass separate spending bills according to “regular order,” it is easy to imagine that as the beginning of the new fiscal year approaches (October 1), threats of government shutdown will intensify in the face of seeming inability to bridge the wide differences.

Rearranging the Deck Chairs.  As reports of harmful sequestration cuts accumulate, some Senators are looking for a way out.  Some are seeking increased flexibility for federal agencies to determine how to make the required cuts, to get out from under the across-the-board equal percentage cuts the law calls for.  Senator Richard Shelby (R-AL), the ranking (senior) Republican on the Senate Appropriations Committee, has a proposal to allow agencies to move a limited amount of funding around among accounts.  Senators Susan Collins (R-ME) and Pat Toomey (R-PA) have similar proposals, with agency decisions to alter the automatic cuts subject to review by Congress.  Other bills, such as a plan being developed by Senators Inhofe (R-OK), Toomey and Manchin (D-WV), would require the President to submit an alternative set of cuts, which could be rejected by Congress.  All these plans would substitute different cuts in appropriations for the ones now in place.  Advocates for human needs programs are quite concerned that this might spare some programs, but could easily lead to even more damaging cuts to programs that are less popular or known, but that provide important services to vulnerable people.  Without revenues from fair sources and long-term savings from the Pentagon, key players such as Senate Budget Committee Chair Patty Murray (D-WA) believe that human needs program cuts cannot be successfully replaced.

The post CHN: House Appropriations Committee Sets Funding Levels for FY 2014: Domestic Programs Slashed While Pentagon is Protected appeared first on Coalition on Human Needs.

Rep. Roby is quoted in The Huffington Post as saying, “This is about helping working moms and dads, providing the ability to commit time at home.” She and other Congressional Republicans have led a PR campaign touting the bill as worker- and family-friendly, but workers’ rights advocates and Democrats in Congress hold a different view.

Progressive advocates believe that H.R. 1406 is a “smoke-and-mirrors” measure that cuts workers’  pay  while giving them paid time off without the guarantee of when or how they can use it. The bill allows accrual of up to 160 hours of paid time off in a year. At year’s end, workers would be paid in cash for their unused comp time, but employers could defer payment of this sum for up to 13 weeks. Many advocates call this an interest-free loan for the company.

In another twist, there is alarm that the bill could help eliminate of the concept of paid leave time altogether. Political Director for the United Electrical, Radio & Machine Workers of America Union Chris Townsend told The Huffington Post that he worries that employers could ask their employees to “earn” their paid time off instead of automatically offering them a package of two weeks of vacation time plus sick days.

This letter from the National Partnership for Women and Families, signed by 163 organizations from across the nation, denounces H.R. 1406 for its false promises. William Samuel, Director of Government Affairs at AFL-CIO (one of the signing organizations), says “The AFL-CIO is vehemently opposed to the so-called Working Families Flexibility Act, which would amend the Fair Labor Standards Act to allow employer-controlled compensatory time off to be substituted for paid overtime,” as quoted in CQ. “We urge you to vote against this legislation.”

From service groups to union leaders, the progressive community opposes this bill, which would actually encourage employers to request overtime work from employees by providing a cheaper alternative to paid overtime. Neither is H.R. 1406 a good alternative for low-wage workers because it reduces their take-home pay, money which many low-income families rely on to make ends meet.

A Statement of Administration Policy released Monday announced that President Obama’s senior advisors would recommend he veto H.R. 1406 if it came to his desk. There is little chance that will ever come to pass, however. Passage of the bill in the Democratic-controlled Senate looks highly dubious, as Democrats are almost unanimously opposed to the measure and have defeated similar bills twice in the past. Still, Republicans may seek to bring the bill to a vote in the Senate.

The post CHN: New Legislation Gives Working Families a Pay Cut, Not Increased Flexibility appeared first on Coalition on Human Needs.

Certain ‘triggers’ related to border security must be met before immigrants can start to be admitted to RPI status or be allowed into LPR status after 10 years.  The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) must submit to Congress a Comprehensive Southern Border Security Strategy and a Southern Border Fencing Strategy within 180 days after the bill is enacted into law.  The goals of the plans include greater surveillance in areas where more immigrants have attempted to enter the country, a 90 percent apprehension rate of those who try to enter the country without permission at these ‘high risk sectors’, and implementation of an electronic employment eligibility verification system (E-Verify).  The bill appropriates $4.5 billion for additional surveillance equipment, fencing, and funding for border agents.  This expenditure would occur when staffing on the border is already at a record high number and migration from Mexico has dropped precipitously.  DHS Secretary Napolitano said during an April 23 hearing that additional fencing does not make sense.  The money would come from fees paid by various visa holders and employers.  Advocates are concerned about the growing militarization of the border that would occur as a result of the National Guard being deployed to construct fencing and checkpoints and engage in surveillance and other activities.  In a positive move, the bill establishes a 26-member Border Oversight Task Force that includes elected officials, civil rights advocates, and representatives from law enforcement, education, and the faith community to address human rights violations at the border.

Immigrants must have resided in the United States as of December 31, 2011 in order to seek RPI status.  Before new immigrants can begin the path to citizenship the current backlog in the family- and employment-based visas must be reduced.  Immigrants seeking admission to RPI status will be required to pay large fines, fees and taxes assessed by the Internal Revenue Service, and demonstrate a record of regular employment with no more than a 60-day gap.  Prior to receiving RPI status they must have remained in the United States, except for brief departures, since December 31, 2011.  A person with RPI status can apply for the status for their dependent children and spouse.  The fines required of adults include $500 at the time of filing for RPI status, $500 at the 6-year renewal point, and another $1000 when applying for LPR status.  In addition, application fees of yet-to-be-determined amounts would be assessed.  RPI status must be filed within one year from the time DHS publishes final regulations implementing the bill’s provisions unless DHS uses its waiver authority to extend the time.  A study of English and civics is also required.  These prerequisites could prove insurmountable for low-income immigrants.  According to the Migration Policy Institute, more than 25 percent of undocumented families have incomes of less than $20,000, making it extremely difficult to afford the fees and fines.  Local governments are cutting back on adult education programs so there is less access to English-language classes.  Documenting regular employment could also prove difficult.   Waivers in the bill allow for exceptions for some provisions based on age, physical and mental disabilities and other factors.

The initial PRI status is valid for 6 years, after which immigrants can apply to renew their status for a maximum of 6 more years.  At the time of renewal the applicant must show that they have been regularly employed (with gaps of no more than 60 days) and are not likely to become dependent on public cash assistance (such as TANF) or institutionalized for long-term care at government expense OR they must demonstrate an average income or resources (assistance from other entities that could include relatives) not less than 100 percent of the poverty level throughout the RPI period.  These criteria also apply at the time of application for LPR status with the income or resources threshold raised to 125 percent of the poverty level.  This demonstration of the lack of dependence on government resources aims to hold down the cost to government of having more documented immigrants.   Prior to admitting any immigrants to LRP status, DHS must have implemented the E-Verify system.

Farm workers and those who entered the United States before the age of 16, the so-called DREAMers who meet the school or military service requirement, would be eligible for an expedited 5-year path to citizenship.  After 5 years in RPI status, DREAMers would immediately be eligible for citizenship.  Unlike prior DREAM Act legislation, S. 744 does not put an upper limit on the current age of those who came to the United States when they were less than 16 years old.  Farm workers who can demonstrate that they have worked a minimum of 100 days in the two years prior to the enactment of the legislation would be eligible for an agriculture ‘blue card’.  Farm workers who work at least 100 days a year for 5 years or 150 days for 3 years can receive LPR status if they have paid any back taxes, have not been convicted of a serious crime, and pay a $400 fine.

Last June, DHS announced that immigrants who came to the United States as children and met certain guidelines could request consideration of deferred action for a period of two years, subject to renewal, and would be eligible to work.  These immigrants’ status is referred to as Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA).  Eligibility in the program requires that they must have been under the age of 31 as of June 15, 2012, came to the United State before the age of 16, have been continuously present for 5 years, met the education or military service requirement, and passed the criminal background check.  S. 744 does not specifically say that DACA status would count toward the amount of time in RPI status nor that they would automatically be granted RPI status, but they could be given the status at the discretion of the DHS Secretary.

Certain categories of visas are eliminated as of 18 months after the bill’s enactment – including sibling visas and those for married children over 30 whose U.S. parents wish to sponsor them.   Advocates are concerned that eliminating these two categories will harm family unity, an important expression of deeply-held values in our immigration system.  The diversity visa lottery, the main source of immigration from African and Eastern Europe, would also be eliminated as of October 1, 2014.  One rationale for eliminating these visas is to make room for high caps in other visa categories, especially high skilled workers.

While some visas have been eliminated, S. 744 creates others.  Some, like ‘V’ visas, are nonimmigrant visas for workers temporarily in the country or visas for family members waiting for green cards so they can physically join their family members in the United States.  ’W’ nonimmigrant visas are for temporary low-wage workers who work for 3 years with registered employers in an occupation with labor shortages.  ‘W’ visa holders can renew for 3 more years, switch to another registered employer, and could eventually apply for a merit-based green card.  The bill would allocate immigration visas in a new two-track, merit-based point system.  Track One allows for 120,000 visas per year with the number increasing to as high as 250,000 per year depending on the unemployment rate.  Factors in the point system that would be considered include education, work experience, needs of U.S. employers, age and U.S. citizen relatives.  Track Two visas would be available for families and workers caught in the immigration backlog for many years.

There are multiple visa programs currently operating which provide avenues for individuals to be admitted legally into the United States.  The H-1B visa program is a temporary visa program for high-skilled workers.  The bill calls for increasing the number of visas in the program to not less than 110,000 and not more than 180,000 for any fiscal year.  During a hearing on April 21, Senator Dick Durbin (D-IL) argued that too many of those visas are going to companies headquartered outside of the United States.  The legislation also includes green cards for foreign students who graduate in STEM (science, technology, engineering and mathematics) fields.

Immigrants in the RPI status are not eligible for means-tested benefits.  Currently even adults who become lawful permanent residents are not eligible for SNAP (food stamps), Medicaid, TANF or SSI until after a 5-year waiting period. Non-citizen children of undocumented immigrants are also denied access to these programs. They are eligible for nutrition programs like school lunches and WIC, however.  The Senate bill does allow immigrants who may have used fraudulent Social Security numbers to get jobs to claim Social Security benefits for work they performed while undocumented, without fear of prosecution.  Immigrants will be eligible to claim the Earned Income Tax Credit once they are working under RPI status and paying taxes.

 S. 744 outlines the provisions that employers of immigrants with specific visas must follow, including requirements to first offer jobs to U.S. workers and to not displace U.S. workers.  Employers of temporary agriculture workers must abide by certain wage guidelines, provide insurance for injuries if the job is not covered by state worker’s compensation laws, and provide housing that meets standard for temporary labor.  The bill also set fines for employers who violate the guidelines.

(For further details see National Immigration Law Center comprehensive summary and analysis of S.744.)

Judiciary Committee Chairman Senator Patrick Leahy (D-VT) plans to begin marking up S 744 in Committee on May 9.  Dozens of amendments could be filed, so several subsequent markup dates have been scheduled in May.  Action is expected on the Senate floor as soon as June.

A bi-partisan group of Representatives in the House has also been working on comprehensive immigration legislation which has not yet been introduced.  However, Judiciary Committee Chairman Robert Goodlatte (R-VA), who has not supported a path to citizenship, recently indicated that he prefers to focus individually on components of the bill rather than one comprehensive bill.  Many see this strategy as a delay tactic.  If the Senate is successful this summer in passing a comprehensive bill with strong bi-partisan support, the pressure will be on conservative House Republicans to adopt a more comprehensive approach.

The post CHN: High Hurdles on Path to Citizenship appeared first on Coalition on Human Needs.

The furloughs of air traffic controllers were the result of sequestration, the across-the-board automatic cuts triggered when Congress was unable to agree on a more sensible plan for deficit reduction.  The sequester was meant to be a thoroughly unappealing means of cutting about $1.2 trillion through FY 2021, with cuts equally assigned to the Pentagon and to domestic programs.  Initially set to kick in on January 1, 2013, Congress replaced the first two months of these cuts in hopes of a last ditch effort to come up with an alternative.  Enough Republicans decided they could tolerate the military cuts, so no deal, and sequestration took effect at the beginning of March.  (For background on sequestration, see Senseless Cuts Begin in the March 4, 2013 Human Needs Report.)

The President and Congressional Democrats continued to call for a comprehensive replacement of the sequestration cuts. Senate Majority Leader Reid (D-NV) offered legislation in the week before recess to stop the FY 2013 cuts, paying for them with savings from ending the Iraq and Afghanistan wars.  But a bipartisan group of Senators abandoned the call for a comprehensive solution to carve out the airport fix.  The bill passed in the Senate was sponsored by Senator Susan Collins (R-ME), with 15 co-sponsors including six Democrats (Begich-AK, McCaskill-MO, Nelson-FL, Rockefeller-WV, Udall-CO, and Warner-VA).  Similar legislation had been previously co-sponsored Senators Klobuchar (D-MN) and Hoeven (R-ND).  The Administration caved too:  spokesman Jay Carney told reporters that the President would “be open to looking at” separate legislation to allow the FAA to move money around to end the furloughs.

In passing legislation that let the FAA spend less on infrastructure improvements and shift those funds to pay the air traffic controllers, Congress was coming closer to the approach of a number of Republican-sponsored bills.  S. 799, co-sponsored by Senators Inhofe (R-OK) and Toomey (R-PA) would give the Obama Administration until May 15 to come up with alternative cuts for all of sequestration, but would not reduce the total amount to be cut.  The White House and Senate Democrats have strongly opposed this approach, saying that it is impossible to cut $85 billion in this fiscal year without doing harm, and sparing some programs will only result in even more unacceptably deep cuts in others.  The FAA could choose to put off building projects, even though that hurts jobs now and will constrain economic growth in the future.  Most other programs do not have funds to invest in infrastructure, so this choice is not even an option.

In a minor footnote to Congress’ haste to adopt this legislation, a typo made it necessary for the bill to be taken up one more time for form’s sake in the Senate.  This occurred on April 30, and the bill is now on its way to the President’s desk.

While the President will sign this legislation, he has continued to point out the harm of allowing cuts to proceed for vulnerable children seeking Head Start and other programs that affect the health and life chances of hundreds of thousands of people.  But every time a powerful interest is able to carve out its own fix, the chance of getting agreement on ending sequestration is diminished.

The post CHN: Fear of Flying; Congress Fixes Waits in Airports but Lets the Poor Wait One More Year for Housing Vouchers 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.