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.

There are currently 11.1 million undocumented immigrants in the country, down from the pre-recession peak of 12 million in 2007.  About 63 percent of them have been in the United States for 10 or more years.  Often these immigrants are part of families that include both documented and undocumented members, many of which have at least one U.S.-born child.

Contrary to common myth, immigrants do not take jobs from American workers and granting them legal status would actually create jobs.  Legalizing the approximately 11 million who currently lack documentation would strengthen the economy by creating jobs and increasing tax revenues.  The Center for American Progress estimates that immigration reform that includes legalizing the 11 million undocumented would add $1.5 trillion to the gross domestic product over 10 years.

The bi-partisan group of Senators has agreed to a framework that includes a path to citizenship for many of the undocumented (a 10-year path from a probationary period to a green card and at least 3 more years to citizenship), changes in the criteria for new immigrants, an effective employment verification system, and an improved process for admitting future immigrant workers.  It is understood that the path to citizenship will include passing a background check, learning English and paying fines and taxes, but important questions remain about the legislation.  Will payment of taxes require looking back at a work history that might include decades for which documentation is not possible, or as advocates support, will paying taxes start from the beginning of the probationary period?  Will the legislation call for mandatory participation by employers in a sometimes inaccurate E-Verify system to check an employee’s work authorization status?  Resolving the issues around who will receive new visas has proven to be among the most difficult for legislation drafters.

Visas

There are multiple visa programs which provide avenues for individuals to be admitted legally into the United States.  The largest is the family reunification program.  Two-thirds of the green cards are currently issued under that program.  Backlogs in the program mean that some families wait for more than two decades.   The new legislation is expected both to address the backlog and to apportion a smaller percentage of green cards in the family reunification program.  Advocates would be concerned about a reduction in those visas to make room for more high-skilled worker slots.  Other visa programs provide annual quotas for people from specific countries or with specialized work skills.

Labor and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce have agreed on a new “W” visa program for lower-skilled workers, setting parameters for the minimum (20,000) and maximum (200,000) number of new guest workers each year.  The agreement would require employers to pay their workers either the prevailing wage or the typical U.S. citizen’s wage – depending on which is higher. Senator Diane Feinstein (D-CA) led negotiations between the farm workers’ union and the agriculture industry over the number of agriculture workers and their wages.  The number of farmworkers is expected to increase, and the legislation is expected to provide them with an expedited path to citizenship.  Advocates are concerned that those workers are particularly vulnerable to being exploited and need protection.

Individual Senators are advocating including more visas for people from countries that are represented among their constituencies.  It is expected that the legislation will also include green cards for foreign students who graduate in STEM (science, technology, engineering and mathematics) fields.

Enforcement

The new legislation will likely include a set of goals to reduce illegal crossings on the U.S. southern border and call for a system to monitor entry and exit from airports and seaports.  Although the southern border is already more secured than the benchmarks called for in the failed 2007 immigration reform bill, the Department of Homeland Security will reportedly be charged with planning and implementing strategies to further strengthen enforcement.  Over 21,000 agents and 1,200 National Guard troops are now stationed along the border.  A fence has already been built along 651 miles of the 2,000 mile border between the United States and Mexico, and extensive surveillance and radar systems have been installed.  Border crossings are at a 40-year low and net illegal immigration is zero.  A report from the Migration Policy Institute reveals that the United States spent $18 billion on immigration enforcement in 2012 alone and a total of $187 billion since 1986.

The Senate bill will also require businesses to use the E-Verify system run by the Department of Homeland Security to affirm that a potential employee has the documentation to work in the United States.  This internet-based system has produced inaccuracies estimated to affect tens of thousands of workers in the most recent year.  It will be important to improve the E-Verify system and that there be a process for those non-confirmed through the system to correct inaccuracies.

Access to the Safety Net

In an attempt to keep the first 10-year cost of an immigration bill low, there will likely be no changes in immigrant eligibility for key federal means-tested programs.   Currently even adults who become lawful permanent residents (i.e. receive green cards) are not eligible for SNAP (food stamps), Medicaid, TANF or SSI until after a 5-year waiting period.  However, there are high costs in denying immigrants health coverage.  People without health coverage can end up costing the system more because they access care when there is an emergency.  Children of undocumented immigrants are also denied access to these programs.  They are eligible for nutrition programs like school lunches and WIC.  (See National Immigration Law Center guide to immigrant eligibility for Affordable Care Act subsidies and key federal means tested programs.)

Judiciary Committee Chairman Senator Patrick Leahy (D-VT) has scheduled immigration hearings for April 19 and 22, and plans to mark up the Senate bill in Committee in early May.  Action is expected on the Senate floor this summer.

There is also a bi-partisan group of House members negotiating on immigration reform (Republicans Sam Johnson (TX), John Carter (TX), Mario Diaz-Balart (FL), and Raul Labrador (ID) and Democrats Xavier Becerra (CA), Zoe Lofgren (CA), and John Yarmuth (KY)).  House negotiators have reportedly come to agreement on a 15-year path to citizenship for undocumented immigrants currently in the country – a 5-year probationary period followed by 5 years to learn English, pay fines and back taxes, after which they can receive a visa.  It would then take another 5 years to gain citizenship.  House Republican negotiators have rejected the deal made between labor and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce on low-skilled workers that is expected to be in the Senate bill, thinking that it is too favorable to workers.  They have indicated that they may move immigration legislation in pieces instead of in a comprehensive bill as the Senate has, an approach rejected by House Democratic leadership.

The polls show that by a margin of 3-1, the American public supports immigration reform, and by a margin of 2-1they support a path to citizenship.  The 11million undocumented immigrants anxiously await the legislation, hoping it will reflect values of fairness and justice and encourage them to emerge without fear from the shadows.

The post CHN: Immigration Bill Imminent in the Senate appeared first on Coalition on Human Needs.

As soon as the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services issued a memo to states providing new flexibility to help more parents find and retain employment, political opponents jumped all over it, claiming that it gutted TANF’s work requirements and went beyond the waiver authority allowed to the Administration.  These claims were made repeatedly in presidential campaign television advertisements and have been repeated since in Congressional hearings.  While it is true that states seeking a waiver would be able to substitute a different approach to work placement for the rigid participation requirements in TANF, the waiver memo and subsequent communications from Secretary of Health and Human Services Kathleen Sebelius made clear that states would only be able to operate with this waiver if they could demonstrate superior work outcomes – specifically, at least 20 percent better outcomes compared with the state’s past performance.  Current law requires minimum hours of participation in certain allowed work activities, with narrow limits on the type of education that counts and no credit for helping a parent find a job with pay high enough so that the family leaves TANF.  The Administration wants to allow states to come up with alternative programs in which the number of hours of participation is not as important as the successful outcome of finding a job.

That was not persuasive to Republicans in the House and Senate.  H.R. 890, the Preserving Work Requirements for Welfare Programs Act of 2013, passed by a vote of 246-181, largely along party lines (18 Democrats joined 228 Republicans in voting for the bill; 3 Republicans joined 178 Democrats in opposing it).

The bill now goes to the Senate, which has included the temporary reauthorization of TANF in its FY 2013 CR (in section 1522).  The Senate bill provides a simple extension of TANF, and does not seek to limit the waiver authority.  Advocates are hoping that the House will agree to the extension within the CR, and will not insist on ending the waiver authority, which the Senate majority is not inclined to do.

(For more background on the TANF waiver controversy, see Just the Facts:  Obama’s Welfare to Work Plan by Deborah Weinstein in the Huffington Post.)

The post CHN: House Approves Bill to Extend TANF and Block Obama Waiver Authority appeared first on Coalition on Human Needs.

The cuts would include $31.4 billion to domestic programs like WIC, Head Start, child care, housing, home energy, and homelessness aid, education and training, and much more. Medicare will be cut by $11.2 billion.  On February 8, the White House released a Fact Sheet with examples of the impact sequestration would have on families, jobs and the economy. If a sequester takes effect up to 373,000 seriously mentally ill adults and seriously emotionally disturbed children could go untreated, 70,000 young children would be kicked off Head Start, 10,000 teachers’ jobs would be put at risk, federally-assisted programs like Meals on Wheels would be able to serve 4 million fewer meals to seniors, and more than 100,000 formerly homeless people, including veterans, would be removed from their current housing and emergency shelter programs.

All agree that across-the-board cuts make no sense. Republicans tend to be more concerned about the cuts to the Pentagon, but refuse to include revenues in a package that replaces sequestration. The President and Senate leadership want new revenues from corporations and wealthy individuals to play a big part in replacing the mindless cuts.  House leadership has refused to agree to a replacement package that includes revenues and has expressed resignation that the cuts will go into effect.  Recently Senator McCain (R-AZ), who has been most vocal in expressing concerns about the Pentagon cuts, has indicated a willingness to consider a package that includes revenues. If other Republicans are open to including revenues the potential for a deal increases.

Congress is also facing a March 27 deadline when funding for appropriated programs will end because the temporary Continuing Resolution for FY 2013 expires.  Congress might either find enough savings to replace another month or two of sequestration or allow the across-the-board cuts to take effect for a short period until both sequestration and the rest of FY 2013 appropriations can be resolved at the same time.

The post CHN: March 1 Fiscal Showdown Looming appeared first on Coalition on Human Needs.

The amendment, introduced by Rep. Daniel Webster (R-FL,) was passed 232-190, with 228 Republicans joined by 4 Democrats in favor, and 180 Democrats plus 10 Republicans opposed.  The 4 Democrats voting to eliminate the survey were Boren (OK), Green (TX), Hochul (NY) and Kissell (NC).  The 10 Republicans in opposition were Biggert (IL), Bilbray (CA), Dent (PA), Dold (IL), Gerlach (PA), Hayworth (NY), Gibson (NY), McHenry (NC), Thompson (PA), and Turner (OH).

Before voting to eliminate the survey altogether, the House voted to make participation in it voluntary.  The Census Bureau had estimated that such an action would increase the cost of the American Community Survey by at least $64 million, since more outreach would be needed to ensure an adequate sample size.

Opponents of the survey objected to government intrusion to collect data beyond the decennial count of people.  Proponents, including business groups, school districts, and researchers, are likely to find supporters in the Senate, which is expected to continue the ACS.  Still, advocates are concerned that negotiations might whittle down Census funding or take other steps to jeopardize the effectiveness of the survey.

The post CHN: What They Don’t (Want to) Know Can Hurt You: House Votes to Eliminate Census Bureau’s American Community Survey appeared first on Coalition on Human Needs.

The Senate acted to continue the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families program (TANF) for the next year with very modest changes, putting off a thoroughgoing review of the program for poor families with children.  Advocates were disappointed that the Senate did not reinstate the TANF Emergency Fund, which over the past two years has created 250,000 jobs and provided additional funding for states trying to assist the surging numbers of impoverished families in a time of continuing high joblessness.  In a further last-minute disappointment, the Senate also failed to continue certain incentive payments to states to reward good performance in collecting child support owed to low-income families.  Both the TANF Emergency Fund and the child support funding had expired on September 30.

The regular TANF program, which provides various forms of assistance to low-income families with children, would have expired on September 30, but was temporarily extended as part of the Continuing Resolution (CR) through December 3 that kept annual appropriations going for many government programs.   The Senate combined the TANF 1-year extension with approval of funding required to pay for the settlement of separate claims against the federal government by Native Americans and by African American farmers.  The legislation (H.R. 4783) passed by unanimous consent.

The TANF extension continues two longstanding funds that provide extra money to certain states:  the Supplemental Grants fund and the Contingency fund.  Supplemental Grants have been available since TANF’s inception in 1996 to provide additional funds to poor states and those with high population growth; failure to continue this fund would cut block grant funding to the affected states by about 10 percent.  The Contingency fund is available to states in times of recession to help cope with rising caseloads.  Although in the past it has not been much used, the ongoing weak economy has resulted in states depleting the fund.

In another small change, $150 million in funding was reallocated between grants for Healthy Marriage Promotion and Responsible Fatherhood programs.  In the past, $100 million was directed to Healthy Marriage Promotion and $50 million to Responsible Fatherhood.  In this new extension, each fund will receive $75 million.  The programs operating with these funds provide a variety of counseling, financial and debt management, conflict resolution, parenting, and job preparation/placement services.

In addition, states were given additional reporting requirements about their welfare to work programs, in response to complaints by some Senators that very little information has been provided by states about the types of activities in which parents participate as well as the numbers and hours of participation.  The new reports by states are to list activities even if participants are not engaged for the minimum number of federally required hours, or if there are more participants than federal law allows in specific activities.  If states do not comply with the new reporting rules, they can lose up to 4 percent of their regular TANF block grant funding.

Child Support Funding Lapses.  Until the last minute, advocates were hopeful that the Senate would include $250 million in half-year funding to continue incentive payments to states for their child support enforcement operations.  Federal-state child support collections provide about $25 billion in support to 17 million children, and serve one in four children in America and one in two poor children. The incentive payments were cut as part of the Deficit Reduction Act of 2006 and reduced the federal contribution to states’ child support programs by 20 percent.  Funding was restored for 2009-2010 in the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA), but lapsed on September 30.  If funding is not restored, the cuts in state child support offices are expected to result in families losing $2 billion a year in support owed to their children.  Senate negotiators had expected that the $250 million needed to pay for this provision could come from unspent TANF contingency funds.  However, in the continuing weak economy, states have drawn down these funds, leaving none available for this purpose.  Recognition that this source of funds was not available came late, leaving no time to find an alternative.  With bipartisan support for continuing this funding, advocates continue to hope that another vehicle and funding source will be found for this cost-effective program before the lame duck session concludes.

TANF Emergency Fund Also Allowed to Lapse.  Continuing efforts to restore funding to the TANF Emergency Fund were not successful as part of the regular TANF program’s extension.  Despite the Fund’s documented success in creating temporary jobs for 250,000 parents in 37 states, Republicans objected to continuing the fund even if it were fully paid for.  For more information, see the October 5 Human Needs Report.

The post CHN: Senate Passes 1-Year Extension of TANF appeared first on Coalition on Human Needs.

The current official poverty measure was developed in the 1960s after research showed that the poor spent about one-third of their income on food.  A barely adequate “Thrifty” food budget was designed; it was then multiplied by three and adjusted for family size.  Those living on less than those totals were deemed poor.  In the years since almost nothing has been changed about the measure except to adjust it annually for inflation.  Over time the model’s shortcomings have increased, as food now takes up less of a low-income family’s budget than it did decades ago and expenses such as housing loom larger.  In addition, the official measure does not count in-kind income sources such as food stamps (now called SNAP, or Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program).  That has meant that increases in SNAP benefits, which clearly benefit poor people, do not count in the annual assessment of poverty trends.  Advocates recognize that leaving such income sources out make it impossible to show whether progress in alleviating poverty is being made.

The new Supplemental Poverty Measure is generally based on work done about fifteen years ago by researchers at the National Academy of Sciences.   It will establish a poverty threshold by calculating the costs of food, shelter, clothing and utilities for all family units with two children.  Costs will take into account regional variation (not part of the official poverty measure), and will show housing cost differences for those who rent, own outright, or own with a mortgage.  Expenditures will be averaged over five years, to even out fluctuations that might show up in annual data.  Once these basic expenditures are estimated, the figure will be multiplied by 1.2 (recognizing that the poor purchase more than just these necessities) and adjusted for varying household size.  The threshold will be set at the 33rd percentile – that is, two-thirds of Americans will spend more than the estimated figure for these necessities.  Those who spend less will be considered poor.

The new measure then counts a broader array of income sources than is currently estimated, including in-kind public benefits such as SNAP.  Certain expenses are then subtracted, including child support paid and work expenses including child care and transportation.  Taxes are subtracted, and refundable tax credits like the Earned Income Tax Credit and Child Tax Credit are counted as income.  Out of pocket medical expenses are also subtracted from income.

The precise way of incorporating these expenditures and income sources is left to the Census Bureau to develop over the coming year, and public comment will be sought on the best way to estimate both income and expenditures.  Advocates and analysts have already voiced some criticisms, some technical, and some taking the broader view that the Supplemental measure gauges only a very low level of expenditure, but does not help us understand what it would take for families to escape from poverty.  Legislation to establish a new poverty measure previously introduced by Rep. McDermott (H.R. 2909) and Senator Dodd (S. 1625) calls for developing an additional “decent living standard” – a higher level at which families were more comfortably entering the middle class and making ends meet.  While the March 2 announcement did not call for designing a decent living standard, it is possible such a request could be incorporated into the charge to the Census Bureau.  Advocates are already calling for this addition.

Advocates of a national commitment to reduce poverty hope that a more accurate measure will make it possible to see more clearly whether anti-poverty initiatives are effective.  The Half in Ten Campaign, which seeks to cut poverty in half within ten years, has developed a short educational video clip to explain why modernizing the poverty measure is needed.

(For an 8-page Observations from the Administration’s Interagency Technical Working Group describing elements the Census Bureau will have to consider in creating the new measure.)

The post CHN: Improved Measure of Poverty Announced by Obama Administration appeared first on Coalition on Human Needs.