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.

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.

On September 22 by a vote of 62-30 the Senate passed HJ Res 117, a stopgap Continuing Resolution (CR), funding annually appropriated programs for the first six months of Fiscal Year (FY) 2013 from October 1, 2012 through March 27, 2013.  The House passed the bill 329-91 a week earlier.  The plan is based on the $1.047 trillion funding cap for annually appropriated programs for FY 2013 established in the 2011 Budget Control Act (BCA) and used by Senate Democrats and the Obama Administration to set FY 2013 funding. This amount is $8 billion above the FY 2012 level and represents an increase for most agencies of 0.6 percent.  The Republican budget passed by the House last March included a lower funding cap of $1.028 trillion for FY 2013.

Neither Democrats nor Republicans wanted controversy or talk of a government shut-down right before elections.  HJ Res 117 contains no controversial policy riders or funding levels that differ significantly from current levels.  It does contain extra funds for modernizing nuclear weapons, for cybersecurity work done by the Department of Homeland Security, for fighting wildfires, and for addressing a backlog of disability claims at the Department of Veterans Affairs.

Hedging their bets on the outcome of the election, both House Republicans and Senate Democrats agreed to the CR.  Republicans hope to be in a stronger position in March when they would work to reduce the over-all funding level for appropriated programs.  Some Democrats believe that their party would have had greater leverage to finalize a more favorable deal with a 3-month CR that expired at the end of December.  They are leery of a 6-month deal that will expire around the time Congress will also need to act on increasing the debt ceiling, a process Tea Party Republicans are already threatening to sabotage again.

Congress has passed a year-long budget by the October 1 beginning of the fiscal year without needing a CR only three times in the last 27 years – 1989, 1995 and 1997.  This year, the House Appropriations Committee passed 11 of the 12 appropriations bills and six passed the full House.  It was unable to complete the Labor-Health and Human Services-Education bill because the cuts being proposed were too severe.  The Senate Appropriations Committee also completed work on 11 bills but none passed the full Senate.  It did not consider the Interior-Environment bill because of pending Republican amendments attacking Environmental Protection Agency regulations.  This year’s CR is unprecedented because it includes funding for all twelve appropriations bill because none of the individual bills have been signed into law.

TANF

The CR was used as a vehicle to attach an extension of the Temporary Assistance to Needy Families (TANF) program which was set to expire on September 30.  The $16.5 billion annual block grant program provides funding to states for both cash assistance as well as a variety of other benefits and services to meet the needs of low-income families and children. The program became an election year issue after the Administration’s Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) sent a memo to states allowing them to apply for waivers to experiment with alternative approaches to strengthen employment outcomes.  (See more details in the July 24 Human Needs Report.) (Advocates were concerned that House Republicans would use HJ Res 117 as an opportunity to thwart the HHS waiver.  Instead the House chose to vote on a Resolution of Disapproval (HJ Res 118).  The measure passed 250-164 with 31 Democrats joining 231 Republicans in support of the resolution.  The Senate will not vote on HJ Res 118.

Fiscal Cliff

Passage of the 6-month CR takes regular appropriations off the table during the post-election lame duck session.  Instead, the Congress will grapple with impending across-the-board spending cuts (known as ‘sequestration’) set to take effect on January 1, and the expiration of the Bush-era tax cuts on December 31.  Sequestration was put in place in the Budget Control Act to force action on reducing the federal debt and deficits.  Failure by Congress to avert sequestration and tax increases would result in what has been dubbed by some as the ‘Fiscal Cliff.’  See more details in the July 24 Human Needs Report.  Those are not the only important issues facing deadlines, though.  The farm bill has been allowed to expire, and Congress will want to restore agriculture programs (See article in this Human Needs Report.)  Federal unemployment insurance for the long-term jobless will also expire at the end of December.  People out of work 27 weeks or more make up 40 percent of those unemployed.  Terminating the federal unemployment program serving that group would plunge more people into poverty.

As the end of the year draws near, pressure is mounting for an alternative plan to avoid the cliff.  Republicans and some Democrats are especially concerned about the pending cuts to the Pentagon.  Democrats and the Administration are advocating for a balanced approach that includes new sources of revenue, but thus far, Republicans have refused to agree to tax increases.  The results of the election will most certainly impact the timing and outcome of these critical policy decisions.

The post CHN: Congress Passes 6-Month Spending Bill for Fiscal Year 2013; Fiscal Cliff Looms appeared first on Coalition on Human Needs.

The post CHN: Senator Rand Paul Blocks Aid to Poor Elderly and Disabled Refugees appeared first on Coalition on Human Needs.

These Supplemental Grants, providing additional TANF funds to poor states and those with high population growth, expired on July 1, 2011. Previously, the grants had been provided to 17 needy states every year since TANF’s inception in 1996. These 17 states are among the poorest in the nation, and have some of the worst child poverty and unemployment rates. The expiration of these Supplemental Grants means cutting funding to the affected states by about 10 percent, which is a truly significant loss for TANF.

TANF has been level-funded since the program began in 1996, with no adjustment for inflation or other factors. Today, state and federal funds are equal to only 72% of their original value in inflation-adjusted dollars, and cannot fund the same level of services that they did 15 years ago (see report from the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities).

Now that the recession has caused caseloads to rise in states that have not created massive barriers to enrollment, funds are not available to meet the current need. With the additional funding from the Supplemental Grants gone, many states have chosen to dramatically cut TANF assistance. In 2011, these cuts affected 70,000 low-income families, including 1.3 million children.

Many families living well below the poverty line have subsequently suffered cuts to cash assistance, child care and other work-related assistance usually provided through TANF. States implementing cash assistance cuts include California, Washington, South Carolina, Wisconsin, New Hampshire and the District of Columbia. States such as California and Arizona have shortened their time limits for receiving TANF benefits. And states have also cut support for low-income working families, as in Michigan, where the state Earned Income Tax Credit (partially funded by TANF) has been cut by two-thirds.

These cuts are ill-timed, as many of these states continue to suffer from high unemployment, low earnings, and poverty. The temporary extension of TANF also times its reauthorization to coincide with the actions of the Joint Select Committee on Deficit Reduction (the “Super Committee”). In the past, there has been little discussion of cutting the TANF block grant. However, based on comments during the September Ways and Means Committee TANF reauthorization hearing, support was expressed for restricting funding for other low-income programs by applying TANF-type work requirements.  Since these requirements in TANF often served more to deter eligibility than to provide opportunities for work, advocates are concerned about the impact these proposals might have on low-income families.

The post CHN: TANF Extended for 3 Months; Supplemental Grants Not Reinstated appeared first on Coalition on Human Needs.

Taxes
The stakes will be high as Congress decides which provisions in the 2001 and 2003 Bush tax cuts will be allowed to expire on December 31, which will be extended, and whether the extensions will be permanent or temporary.  There is broad agreement among Democrats, Republicans and the Administration that the tax cuts for the bottom 98 percent of taxpayers should be extended. At issue are the tax breaks for the wealthiest two percent. Most Democrats believe those should be allowed to expire.  Republicans under the leadership of Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) want to extend all of the Bush tax cuts.  Allowing the top marginal income tax rates for wealthy taxpayers, currently set at 33 and 35 percent, to remain in place – for income above approximately $210,000 and $375,000 – rather than reverting to 36 and 39.6 percent rates, and retaining the 15 percent rate on capital gains and dividends rather than the pre-2001 rate of 20 percent, carries a $700 billion price tag over 10 years.  If the two top rates are not extended, those same taxpayers would still benefit from retaining the lower 10, 15, 25, and 28 rates on their initial income.  Proponents of extending tax breaks for the wealthiest argue that this will lead to job creation and economic growth, but there is little evidence to support their position.  There is considerable evidence that spending a small fraction of that amount on unemployment benefits, for example, would provide a far more effective boost to the economy.

Advocates will be working to ensure that the improvements to the refundable Child Tax Credit and the Earned Income Tax Credit included in ARRA passed in 2009 are linked with the extension or permanency of the middle-class tax cuts.  For low-income families who receive the refundable credits the national average per-family benefit of retaining the improvements is $1,330, according to a Citizen for Tax Justice report.   President Obama’s plan, supported by most Democrats, extends all of the Bush tax cuts for individuals making up to $200,000 and couples up to $250,000, including the improvements in the refundable credits.  The Republican plan forwarded by Senator McConnell does not call for extending the refundable credits and extends all tax cuts for the wealthiest.  Under the Republican plan, the bottom 60 percent of U.S. taxpayers would pay $124 more and the richest one percent would pay $45,893 less in 2011, on average, then they would under President Obama’s plan, according to a Citizens for Tax Justice report.

Prior to Thanksgiving break Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) indicated that he would schedule a vote on extending tax cuts for the bottom 98 percent and hoped that Minority Leader McConnell would agree not to block the vote if there is also a vote on his plan to extend all of the tax cuts.  Currently there are not 60 votes to pass either plan.  The majority of Democrats oppose extending the tax breaks for the upper two percent and Republicans, emboldened by election gains, are pressing for full extension.  It is unclear how this will get resolved, but if they do not act by January all taxpayers will face an increase in their taxes that will show up immediately in lower take-home pay.

Appropriations for FY 2011
After failing to pass any of the 12 appropriations bills that fund discretionary (annually appropriated) programs by October 1 when Fiscal Year 2011 began, Congress has passed two stopgap continuing resolutions (CR’s) to continue funding programs.  The current CR is set to expire on December 3.  The CR funds most appropriated programs at their FY 2010 levels.  Democrats on the House and Senate Appropriations subcommittees along with Senate Republicans have been working to come to agreement on funding levels for each of the twelve FY 2011 spending bills that would then be bundled into an omnibus package.  Initially Senator McConnell (R-KY) agreed to the plan that would provide overall funding for discretionary programs at $16 billion below the President’s FY 2011 budget which itself calls for freezing non-military, non-homeland security spending.  The agreed-upon level is consistent with an amendment sponsored by Senators Jeff Sessions (R-AL) and Claire McCaskill (D-MO) that narrowly failed earlier this year.  However, under pressure from House Republicans who want even steeper cuts in non-security spending and who will be in charge in the House in the next Congress, Senator McConnell is backing away from his agreement.

The House Republican’s “Pledge to America” campaign document calls for funding non-security discretionary programs in FY 2011 at $105 billion, or 21.7 percent, less than the $483 billion in the President’s budget.  This level is $101 billion less than what was provided in 2010 when adjusted for inflation.  If those austere cuts are passed, well-funded lobbyists will press for less aggressive cuts to politically well-connected programs like roads or medical research, which will result in even deeper cuts for programs that address the needs of low- and moderate-income people.  These cuts would fall hard on state and local governments already facing the largest deficits in recent history.  Programs affected may include K-12 education, low-income housing, job training and employment services, nutrition, and services for the elderly and disabled – all critical for vulnerable populations.  (See Center on Budget and Policy report including state-by-state cuts that could result if the Republican plan is adopted.)  Most economists have warned against cutting domestic spending for at least another year, since the job and business income losses sure to result will threaten the very fragile economic recovery.

Advocates are working for passage of an omnibus bill in the lame-duck session. Reaching final agreement on funding for discretionary programs will be difficult as newly elected Republicans are anxious to demonstrate their desire to cut spending regardless of economists’ warnings.

Dream Act
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) has pledged to bring the Development, Relief, and Education for Alien Minors (DREAM) Act for a vote in the Senate during the lame duck session. The DREAM Act is bipartisan legislation that would provide certain immigrant students who grew up in the U.S. an opportunity to obtain legal status if they go to college or serve in the U.S. military. Multiple versions of the DREAM Act have been introduced in Congress since 2001. Senate Majority Whip Richard Durbin (D-IL,) a longstanding champion of the bill, along with Senator Richard Lugar (R-IN) introduced the DREAM Act in the Senate, S. 729, in this Congress. Representatives Howard Berman (D-CA), Lincoln Diaz-Balart (R-FL) and Lucille Roybal-Allard (D-CA) introduced a House companion bill, H.R. 1751.

In preparation for a vote on the bill in the Senate, Senator Durbin introduced two new versions of the bill, S. 3962 and S. 3963, before the Thanksgiving break. The difference between both bills has to do with the qualifying age of individuals. In S. 3962 individuals have to be less than 35 years old when the bill is enacted to qualify for adjustment of status. In S. 3963 the cut-off age is 30. Both bills eliminate a provision that was in earlier versions giving states the option to provide in-state tuition without regard to immigration status. These changes were made in an effort to build greater support for the legislation. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) has also indicated that she would like to bring the DREAM Act for a vote in the House during the lame duck session.

Child Nutrition Reauthorization 
House leaders may bring the Senate-approved Child Nutrition Reauthorization bill, S. 3307, for a vote on the floor when they return from the Thanksgiving break. Passage of a Child Nutrition Reauthorization bill stalled in Congress after some House members raised concerns over parts of the Senate bill. S. 3307 provides $4.5 billion over 10 years for better child nutrition through more afterschool and summer meals, higher reimbursements to school lunch providers, improved administration of WIC and meals programs, including easier enrollment of children, and more funding for WIC program improvements.  House members have supported legislation with more funding and greater expansion of summer food and school breakfast programs and more streamlined access provisions. But the biggest sticking point for some House members has been the Senate’s use of future SNAP/food stamp cuts to pay for provisions in the Senate bill.  In August, 106 Representatives sent a letter to Speaker Pelosi opposing SNAP cuts.  (To learn more about the House members objections see the October 5 Human Needs Report.) House proponents are working with the Administration to identify ways during the lame duck session to prevent SNAP cuts from taking effect.  Child nutrition programs are set to expire on December 3.

According to new data released by the U.S. Department of Agriculture, 17.2 million children, or almost a quarter of all children in the U.S., struggled against hunger in 2009. The U.S. continues to experience high rates of food insecurity with 50 million Americans living in households struggling against hunger last year. However, worth noting is that while food insecurity grew significantly from 2007 to 2008, during the first year of the recession, in 2009 there was only a slight increase. This trend continued into 2010. An analysis by the Food Research and Action Center of data from the Gallup-Healthways Well-Being Index shows that food hardship actually declined slightly this year. It is significant that food hardship and insecurity did not rise significantly in 2009 and 2010 given the high rates of unemployment during these time periods. The leveling off of food insecurity rates coincides with the increase in SNAP benefits that were enacted as part of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act.  This indicates the effectiveness of SNAP in ameliorating hunger and stresses the importance of maintaining a strong SNAP program, especially given the slow pace of recovery.

SSI Benefits
On October 1, up to 5,600 impoverished refugees and other immigrants in the U.S. on humanitarian grounds were cut off from their Supplemental Security Income (SSI) benefits. The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities estimates that another 5,600 could be cut off over the next 13 months unless Congress acts. Advocates are pushing Congress for a one-year extension of SSI eligibility and are also working with the Administration to determine a long-term solution for this population.

In 1996, a seven-year time limit for SSI benefits was imposed on humanitarian immigrants. It was assumed that seven years would give individuals sufficient time to obtain citizenship, and thereby maintain their benefits. However, processing delays and other obstacles in the immigration system made it nearly impossible for people to naturalize within the seven-year time period. Two years ago Congress overwhelmingly approved a two-year extension of SSI benefits for refugees, lengthening the eligibility level from seven years to nine.

Qualified Individual Program
Unless Congress acts in the lame-duck session, two programs critical to low-income Medicare beneficiaries will be terminated, the Qualified Individual (QI) Program and the therapy caps exception process.  The QI program is a federal grant to states that pays the Medicare Part B premium (covering doctors’ services and outpatient care) for individuals with income between 120 and 135 percent of the federal poverty level (about $13,000 to $14,600 in 2010) who are not otherwise eligible for Medicaid.  The program, currently serving 1.5 million low-income Medicare recipients, was created in 1997 and has been extended on a year-to-year basis since 2002.  If the QI program lapses these beneficiaries will lose approximately $1,100, the yearly cost of Part B premiums, forcing them to pay the premium out-of-pocket or drop coverage.

Also at risk is the therapy caps exception process, protecting low-income Medicare beneficiaries from being denied medically necessary services when they exceed limits on outpatient physical therapy, occupational therapy and speech-language services.  Treatment limitations include a combined $1,860 cap for speech and physical therapy services, and a separate $1,860 cap for occupational therapy.  Advocates are counting on Congress to extend these programs vital to low-income seniors.

The post CHN: Congress Returns to Lame-Duck Session Facing Full Plate of Unfinished Business 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.

Reaching final agreement on funding for discretionary programs will be difficult.  In growing numbers Members of Congress are feeling pressure to demonstrate that they care about cutting the deficit by targeting the non-military, non-security discretionary (that is, annually appropriated) portion of the budget.  Prior to voting on the CR, the Senate defeated an amendment by Senator John Thune (R-SD) to reduce the discretionary budget except for defense, homeland security and veterans programs by 5 percent.  The remaining programs which would have been subject to the cut comprise less than half of the discretionary budget and include child care, low-income housing, job training and employment services, nutrition, services for the elderly and disabled and education programs – all critical for vulnerable populations.  Eight Democrats joined all Republicans in voting for the Thune amendment which narrowly failed, 48-51.

In his FY 2011 budget, President Obama proposed a freeze on non-military, non-homeland security spending, capping it at $1.128 trillion.  The race to lower spending began when the House reduced the cap to $1.211 trillion.  The Senate has considered two proposals to shrink funding still further, with caps at either $1.114 or $1.108 trillion, but has not enacted legislation including either cap.  Such pressure to drive down spending on discretionary programs will undoubtedly continue to escalate during the lame duck session beginning on November 15 after the mid-term elections.  It is highly possible that FY 2011 discretionary funding will not be finalized until the new Congress is in place early next year.

The CR was used as a vehicle for providing extensions to a handful of expiring programs including the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) program. TANF, a joint federal and state block grant program, was last reauthorized in 2005 for 5 years and would have expired on September 30 had it not been extended to December 3 along with the appropriated programs.  TANF’s funding level has remained unchanged since 1996 when it was first authorized and funded at $16.5 billion; thus, its value has eroded by over 30 percent.  With fewer than half of eligible families receiving needed benefits while the economy struggles to recover from the current recession, TANF is not working as a counter-cyclical program. The Senate is reported to be drafting a one-year extension of TANF; it is not yet known whether any changes will be incorporated in that extension.  Advocates are working to make positive changes to this vital program, either within the extension or in a more comprehensive look at TANF expected in the coming year.

The CR also extended the Child Nutrition Act which is due to be reauthorized.  Advocates were deeply disappointed that the TANF Emergency Fund, an effective program in the American Reinvestment and Recovery Act that has provided 250,000 jobs for low-income adults and teenagers, was not extended in the CR.  (See articles in this Human Needs Reporton these programs.)

The post CHN: Congress Enacts Measure to Avert a Government Shutdown appeared first on Coalition on Human Needs.

The TANF Emergency Fund subsidized jobs program has been a successful and efficient way to benefit not only workers and families, but employers and local economies as well. Workers recount how the jobs have helped them meet their basic needs, improve family stability and attain valuable work experience and skills. In some cases the temporary jobs have led to permanent, living-wage jobs. Employers were able to expand their businesses instead of having to lay off workers. One example is the Internet Archive, an organization based in San Francisco, which was able to hire 145 unemployed workers with the TANF funds. Robert Miller, Director of Books at the Internet Archive, shared what the added capacity meant for their company during a webinar sponsored by the Half in Ten Campaign and the Coalition on Human Needs (click here to view webinar).  Miller told listeners how they were able to hire 6 times as many staff, and with the scarce resources that were freed up they expanded their office space and purchased much-needed equipment, which resulted in their ability to build their digital library three times as fast. Miller credited the TANF Emergency Fund program for providing Internet Archive with the confidence and means to expand its business. So successful was the program that Internet Archive and thousands of other employers actively advocated for an extension of the program. On September 15, supporters of the program joined Senator Robert Casey (D-PA) at a press conference in which they released a letter signed by over 1,200 employers across the country urging Congress to extend the TANF Emergency Fund for another year. Yet, despite the strong support for the program and its proven success, Congress let the program expire on September 30.

The TANF Emergency Fund also has allowed states to provide either ongoing cash assistance or one-time aid payments to help families recover from emergency situations.  In the absence of the Emergency Fund, states had only the flat regular block grant funding from TANF, despite rising need due to the recession.  In all, the TANF Emergency Fund directed $5 billion to states over the past two years, all of which has been spent.

In the waning days before Congress left town for the mid-term elections, Senate Republicans blocked multiple attempts to extend the program. Senator Max Baucus (D-MT) included a one-year extension of the program, costing $1.5 billion, in a revised and fully offset bill to extend a set of popular business and individual tax cuts that expired at the end of 2009. However, a unanimous consent attempt to move the bill forward was rejected.  There was also a push to attach an extension of the TANF Emergency Fund program to the Continuing Resolution that Congress had to pass in order to keep the government operating after October 1, the beginning of the new fiscal year, but Republicans objected to most items being attached to that measure. Finally, there was an effort to bring a free-standing and fully-offset bill to extend the program to the Senate floor, but Senator John Enzi (R-NV) objected. Without the federal funds to continue the program, most states will end their subsidized jobs program. Advocates will continue to press Congress to extend the successful TANF Emergency Fund program during the lame duck session in November, which might help states resume their programs.

To see a breakdown of how many jobs were created in each state and what each state plans to do now that the program has expired see the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities paper.

For personal accounts from employees of the Internet Archive of what the TANF Emergency Fund has meant to them, click here to see their story project.

The post CHN: Congress Lets Successful Job Creation Program Expire appeared first on Coalition on Human Needs.

Without a final bill from Congress, President Obama and American negotiators were limited in their ability at Copenhagen to commit the United States to specifics, including a target for reducing greenhouse gas emissions. Disagreements between rich and poor nations and the lack of trust between China and the United States, the first and second biggest emitters of greenhouse gases, were evident during the conference.  President Obama was ultimately instrumental in facilitating the Copenhagen Accord calling for a nonbinding agreement on emission targets and an international system of verification, and a commitment from richer nations to provide billions of dollars to poorer nations to deal with the effects of climate change.  Leaders also agreed to meet next year in Mexico.

Climate change advocates hope that impetus from the conference, the Environmental Protection Agencies’ commitment to enforce the Clean Air Act in the absence of climate legislation, and a growing realization by members of Congress that clean environmental technology is a path to strengthening their state’s economy will motive the Senate to act next year.

The post CHN: Climate Change Legislation in the Senate Waits Until Next Year appeared first on Coalition on Human Needs.