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.

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.

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.

The final rule allows states to count education leading to a baccalaureate or higher degree as vocational education, reversing a restriction in the previous draft. States are also allowed to count unsupervised homework time towards the required hours of work participation.  In the initial draft, homework time would only count if performed in a supervised setting like a study hall.  Many had objected that such a requirement would impose more child care costs, state administrative burdens, and unnecessary additional pressures on parents juggling work, education, and care-giving responsibilities.

The new regulations loosen some restrictions on counting English as a Second Language training within vocational programs.

HHS rejected comments asking it to allow special work plans for people with disabilities that might reduce the hours of participation to accommodate the person’s special needs.  The final rules also bar states from counting activities that remove barriers to work as work experience or community service, categories some states had used to permit adults receiving TANF to engage in certain treatments or therapies, for example.  These barrier-removing activities will only be permissible for a limited number of weeks under the final rule.

For an analysis of the final rule, see “Summary of TANF Final Rule” by Elizabeth Lower-Basch at the Center for Law and Social Policy.

For the text of the final rule click here.

The post CHN: More Access to Education Possible Under TANF Final Rule appeared first on Coalition on Human Needs.

Proceeding on a fast track, the regulations are now considering interim final.  They were not available for comment earlier and took effect immediately upon publication; comments may now be forwarded to HHS up through August 28 (see regulations’ first page of text for information about how to submit comments).

While Congress required HHS to regulate in areas previously left to the states, the federal legislation did not dictate how HHS was to craft its definitions and standards.  It appears that HHS has chosen to force states to make services far more restrictive in significant ways – limiting the duration and range of education and other services that help parents to overcome barriers to employment, and penalizing states that have been providing cash assistance to children in cases where their parents or other caregivers are ineligible for cash aid.  The regulations, for example, make it far harder for states to count English as a Second Language training as a work activity that will count in the participation rates.  They also restrict states’ flexibility to combine certain forms of training, job search and readiness activities, therapies or rehabilitation with community service or work experience to enable parents to prepare effectively for work.  Many of these activities would be limited in most states to six weeks per fiscal year (with only 4 weeks of that consecutive).  These restrictions may preclude the use of packages of services with proven effectiveness.  In addition, the regulations require far more supervision for some activities than most states have typically provided – for instance, daily supervision for job search.  While more direct help could well be very useful for parents, it could easily translate into onerous meeting requirements that will increase the likelihood of penalties against the families.

The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities and the Center for Law and Social Policy are collaborating on an in-depth analysis of the regulations, which will be available on their websites soon.  Initially, see the statement by the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, at http://www.cbpp.org/6-28-06tanf-stmt.htm. 

The post CHN: New Regulations Issued For Temporary Assistance For Needy Families appeared first on Coalition on Human Needs.

By a vote of 216 to 214, the House of Representatives passed a bill that cut $38.8 billion from the federal budget on Wednesday, February 1. The pain of the cuts will be overwhelmingly borne by moderate- and low-income students, families, the elderly, abused and neglected children, and people with disabilities. All Democrats, one Independent and 13 Republicans voted against S. 1932: http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2006/roll004.xml

Advocacy Efforts Paid Off

The vote came after months of intense lobbying and education work by advocates, service providers, students and others who decried the deep cuts and restrictive policy changes to Medicaid, student aid, child care, child support enforcement, Supplemental Security Income (SSI) for people with disabilities and Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF). More than 300 events in districts around the country were sponsored by the coordinated efforts of the Emergency Campaign for America’s Priorities in the month of January alone. Members of the House of Representatives were bombarded with hundreds of thousands of calls from citizens over the last four months. Hundreds of groups around the country demanded – and got – meetings with their representatives to explain the harm the bill will cause to their communities.

These efforts were instrumental in persuading four Republican members who voted for the bill on December 19 to change their vote to “no.” The four members were Representatives Rob Simmons (R-CT), Jim Gerlach (R-PA), John Sweeney (R-NY), and Jim Ramstad (R-MN). Rep. Steve Buyer (R-IN) voted no in December but voted in favor of the bill on Wednesday. Two Republicans and one Democrat were absent.

The House approved a very similar version of the 774-page bill in the early morning of December 19 by a vote of 212 to 206 after having just hours to review it. Later that week the Senate approved the bill with minor changes. That action sent the bill back to the House. Because members of Congress had recessed for the year, opponents of the bill used the month of January to draw attention to egregious provisions that had been overlooked.

Although the legislation’s passage remains deeply disappointing to human needs advocates, the final bill reflects major improvements from the President’s original proposals and earlier Congressional versions. The bill does not include any cuts to food stamps or the President’s plan for a “superwaiver” which would have given states wide permission to waive rules and regulations for a variety of low-income services. The President had proposed at least $45 billion in cuts to Medicaid.

Bill Does Not Reduce Deficit

Conservatives claim S. 1932 was a necessary step to reining in out-of-control spending. But the misnamed Deficit Reduction Act of 2005 will actually increase the deficit because it is merely one half of a two-part package. The second part of the package – a tax reconciliation bill – reduces taxes (mostly for the well-off) by $70 billion. (See story below.) Coupled together, the budget cut bill and the tax cut bill will increase the deficit by more than $30 billion. In fact, Congress did not pass S. 1932 to cut government spending, but to help pay for (offset) additional new tax breaks.

Special Interests Win Out Over Ordinary Families

The final bill reflects the choice of Congress to protect special interests and big donors over families. Pressure from the managed care and pharmaceutical industries persuaded conference negotiators to drop provisions that would have saved money from Medicaid and Medicare programs – and instead placed the burden on low-income beneficiaries. The bill subjects students and parents to higher-than-market interest rates, with the federal government capturing the overpayments back from the lenders. Education and Workforce Committee Chairman John Boehner reassured banks that he would take care of them in the bill – which he did.

Medicaid: The bill cuts Medicaid by $27 billion over ten years by allowing states to reduce benefits and require poor mothers and children to pay more for their health care. Nearly all the 28 million children who now benefit from Medicaid may lose services and/or pay more than their families can afford. Comprehensive care that now effectively prevents and treats child health problems would no longer be assured, even for the poorest children, and many deserving elderly who have no options other than nursing home care will not be able to afford it. The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimates 13 million poor recipients would face new costs and 65,000 enrollees would lose Medicaid coverage altogether.

States would be required to demand proof of citizenship either through a birth certificate or a passport from all new and renewing Medicaid applicants. Many of the poorest citizens do not have such documents. One in five African Americans 60 years or older does not have a birth certificate.

The inclusion of the Family Opportunity Act is one bright spot in an otherwise mean-spirited bill. Under these provisions, potentially thousands of low- and middle-income families who cannot obtain private health insurance for their child with a significant disability may access the Medicaid program.

Child Support: Despite the success in the last decade of improving child support enforcement and collecting more payments owed to children, the budget bill cuts federal funding of enforcement activities by $4.9 billion over 10 years. As a result of this cut, at least $8.4 billion of child support will go uncollected.

Student Loans: The bill cuts $12.7 billion from student loan programs over five years. Up to 70 percent of the total cuts from education would directly affect student borrowers . College students will face higher fees and interest rates. Parent borrowers will also be charged higher interest rates.

Aid to Disabled: The bill cuts $425 million from cash aid for poor people with disabilities. Approving applications for Supplemental Security Income (SSI) for poor people with disabilities can take many months. Instead of receiving a lump sum payment for the benefits owed from the date of application, poor beneficiaries will have to wait much longer to collect what they are owed. In part, these provisions “save” money because some seriously disabled people will die before they receive their full benefits – a true death tax.

Temporary Assistance for Needy Families and Child Care: The bill reauthorizes the welfare-to-work program through 2010 and reduces some flexibility states now have in implementing their programs. The bill requires most states to make hasty increases in work participation — or face steep penalties. California’s Legislative Analyst’s Office has estimated that California will have to pay $445 million in penalties in 2009 and 2010, as the harsher provisions are implemented. On average, states will have to increase the number of families participating in work activities by 69 percent – an additional 236,000 families, with very little planning time and few resources. The Congressional Budget Office has estimated that the cost to states of meeting the new welfare to work requirements is $8.4 billion over 5 years. (Center for Law and Social Policy, http://www.clasp.org/publications/tanfagreement_update_jan12.pdf .) The small increase in child care funding ($200 million a year) is inadequate to cover the increased work demanded of parents. Funding for child care is estimated to be so inadequate that 255,000 fewer children in working families will receive child care assistance in 2010 than in 2004.

Foster Care: The budget bill would reduce assistance to abused and neglected children by almost $1.3 billion over 10 years ($577 million over 5 years). This includes certain reductions to all states and specific cuts to services and benefits for relative caregivers in nine western states. Both cuts will limit access to foster care assistance by grandparents or other relatives. The bill restricts case management and planning to arrange for appropriate medical, mental health, educational, and other services. Although the bill includes some increases in child welfare spending, these are very small, and are far outweighed by these cuts.

For More Information

Washington Post: Budget Cuts Pass By Slim Margin: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/02/01/AR2006020100329.html

CBPP: Budget Bill Shields Key Special Interests: http://www.cbpp.org/12-20-05bud.htm

The post CHN: House Cuts $38.8 Billion from Budget; Slashes Health Care, Student Loans, Child Support and Help for People with Disabilities appeared first on Coalition on Human Needs.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

For More Information

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

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

Advocates for human needs scored a major victory on Thursday, November 10, when Republicans in the House conceded they did not yet have the votes needed to pass a budget reconciliation bill (H.R. 4241) before departing for a long Veteran’s Day weekend. The inability of the leadership to win over the support of key House moderates is a stunning defeat, but the battle is not over. Acting Majority Leader Roy Blunt (R-MO) said leadership may try to bring the measure to a vote again in the middle of next week; at this point it is scheduled to come up again on Wednesday, November 16.

The House budget reconciliation bill cuts $51 billion from entitlement programs (those that do not need annual appropriations), including services for low-income children, people with disabilities, the elderly, working families and legal immigrants. For more details about the cuts, go to: http://www.chn.org/issues/opportunityforall/updateoncuts051026.html

Thousands of calls flooded into House offices as advocates urged lawmakers to abandon plans to cut Medicaid, Food Stamps, child support enforcement, foster care payments, student aid and Supplemental Security Income (SSI). Callers also opposed the inclusion of restrictive changes and inadequate child care in Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF). The pressure from constituents and advocates for low-income families made a critical difference.

Republicans in the House and Senate remain deeply divided. Early on Thursday House leaders agreed to remove provisions to allow drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge and in off-shore locations. But that was not enough to win over moderates, who also protested the deep cuts to programs serving the poor. At the same time some right-wing members threatened to vote against the bill if it did not open up the Arctic for drilling. Jettisoning the major cuts to Medicaid, Food Stamps or child support enforcement could also be difficult because members on the right such as Rep. Mike Pence (R-IN) say they want even deeper budget cuts.

Several House conservatives argued the bill would not actually hurt families or individuals — it merely targeted waste and slowed the growth of government. In reality the bill changes several laws governing low-income services and will have a lasting effect. Fewer people (children and the elderly included) will get medical care, fewer single parent families will get the child support owed them, and thousands of struggling families moving from welfare to work will lose food stamps. The Coalition sent a letter to members of the House explaining how vulnerable Americans would be hurt by the budget bill: http://www.chn.org/pdf/houseletter.pdf

Senate Approves $35 Billion in Cuts to Entitlement Programs

The inability of the House to pass the budget bill thus far stands in contrast to the Senate, which passed its version ( S. 1932 ) on Thursday, November 3, by a vote of 52 to 47. All Democrats except Mary Landrieu (LA) and Ben Nelson (NE) opposed the Senate bill. All Republicans but five voted for the bill. The five Republicans who voted against the bill were: Lincoln Chafee (RI), Norm Coleman (MN), Susan Collins (ME), Mike DeWine (OH), and Olympia Snowe (ME). Senator Corzine (D-NJ) did not vote.

The Senate bill offers a stark contrast to the House bill. Most of the Senate budget cuts are aimed at insurance and pharmaceutical companies rather than at low-income beneficiaries. The Senate bill cuts Medicaid and Medicare, but does not contain harmful provisions allowing states to increase the amount that beneficiaries must pay for services or to restrict the benefits received.

Unlike the House bill, the Senate bill does not cut food stamps, foster care, SSI, or child support enforcement. The Senate bill does not include a reauthorization of Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF).

The Senate bill cuts spending by more than $70 billion, but contains provisions increasing spending by $35 billion – so the net cut is about $35 billion.

The Senate rejected an amendment offered by Senator James Inhofe (R-OK) based on a proposal by the Administration, to limit non-defense appropriated spending starting in FY 2007 to the level approved for FY 2006 (which is below the appropriated spending level for FY 2005). This measure was soundly rejected by a vote of 32-67.

The Senate also rejected an amendment aimed at reducing the growth of the deficit. The amendment offered by Senator Conrad (D-ND) would have required the Senate to consider new legislation to cut taxes the same way it considers new spending bills. The pay-as-you-go (PAYGO) amendment requires any legislation that increases the deficit (either by increasing program costs or by new tax cuts) must be paid for by raising revenue or cutting spending elsewhere. If a bill that increases the deficit is not paid for, it would require 60 votes (rather than 51) to pass.

Many human needs advocates favor a pay-as-you-go rule in the Senate because the massive tax breaks passed in the last four years contributed to a huge portion of the country’s current deficit. Despite this, the right wing resolutely denies or ignores the role of the tax cuts in deepening the deficit, and instead uses the budget hole as a rationale to cut spending for low-income services. Although 51 Senators voted for the Conrad amendment, the measure failed because for technical reasons it required 60 votes to pass. All Democrats voted for the amendment (except Senator Corzine of New Jersey, who was absent but supports the measure) as well as six Republicans: Lincoln Chaffee (RI), Tom Coburn (OK), Susan Collins (ME), John McCain (AZ), Olympia Snowe (ME), and George Voinovich (OH).

Senators voted in favor of an amendment that would provide $1.7 billion in education aid to students displaced by Hurricane Katrina. The National Education Association opposed the amendment, saying it would open the door for federal school vouchers. But some other education groups and Senators Ted Kennedy (D-MA) and Chris Dodd (D-CT) supported the measure.

What Happens Next?

If the House is unable to approve a reconciliation bill that cuts spending in entitlement programs, the process is dead for the year and the cuts will not happen. Although the budget resolution passed by Congress earlier this year directs lawmakers to make the cuts, there is no enforcement mechanism.

Even if the House is able to pass a reconciliation bill in the next few weeks, the path to a final bill will be rocky. The House and Senate versions must go to conference and the resulting bill must be approved by both chambers. Given the dramatic differences between the Senate approach and the current House bill, it will be tricky to craft a conference bill that can attract enough ‘yes’ votes.

The post CHN: House Leadership Can’t Dig Up Votes to Slash Medicaid, Child Support, Food Stamps, SSI, and Foster Care appeared first on Coalition on Human Needs.