January/February 1998
THE 105TH CONGRESS RECONVENES: LEGISLATIVE OUTLOOK FOR 1998
The 105th Congress reconvened on January 27, for the second half of its two-year session. A number of bills were introduced last year but are still going through Congress, and some new initiatives are also on the horizon. This policy alert highlights several key issues that may be of concern to low income communities this year.In addition, the announcement that the federal government will eliminate its deficit and achieve a surplus next year has spurred furious debate on how the excess revenues should be used. In his State of the Union address, the President called for saving the surplus and using it for Social Security. Republicans are calling for more tax cuts. Some low-income advocates are cautious about promoting increased spending, because the spending may not occur in the programs that serve low income people. Also, the tax cuts that Congress already passed last year will grow in coming years, and there is no plan in place for offsetting those cuts with decreases in spending elsewhere in the federal budget.
Housing and Community Development Welfare Reform Child Care Minimum Wage Transportation Job Training SPECIAL ALERT: Action Needed on FY 1999 HUD Budget
HOUSING & COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENTHUD Budget for Fiscal Year 1999 - The budget process for FY 1999 (which begins October 1, 1998) will kick off when the President introduces his budget proposal on February 2. The President's budget will contain $1.4 billion in increased funding for some HUD programs. More specifically, Clinton is expected to call for 100,000 new Section 8 vouchers, a portion of which (32,000) will be targeted to the homeless. Another 50,000 would be available to localities on a competitive basis, to assist welfare recipients making the transition to work. After twenty years of gradually increasing the supply of rental assistance, Congress has not made funding available for new, or incremental' vouchers since FY 95. The President will also propose modest increases in some other housing programs, including homeless assistance, CDBG, and HOME. The President's budget continues to underfund public housing, and cuts funding for elderly and disabled housing programs.
After the President introduces his budget, Congress will begin its process to decide how much money will be appropriated to HUD. The Budget committees will set spending limits for each Appropriations subcommittee, and then the House and Senate Appropriations subcommittees on HUD/VA/Independent Agencies will each decide funding for the individual programs. The full Appropriations committees and full House and Senate will then vote on the spending bills, and then work out a compromise between the two chambers.
ACTION NEEDED: Educate your Representatives and Senators about the successful, federally funded housing and community development programs in your community, and urge them to support the President's housing budget. Focus groups conducted by the National Low Income Housing Coalition have shown that the public supports funding for housing if they see evidence that the programs are locally administered and work well.
Public Housing - Last year the House and Senate each passed legislation to overhaul the public housing system. HR 2 and S 462 would give local housing authorities much more autonomy, remove many existing protections for residents, and weaken resident participation requirements.
The Senate bill is better than the House bill with respect to income targeting – the policy that determines how many moderate income and very low income families will get access to public housing and section 8 vouchers in the future. The Senate bill would ensure that the lowest income families, including minimum wage workers, continue to benefit from these programs. The repeal of federal preferences – for the homeless, families that pay more than half their income in rent, and others – has meant that there is no longer any assurance that public housing and vouchers will serve those who have the greatest housing need. So far, the House and Senate have made no move toward reconciling their two bills into one, and there is speculation that a streamlined bill, containing non-controversial items, may surface instead.
ACTION NEEDED: Urge your Representatives and Senators to support the Senate targeting provisions in any public housing bill that moves forward. Banking Committee members are especially important legislators to receive this message.
McKinney Act Homeless Programs - The House Banking Committee reported out a bill to change the way that federal dollars for homeless assistance are passed down to the states and localities. The bill (HR 217) would consolidate the multiple HUD programs for the homeless into two block grants. Twenty-five percent of annual funding would go to the Permanent Housing Development Block Grant, and the remaining 75 percent to the Flexible Block Grant. The flexible grant would be divided between states (30%) and localities (70%), with some matching requirements. Overall, only 35 percent of McKinney funds could be used for supportive services. Local governments would be required to set up boards that include at least 51 percent membership by homeless individuals and nonprofits. There is some uncertainty among homeless advocates, and some HUD officials, about whether the block grant approach is the right way to reform the McKinney programs. The full House may vote on the bill in February or March. In the Senate, legislation is not likely to move this year, as the Banking Committee is still in the information gathering and drafting stage.
Low Income Housing Tax Credit (LIHTC) - There is movement afoot both in the Administration and in Congress to expand the LIHTC program so that more equity is available to build new affordable housing. On January 13 Vice President Gore announced that the President's budget will call for a 40 percent increase in the tax credit, which goes to corporations that invest in affordable housing construction. Specifically, the amount of credit that states may allocate to projects each year will increase from $1.25 per capita (which was the level set when the program was enacted in 1986) to $1.75 per capita. Meanwhile, several Republicans and Democrats in both chambers of Congress have sponsored legislation to increase the per capita cap as well, and index the amount to inflation in future years.
WELFARE REFORMFood Stamps - The welfare reform law that Congress passed in August 1996 denied legal immigrants eligibility for SSI and food stamps. SSI eligibility has since been restored, but nearly a million legal immigrants remain ineligible for food stamps. The President's budget is expected to contain a $2 billion, five year proposal to partially restore eligibility for food stamps. Three billion dollars would be required to restore full benefits to all immigrants who lost eligibility. The President's plan is expected to restore benefits to the elderly and disabled first, and then to families with children. Republicans in Congress are opposed to restoration of food stamps for legal immigrants.
ACTION NEEDED: As with the successful campaign to restore SSI to legal immigrants, a major effort to educate Congress and the public about this issue will be required to sway Congress. Local groups should share their stories about the individuals and families affected by the food stamp cut off with the media and members of Congress.
Privatization - While the welfare law allows states to privatize their welfare programs, including eligibility determination, some states such as Texas and Florida, are pushing for the authority to also privatize Food Stamps and Medicaid. Attempts to pass legislation in Congress last year failed, but there is a strong possibility of renewed efforts to privatize those and other programs, including unemployment insurance. Low income advocates oppose allowing corporations – whose bottom line is profit – to run state social service programs and determine eligibility for them.
Worker Rights - Last year some members of Congress also tried to take away worker protections for welfare recipients who work for their benefits in workfare programs. According to the federal Department of Labor, workfare workers are protected under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and other worker protection laws. Some Republicans have indicated that they may make it a priority this year to attempt again to strip workfare workers of these protections.
TANF Regulations - The federal Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) has issued proposed regulations for the new welfare program, called Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF), which replaced AFDC. The public has until February 18, 1998 to send in comments to HHS on the proposed regs. There are a few key issues that local groups may want to focus on:
The regs contain data reporting requirements so that HHS can gather basic information from the states on what happens to people who are sanctioned or otherwise terminated from the welfare rolls. The National Governors Association (NGA) strongly opposed the data collection requirements, on the grounds that they are a paperwork burden. Advocates suspect that the governors don't really want the public to know what the states are doing to poor people. Your comments should urge HHS to keep the data collection requirements in the proposed regs, and not weaken them.
The regulations contain provisions that are intended to discourage states from using their Maintenance of Effort (MOE) funds (MOE dollars are the required state match to federal TANF dollars) to set up separate programs. If separate programs are set up that don't use TANF funds, then the 5 year lifetime limit does not apply, nor do the work participation requirements. HHS does not want states to use MOE programs to circumvent the "work first" focus of the welfare law. Advocates fear that, by setting penalties for states that appear to intentionally avoid work participation requirements, HHS is throwing cold water on opportunities for states to develop good, innovative programs. Your comments should urge HHS not to discourage states from developing innovative programs with their MOE funds.
Model comments in response to the HHS proposed regulations are available from the Children's Defense Fund, Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, and the Center for Law and Social Policy.
CDF: www.childrensdefense.org or 202-628-8787
CBPP: www.cbpp.org or 202-408-1080
CLASP: www.clasp.org or 202-328-5140
CHILD CAREOn January 7, 1998, President Clinton announced a $21.7 billion, five-year child care initiative for the FY 1999 budget. The proposal includes $10.5 billion in new mandatory funds, $5.5 billion in discretionary spending, and $5.7 billion in tax credits. The proposed funding is broken down into nine major areas over a five year period:
The President's proposal is being hailed as a positive first step toward passing a major child care package this year. Republican and Democratic members of Congress have submitted many differing child care proposals. Democrats in the House and Senate have submitted eighteen different bills, covering an array of issues. The Kennedy bill is funded by money from any tobacco settlement and is the most comprehensive of the proposals. The Senate Republican leadership has submitted an alternative initiative which includes support for non-working parents. This plan is sponsored by Sens. Craig [ID] and Coats [IN]. Moderate GOP Senators have also submitted their own proposal, sponsored by Sens. Chafee [RI] and Hatch [UT], which is a compromise between the plans offered by the President and the GOP leadership. One of its main thrusts is to increase the maximum percentage of child care expenses that parents can deduct so that more low-income families will be eligible for this benefit.Child Care Block Grant Increase $7.5 billion Child and Dependent Tax Credit Reform $5.2 billion Head Start Increase $3.8 billion Early Learning Fund $3 billion After-School Program $800 million Tax Credit for Businesses $500 million Standards Enforcement Fund $500 million Child Care Provider Scholarship Fund $250 million Research and Evaluation Fund $150 million
- Total: $21.7 billion
MINIMUM WAGESenator Edward Kennedy (D-MA) and Representative David Bonior (D-MI) have introduced legislation to increase the minimum wage $0.50 a year for three years and then adjust it for inflation. The current minimum wage is $5.15 an hour. In order to have the same purchasing power that the minimum wage had in 1968, it would now have to be $7.33. The new legislation would bring the minimum wage to $5.65 an hour by September 1, 1998; $6.15 an hour by September 1, 1999; and $6.65 an hour by September 1, 2000.
Initial projections done by the Economic Policy Institute predict that the new legislation will impact over 12 million workers. Of the affected workers, 60% are expected to be female, and 75% are expected to be adults. It is estimated that 50% of impacted workers will be full-time and 82% will be workers who work at least 20 hours a week. The minimum wage increase is expected to benefit minority populations.
ACTION NEEDED: Please contact Senators and Congress members and urge them to cosponsor the bill. In the Senate, the Fair Minimum Wage Act of 1998 (S 1573) has eight cosponsors. Interest in sponsoring the bill or any questions may be addressed to Susan Green at (202) 224-5441.
The House bill (HR 3100) has at least 86 cosponsors. Representatives who wish to cosponsor the House bill may contact Erich Pfueler at (202) 225-2106.
Sen. Kennedy (D-MA) and Rep. Bonior (D-MI) are planning a House-Senate forum in February or March. Parents who are earning less than $6.50 an hour are being sought to testify at the forum. If you know of someone who might testify or have further questions, please contact Deborah Weinstein at the Children's Defense Fund at (202) 662-3565 or email her at dweinstein@childrensdefense.org.
TRANSPORTATIONLast November the House and Senate failed to reauthorize the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act (ISTEA), which funds transportation programs. Instead, Congress passed a six-month extension that will expire March 30. It is not clear when ISTEA will be brought to the House and Senate floors this year. Key members of Congress are pushing to increase funding levels for transportation programs, which may threaten the Balanced Budget Agreement passed last year. There is a strong likelihood that a reauthorization bill will not be considered until after a budget resolution is agreed upon, leaving the decision to reauthorize ISTEA until late spring at the earliest.
Last year grassroots organizations and national advocacy groups successfully included three amendments to the Transit Title of ISTEA in the Senate Banking Committee:
The first amendment is a $100 million Access to Jobs program. It will be important that members of Congress understand that this provision should be used for more than simply vanpools and old vehicles for welfare participants, but that the funds can be used for improving light rail and other infrastructure in low-income communities. The second requires Metropolitan Planning Organizations (MPOs), the entities that decide how transportation funds are spent locally, to disclose how money is spent by location. This will increase MPO accountability to underserved communities. The third broadens the membership of MPOs to include users of mass transit, opening up the decision-making process to more constituents.
These amendments are not included in the House's current version of the ISTEA reauthorization bill.
In the meantime a coalition of community organizations, including groups belonging to the Gamaliel, ACORN, DART, and National People's Action networks, are working with the Center for Community Change to set up a national "listening session" with the Secretary of Transportation in Chicago. The goal of the meeting would be to thank Sen. Moseley-Braun (D-IL) and Secretary Slater for their leadership on Access to Jobs, and to allow local groups to share their own experiences and concerns regarding the transportation needs of their constituents.
Anticipating the Slater meeting, the Department of Transportation has committed to holding several smaller meetings between organizations in the coalition and high level administrators. Groups have set their sites on the Federal Highway Administrator, the Federal Transit Administrator, the Director of the Office of Civil Rights, and other officials who could advance their local organizing and advocacy efforts.
ACTION NEEDED: (1) Join the grassroots effort to get Congress to pass an ISTEA bill that will meet the needs of low-income communities, and further local organizing efforts. Contact Jerry Jones at (860) 527-2422, jonesj@commchange.org for more information. (2) Join the national Access to Jobs Coalition. Contact Nancy Willis of the Surface Transportation Policy Project at (202) 974-5137 for more information. (3) Educate your members of Congress on the importance of transportation and jobs access in your communities. Key members of the Senate Environment and Public Works committee include Sens. Chafee (R-RI), Warner (R-VA), Baucus (D-MT), Smith (R-NH), Kempthorne (R-ID), Bond (R-MO), Inhofe (R-OK), Thomas (R-WY), Moynihan (D-NY), Reid (D-NV), Graham (D-FL), Boxer (D-CA).
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Rich Stolz at (202) 342-0567 ext. 367, richs@commchange.org at the Center for Community Change.
JOB TRAININGThere is a bipartisan sentiment in Congress that the numerous federal job training programs need to be consolidated and streamlined. After failing to reach consensus in the 104th Congress, the House and Senate are making a second attempt to overhaul the Job Training Partnership Act (JTPA) and other education and training laws. The full House passed HR 1385 last May. The Senate bill, S 1186, was reported out of the Senate Labor Committee last September. That bill is expected to go to the full Senate for a vote in the next several weeks.
The House and Senate bills propose the same basic delivery system, which relies on one-stop centers to provide individuals seeking assistance with information and advice. Those individuals would then be given vouchers, or skill grants. While the vouchers are supposed to give participants a greater sense of choice, the onus will be on recipients to find good quality training that will lead to a decent paying job. Low income advocates are also concerned about ease of access to the one-stops and their capacity to serve diverse populations and needs. Private Industry Councils (PICs), the current local decision-making bodies, will be reconstituted into Workforce Development Boards that mainly include private sector representatives. There will no longer be a requirement that a percentage of the boards reflect labor and community groups.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Lisa Ranghelli at 202/342-0567, ranghellil@commchange.org
SPECIAL ALERT: Action Needed on FY 1999 HUD BudgetBACKGROUND: President Clinton plans to present his FY99 Budget Request on February 2, 1998. This is the largest Administrative request for HUD funding in a decade, and a $1.4 billion increase from the FY 1998 budget. He will request funding for 100,000 new Section 8 vouchers. These 100,000 vouchers represent the first request for new Section 8 funding in several years.
ACTION NEEDED: the President needs support from Congress to pass his FY99 HUD Budget. Here's how you can help:
Sample LetterWrite a letter to your Representative and Senators. Use the sample letter below; fill in information about your local projects that are supported by federal housing programs; Contact your Representatives and Senators NOW by calling, setting up appointments with Members or their staff members (Congress is on recess February 16 - 23 and members will be in their districts) and/or sending post cards and letters Contact your local media by using the sample press release; If you receive a commitment from your Member, send a note/e-mail to Lisa Ranghelli at ranghellil@commchange.org, fax 202/333-5462. The Honorable NAME OF REPRESENTATIVE/SENATOR
ADDRESSDear Representative/Senator NAME:
On behalf of YOUR ORGANIZATION'S NAME, I would like to request that you support full funding of the President's FY99 U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) Budget. It continues and moderately expands programs that are vital to enabling communities to better address housing and community development needs.
For example, in NAME OF CITY/NEIGHBORHOOD, our NAME OF LOCAL HUD - SUPPORTED PROGRAM provides DESCRIPTION OF PROGRAM for low income families. (**CHOOSE FROM THE MENU OF HUD PROGRAMS DESCRIBED BELOW OR ADD YOUR OWN.**)
As you can tell, HUD programs are essential to the programs that YOUR ORGANIZATION'S NAME provides. And as YOUR STATE implements its new welfare program, a base of stable housing and housing resources that HUD dollars provide mean even more to very low income working families who are trying to improve their economic status without having their earnings subsumed by housing costs. Expanded funding for HUD's vital housing and community development programs can help build healthy communities and meet the growing needs of their residents.Without HUD's Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) funds to obtain sites, HOME funds for construction, rehabilitation and training, YOUR ORGANIZATION'S NAME could not have provided decent housing to voucher holders seeking affordable housing units in NAME OF CITY/NEIGHBORHOOD. Without HOME Program, YOUR ORGANIZATION'S NAME could not have built affordable housing units for very low income families in the NAME OF CITY/NEIGHBORHOOD. Without HUD funding for transitional housing programs, YOUR ORGANIZATION'S NAME could not have provided a continuum of care approach to helping X NUMBERS OF homeless people to get back on their feet. Sincerely,
YOUR NAME YOUR TITLE
SAMPLE PRESS RELEASE
For Release On February 2, 1998
For more information, contact:
First Contact Name, phone number
Second Contact Name, phone numberPresident Clinton is expected to release his Administration's fiscal year 1999 budget request to Congress today for the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). The budget request includes important increases for housing and community development dollars which will have impacts on local communities that should not be underestimated. The local impact of this federal budget request should not be underestimated. HUD's housing and community development programs have been the key to success for many local programs. Indeed, many community-based services and programs would not exist if HUD funding was not available. Local communities take advantage of these federal opportunities for increased home ownership, decent rental housing, increased employment and entrepreneurial opportunities.
For example (insert name of local organization receiving HUD-originated funding) utilizes federal monies from HUD's (insert name of HUD program that funds the local organization) to (insert task accomplished locally with, in all or in part, HUD dollars). (Insert brief description of local program, who the program serves, partnerships with other organizations / programs developed by the highlighted organization, success stories, etc.). (E.g., programs for housing and services for homeless persons, fair housing, housing for persons with AIDS and for housing and supportive services for elderly and disabled persons.)
The fiscal year 1999 HUD budget request allows the Department and its local partners to build upon these successes and embark on helping new families. For example, the President has requested 100,000 new rental assistance vouchers - 34,000 of which will be used to house homeless persons. The budget request continues and moderately expands programs that are vital to enabling communities to better address their housing and community development needs. Many families making minimum wage in our community continue to need housing assistance.
Local programs are working. Federal programs that support our efforts and encourage partnerships with other state and local efforts are critical. We are optimistic that the President's 1999 budget will help us continue our work and that it will be supported by Congress.
Add brief paragraph on your organization and its history here.
The Center for Community Change
1000 Wisconsin Ave., NW
Washington, DC, 20007
202/342-0567
202/333-5462