Given the calendar pressures created by the fact that 2004 is an election year, most congressional work on the domestic hunger and poverty agenda is likely to be played out through the federal budget process. A few important programs, however, will be voted on apart from the budget even though the debate on them may be primarily influenced by budget considerations.

Federal Budget: Despite continued high unemployment and depressed wages for middle- and low-income working families, the Administration’s proposed budget for Fiscal Year 2005 (beginning October 1) continues a pattern of freezing or cutting discretionary programs that serve people in need while pouring more funds into military expenditures and tax cuts. The result is that federal revenues for the current year are likely to be at the lowest level since 1950 when measured as a proportion of the economy, while the federal deficit grows rapidly, imposing a massive burden on future generations.

Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan told Congress recently that the soaring federal deficit poses a long-term threat to the economy and could cause an “appreciable increase” in interest rates. He recommended that Congress cut overall federal spending before considering reduction or repeal of the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts, which are largely responsible for the drop in federal revenues. The Administration wants to make the tax cuts permanent. Many of them are scheduled to expire within the next few years.

The deepest spending cuts proposed by the Administration come in the area of domestic discretionary programs, except for homeland security, which will grow significantly. Discretionary programs are the non-entitlement programs for which Congress annually passes 13 appropriations bills, funding the various agencies of the federal government. These programs disproportionately serve low- and middle-income people. In some popular programs, small increases are scheduled for FY2005, with big reductions in future years. These programs include public education, health research, energy assistance for low-income families, and the Women, Infants and Children (WIC) program that provides supplemental nutrition to low-income pregnant and nursing women and pre-school children.

Both political parties are likely to resist the Administration’s budget. The House Appropriations Committee recently warned House and Senate Republicans at their annual retreat that: “Solely targeting non-defense discretionary spending will not have a significant impact on the deficit”. The Committee stated that this policy would save only $3 billion and could threaten “traditional congressional priorities like veterans’ medical care, medical research, law enforcement and special education” as well as the pet projects of individual legislators.

The Administration contends that it proposes to increase domestic discretionary spending by half of a percentage point in FY2005. Most of the increase, however, is slated for defense items not included in the Pentagon budget. Domestic social programs would increase by only one-tenth of one percent, far below what is required to keep up with expanding need in an economy that is leaving the working poor behind.

Child Care: Most studies of TANF’s effectiveness have shown that the absence of safe, quality, reliable child care is the single largest barrier to employment and the thing that most often causes families to return to the welfare rolls. Sen. Olympia Snowe (R-ME) is sponsoring an amendment to PRIDE that would increase child care funding for low-income families by $6 billion over five years, a proposal supported by the Presbyterian Church (USA). The Administration has proposed no additional funding for child care and only $1 billion more is included in both PRIDE and H.R. 4. The Bush recent budget proposal would actually eliminate 365,000 subsidized child care slots by FY 2009.

Unemployment Compensation: Extended unemployment benefits expired for about two million people in December, when Congress adjourned without reauthorizing the program. This program provides 13 weeks of aid beyond the normal 26 in parts of the country where unemployment is particularly severe. On February 4, the House approved an extension of these benefits through June, as 39 Republicans joined House Democrats to pass the measure 227-179. The Senate has not yet acted on the legislation, and even when it does, another vote will be needed to appropriate funds. According to Rep. Peter DeFazio (D-OR), “We don’t need to borrow money to provide unemployment benefits. There’s $17 billion in the unemployment trust funds (paid in by workers over the years).”

Head Start: Many pre-school low-income children spend part of each day in Head Start programs, where they receive health and dental care, behavior and socialization guidance, nutrition assistance, literacy and numeracy training. The Bush administration proposes to refocus Head Start to concentrate on the educational aspects, preparing children for the tests they face when they enter school. The House has passed legislation to achieve these goals, with funding that will result in eliminating slots for over 6,000 children nationwide in the first year. The Senate has not acted. The advocacy community supports serving more children and keeping the full range of early childhood development activities now included in the program.

Housing: Congress has belatedly funded the Housing Choice Voucher program so that nearly all current vouchers will be supported through the current fiscal year, ending September 30. Vouchers cover the difference between 30% of a low-income household’s income and the actual cost of rent for a modest apartment. The supply of vouchers is far from adequate to meet the need, and the program has not been expanded for several years. In large cities, it is common for families to wait a decade to receive housing help. More than half of voucher recipients are families with children, of whom 40% are wage earners. Another 40% are seniors or people with disability. Under the Bush Administration’s proposed budget for next year, vouchers are slated to be reduced by 250,000 households.

Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF): The Senate has not yet voted on reauthorization of TANF, the nation’s federal cash assistance program for low-income families with children, despite the fact that it expired in September 2002. The House passed its version of TANF reauthorization (H.R. 4) a year ago, increasing the hours TANF recipients must work and reducing options for them to receive education and job training. The Senate Finance Committee approved the Personal Responsibility and Individual Development for Everyone (PRIDE) bill last September but the Senate adjourned without acting on it. TANF’s current temporary extension expires March 31; a Senate vote on reauthorization is likely by March 1.

The Presbyterian Church (USA) and its religious community partners have urged Senators to amend PRIDE so that it will:

• Increase full TANF, health and child care and education and training benefits to immigrants. Sen. Clinton (D-NY) is sponsoring an amendment restoring TANF to legal immigrants.
• Retain the current work requirement at 20 hours per week for parents of pre-school children (30 hours for those whose children are older than age 6);
• Allow education and training to count toward the work requirement for 24 months.
• Delete the “superwaiver” provision that lets ten states waive federal laws in order to coordinate TANF, Social Services Block Grant, and child care programs, possibly eliminating standards and vital protections for families.
• Review barriers to employment for TANF recipients before removing their benefits and count participation in programs to overcome barriers toward the work requirement for more than six months if needed by a family.

General Assembly

Welfare Reform: The 1996 welfare reform bill drastically changed the old federal entitlement program, Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC), and put in its place a block grant program, Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF). The new law gives states significantly more power to design their own welfare programs using both state and federal funding. The 1997 General Assembly responded by adopting a resolution that is designed to offer “guidelines for the church and government to follow in promoting the general welfare of the poor” (Minutes, 1996, p. 553). The guidelines include the following:

1. Maintain at least the 1996 level of welfare funding for as long as needed in the transition to a work-based welfare system.
2. Oppose any tightening of eligibility requirements for public assistance that would make persons in need even more vulnerable.
3. Provide adequate funding for job training that leads to employment at a family-sustaining wage.
4. Where necessary, provide state-funded employment options, including sheltered workshops, for the least employable.
5. Provide additional state funds as necessary to prevent children and parents from being denied assistance when, despite their best efforts, adults reach a program time limit but cannot find work at adequate pay.
6. Exempt single parents with a child under age one from work requirements.
7. Provide adequate funding for child care and transportation assistance to recipients in the Temporary Assistance to Needy Families (TANF) program, as well as to low-income working families, in order to make job training and employment viable.
8. Decline to implement a “family cap” that would exclude cash assistance for children born to a welfare recipient.
9. Provide exemption of teen-parents from the requirement that they live with a parent or guardian unless the home is known to be safe for both the teen-parent and the child.
10. Provide adequately for disabled persons and immigrants who may lose eligibility for means-tested programs.
11. Opt not to restrict access by immigrants to WIC, the Child and Adult Care Food Program; and the Summer Food Program.
12. Make contingency plans for meeting increased needs and the likelihood of inadequate funding in the event of an economic recession.

Presbyterian General Assemblies have often expressed opinions as to how the Federal Government should function in relation to the nation’s economy. When the Assemblies have spoken, they have without exception spoken on behalf of a federal economic policy which is humane and sensitive to the needs of persons; taxes on the basis of equity; and, while supporting private initiative, does not allow private interests to trample the poor, disenfranchised or unemployed.

General Assemblies have not been blind to the problem of limited economic resources and the problem of a growing federal deficit. In addressing that issue directly, the 1990 Assembly urged both the President and Congress “to place the highest priority on developing a legislative program (a) to more adequately meet social and economic needs, and (b) to reduce the federal deficit. To the extent this cannot be done by reducing military or other spending, (the Assembly requests) them to approve legislation (a) to increase taxes and (b) to make the tax structure more equitable and progressive” (Minutes, 1990, p. 776).