Roanoke Times
                 Copyright (c) 1995, Landmark Communications, Inc.

DATE: TUESDAY, December 21, 1993                   TAG: 9312210103
SECTION: NATIONAL/INTERNATIONAL                    PAGE: A-5   EDITION: METRO 
SOURCE: Associated Press
DATELINE: WASHINGTON                                LENGTH: Medium

CLINTON'S BUDGET MAY CUT AID PROGRAMS FOR THE POOR

Lawmakers, congressional aides who work for committees with jurisdiction over federal social programs, and advocates say President Clinton's 1995 budget probably will cut some programs for the poor, such as heating and emergency food assistance.

And priority programs, such as Head Start, a comprehensive early-childhood development program, and WIC, the supplemental feeding program for low-income pregnant and nursing women, infants and children, may not see their budgets grow as quickly as Clinton envisioned.

The White House and its Office of Management and Budget are making final decisions on next year's budget, which the administration hopes to unveil in early February.

An administration official, speaking on condition of anonymity, said the budgets of several social programs were still up the air Monday and the subject of intense discussion between the departments and the White House.

Because of the strict federal spending limits imposed by Congress earlier this year, advocates and congressional aides say the administration must cut in one place if it wants to increase in another.

Unaffected by the budget caps are the country's entitlement programs, such as Social Security, Medicare and Aid to Families with Dependent Children, the primary welfare program for families with children.

Although the White House is working to reform the nation's welfare and health-care systems, it still must decide how much to spend on scores of other programs serving poor families, such as heating and emergency food assistance.

Congressional staffers and advocates, also insisting on anonymity, said those programs may suffer deep cuts in the president's 1995 budget proposal.

Among the likely casualties:

The Emergency Food Assistance Program, or TEFAP. The $120-million-a-year program supplies commodities to food banks, soup kitchens, rescue missions, homes for the elderly and meals-on-wheels programs.

The $1.44 billion Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program, which helps millions of poor families heat their homes in the winter.

Also vulnerable: the $1.3 billion Child and Adult Care Food Program, which provides cash and commodities to child and adult day-care centers and family day-care homes for children.

At the same time, advocates and aides say the budgets for WIC and Head Start, now set at $3.21 billion and $3.326 billion, respectively, will grow, but maybe not as quickly as the White House envisioned.

Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., chairman of the Senate Agriculture Committee, said he is "especially concerned" about the fate of WIC, and deep reductions in The Emergency Food Assistance Program would be "disastrous."

"We cannot take away the safety net for America's poor," Leahy said. "These programs are essential front-line defenses against hunger, and cutting them is a big mistake."

Rep. Bill Emerson, R-Mo., a senior member of the House Agriculture Committee, said TEFAP is a lifeline to the nation's food banks.

Emerson said they serve people "who, for a whole variety of reasons, on a daily basis find themselves without food, without access to food."

Ellen Nissenbaum, legislative director of the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, an advocacy and research organization that focuses on issues affecting the poor, said the budget caps "mean cuts in a wide array of programs, programs that Democrats and Republicans care about."

"This budget is going to be a surprise to everybody, because there's no money," she said. "In order to fund program X, you have to cut program Y."

Meg Power, legislative representative for the National Community Action Foundation, a group that represents local agencies that run Head Start and nutrition and energy programs for the poor, says a budget that pits one low-income family's needs against another's is a mistake.

"A budget in which an investment in one set of needs - like keeping warm in the winter or feeding themselves - is reduced in order to pay for another set of needs for that family, is a desperate and ultimately useless approach to investing in America's people," Power said.