NOW Legislative Update

April 18, 1995

For Items with significant changes and action needed, search for the "ACTION NEEDED" sections.

You can search for the versions of these bills using the Congressional service Thomas.
You can also look up the committee assignments.

Welfare Reform:

Final action on the Personal Responsibility Act (HR 4) occurred in the House on March 24 when the bill passed (with minor changes), by a vote of 234-199. All the different aspects of welfare reform packages (those dealing with child care and food stamps, in addition to AFDC), were rolled into one. The bill eliminates the AFDC program and several related welfare programs and substitutes a block grant to the states to run their own welfare programs. Individual entitlement to welfare will be eliminated; states will have wide discretion to create their own eligibility criteria, setting the stage for 50 different experiments in welfare reform. Funding for these block grants is capped at FY 94 levels for 5 years, with little flexibility for local changes in need or an increase in local unemployment rates. Restrictions on these funds embody some of the most onerous measures from the original Personal Responsibility Act, including:

No funds for children born to teen mothers. This restriction had been assessed for the life of the child in the original bill and in the subcommittee mark. The full committee modified the restriction to apply only until the mother turned 18. On the House floor, an amendment was added that allows states to offer non- cash aid to teen mothers (ie, vouchers) to purchase certain items, such as diapers, clothing, etc.
No funds for another child while the family is receiving AFDC. An amendment was added on the House floor to allow states to offer vouchers in this case.
Reduction in benefits to a family in which paternity has not been established for the child, even if the mother is cooperating with officials. The final bill mandates that states withhold $50 or 15% from each check, or withhold all benefits until paternity is established and then reimburse to family. These first three provisions constitute the "child exclusion" measures of welfare reform.
The bill requires states to put to work 10% of recipients in single-parent welfare families by the end of fiscal 1996, rising to 50% in fiscal year 2003. The full committee changed many of the previous work provisions, giving wide latitude to the states to construct their own work programs. Work activities were expanded to include unsubsidized employment, on-the-job training, job search, education and training directly related to employment, or, at the option of the state, satisfactory attendance at secondary school. No guarantee of child care is provided while the recipient is seeking work or working, and there is no consideration of high unemployment rates in the area.
No additional funds for recipients who have been on assistance for five years (time is cumulative, not consecutive).
No funds for non-citizens; the only exceptions are refugees, permanent residents over 75 years of age, veterans or disabled permanent residents. Federal means-tested public benefits programs that are not available to non-citizens include: AFDC, SSI, social services block grants, medicaid and food stamps.
The creation of an "illegitimacy ratio" which states are rewarded for reducing each year. Under the guise of reducing "out-of-wedlock" births, the full committee created a ratio by combining the number of out of wedlock births in the state with the increase in the number of abortions in the state, divided by the total number of births in that state. This dangerous creation implies a new twist to the anti-abortion rhetoric -- "illegitimacy" begins at conception -- and would give states incentives to reduce the numbers of abortions. Coupled with the Supreme Court's Casey decision in 1992, which has allowed states to pass abortion restrictions short of an outright ban, this could prompt a new zeal to restrict women's access to abortion at the state level.
The passage of an amendment by Henry Hyde (R-IL) which states that no funds under this block grant will pay for medical services. A colloquy on the floor between Mr. Hyde and Jim Greenwood (R-PA) made it clear that this amendment applies to abortion services and not family planning.
The final bill did include a mandate to the states to create their own child support enforcement programs, but beyond that states have the option include what they want.

The Child Protection Block Grant will replace 23 federal programs covering foster care, adoption assistance, and child abuse prevention and treatment. This will be another block grant to the states, again which will be capped at FY 94 spending levels.

Eligibility for disability payments under Supplemental Security Income (SSI) would be severely limited, and drug addiction and alcoholism would no longer be considered disabilities under this program, even if the person is currently in treatment.

Under the child care section, the bill consolidates virtually all federally subsidized child care programs into one block grant to the states which is capped at a fixed level over 5 years. The bill eliminates the guarantee that child care will be provided for welfare recipients who are working or trying to work and does not consider the increased need for child care which will inevitably occur with forced work requirements imposed on welfare recipients. The bill affects other child care programs not specifically limited to welfare recipients, including programs which provide subsidies for working parents, resource and referral, school- age child care programs, and scholarships for child caregivers seeking training. The bill also block grants nutrition programs and the very popular school lunch program, subjecting them to yearly cuts and state whims as well.

Under the section of the bill dealing with food stamps, the House floor preserved most of what the Agricultural Committee passed. While the committee did not end the entitlement to food stamps, the program is capped with food stamp allocations at a fixed amount, regardless of demand. Therefore, people will get less as the demand increases. The bill also imposes work requirements on food stamp recipients who do not have dependents and denies food stamp benefits to non-citizens.

ACTION NEEDED: The fate of this bill and the most onerous provisions in it now lie with the Senate. The Senate Finance Committee will be completing hearings after the Easter recess with a mark up following shortly thereafter. Current speculation has it that Chairman Packwood is amenable to eliminating the child exclusion provisions but maintaining the loss of entitlement status to welfare through the block grant system. Call/write/visit/picket these Senators on the Finance Committee; tell them to oppose HR 4 in its entirety, not just bits and pieces:

Senate Finance Committee members: Republicans: Bob Packwood, OR, Chair; Robert Dole, KS; William Roth, DE; John Chafee, RI; Charles Grassley, IA; Orrin Hatch, UT; Alan Simpson, WY; Larry Pressler, SD; Alfonse D'Amato, NY; Frank Murkowski, AK; Don Nickles, OK.

Democrats: Daniel Patrick Moynihan, NY, Ranking Member; Max Baucus, MT; Bill Bradley, NJ; David Pryor, AR; Jay Rockefeller, WV; John Breaux, LA; Kent Conrad, ND; Bob Graham, FL; Carol Moseley- Braun, IL.

Foster Nomination:

The nomination of Dr. Henry Foster has turned into a referendum on whether abortion is a disqualifier for holding public office. Dr. Foster's 38 year career as an ob-gyn has concentrated on addressing teen pregnancy and the problems of infant mortality, but extreme right wing groups have focused on the fact that he has performed abortions, a legal medical procedure in this country and part of the full range of reproductive health services, as making him unfit to be Surgeon General. If this succeeds, the Reagan/Bush anti-abortion litmus test for nominees will be alive and well in this country. This also contributes to the anti- abortion harassment, intimidation and violence in this country.

The timing of the Foster nomination has now become clear. The Senate Labor and Human Resources committee will hold hearings on the nomination on May 2. The only witness to testify at the hearing will be Dr. Foster himself; groups supporting or opposing the nomination submitted written testimony to the committee which Senators will review. NOW submitted testimony in support of the nomination. The committee will probably hold a vote within a week of the hearings (May 8-12); the full Senate will likely vote the following week (May 15-19).

In a recent development, Majority Leader Bob Dole stated over the Easter weekend that he doubted he would bring the nomination of Dr. Foster to the Senate floor for a vote, even if the Senate Labor Committee passed the nomination out of committee.

ACTION NEEDED: Critical points in this process are fast approaching. Committee members need to be contacted prior to the hearings and the committee vote; the full Senate needs to be contacted prior to the full Senate vote. Calls and letters need to get to Senators around these key times, even if you've contacted your Senators already on this issue. (Call 202-224-3121 for the Capitol switchboard; address letters to Senator ________, U. S. Senate, Washington, DC 20510) Also, letters to the editor and/or op- ed pieces in your local paper are critical to generate local action on the issue.

Calls and letters also need to be directed to Senator Bob Dole. His threat to prevent the Foster nomination from coming to a vote is a misuse of his position as Majority Leader of the Senate. If he is opposed to the nomination of Dr. Foster, he should vote no on the floor, not hold up the process.

Senate Labor and Human Resources Committee:

Republicans: Nancy Kassebaum, KS, Chair; Jim Jeffords, VT; Dan Coats, IN; Judd Gregg, NH; Bill Frist, TN; Mike DeWine, OH; John Ashcroft, MO; Spencer Abraham, MI; Slade Gorton, WA.

Democrats: Edward Kennedy, MA, Ranking Member; Claiborne Pell, RI; Christopher Dodd, CT; Paul Simon, IL; Tom Harkin, IA; Barbara Mikulski, MD; Paul Wellstone, MN.

For more information on Dr. Foster, the groups that support him and up-to-date information on the nomination, Planned Parenthood and People for the American Way have established a home page. The address is: http://www.igc.apc.org/foster_action/.

Abortion:

One issue came up in the Senate regarding the abortion issue. The Senate Labor and Human Resources committee marked up S 555 the end of March; the bill is entitled Health Professions Education Consolidation and Reauthorization Act of 1995. Senator Coats (R-IN) planned to offer an amendment to prevent any organization from requiring abortion training as a condition of medical accreditation or licensure. The amendment was a direct attack on the recent ruling by the Accreditation Council on Graduate Medical Education (ACGME) to require residency training programs in obstetrics and gynecology to provide training in the performance of induced abortion. Individuals with moral or religious objections are exempt and residency programs with similar objections must refer students to other programs for the training. This would be the first time Congress had stepped into the accreditation process and dictated specific curricula; it has always been left up to private accreditation bodies to determine content.

Senator Coats did not offer the amendment in committee; he may, however, offer it on the floor when the bill comes up for a vote (timing of this is unclear). No action is warranted at this moment, but that may change if Coats follows through with the amendment. We will keep you posted.

Title IX/Gender Equity in Sports:

Attack has been mounting by several football coaches against Title IX and the implementation of its provisions on gender equity in sports. In the Senate, Senator John Breaux (D-LA) along with 21 other senators sent a letter to Secretary of Education Richard Riley with concerns about the implementation of Title IX by the Education Department's office of civil rights. The Office of Civil Rights sent a letter back addressing the concerns and this seemed to satisfy Sen. Breaux, yet pressure from football coaches continues. Furthermore, the Senate Commerce Committee, on which Breaux sits, may hold hearings on Title IX in May. A "Dear Colleague" letter is being circulated in the Senate in support of Title IX by Senators Ted Stevens (R-AK) and Bill Bradley (D-NJ).

On the House side, opposition to Title IX is led by Rep. Dennis Hastert (R-IL). While not on the committee himself, Hastert has been pressuring the Education and Economic Opportunities committee to hold a hearing on Title IX, which is now scheduled to be held in the Subcommittee on Postsecondary Education, Training and Lifetime Learning on May 9th.

Arguments by the opponents of Title IX include that complying with Title IX jeopardizes smaller men's teams, hurts revenue producing teams like football (and therefore, such sports should be excluded from examination of a school's compliance with Title IX), and that gender equity is impossible to achieve since women aren't really interested in sports. Complying with Title IX does not mean men's sports must be cut; in fact, the numbers prove otherwise: for every dollar spent for women's sports between 1989 and 1993, two dollars were spent on men's sports. Women are still only a third of college athletes, receive a third of athletic scholarships, one-sixth of recruiting budgets, and one-fifth of overall athletic budgets.

Football teams are not all revenue producers; in fact, 62% of Division I-A teams ran a deficit in 1993. Furthermore, wasteful spending and excesses abound in football programs. For example, Division I-A teams put up all team members in hotels the night before home games in additional to away games. Football takes up an average of 60% of athletic budgets; if they are exempt from the calculation of gender equity, women's sports will be severely limited. And the statistics on girls' participation rates in sports (8% before Title IX to 35% today) proves girls and women are interested; it is the lack of opportunity that continues to prevent gender equity.

ACTION NEEDED: Both House and Senate offices say they are not hearing from supporters of Title IX; letters and contacts are desperately needed, especially now that hearings are scheduled. Letters should be sent to your Senators (U.S. Senate, Washington, DC 20510), House members on the Education Subcommittee (see subcommittee list below; U.S. House of Representatives, Washington, DC 20515), and to Secretary of Education Richard Riley, Department of Education, Washington, DC 20202. (Subcommittee members: [Republicans]: Buck McKeon, CA, Chair; Steve Gunderson, WI; David McIntosh, IN; William Goodling, PA; Tom Petri, WI; Marge Roukema, NJ; Frank Riggs, CA; David Funderburk, NC; Mark Souder, IN; [Democrats]: Pat Williams, MT, Ranking Member; Robert Andrews, NJ; Jack Reed, RI; Tim Roemer, IN; Xavier Becerra, CA; Gene Green, TX; Lynn Woolsey, CA).

Affirmative Action:

As many of you have heard in news reports, affirmative action programs are under attack by the Republicans and some Democrats. President Clinton has called for a review of all federal affirmative action programs. The House held hearings on affirmative action policies in the workplace in the Employer- Employee Relations Subcommittee of the Economic and Education Opportunities Committee on March 24 and in the Constitution Subcommittee of the Judiciary Committee on April 3. Again, no specific legislation was pending in either hearing, but the general discussion, particularly by the Republicans, was about ending affirmative action.

Affirmative action is still needed because discrimination against women and people of color still exists in the workplace. While no specific legislation has been drafted to dismantle affirmative action, our support for the continuation of affirmative action needs to be heard in Congress (particularly Senate Majority Leader Bob Dole) and in the White House.

ACTION NEEDED: Write your members of Congress and President Clinton; tell them not to bar or repeal affirmative action programs. The White House address is 1600 Pennsylvania Ave., Washington, DC 20500.

Violence:

The last issue of the Legislative Update included a close call by the House Ways and Means Committee in cutting funding for the Family Violence Prevention Act, which gives battered women's shelters 80- 90% of their funding. They had initially included the funds in the block grant for child protection services in the welfare reform package, meaning that battered women's shelters would have to compete state-by-state with foster care and child abuse services for money. That "mistake" was caught in time to change the final language of the welfare bill, but we need to make sure that same mistake does not happen again in the Senate as welfare legislation works its way through committees there.

ACTION NEEDED: Letters should go to the Chairs and Ranking Members of Senate committees which may mark up different parts of the welfare bill. They include Bob Packwood, R-OR, Chair and Daniel Patrick Moynihan, D-NY, Ranking Member [Finance Committee]; Nancy Kassebaum, R-KS, Chair and Edward Kennedy, D-MA, Ranking Member [Labor and Human Resources Committee]. Also, the Family Violence Prevention Act is up for reauthorization this year; contact Orrin Hatch, R-UT, Chair and Joseph Biden, D-DE, Ranking Member [Judiciary Committee] and ask them to reauthorize this critical source of funding for battered women's shelters.

The second issue under violence is the upcoming appropriations battle in the House and Senate. When both bodies return from their Easter recess, they are expected to begin the budget process. All reports indicate that programs will be cut deeply. The Violence Against Women Act authorized nearly $274 million for various programs in FY 96; it is up to us to pressure the appropriators to allot that amount and not a dime less in the FY 96 budget. Contact the chairs and ranking members of both the House and Senate Appropriations committee. Remind them that violence against women is a serious matter and they must show their commitment to ending this epidemic by appropriating the full amount of funds Congress authorized in last year's widely supported Violence Against Women Act: Bob Livingston, R- LA, Chair and David Obey, D-WI, Ranking Member [House Appropriations Committee]; Mark Hatfield, R-OR, Chair and Robert Byrd, D-WV, Ranking Member [Senate Appropriations Committee].

Bills:

Please note that inclusion in this Update does not indicate endorsement or opposition by NOW unless specifically noted.

HR 96: Equal Remedies Act of 1995 S: 296: Equal Remedies Act of 1995

These bills would amend section 1977A of the revised statutes to equalize the remedies available to all victims of intentional employment discrimination. The bills would also remove the "cap" on how much victims of sex discrimination or sexual harassment can receive in punitive damages.

HOUSE:

Chief Sponsor: Rep. Barbara Kennelly (D-CT), 10 cosponsors

Status: Introduced on 1/9/95 and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary.

SENATE:

Chief Sponsor: Sen. Edward Kennedy (D-MA), 21 cosponsors

Status: Introduced on 1/30/95 and referred to the Committee on Labor and Human Resources.

HR 173: Medicaid Women's Basic Health Coverage Act

This bill would require that State Medicaid Programs provide coverage of screening mammography and screening pap smears by amending title XIX of the Social Security Act.

Chief Sponsor: Rep. Cardiss Collins (D-IL), no cosponsors

Status: Bill was introduced in the House on 1/9/95 and referred to the Committee on Commerce.

HR 180: Medicaid Infant Mortality Amendment of 1995

This bill would make improvements of coverage in services available to pregnant women and infants in the hopes of reducing infant mortality (amending title XIX of the Social Security Act).

Chief Sponsor: Rep. Cardiss Collins (D-IL), no cosponsors

Status: Bill was introduced in the House on 1/9/95 and referred to the Committee on Commerce.

HR 382: Civil Rights Amendment Act of 1995

This bill would prohibit discrimination on the basis of affectional or sexual orientation by amending the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Fair Housing Act.

Chief Sponsor: Rep. Edolphus Towns (D-NY), no cosponsors

Status: Bill was introduced in the House on 1/9/95 and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary, as well as to the Committee on Economic and Educational Opportunities.

H 609:

A bill to establish the National Commission on Gay and Lesbian Youth Suicide Prevention.

Chief Sponsor: Rep. Martin Meehan (D-MA), 6 cosponsors

Status: Introduced on 1/20/95 and referred to the Committee on Commerce. On 2/21/95 the bill was referred to the Subcommittee on Health and Environment.

HR 641: Women's Right to Know Act of 1995

This bill would eliminate the gag rule entirely. The bill would amend title XI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and guarantee that the Federal or State governments cannot restrict a medical workers right to give, or a woman's right to get information about the reproductive health options available to her, including family planning, prenatal care, adoption or abortion services.

Chief Sponsor: Rep. Patricia Schroeder (D-CO), 5 cosponsors

Status: Introduced on 1/23/95 and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary. On 1/25/95 the bill was referred to the Subcommittee on Constitution, Federalism, and Property Rights.

HR 656: Hate Group Public Funding Exclusion Act

A bill to authorize the Sec. of Housing and Urban Development to make organizations controlled by individuals who promote prejudice or bias based on race, religion, or ethnicity ineligible for assistance under such programs administered by the Sec.

Chief Sponsor: Rep. Jim McDermott (D-WA), 5 cosponsors

Status: Introduced on 1/24/95 and referred to the Committee on Banking and Financial Services. On 1/27/95 the bill was referred to the Subcommittee on Housing and Community Opportunities.

HR 776: Freedom of Choice Act of 1995

A bill to protect the reproductive rights of women. Unfortunately, this version of FOCA still allows individual states to enact and enforce parental notification/consent laws and deny payment for poor women's abortions.

Chief Sponsor: Rep. Peter Torkildsen (R-MA), no cosponsors

Status: Introduced on 2/1/95 and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary. On 3/5/95 the bill was referred to the Subcommittee on the Constitution.

HR 777: Medicaid Mammography Coverage Act

A bill to amend title XIX of the Social Security Act to require State Medicaid plans to provide coverage of screening mammography.

Chief Sponsor: Rep. Barbara Vucanovich (R-NV), 27 cosponsors

Status: Introduced on 2/1/95 and referred to the Committee on Commerce. On 2/21/95 the bill was referred to the Subcommittee on Health and Environment.

HR 778: Equal Access to Annual Screening Mammography Act of 1995

A bill to amend title XVIII of the Social Security Act to provide coverage of an annual screening mammography under part B of the Medicare program for women age 65 or older.

Chief Sponsor: Rep. Barbara Vucanovich (R-NV), 29 cosponsors

Status: Introduced on 2/1/95 and referred to the Committee on Ways and Means, as well as the Committee on Commerce. The bill was the referred to the Subcommittee on Health and Environment.

HR 833: Family Planning Amendments Act of 1995

This bill would require the Secretary of Health and Human Services to make sure that pregnant women who are receiving assistance under Title X of the Public Health Service Act are provided with information and counseling regarding their pregnancies. This bill would reauthorize the Title X program and would legislatively lift the gag rule.

Chief Sponsor: Rep. James Greenwood (R-PA), 3 cosponsors

Status: Introduced on 2/6/95 and referred to the Committee on Commerce. On 2/21/95 the bill was referred to the Subcommittee on Health and Environment.

HR 941: Federal Prohibition of Female Genital Mutilation Act

This bill prohibits the practice of female genital mutilation and female circumsion in the United States.

Chief Sponsor: Rep. Pat Schroeder (D-CO), 29 co-sponsors

Status: Introduced on 2/14/95 and referred to the Commerce Committee as well as the Judiciary Committee.

HR 1191: The Victims of Abuse Access to Insurance Act S: 524: The Victims of Abuse Access to Insurance Act

These bills would prohibit insurers from denying health insurance coverage or benefits (or increasing premiums) based on the status of an individual as a victim of domestic violence.

HOUSE:

Chief Sponsor: Rep. Charles Schumer (D-NY), no cosponsors

Status: Introduced on 3/9/95 and referred to the Committee on Commerce, as well as the Committee on the Judiciary, and Economic and Educational Opportunities.

SENATE:

Chief Sponsor: Sen. Paul Wellstone (D-MN), 4 cosponsors

Status: Introduced on 3/9/95 and referred to the Committee on Labor and Human Resources.

HR 1201: Insurance Protection for Victims of Domestic Violence

This bill would amend the Public Health Service Act to prohibit health insurance discrimination with respect to victims of domestic violence.

Chief Sponsor: Rep. Ron Wyden (D-OR), 2 cosponsors

Status: Introduced on 3/10/95 and referred to the Committee on Commerce, as well as the Committee on Economic and Educational Opportunities.

HR 1311: The Federal Risk Assessment in Women's Health Act

This bill would provide for a review of all Federal programs that assess the risks to women's health from environmental exposures, and for a study of the research needs of the Federal Government relating to such risks.

Chief Sponsor: Rep. Louise McIntosh Slaughter (D-NY), no cosponsors

Status: Introduced on 3/23/95 and referred to the Committee on Commerce, as well as the Committee on Science.

HCR 13

This concurrent resolution condemns the violence committed in Brookline, MA on December 30, 1994 which killed 2 clinic personnel at reproductive health clinics.

Chief Sponsor: Rep. Martin Meehan (D-MA), 44 cosponsors

Status: Introduced on 1/9/95 and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary. On 1/25/95 the bill was referred to the Subcommittee on Crime.

H Res. 30

Resolution expressing the sense of the House that obstetrician-gynecologists should be designated as primary care providers for women in Federal laws relating to the provision of health care.

Chief Sponsor: Rep. Larry Combest (R-TX), 106 cosponsors

Status: Introduced on 1/9/95 and referred to the Committee on Commerce.

S 282: Domestic Violence Community response Team Act of 1995

This bill would authorize the Sec. of Health and Human Services to award grants and contracts to establish domestic violence community response teams and a technical assistance center to address the development and support of such community response teams.

Chief Sponsor: Sen. Bill Bradley (D-NJ), 2 cosponsors

Status: Introduced on 1/26/95 and referred to the Committee on Labor and Human Resources.

This legislative update was compiled by the Government Relations/Public Policy Team at the National NOW Office.

For copies of any of the above bills, connect to Thomas or call your Senator or Representative at (202) 225-3121 who will send you copies free of charge. This update is mailed monthly to NOW leadership. Any member can get the update for a yearly charge of $25.

Return to NOW Home Page