LEGISLATIVE
UPDATE| Impeachment Trial Drags On: | Because Congress has done little but focus on the impeachment
trial since coming back to Washington on January 6th, there is not
a great deal to report in the way of legislative activity. A few
hearings are being held on the House side on such topics as Social Security,
but no important actions are expected until the Senate trial comes to a
close. Latest projections as to when this might happen focus on mid-February.
With several key votes taken regarding dismissal of the charges and the
use of live testimony, it seems fairly certain that there will be insufficient
number of votes (two-thirds are required) to convict the President.
Debate continues about whether the Senate should officially censure Mr.
Clinton. In the meantime, there is lots of speculation about
what is likely to be taken up early in this first session of the 106th
Congress. This Legislative Update covers some of the more important
issues that we are concerned about, although we may not see early action
on some of them.
Congress will soon step up its pace and NOW members must be prepared
to swing into gear, especially on revamping Social Security, solving the
long term funding problems for Social Security and Medicare and re-authorizing
the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA). And, of course,
one of our top priorities is to expand and fully fund Violence
Against Women programs.
|
Action Needed: |
Activists should call, fax letters or send e-mail messages to their
Senators urging that they vote against removal of the President. Those
Senators who especially need to hear from constituents are: Sens. Richard
Shelby (R-AL), Mike DeWine (R-VT), Slade Gorton (R-WA), William Roth (D-DE),
George Voinovich (R-OH), Arlen Specter (R-PA), Rick Santorum (R-PA), Spencer
Abraham (R-MI), John Chafee (R-RI), and Gordon Smith R-OR). See NOW's latest
Action
Alerts for contact information for those Senators. If you aren't
on the action alert list, see the
end of this alert for information on how to sign up.
|
| President Promises to Save Social Security, Medicare: | The President's State
of the Union message vowed to use a majority of the $2.7 trillion in
budget surpluses over next 15 years to put Social
Security on a sound financial footing. President Clinton proposed
using 62% of the surplus to shore up the Social Security Trust Fund, which
under the present framework would see a significant drop in revenues by
2027. He also advocated that a larger proportion of Social Security
contributions be invested in stocks and bonds to enhance earnings to the
fund over time. This latter proposal drew some criticism from various business
groups and conservative think tanks, but was well received in other quarters.
In response to the would-be privatizers of Social Security, the President proposed establishment of a separate system of savings and investment that would be progressively matched by the federal government. These Universal Savings Accounts (USAs) are intended to help lower-income workers who find it difficult to save and have little opportunity to secure their retirement through private investments. This program would be funded from future earnings of the Social Security Trust Fund. A second major initiative proposed by the administration is to use part (15%) of the surplus to solve Medicare's long-term financing problems. Clinton noted that "[we] already have extended the life of the Medicare Trust Fund by ten years; [we] should extend it for at least another decade." In addition to assuring financial support for this senior health care program through 2020, the President proposed to begin covering the cost of prescription drugs. Although the President's message that "[w]e should reduce poverty among elderly women, who are nearly twice as likely to be poor as are other seniors" was a welcome one, he did not elaborate. The administration had previously announced a multi-pronged effort to assist families (and individuals) in meeting long term care needs. That effort included a $6.2 billion/five year plan for a $1,000 tax credit. His speech also addressed: increasing the minimum wage raise, promoting equal pay for equal work (by strengthening the enforcement of equal pay laws) and expanding child care programs. The administration has asked Congress to support a plan for tax credits and subsidies for working families who depend on child care services. Their Fiscal Year 2000 budget request would improve safety and quality in child care, particularly for infants, and would increase spending for after-school programs. President Clinton also asked Congress to extend the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) to include 10 million more people working for smaller companies; currently the law applies to only to companies with 50 or more employees. Clinton asked Congress to pass a Patient's Bill of Rights and endorsed
a bill that would allow people with disabilities who have been receiving
Medicare benefits to maintain their health insurance when they go to work.
He reiterated his support for the Food and Drug Administration's authority
to protect children from tobacco and hold companies accountable.
|
Action Needed: |
These initiatives will no doubt be opposed by the Republican-led Congress.
One way to help move this ambitious agenda forward would be for activists
to participate in the Women's Equality Summit and
Congressional Education Day described below.
|
| Women's Equality Summit and Congressional Education Day Set: | Mark your calendars and plan to attend! March 15 and 16th will be a
Women's Equality Summit and Congressional Action Day, sponsored by the
National Council of Women's Organizations (NCWO), of which NOW and NOW
Foundation are member organizations. The events include an issues
briefing and possible White House reception, visits with members of Congress,
and a social event with Gloria Steinem to celebrate new Ms. Magazine.
Summit planners are working on having First Lady Hillary Rodham Clinton
speak at a luncheon event on Social Security.
Social Security changes as well as violence against women legislation and other items on the joint Issue Agenda (listed below) will be discussed with members of Congress on Tuesday. To attend, you must fill out a participant application form and fax it to Mulhauser and Associates at (202) 463-0180/ 463-0182 by mid-February. A copy of the form is available. There are no costs (other than your travel and accommodations) required to participate in these events, but we expect a small fee for the Gloria Steinem reception which will cover a full year's subscription to Ms. Magazine. The joint Issue Agenda, adopted by the NCWO member organizations, includes: 1. Protecting Social Security and ending disadvantages to women in Social
Security
|
| Women's Groups Shape Social Security Debate, Set Joint Agenda: | A broad-based coalition of women's groups, labor, religious, senior
and civil rights organizations played a pivotal role in assuring that the
Clinton administration did not back privatization of Social
Security. A brief review of some of these activities follows.
Social Security is one of NOW's top legislative agenda items for the 106th Congress and we are making a special effort to inform our activists about proposed Social Security system changes and how they will effect women. Patricia Ireland spoke at a nationally televised White House Conference on Social Security in December (the text appears in the current National NOW Times), and she and Elizabeth Toledo have attended White House summits and round tables on Social Security reform and Medicare funding issues. Jan Erickson is part of the National Council of Women's Organizations lobbying task force, representing over a hundred women's organizations on this critically important issue. That group held a joint press conference in early December, to announce their "bottom line" guarantees that must be included to protect women as the system is revamped. Those guarantees would assure that Social Security reform:
Activism from NOW, other women's organizations, labor, civil rights
and seniors groups is credited with having influenced the President's decision
not to supplant this social insurance plan with a risky stock market investment
system. The letter observed that returns on private accounts are
generally lower than returns from Social Security (which are twice as much
as the one to two percent annual return for the average family from a private
account) and that women would receive lower monthly retirement checks under
the annuities of a private system (because annuity companies adjust benefits
downward on the excuse that women live longer and thus should be paid less
each month).
|
| Pay Equity Comes to the Forefront: | Surprisingly, there is renewed interest in pay equity, possibly because
the President mentioned the continuing need for pay equity in his State
of the Union talk -- a point which drew sustained applause from both sides
of the aisle. Sen. Tom Harkin's (D-IA) Fair Pay Act (S.
232 - 105th Congress) will be pushed by NOW and other women's groups.
A competing but weaker bill, sponsored by Minority Leader Tom Daschle (D-SD),
may be strengthened. The Democratic Leadership's list of legislative initiatives
includes Daschle's measure (S.
74) as one of their priorities. Rep. Eleanor Holmes Norton (D-DC)
is exploring ways to move a similar measure through the House.
In his January 30th radio address focusing on pay equity, President
Clinton asked for $10 million to help improve Equal
Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) enforcement and another $4
million for the Department of Labor to
promote the hiring of women in non-traditional -- and often higher- paying
-- occupations. We may make some progress on pay equity may be made
in the 106th Congress, particularly if a pay equity bill is added to a
minimum wage increase package that is pressed just prior to the fall elections.
|
Action Needed: |
Tell your Representative
and Senators that
it is time to deal with this issue. Women need legislation that is
mandatory (not just voluntary) for employers. Because of the slow
progress of the private sector in providing pay parity, there must be strong
federal government leadership.
|
| Violence Against Women Legislation, Act III: | The 105th Congress closed without passing the Violence
Against Women Act of 1998 (VAWA II), so we are back to square one.
But advocates are determined to expand these successful programs.
The newly revised Violence
Against Women Act of 1999 (H.R. 357) was introduced on January 19th
by Reps. John Conyers (D-MI), Connie Morella (R-MD) and Lucille Roybal-Allard
(D-CA), with 104 co-sponsors. A full text of the bill appears on
the Congressional website (http://thomas.loc.gov ) with a user-friendly
summary on the NOW/LDEF website (www.nowldef.org/html/policy/vawa99.htm
).
Valentines' Day will mark the official launch of advocates' efforts to gain passage in this Congress and we need help from NOW activists to add another 114 sponsors in the House so that the legislation can be swiftly adopted. Part of the promotional effort will include presenting to Congressional leaders the more than 35,000 postcards that the National Task Force on Violence Against Women (which includes NOW) collected during last summer's Lilith Fair tour. On the Senate side, Sen. Joseph Biden (D-DE) has introduced his more
limited version of VAWA 99 (S.
51) and advocates are expecting that Sens. Patty Murray (D-WA) and
Paul Wellstone (D-MN) may introduce their companion measure, Battered Women's
Economic Security Act (BWESA), to round out the package. Other related
bills may be introduced.
|
Action Needed: |
Ask your members of Congress
to sponsor these critically important pieces of legislation and also ask
that hearings be held. We hope that, with the political pressure
of the upcoming presidential election year, the new Violence Against Women
bill will pass this Congress.
|
| VAWA Re-authorization, Funding Shortfall for FY 2000: | With respect to re-authorization: many of the original
Violence Against Women (VAW) programs, which were established in the
1994 act, are due to expire in October of this year. Hearings need
to be held and votes to re-authorize those programs have to be taken --
so this is another important task for advocates. The President's
budget request, released on February 1st, contains nearly level funding
for existing programs; only a slight reduction totalling about $11 million
appears to be proposed by the administration. A close examination of the
proposed funding levels is underway as advocates prepare to support re-authorization.
Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-UT), chair of the Senate Judiciary Committee, is
sponsoring a watered-down version of VAWA 99 (S.
245) which essentially re-authorizes existing programs but slashes
funding.
|
Action Needed: |
Ask Sen. Hatch to hold
oversight hearings on existing Violence Against Women programs and to support
full funding for all programs. Those hearings were scheduled for
July of last year, but were canceled at the last minute. Advocates
for these programs are eager to show how successful they are in preventing
violence.
|
| Social Security Numbers to be Reissued for Women at Risk: | During the break between the 105th and 106th Congresses, Vice President
Al Gore announced a new initiative
to facilitate the issuance of new Social Security numbers for battered
women. A more streamlined process for field offices of the Social
Security Administration has been developed that requires less documentation.
Several tragic incidents have occurred when batterers and stalkers were
able to track women down through Social Security information that is requested
by certain states' motor vehicle licenses bureaus and credit reporting
companies.
|
| Do You Have Hate Crimes Stories? | A renewed push will be made this Congress to enact the Hate Crimes
Prevention Act (S.
1529 - 105th Congress), as sponsored by Sens. Ted Kennedy (D-MA), Arlen
Specter (R-PA), Ron Wyden (D-OR) and Dianne Feinstein (D-CA). In order
to be prepared for hearings, NOW and coalition partners are looking for
reports (news articles, video-taped television reports, studies) which
illustrate the varied nature of gender-based hate crimes. If you
know of anyone -- for example, a survivor of a gender-based hate crime
-- who would make a good witness at a Congressional hearing, please let
us know.
|
Action Needed: |
For further information or to send your stories, please contact
Jan Erickson at (202) 628-8669, ext. 768, in NOW's Government Relations
Office. You can e-mail her at govtrel @ now.org with or mail to NOW,
1000 16th St. NW, Suite 700, Washington, D.C. 20036.
|
| More Funds Asked for Clinic Security, Family Planning: | We are enjoying a temporary respite from the reproductive rights battle
in Congress, but as soon as the Senate impeachment trial is concluded,
we expect that our Congressional opponents will become active again. The
House gained a handful of new abortion rights supporters in the November
elections, but the Senate may have moved a bit in the other direction.
Nonetheless, we anticipate that another Abortion
Procedures Ban bill will be introduced and that multiple attempts will
be made to cut funds for international and domestic family planning programs.
Onerous riders will no doubt be attached to appropriations measures (like
past riders which deny abortion rights to military women and dependents,
inmates of federal prisons, low income residents of the District of Columbia,
minors and Medicaid/Medicare recipients, among other groups of women).
First Lady Hillary Clinton's speech on the 26th anniversary of Roe v. Wade disclosed that the President will be asking for an increase of $25 million in Title X Family Planning grants, the largest increase in 15 years. Last year's success in gaining a $12 million increase for these programs may be a good sign that continuing increases are possible. Lower teen pregnancy and teen sexual activity levels are strong indications that better access to contraception is having its intended effect. Abortion rates have gone down by 12 percent. The President will also ask for $25 million for the United Nations Population Fund -- a program which right-wingers in Congress have attempted to seriously undermine by limiting U.S. participation. It is estimated that 600,000 women around the world die of pregnancy related causes each year --78,000 due to unsafe abortions. Concerning clinic violence: the First Lady announced that the President's budget will include $4.5 million to provide extra security to clinics at risk. These funds would help install proper lighting, motion detectors, closed-circuit cameras, security systems and bullet-resistant windows. She noted that in the last ten years, there have been seven murders, 38 bombings, 146 cases of arson and 733 cases of vandalism. NOW has undertaken an abortion rights postcard campaign which aims to
collect 100,000 signed cards to present to Congressional leadership
protesting the erosion of abortion rights and the campaign of terrorism
against women's health care providers.
|
| Education Act (ESEA) Up for Re-authorization: | The Elementary and
Secondary Education Act (ESEA) will be reviewed by this Congress for
re-authorization. ESEA forms the backbone of federal support to public
education. It establishes and funds a myriad of educational research
and program delivery efforts, including ones that require equal educational
experiences for girls and young women. Opponents of civil rights
and opponents of the Department of Education
will undoubtedly be trying to slash programs and funds, but the re-authorization
also offers an opportunity to advance new ideas.
|
Action Needed: |
Be alert to efforts from the right to eliminate programs benefitting
women and girls, especially those aimed at advancing gender equity.
The Republican leadership in Congress intends to make education one of
their key themes this Congress, but their proposals would wipe out federal
prohibitions against discrimination and would do away with programs that
target gender bias. There may be repeated efforts to abolish the
Department of Education, as Sen. Slade Gorton (R-WA) proposed in the 105th
Congress, by replacing it with block-granted programs to the states.
In any event, Republicans will be trying to move program control almost
entirely to the local level -- something which will reduce the likelihood
that girls and young women will gain equal educational opportunities.
|
| Diversity Attacks Shift to States, College Campuses: | No large frontal assaults on affirmative action
are expected in Congress, but there will surely be continued "nibbling
at the edges." Although it is not clear at this time how the
attacks will come, observers expect that damaging amendments may be proposed
to defense, transportation, education and employment related bills.
The issue will leap back into the national debate in presidential election year 2000 as Republican candidates Dan Quayle and Steve Forbes are making campaign themes of their opposition to affirmative action. Key electoral states are being selected for extensive anti-affirmative action campaigns next year. At the moment, much activity on the issue is occurring in the states and on college campuses. Legislation and/or ballot initiatives attacking affirmation action are ongoing (or expected) in Arizona, Colorado, Florida, Michigan, New York, Nebraska, New Jersey, North Carolina, Georgia, Texas and Ohio. In the wake of passage of anti-affirmative action measures in Washington state last November and in California several years ago, civil rights activists are attempting to overturn or modify their ill effects. And in Houston, where the voters affirmed affirmative action programs in 1997, our opponents are pursuing a court challenge. College campus activity centers around efforts to prohibit recruitment and enrollment activities that seek out women and people and color. The Center for Individual Rights, an anti-affirmative action "public interest" law firm, has placed advertisements in 15 student newspapers urging students to investigate admissions policies and offering free handbooks on how to do this. The center is also pressing several lawsuits against universities and their law schools. But some students are fighting back. At the University of Colorado, Boulder, where the Colorado Commission on Higher Education has taken away goals and timetables for recruiting women and people of color, students have organized. They have put together a pro-active plan, called "A Bolder Boulder," which forces the university's regents to re-examine that school's commitment to recruiting and educating students of color, students with disabilities and women. "A Bolder Boulder" is online at <http://www.ucsu.colorado.edu/BolderBoulder> and may be a model for other schools. Post-election evaluations of the losses in California and Washington,
compared with the City of Houston victory, shows that we win when affirmative
action advocates frame the ballot language. But when opponents are
able to employ their deceptive phrasing, we lose. Polling in Washington
state revealed a majority supporting affirmative action, yet they passed
Proposition 200 repealing affirmative action state requirements in employment
and education. For example, misleading ballot language being proposed
in New Jersey asks, " Do you want to end discrimination by eliminating
preferences?" We must act to ensure that alternative ballot language
is offered.
|
Action Needed: |
Please keep NOW informed of any anti-affirmative
action activities in your state and on any college campuses near you. Being
pro-active to anticipate ballot measures so that supporters have a role
in shaping the language is critically important.
|
| Census Sampling Decision Clarified: | Much confusion has resulted from the Supreme Court decision on whether
sampling can be used in the year 2000 census. Despite news headlines
to the contrary, the court (Department of Commerce et. al. v. U.S. House
of Representatives, et. al.) did not prohibit the use of sampling information
under the Census Act (the Constitutional issue was not addressed in the
opinion). Rather, the 5 to 4 decision only concluded that scientific sampling
methods could not be used to determine population for the purposes of reapportionment
of Congressional seats among the various states. NOW supported the
use of sampling to ensure that there is an adequate count of traditionally
undercounted groups such as people of color and low-income communities.
To distinguish the Court's decision further, the opinion does not forbid the use of sampling for state redistricting purposes (that is, the allocation of state legislative seats) and to determine the allocation of federal funds which are indexed to population. The majority opinion noted that the 1976 amendments to the Census Act require, if feasible, the use of sampling for purposes other than re-apportionment. The 1976 amendments actually mean that two sets of numbers must be produced, one a standard census count and the other a number produced through the sampling method. The next challenge will be to assure that there is sufficient funding
to conduct both the census and sampling. Newly-elected Speaker
of the House Dennis Hastert (R-IL)
has been a leader in opposing sampling and Sen. Judd Gregg (R-NH) has said
that there will be no funds appropriated for sampling. Republicans are
fearful that sampling will demonstrate, as we believe, that certain groups
-- such as the homeless, poor women, people of color -- are undercounted.
They fear this will restrict their party's ability to gain state legislative
seats after redistricting.
|
Action Needed: |
Urge your members of Congress to support an appropriations measure that will allow the Census Bureau to adequately conduct the census next year and to conduct extensive sampling in targeted areas. Further information is available at www.census2000.org |