LEGISLATIVE
UPDATELEGISLATIVE
UPDATE
Child Care Initiatives Spotlighted |
For the first time in many years, the enduring need for better child
care services in the United States is receiving high level attention. President
Clinton announced on January 7th that his administration is backing a comprehensive
plan with $21.7 billion in new funding for the Child
Care and Development Block Grant (CCDBG) to help states: 1) make child
care affordable for low-income families earning up to $35,000 a year; 2)
expand structured after- school and summer activities for children and
youth; and 3) improve the quality of care and the compensation of child
care workers.
The initiative would allocate $7.5 billion over five years to double the number of children receiving child care subsidies to reach more than two million by the year 2003. It would increase tax credits for child care for three million families and provide tax credits to businesses that provide child care services to their employees. Another $3 billion would be devoted to establishment of an Early Learning Fund that helps communities improve the quality and safety of child care services and adds enough funds for Head Start programs to bring in another 80,000 eligible children. In addition, the package contains tax credits for parents who work outside the home as well as parents who stay at home. Funds to support expansion of services and tax credits would come from a tobacco tax of an additional $1.50 per pack over ten years (which would generate at least $30 billion for child care and Head Start) or from a proposed national settlement with tobacco manufacturers. If the settlement or the tobacco tax fails to materialize, child care advocates indicate that other sources for funding have been identified. Democratic Sens. Ted Kennedy (MA) with Chris Dodd (CT), Frank Lautenberg (NJ), and Jack Reed (RI) have authored various bills that would tie revenues from tobacco to child care and Head Start programs and authorizes many of the initiatives laid out in the president's proposal. Among these are Sen. Kennedy's Health and Smoke-Free Children Act which proposes to spend $30 billion and Sen. Dodd's Child Care A.C.C.E.S.S. Act which designates $15 billion for programs. NOW sent a letter to the White House urging the President to incorporate several important modifications in this child care proposal that would help low income families. Specifically, we urged that he adopt provisions of Rep. Cynthia McKinney's bill, H.R. 2778, the Family Dependent Care Affordability Act of 1997 do several important things. First, it would make available the credit through refund to individuals and couples without income tax liability. These families, with incomes in the lowest brackets, struggle to pay the high costs of child care and deserve the government's help in trying to cover the expenses of raising a family. Secondly, H.R. 2778 would increase the amount of expenses for which the credit is allowable to $3,600 for one child and $5,400 for two or more children. The president's proposal does not adequately recognize the true costs of child care. According to the Bureau of Census in a 1995 study, the average child care cost for a pre-school age child was $4,100 per year. The administration plan, like many of its other proposals, offers relief for middle and upper income families, not enough for low income and the working poor. The McKinney bill would place a limit on eligibility at $50,000 annual income for single and $80,000 for joint returns, making this a much more progressive approach. |
Action Needed: |
Please communicate with members of your Congressional delegation about
the need to strongly support the child care initiative. This is our best
opportunity in a long time to see significant progress made, especially
as there may be an important new source of funding through either a tobacco
tax or settlement with manufacturers. NOW has not taken a position in favor
of a tobacco settlement, but if there is one, activists should let their
member of Congress know that this is how the money should be spent.
Most urgent, however, is the need to communicate with Senate members about the level of funding that should be available for these initiatives. The late-breaking word that only $7.5 billion is now earmarked for child care programs and tax credits is very alarming. Activists are encouraged to make immediate contact with Democrats and moderate Republicans to urge them to bring the allocation back up to at least $15 billion -- and preferably $22 billion. |
Family Leave Expansion Proposed |
Continued efforts to expand the Family
and Medical Leave Act, the first bill signed by President Clinton in
his initial term, are underway. Rep. Carolyn Maloney (D-NY) and other supporters
of family leave allowances held a press conference on February 5th to urge
passage of H.R. 234, the Family
and Medical Leave Enhancement Act, H.R. 234 which would extend to millions
more working persons the benefits of the law. President Clinton endorsed
the concept in his January 27th State
of the Union address. The bill would lower the current ceiling of requiring
businesses with 50 or more employees to comply with the FMLA to also cover
companies with 25 or more employees. This would dramatically extend the
reach of the Act but its unpaid status puts this leave beyond the reach
of many families. The FMLA provides for 12 weeks of unpaid, job-protected
leave from work if an employee, or his or her minor child, spouse or parent
is seriously ill or if an employee becomes a parent through birth or adoption.
Additionally, the legislation would require employers to provide leave
for workers to attend their children's school activities, taking children
to the doctor and to attend other community events where their children
are involved. H.R. 234 applies FMLA provisions to civil servants as well.
Rep. Maloney noted that since passage of the FMLA in 1993, 15 million working parents have taken advantage of the benefits of the act and that many employers have found that it saves them money through reduced turnover and absenteeism. Altogether, a dozen bills have been introduced to expand the FMLA, including ones introduced by Sen. Paul Wellstone (D-MN) (S. 367) and Rep. Lucille Roybal-Allard (D-CA) (H.R. 851) that would permit employees to use FMLA leave to deal with the direct results of domestic violence and its aftermath. A more comprehensive explanation of these bills will appear in a future NOW Legislative Update. |
Action Needed: |
Contact your members of
Congress to urge them to support expanding the Family and Medical Leave
Act so that millions more Americans can take advantage of its provisions.
Persons who have questions about how the FMLA might affect them are asked to call the Wage and Hour Division of the nearest U.S. Department of Labor office, as listed in the government pages of their phone directory. |
Republican Leadership Seek Auto Insurance Change |
The Senate Republican leadership issued its priority list for the first
two months of the second session of the 105th Congress. Among the legislation
they hope to pass is an automobile insurance bill -- entitled the Auto
Choice Reform Act of 1997 (note how the word "choice" is being used),
S. 625 and H.R. 2021. The legislation was developed by Mitch McConnell
(R-KY), Slade Gorton (R-WA), Rod Grams (R-MN), Daniel Patrick Moynihan
(D-NY) and Joseph Lieberman (D-CT) in the Senate and by Dick Armey (R-TX),
James P. Moran (D-VA), Jim Saxton (R-NJ) and Christopher Cox (R-CA) and
David McIntosh (R-IN) in the House.
A press release, issued by the Joint Economic Committee (JEC) and headlined "Attention Women: Your Right to Choose Auto Insurance is Debatable," promises a "premium cut of more than $200 a year for the average female driver" by her relinquishing the right to sue another driver's insurer for pain and suffering as well as economic loss while shifting protection against economic loss to her own insurer. Essentially, the bill is just another effort to reduce claims payout by insurers. Proponents of the Auto Choice bill who are attempting to drum up support from women drivers imply that insurers give women preferential treatment. Their press release suggests that women get a discount solely on the basis of sex: "even though insurance companies consider women more responsible drivers, you still pay punishingly high premiums." NOW's Insurance Project has determined, in fact, that adult rates covering four out of five cars are unisex. Because most women drive less than men on average, women pay on average about twice as much per mile as men for identical coverage. The remedy is not "better" sex discrimination or lower payouts, but a pay-in system that charges each car for the insurance protection it consumes. |
Action Needed: |
We should oppose this initiative chiefly because any insured party
should be able -- without loss of coverage -- to cut premiums in direct
proportion to miles driven. This wrong-headed debate about reform needs
to be re-oriented. NOW activists should use this opportunity to build backing
for federal exposure unit (i.e., odometer miles driven) legislation which
would require premium conversion from the current dollars per year unit
to a cents-per-mile measure, as introduced by state legislators in Pennsylvania
a few years ago.
There is genuine bipartisan interest in providing consumer control over auto insurance premiums, as the current support by some Democrats of the Auto Choice Reform bills suggests. But only per-mile insurance would enable all owners of cars in the same risk class -- women and men-- to pay for the insurance protection their cars actually consume in on-the-road exposure to accident risk, and to pay at the same cost-class price for each mile driven. Odometers would become the measure of individual exposure and the guarantee of equal treatment for women. |
Another Minimum Wage Increase Sought |
As promised last Congress when a bill raising the minimum wage to $5.15
per hour was passed, Sen. Ted Kennedy (D-MA) has introduced follow-up legislation
which aims at restoring the value of the minimum wage to the purchasing
power it held prior to 1980. That was the year when President Ronald Reagan
launched his effort to drive down the minimum wage, according to the Senator's
press release. Supporters of a higher minimum wage emphasize that the 1968
purchasing power of the dollar would place that amount at $7.33 today!
S. 1573, the American Family Fair Minimum Wage Act of 1998, proposes to lift the minimum by 50 cents a year over the next three years, and thirty cents in the following two years. That would make the final increase result in $7.25 per hour by September 1, 2002. The bill also calls for indexing further increases to changes in the Consumer Price Index through an automatic escalator. Rep. David Bonior (D-MI) has introduced a companion bill in the House (H.R. 3100). Over 70 percent of minimum wage workers are adults -- contrary to opponents' assertion that minimum wage workers are teens -- and a majority are women. Record-breaking numbers of poor children are now in families where there is a low-wage worker (69% of all poor children). A study by the Economic Policy Institute found (despite claims of Republican opponents during the last raising of the minimum wage) that in the first six months of implementation the higher minimum wage has substantially boosted the earnings of low-wage workers; that the benefits of the minimum wage increase went primarily to low income working families; and, that employment opportunities for teenagers and young adults were not adversely affected by the increase. Most importantly, the higher minimum wage has not led to job loss -- as opponents had argued would occur. NOW sent a letter supporting passage of the legislation to Sen. Kennedy, noting that "a woman supporting her two children working 40 hours a week, 52 weeks a year at a minimum wage salary earns only $10,712, while the poverty level for a family of three is $12,614. |
Action Needed: |
If you have a member of Congress who is a moderate Republican and may be persuaded to vote for this legislation, please remind her or him that a higher minimum wage is absolutely essential to fighting poverty. Long term success for millions of welfare-to-work families depends upon earning enough income to feed, house, clothe and educate all family members. Only with an increased minimum wage can we begin to meet this critical requirement. |
Administration's Contraception Spending Proposal Mixed |
In January, President Clinton pledged to spend $15 million more on
contraception, increasing Title
X Family Planning grants by 7.4%. But, his budget proposal also included
a cut of $390 million for Social Services Block Grants (SSBG), setting
the FY 1999 level at $1.909 billion. Some states use SSBG money to fund
family planning programs.
Also promised was $500 million in federal funds to Medicaid to support family planning services, including the Maternal and Child Health Block Grant. The Preventive Health Block Grant will extend $100 million to state and local communities for family planning. An additional $200 million is pegged for the National Institutes of Health's research on infertility, contraception and CDC's programs to educate teens about sexual development and abstinence. Abstinence programs (Adolescent Family Life Program, Title XX of the Public Health Services Act) were cut from $16.7 million to $4.7 million. About $10 billion in funds for these programs is pegged to come from the proposed national tobacco settlement -- which may or may not materialize. |
Action Needed: |
President Clinton and other elected officials have said that they want to see abortion "legal, safe and rare." If these same officials are serious in their intention, they also need to be prepared to commit substantial public resources for counseling and affordable family planning services as well as contraceptive technology research. President Clinton's pledge is a good step in the direction of prevention of unintended pregnancy, but only addresses part of the need. The proposed drop in Social Services Block Grants should be opposed and, if the tobacco settlement does not come about, then other sources of funding should be identified. |
Abortion Procedures Ban Veto Vote on Hold |
A long delayed Senate vote on whether to sustain or override the President's veto of H.R. 1122, the (so-called) Partial Birth Abortion Ban may happen at any point in the next few months. Close observers, though, are still betting that the vote will held later this spring or early summer, approaching to the fall election season. Rick Santorum (R-PA), the principal advocate of the ban in the Senate, had stated late last year that the vote would occur early in 1998. Abortion rights supporters are counting on a slim majority in the upper body to sustain the President's veto; the House voted to override the veto in November. |
Action Needed: |
If you have not checked with your Senator recently to see whether s/he is holding steady in their position on the ban, please do so now. We must retain our slim majority for the veto. |
VAWA II Readied for March Introduction |
Bill drafters are putting the final touches on the House version of the Violence Against Women Act of 1998 which is expected to be introduced in early March. Various titles from the legislation will be soon placed on the NOW Website (http://www.now.org ) followed by the full text when it is ready. Rather than request copies from their members of Congress, activists will be able to download the complete bill. An outline of the major components of the massive bill appeared in a previous NOW Legislative Update. |
Action Needed: |
A major grassroots organizing effort will be needed to push VAWA II onto Congress's crowded agenda and to get it passed by both bodies this year. Activists are encouraged to ask members of the House to co-sponsor the bill and to stress to their Senators that they try to make Senate version as close possible to the House bill. Currently, some Senators are contemplating introduction of a very limited violence against women bill. |
New Anti-Affirmative Action Bill May be in the Works |
Rep. Charles T. Canady's (R-FL) anti-affirmative
action legislation, H.R.
1909, the so-called Civil Rights act of 1997, failed to pass out of
the House Judiciary Committee last fall when Rep. George Gekas (R-PA) made
a successful motion to table the bill. Now word comes that the indefatigable
Rep. Canady is working on new language, based, in part, on wording in an
early civil
rights executive order issued by President Kennedy. Reportedly, the
re-write will say that targeted recruitment based on race and gender is
acceptable, as long as it does not affect federal contracting and other
specific areas of hiring and promotion in government and educational institutions.
The exercise appears to be another literary sleight-of-hand with the use
of affirmative language, but actually preventing any outcomes which would
advance race and sex equity.
Whether Republicans will put passage of such a bill at the top of their agenda is another question; word is that anti-affirmative action legislation is not popular with a majority of voters in key Congressional Districts. Other rumors suggest that some of the Republican leadership are concerned that they will be seen as anti-women and anti-minority and that many would prefer anti-affirmative actions to continue, rather, at state and local levels. Again, these are only rumors and affirmative action supporters could be surprised by an intensified effort to pass a bill before the close of the 105th Congress in October. We may see renewed energy behind Rep. Canady's legislation or some other bill as yet not introduced. In the meantime, the Republican leadership's priority agenda for action in the next two months lists re-authorization of the ISTEA (Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act, otherwise known as the federal transportation bill), containing provisions for disadvantaged business enterprises (DBE) programs benefiting women- and minority-owned businesses. Last year saw deletion of the program by Republican committee members, but a dedicated grassroots campaign by affirmative action advocates resulted in an agreement to take the matter up in early 1998. Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-KY) who led the campaign last year to eliminate the Disadvantaged Business Enterprise program will again offer his "emerging business" program idea to supplant the DBE program. Critics say that his proposal does nothing to help smaller women- and minority-owned businesses gain better footing in competing with larger firms. Expiration ISTEA will occur in March and the vote -- the first real test of the Senate's position on affirmative action -- will probably happen after the Presidents' Day recess, February 13 through 23. Advocates for DBE noted that this is the only Federal procurement program in which women have an equal opportunity to compete for federal dollars. Senate Democratic leader Tom Daschle (SD), with Sens. Kent Conrad (ND) and Byron Dorgan (ND) are pushing for early action because several states are running out of highway transportation funding. |
Action Needed: |
A very extensive grassroots organizing effort may be required this election year depending upon whether the Republican leadership decides to get behind Rep. Canady's legislation or push another anti-affirmative action strategy. Advocates for affirmative action should contact members now during the Presidents's Day recess, however, to urge their support for continuation of the ISTEA/DBE program. |
Bill Lann Lee Confirmation Pushed |
President Clinton re-submitted his nomination on January 29th to the Senate for Bill Lann Lee to become Assistant Attorney General for Civil Rights at the Department of Justice. Supporters of Lee are discussing a strategy to move the confirmation vote to the floor of the Senate, bypassing the opposition of Judiciary Committee chair Orrin Hatch (R-UT). Hatch and other Republicans who spoke out against Lee have come under criticism for opposing a candidate who has strong qualifications. Hatch opposed the nominee because he said that he feared Lee would use the position to fight affirmative action repeal efforts. Lee's supporters note that the majority of the Civil Rights Division's work focuses on disability issues, hate crimes, voting rights and violence against women. |
Action Needed: |
Please take advantage of the Presidents' Day recess to talk with your Senators about both the DBE program and the confirmation of Bill Lann Lee. Moderate Republicans are especially important members to talk to about these issues. |
This Legislative Update was compiled by the Government Relations/Public Policy Team at the National NOW Office. Call Jan Erickson, Government Relations Director, at (202) 628-8669, ext. 768, if you have any questions. To receive free of charge copies of any of the above bills, call you U.S. Senator or Representative at (202) 224-3121 or connect to http://thomas.loc.gov . This update is mailed monthly to NOW leadership. Any member can receive a copy of this update by mail for a yearly charge of $25. You may also read this Legislative Update at http://www.now.org/issues/legislat/ . Anyone may receive it by e-mail if they join our Action Alert e-mail network.