On Wednesday, June 28th, the House Commerce, Justice, State and Judiciary Appropriations Subcommittee removed $100 million of money allocated for Violence Against Women Act programs. Violence Against Women Act programs were authorized to receive $176.7 million from this subcommittee in FY1996; the subcommittee allocated only $75 million. Programs covered by this committee include training for law enforcement and judiciary officials on violence issues, programs for victims of child abuse, judicial training on child abuse, and programs to address stalking and campus sexual assault. The full appropriations committee failed to restore any VAWA funding when they met on July 19 even though Rep. Nita Lowey (D-NY) offered an amendment to do so. Yet when this appropriations bill came to the House floor, Republicans agreed on a voice vote to restore $50 million to VAWA programs. Final tally: VAWA received $125 million of the over $175 million authorized for FY 1996 in this bill.
On the Senate side, the Commerce/Justice/State appropriations subcommittee, chaired by Senator Phil Gramm (R-TX), allocated only $100 million for the VAWA programs in its bill (again, $176.7 million was authorized for FY 96). The full Senate Appropriations committee voted the bill out with no change to the subcommittee bill on VAWA funding. When the bill came to the Senate floor on September 28, Senator Joseph Biden (D-DE), chief sponsor of the Violence Against Women Act, offered an amendment to restore $75 million for VAWA programs, not full funding, but close. The amendment passed 99-0.
On July 11, the Labor/HHS/Education Appropriations subcommittee in the House marked up a bill which allocated only $400,000 of the $61.9 million authorized for VAWA programs. [Note: actual authorization totals for all violence against women programs in this bill totalled $96.9 million. The difference is due to separate funding pools for battered women's shelters. Funding comes from two different sources: the Family Violence Prevention Services Act, which authorized $35 million, and VAWA with an additional $15 million authorized. In the final analysis, $32.645 million was allocated for the Family Violence authorization; $0 was allocated of the VAWA authorized $15 million]. When the full Appropriations committee began their mark up of the bill on July 20, Republicans agreed to restore $40 million to VAWA programs under threat of an amendment by Rep. Nita Lowey. No change was made in this bill to VAWA programs when the bill came to the House floor. Final tally: $40.4 million allocated of the $61.9 million authorized for VAWA [if you add the Family Violence funding source to the total, $73.045 million of the $96.9 million combined authorizations for FY 1996].
On the Senate side, the Labor/HHS/Education appropriations subcommittee, chaired by Senator Arlen Specter (R-PA), marked up the bill on September 13 with full funding for VAWA programs (the only chair to do so this congress) and the full appropriations committee passed the bill unchanged. At least we have some good news this year! The bill has yet to come to the Senate floor, though we do not expect any attacks on VAWA funding when it gets there.
ACTION NEEDED: The real fight now is in the conference committees for these two bills. While all the conferees have not yet been appointed, we have identified key members of the Appropriations committees who will certainly play a role in the conference committee. Ask them to support full funding of VAWA programs, not to compromise to a middle figure between the two bills. Calls can be directed through the Capitol switchboard at 202-224- 3121; letters can be sent to House members at : U.S. House of Representatives, Washington, DC 20515; and to Senators at: U.S. Senate, Washington, DC 20510:
For both bills: House: Bob Livingston, R-LA, Chair; David Obey, D-WI, Ranking Member
Senate: Mark Hatfield, R-OR, Chair; Robert Byrd, D-WV, Ranking Member
For Commerce/Justice/State:
House: Harold Rogers, R-KY, Chair; Alan Mollohan, D-WV, Ranking Member, Appropriations subcommittee
Senate: Phil Gramm, R-TX, Chair; Ernest Hollings, D-KY, Ranking Member, Appropriations subcommittee
For Labor/HHS/Education bill:
House: John Porter, R-IL, Chair; David Obey, D-WI, Ranking Member [Note: he is already listed above as ranking member
of full committee], Appropriations subcommittee
Senate: Arlen Specter, R-PA, Chair; Tom Harkin, D-IA, Ranking Member, Appropriations subcommittee
Other deals and amendments were added to the bill that began to make it more palatable to Democrats. One required states to continue to provide 80% of the current amount they spend on AFDC under the new system; the other provided more money for child care than the House bill. Also, an amendment by Senator Paul Wellstone (D-MN) was added on a voice vote which would allow states to waive or modify various requirements of the bill (such as work requirements, time limits, denial of benefits to teen moms) for recipients who are victims of family violence. It is not a requirement on the states, which means if it is in the final bill, activists will have to pressure local authorities to use this exemption for victims of violence. Nonetheless, the overwhelming 87-12 vote to pass the Senate bill was surprising. Only 11 Democrats voted against the bill; Senator Lauch Faircloth was the lone Republican opposition and that was because the bill was not conservative enough in his view.
ACTION NEEDED:
House conferees have been assigned and are listed below; Senate conferees should be named within the next week. While there are differences between the bills, the message to the conferees and to Clinton should still be to reject these welfare bills. Unfortunately, President Clinton made statements that he could live with the Senate bill but warned that if it comes out of conference looking like the House bill, he would veto it. That is the small window we have to work with and we must keep the pressure on Clinton to veto the bill so that he doesn't forget those words. The bottom line is that both House and Senate bills are bad, both eliminate the entitlement to welfare, impose a lifetime limit of 5 years on all recipients, deny benefits to legal immigrants, require work after two years without any provision of education, training or adequate child care, and impose the child exclusion provision of the illegitimacy ratio, which is likely to encourage more anti-abortion state legislation. These punitive restrictions will be in the conference committee report at a minimum. House members can be reached at 202-224-3121; President Clinton at 202-456-1111. Also, continue to send in those postcards to the White House urging a veto of the welfare bill. Please contact the National Action Center if you need more postcards.
House conferees:
Republicans: Bill Archer, TX; Dave Camp, MI; Gary Franks, CT; Bill Goodling, PA; Tim Hutchinson, AR; Nancy Johnson, CT; Jim McCrery, LA; Jim Nussle, IA; Pat Roberts, KS; Clay Shaw, FL; Lamar Smith, TX; James Talent, MO
Democrats: William Clay, MO; John Conyers, MI; E. "Kika" de la Garza, TX; Harold Ford, TN; Sam Gibbons, FL; Barbara Kennelly, CT; Sander Levin, MI; Blanche Lincoln, AR; George Miller, CA; Henry Waxman, CA
On the Senate side, the Foreign Operations appropriations bill passed out of committee without any of the House passed restrictions. On September 21, Senator Jesse Helms (R-NC) offered an amendment to prohibit U.S. support of the UNFPA due to its participation in China. The amendment was defeated 43-57. The bill now goes to conference committee. The Foreign Aid Authorization bill is still pending in Senator Helms' committee.
The Department of Defense Authorization bill came to the House floor on June 14 with the restored prohibition against any abortions being performed at military facilities, even if paid for with private funds. Rep. Rosa DeLauro offered an amendment to strike the language on June 15 which failed by a vote of 196-230. Yet the Senate Armed Services committee provided some ray of hope on June 22 as they marked up the same bill. Senator Chuck Robb offered a motion to strike the restrictive language from the bill and it passed 11-10 (with all Democrats except James Exon (D-NE) voting with us and all Republicans except William Cohen (R-ME) and Kay Bailey Hutchison (R-TX) voting against. The Senate passed the DOD Authorization bill without the abortion restrictions. The Department of Defense appropriations bill had similar differences, with the House version containing the abortion restriction and the Senate version silent on the issue.
In a clear example of how extreme the Republican House of Representatives is, the DOD appropriations conference report was defeated in the House in September because it did not contain the abortion restriction in it, showing how the anti-abortion agenda is more important than increased defense spending. A conference committee is currently working on the DOD Authorization bill.
The House Treasury/Postal Appropriations subcommittee marked up its bill on June 28 with language reinstating the restriction on federal health insurance policies from paying for abortions. Rep. Steny Hoyer (D-MD) offered a motion to strike the restriction on the House floor on July 18; the motion failed 188-235. On the Senate side, the Treasury/Postal Appropriations bill did not have the abortion restriction when it came out of committee; when the bill came to the floor in a rare Saturday session on August 5, a Committee amendment to the bill included a recommendation that the abortion restriction from the House bill be removed. A vote was taken to strike the restriction passed 52-41. But then Senator Don Nickles (R-OK) offered a modified amendment which stated that federal employees health insurance plans could not pay for abortions except in the cases of rape, incest or life of the woman, which passed 50-44. Senator Barbara Mikulski offered an amendment which further elaborated Nickles list to include "or when the abortion is determined to be medically necessary". It failed 45-49. While the House/Senate conference committee on the Treasury/Postal appropriations bill is not yet finished, the abortion restriction has been addressed and the Senate language prevailed.
The House Commerce/Justice/State Appropriations subcommittee marked up its bill on June 28 as well, reinstating another restriction on federal funds being used to pay for abortions for women in prisons. DC Delegate Eleanor Holmes Norton offered a motion to strike this restriction on the House floor on July 26; it was defeated 146-281. The Senate Commerce/Justice/State appropriations subcommittee included the abortion restriction in its markup and the full appropriations committee voted out the bill without any changes. Senator Arlen Specter (R-PA) offered a motion to strike the restriction out of the bill on the Senate floor; it failed 52-44. The bill now goes to conference committee with the restriction in both bills.
The House Labor/HHS/Education Appropriations subcommittee marked up their bill on July 11 with Title X funding at $193 million and Medicaid abortions as in current law. However, when the full Appropriations Committee started to mark up the bill on July 20, it became a free for all for the anti-abortion, anti-family planning agenda.
The first blow came from Appropriations chair, Bob Livingston (R-LA), who offered an amendment to eliminate the Title X family planning program and transfer its money to two existing block grants, Maternal and Child Health and Migrant and Community Health centers. Neither program requires that money be spent for family planning. The amendment passed 28- 25. The second battle was a complete ban on federal funding of human embryo research pushed by Jay Dickey (R-AR) and Roger Wicker (R-MS); it passed 30-23. Tom DeLay (R-TX) offered an amendment which undermines ACGME requirements that require OB/GYN residency programs to provide training in abortion procedures (with exceptions for religious and moral objections). The amendment continues to treat institutions who do not provide training as accredited for purposes of reimbursement for Medicare, HEAL Loan forgiveness and state licensure of physicians. The amendment passed 29-25. And Rep. Ernest Istook offered his amendment to make payment of Medicaid abortions in cases of rape and incest a state option, retroactive to 1993 when rape and incest were added to the Medicaid policy on abortions. That amendment passed 29-23.
When the Labor/HHS/Education bill came to the House floor on August 2, divisions between moderate and conservative Republicans jeopardized passage of the entire bill due to these amendments as well as dramatic cuts in education programs and worker safety standards. Rep. Jim Greenwood (R-PA) led the fight to restore funding to the Title X family planning program. Due to a procedural agreement, Livingston had the first vote on his amendment as in the committee bill (Title X funds to existing block grants); it failed 207-221. Greenwood's amendment to restore Title X then passed 224-204. Yet this proved to be the only victory on reproductive rights related amendments. Rep. Jim Kolbe (R-AZ) tried to strike the Medicaid language; it failed 206-215. Rep. Greg Ganske (R-IA) tried to strike the ACGME language and was defeated 189- 235. No one offered an amendment to strike the human embryo restriction.
On the Senate side, Senator Arlen Specter chairs the Labor/HHS/Education appropriations subcommittee. When they marked up the bill on Sept. 13, none of the restrictive riders present in the House version was included. The Title X program remained intact with $193.4 million in funding; Medicaid funding of abortions remained as current law; and no restrictions on human embryo research or on the ACGME policy were included. The full appropriations committee passed the subcommittee bill without any changes. The Senate is scheduled to take up the bill in mid-October; we still expect these restrictive amendments to be offered on the floor.
The last appropriations bill to be marked up is the DC appropriations bill. When the House appropriations subcommittee on the District of Columbia marked up the legislation, it did not include the restriction on DC's use of locally raised funds to pay for poor women's abortions. The full committee mark up has been delayed due to other problems in the bill; it will probably not come up until after the break. On the Senate side, Senator Jim Jeffords chairs the DC subcommittee on appropriations. His bill likewise did not restrict locally raised funds for abortions; the full committee did not change that. In very quick action on the Senate floor, the Senate passed the DC appropriations bill on a voice vote; hence, the final Senate bill passed without the restriction.
Canady did introduce a bill the day of the hearings (HR 1833). The bill would ban "partial birth" abortions (with a definition so vague that it could extend to other late term procedures), making it a criminal offense if a doctor performs such a procedure. The only defense (not exemption from criminal prosecution) a doctor could make in using this technique is if the life of the woman was in danger and no other procedure was available to save her life (without regard to whether the other procedure was equally safe for the woman). Furthermore, the woman, the father of the fetus, and the maternal grandparents (if the woman is under 18) all have standing under the bill to sue the doctor for civil damages -- even if they were fully complicit and gave consent to have the procedure done.
Testimony at the hearing was very emotional. The antis used diagrams and assertions that the fetus is only "three inches from birth" when this procedure is done. On the pro-choice side, a doctor testified that this bill would interfere with good medical practice because it would prevent a doctor from using his or her best judgement in treating a patient. A woman who had had the procedure done at 7 months of pregnancy gave the most heart-wrenching testimony. It was only in the 7th month that she and her husband discovered the fetus suffered from severe fetal abnormalities, a condition known as trisomy- 13. The fetus had no eyes, six fingers and toes, most of the major organs had formed outside of the body and there was no chance of life outside of the womb.
The subcommittee voted 7-5, along party lines, to pass this legislation. The full Judiciary Committee marked up the bill on Tuesday, July 18 and passed it along party lines, 20-13. Republicans rejected amendments which would have exempted the doctor from criminal prosecution if he performed the abortion to save the woman's life or prevent danger to her health. The only significant amendment which did pass removes standing for civil damages under the bill if any of the parties consented to the procedure. The House is expected to take up this legislation soon, possibly by the end of October.
ACTION NEEDED: Tell your representative to oppose this bill when it comes to the floor for a vote. This bill criminalizes medical procedures performed in cases of life or health endangerment or gross fetal abnormality. The bill goes beyond Roe v. Wade, which proscribes abortions after viability unless the woman's life or health is endangered or in cases of severe fetal abnormalities -- a direct assault under this bill. Congress has no business dictating what medical procedures doctors can and cannot use. This bill would replace medical judgment with micromanaged medical malpractice, and women will suffer for it.
Representative Gary Franks (R-CT) wanted to offer an amendment to the DOD appropriations bill ending set asides in federal contracts for minority-owned businesses. Originally, the House leadership supported such an amendment. Yet when the bill went to Rules Committee, the leadership pressured Franks not to offer his amendment and it was not allowed on the floor.
Representative Charles Canady (R-FL) introduced HR 2128 in the House and Senator Bob Dole (R-KS) introduced S. 1085 in the Senate; both bills effectively end all federal affirmative action programs, going even further than the Supreme Court's decision in Adarand.
On July 20, Senator Phil Gramm (R-TX) started on his threat to add anti-affirmative action amendments to all appropriations bills. He offered an amendment to the Transportation Appropriations bill which would have ended set asides in federal contracting. The amendment failed by a vote of 61 to 36. An alternative amendment by Senator Patty Murray (D-WA), which reaffirmed the holding of the Adarand decision, passed by a vote of 84 to 13. The Murray amendment reaffirms the use of affirmative action programs in federal contracts and states that these programs must be narrowly tailored and serve a compelling government interest.
In the face of these attacks, President Clinton, in a nationally televised speech on July 19, reaffirmed his commitment to affirmative action. The President noted that there have been some abuses of affirmative action programs, but his message was to "mend, not end" it. To this end, he has ordered a study of federal contract programs to ensure that they are correcting actual and existing discrimination.
Splits within the Democratic Party have surfaced as well. The Progressive Policy Institute, (PPI), a think tank within the Democratic Leadership Council, introduced an anti-affirmative action proposal on August 2. The proposal, supported by Senator Liebermann (D-CT), would end the federal government's contract set aside program for minority- and women-owned businesses, the use of race or gender as a consideration in hiring practices, and drastically reduce the use of litigation by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) to end known discrimination in the private sector. In place of the EEOC, the PPI proposal suggests that private, community run organizations investigate the hiring practices of private businesses and plan boycotts if they are found to be discriminatory. The PPI proposal does not outline where these community organizations would get the financial resources to effectively replace the EEOC, or how they would deal with federal laws against boycotts that are not designed to influence the government.
In a behind the scenes move, Senator Phil Gramm (R-TX), chair of the Senate Appropriations subcommittee for Commerce/Justice/State, added the entire text of Dole's anti-affirmative action bill, S. 1085, to his mark up of the appropriations bill on Sept. 7. The full appropriations committee also passed the bill out of committee, apparently without realizing the anti-affirmative action language was included. When the bill came to the Senate floor, it was mired with several controversies, including affirmative action. As part of a unanimous consent agreement, the language was withdrawn from the bill and Senator Dole made a speech supporting his bill but saying it should go through the proper hearings and committee process, not be attached to this appropriations bill.
On July 31, in an unprecedented move, the Senate Ethics committee deadlocked along party lines and thus denied public hearings in the Packwood case. On August 2, Senator Barbara Boxer (D-CA) then followed through on her promise to bring a resolution to the Senate floor for a vote calling for public hearings. On an almost party-line vote, the resolution was defeated 48-52 (Daniel Patrick Moynihan was the only democrat to vote against it; Republicans Olympia Snowe, William Cohen and Arlen Specter voted in favor. NOW held a zap action outside the Senate offices on Thursday, August 4, the same day two new allegations against Senator Packwood surfaced -- one by a woman who was a minor at the time of the incident alleged -- and the Ethics Committee delayed its final recommendation on the case until September so as to "investigate" these new charges. In light of the new allegations, Senator Boxer said she might call for another vote on public hearings when the Senate returned to Washington in September.
NOW compiled a leadership mailing with a timeline on the Packwood case, a copy of the vote on Senator Boxer's resolution, and action ideas for states and chapters to turn up the pressure on Senators during the August recess. During that time, Packwood did an about face and suddenly declared that he wanted public hearings, accusing the Ethics Committee of changing the rules on him by investigating the newest allegations. When the Senate returned from its recess, the Senate Ethics committee, in a surprise move, voted 6-0 to expel Packwood from the Senate on Wed., Sept. 6. The following day, Senator Packwood announced his resignation from the U.S. Senate, effective Oct. 1.
Let us know if you would like this service on other pages, or with other NOW information.