• Victory!! President Signs VAWA Reauthorization Legislation
  
• Conference Report Reauthorizes VAWA at $3.3 Billion, Five Years
  
• Republicans Strip Hate Crimes Expansion from Defense Bill
  
• Trafficking Bill Offers Some Advances, But Needs More Work
  
• Child Support/Fatherhood Bill May Be Dead for this Congress
  
• We Win Another Round Against Bad Bankruptcy Bill
  

Victory!! President Signs VAWA Reauthorization Legislation

November 2000

On Saturday, October 28th President Clinton placed his signature on the package of legislation (H.R. 3244, Victims of Trafficking and Violence Protection Act, Conference Report 106193) that contains a five year reauthorization of the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA), funded at a landmark $3.33 billion. It was a red-letter day for both Congressional sponsors and hardworking advocates who have labored for the past two years (and longer!) to not only make certain that effective antiviolence programs continue, but to expand upon those successes.

In his Saturday morning radio message the President hailed the passage, noting that a half million women have been helped by the National Domestic Violence Hotline and that violence against women by an intimate partner has fallen by 21 percent since 1993, the last year before VAWA enactment. The President further said, "In America today, domestic violence is the number one health risk for women between the ages of 15 and 44. Close to a third of all women murdered in this country were killed by their husbands, former husbands or boyfriends. Every 12 seconds, another woman is beaten. That's nearly 900,000 victims every year."

President Clinton's signing came after an intense period of negotiation and grassroots activism to prevent programs from expiring at the beginning of the new federal fiscal year on October 1st. A description of the extensive political maneuvering, including advocates' meetings with Congressional leaders, press conferences and floor strategies appears in last month's Legislative Update. NOW and others fought back efforts to link VAWA reauthorization with the socalled Bankruptcy Reform Act (H.R. 833) and other objectionable legislation.

As noted previously, the House approved on Sept. 26th H.R. 1248 a revision of the original John Conyers (D-MI)/Connie Morella (R-MD) bill to reauthorize programs at $3.85 billion over five years, with a vote of 4153. This was the bill supported by NOW and the other member organizations of the National Task Force to End Sexual and Domestic Violence Against Women. H.R. 1248 contained a broader definition of domestic violence (which included dating violence), provided funds for sorely needed judicial training, additional funding for shelter services and transitional housing, funded programs to assist disabled victims of violence and contained a host of other improvements. The three lone votes against VAWA reauthorization were Reps. Helen Chenoweth Hage (R-ID), Mark Sanford Jr. (R-SC) and John Hostettler (R-IN), with sixteen members not voting.

Just prior to the final House vote on Oct. 6, a procedural vote was held on a resolution that governed the rule under which the Conference Report would be offered, with the result of 35628. Some of the bill's cosponsors voted against the resolution, objecting to VAWA being offered as part of an omnibus bill with other nonrelated items in the package. One of the bill's prime sponsors, Rep. John Conyers (D-MI), voted against the resolution for that reason. But final approval for the VAWA reauthorizaton package passed with a nearunanimous vote of 3711. The single vote against was Rep. Mark Sanford (R-SC).

The CSPAN television coverage of the floor debate recorded numerous speeches, many made by cosponsors of VAWA reauthorization, about the importance of the pending vote. More than a few called attention to the reported decline in intimate partner violence since the passage of the original act, as announced in May by the Department of Justice. Of course there was the usual contingent of members attempting to take credit for the legislation, despite not having lifted a finger to help move the bill and only jumping on the bandwagon at the last minute. A substantial number of comments were about the companion measure (to which VAWA reauthorization was attached), the Trafficking Victims Protection Act (H.R. 3244), sponsored by Reps. Chris Smith (R-NJ) and Sam Gejdensen (D-MN).

NOW activists and other advocates continued to put pressure on the leadership, and five days later the Senate adopted the package by 950. The first Senate vote was not on original Biden/Hatch compromise (S. 2787 sponsored by Joe Biden (D-DE) and Orrin Hatch (R-UT) — which had not yet been brought to a floor vote — but instead on the Conference Report that had just been worked out with House conferees. The Biden-Hatch bill would have provided $3.2 billion in funding, minus many of the features of the House bill. The Conference Report increased the funding slightly to $3.33 billion (but not up to the House's $3.85 billion) and retained many of the desirable provisions of the House bill (H.R. 1248).

The final Senate vote came despite a procedural hold that Sen. Fred Thompson (R-TN) had placed on the VAWA package because of his concern about an expansion of federal jurisdiction under "Aimee's law," another item in the package containing VAWA. Briefly, it provides that if a state paroles a murderer, rapist, or child molesters who recommit the same crime in another state, the state that paroled will lose federal law enforcement assistance funds (up to $100,000 would be transferred to each victim or her/his estate in addition to the cost of apprehension, prosecution, and incarceration). Activists inundated the Senate with calls to oppose Sen. Thompson's efforts and to proceed with a vote which is what ensued.

Generally, what happens at the end of a Congressional session when many pieces of legislation remain to be acted upon is that several bills will be grouped together and brought to the floor. The other items in this omnibus measure include the Trafficking Victims' Protection Act (H.R. 3244) that would punish traffickers and offer asylum and services for some victims. Additionally, the package contained the Justice for Victims of Terrorism Act, a bill that allows federal courts to award damages to terrorists' victims and their families by using the frozen assets of countries that support terrorist activities. Advocates were relieved that other legislation rumored to be part of the package — some of which was opposed strongly opposed by women organizations — was not included.

Action Needed: Thanks to NOW activists and many advocates from dozens of organizations, who repeatedly sent messages to members of Congress on this issue. We are relieved to see, at last, VAWA authorized and funded at healthy levels. But it remains obvious that approval of important, noncontroversial legislation protecting hundreds of thousands of women and their children should not require such exerted and prolonged effort. One observer commented that if Congress had representation of women proportionate to their presence in the population, VAWA would have been one of the first bills approved by the 106th Congress, not one of the last!

Conference Report Reauthorizes VAWA at $3.3 Billion, Five Years

The Conference Report — a negotiated compromise between House (H.R. 1248) and Senate bills (S. 2787) — contains many desired improvements in antiviolence programs, though not everything we wanted. For one, reauthorization of the Trust Fund that has funded all VAWA and programs was not included and must now be addressed separately. A reauthorization of the Trust Fund was included in the FY 2001 Commerce/State/Justice Appropriations bill that has drawn a veto threat from President Clinton, who opposes certain Republican spending mandates in the measure.

We won a true victory with the inclusion of dating violence in the definition of what constitutes domestic violence. This at first met resistance from more conservative members of Congress, but gained acceptance during final negotiations. Other notable advances include a dramatic increase in funding for Rape Prevention and Education Programs, several important provisions addressing problems surrounding domestic violence, child abuse and child custody as well as numerous improvements in immigration law for battered women and victims of sex trafficking.

Further, the new language contains a more definitive approach in training and education of court personnel, by amending STOP and Proarrest grants to make state and local courts specifically eligible for funding, setting aside five percent of states' STOP (Services and Training for Officers and Prosecutors) grants for court use.

A second similar provision reauthorizes a program funded at $500,000 a year for federal and $1.5 million for state judicial training on domestic violence. It also adds a training segment regarding domestic violence and child sexual abuse in custody determinations and coverage of dating violence in such training. NOW leaders have noted that there is a pattern in many states of disbelieving women who report being battered or present evidence of child sexual abuse, and training on these issues will be welcome.

Additionally, the U.S. Attorney General is required to report on the effects of parental kidnaping laws, with reference to the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act in domestic violence cases. That report would also address custody provisions in protection orders where domestic violence is a factor, in order to submit recommendations for modification of child custody laws. Based on numerous letters and phone calls from protective mothers that NOW receives, there is an alarming trend toward awarding custody in challenged cases to an abusive ex-spouse — even when there is documented evidence of abuse.

Another related section would authorize $15 million a year through 2002 to establish a pilot Justice Department grant program, Safe Havens for Children, aimed at reducing domestic violence during the transfer of children for visitation by expanding the availability of safe visitation exchange, and supervised visitation where appropriate.

Highlights of the many important provisions are:

• Reauthorization of the STOP Grants at $185 million a year through 2005, allocating 25 percent to police, 25 percent to prosecutors, slightly increasing the proportion to victim services and raising the smallstate minimum to $600,000 per year. There is a 2.5% set aside for each state's domestic violence and sexual assault coalitions, an increase in the allocation for Indian tribes and an expansion of purposes for which grant funds can be expended to cover multidisciplinary approaches and the work of forensic medical examiners.

• Legal assistance for domestic and sexual violence survivors was authorized at $40 million annually under a separately grant program aimed a providing civil legal services for protection orders as well as services for family, criminal, immigration, administrative agency and housing needs. The grants support training, technical assistance, data collection and for cooperative programs between victim advocacy organizations and legal assistance providers.

• Reauthorization of the Victims of Child Abuse Programs, at $15.3 million a year for special advocates, judicial personnel training, and televised testimony.

• Reauthorization of the highly successful National Domestic Violence Hotline at $2 million per year. The Hotline has been assisting an average of 10,000 callers per month.

• Transitional Housing Assistance for Victims of Domestic Violence — a new addition, promoted by Rep. Jan Schakowsky (D-IL), would allow short term (up to 12 months) grants for housing assistance and support services to survivors who are homeless or in need of housing services, available when there is no emergency shelter space available.

• Grants to reduce Violent Crimes against Women on Campus is authorized at $10 million a year to provide for strengthening oncampus security, education training and victims services. Also authorized is $30 million per year specifically for campus security improvements. This section contains the new definition which includes dating violence.

• Reauthorization of Rural Domestic Violence and Child Abuse Enforcement Grants at $40 million a year as well as an enhancement of Protections for Older and Disabled Women from Domestic Violence and Sexual Assault at $5 million per year to develop policies and initiatives, plus $7.5 million per year for Education and Training to end Violence Against and Abuse of Women with Disabilities.

• The National Stalker and Domestic Violence Database is authorized at $3 million a year to provide grant programs that help state and local governments improve databases dealing with stalking and domestic violence. New language clarifies federal jurisdiction over persons crossing state lines (and foreign travel) and expands federal jurisdiction to include battery that is intended to cause travel. The nature of harm is made uniform for domestic violence, sexual assault and stalking in interstate travel offenses.

• Numerous studies are authorized, including Development of a Research Agenda identified in the 1994 VAWA, following up on the National Academy of Sciences report, "Understanding Violence Against Women," and a multiagency task force is established to coordinate research at $500,000 per year. Additional topics are: Study of State Laws regarding Insurance Discrimination Against Victims of Violence Against Women, Workplace Effects from Violence Against Women and one pertaining to Unemployment Compensation for Victims of Violence Against Women.

• Rape Prevention and Education Program reauthorization at $80 million per year — a significant increase over the current funding level of $40 million — covers the Sexual Assault Education and Prevention Grant program, including funding to continue the National Resource Center on Sexual Assault at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

• Another section authorizes $200,000 for FY 2001 to evaluate the existing standards of training, practices and payment of forensic examinations and to recommend a national protocol for sexual assault examinations.

• Title V of the bill contains numerous provisions to aid battered immigrant women, improving upon the 1994 VAWA provisions preventing an abusive citizen or lawful permanent resident spouse from using immigration law to stop an abused immigrant spouse from reporting abuse or attempting to leave the abusive relationship. Thanks to the expertise of staff with the Battered Immigrant Women Program, now part of the NOW Legal Defense and Education Fund, many clarifications and improvements have been made. These changes should also facilitate better protection for victims of trafficking through a new nonimmigrant visa for victims of serious crimes that tend to target vulnerable foreign individuals without immigration status.

Other components include: improved access to the 1994 immigration protections for battered women that were reversed by the 1996 welfare "reform" changes to immigration law and several provisions to remedy problems with implementation of the 1994 law. The new language provides for protection of battered immigrant women's children, grants new and improved waiver authority for the Attorney General to assist battered women and their children, and provides clarification so that battered aliens are allow access to certain public benefits. The new immigration sections also facilitate access for battered spouses and their children for special immigration benefits under the Cuban Adjustment Act, the Nicaraguan and Central American Relief Act, and the Haitian Refugee Fairness Act of 1998. The full text for the entire bill and other bills in the Conference Report can be found on the Congress' website at http://thomas.loc.gov.

Action Needed: Remember to thank members of your Congressional delegation for supporting VAWA reauthorization. And, please call Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott (R-MS) at (202) 225-3135 and Speaker of the House J. Dennis Hastert at (202) 225-0600 to urge that they reauthorize the Trust Fund that provides a source of funding for VAWA programs. The main number for Congress is (202) 224-3121 or you can connect to NOW's interactive political page at www.now.org/congress for phone/fax numbers and email addresses for specific members of Congress.

Republicans Strip Hate Crimes Expansion from Defense Bill

The Republican leadership directed Conference Committee members for the Defense Department (DOD) authorization bill to strip from the final version an amendment that added the Local Law Enforcement Enhancement Act (S. 622/H.R. 1082, formerly known as the Hate Crimes Prevention Act) on the grounds that it was not germane (that is, they said it was not on the same or similar topic as the main bill). This move was made despite the fact that majorities in both the House and Senate had approved of the legislation and the problem of hate crimes has received much coverage during this campaign season. The amendment had been added to the DOD authorization bill when the House approved (232192, on Sept.13) a Motion to Instruct conferees to retain the Senate passed language as part the defense spending measure.

Six Republican Senators wrote to the leadership asking that the hate crimes provision remain in the DOD bill. They were Sens. Gordon Smith, Ore., a cosponsor with Sen. Ted Kennedy (D-Mass.), Arlen Specter, Pa.; Jim Jeffords, Vt.; Lincoln Chafee, RI; Susan Collins, ME and Connie Mack, Fla. There is an outside chance that the hate crimes legislation could be added to another appropriations package before Congress adjourns, however. They have already recessed until after the elections.

President Clinton condemned the action in a message on Oct. 12th, calling attention to the two year mark since the brutal beating death of Matthew Shepard in Wyoming. And again last week the President called on Congress to pass the hate crimes measure before adjournment.

The hate crimes provision would expand federal hate crimes statutes to include the new categories of prohibited crimes committed because of the sex, sexual orientation or disability of the victim. It would also remove overly restrictive provisions that allowed federal prosecution of racebased and religionbased hate crimes only when the hate crime was committed while a victim was engaged in a "federally protected" activity, such as voting, serving on a jury or going to a public school. In addition, it would also allow federal prosecution when state or local authorities are unwilling or unable to properly investigate and prosecute a hate crime.

Action Needed: Please let your Representative and Senators know how unhappy you are about the fact that the hate crimes provision was dropped from the Department of Defense authorization bill. You may want to call the leadership to make one last plea for passage this Congress. The targets should be: Majority Leader Trent Lott (R-MS) at (202) 224-3135; Minority Leader Tom Daschle (D-SD) at (202) 224-5556; Speaker of the House J. Dennis Hastert (R-IL) at (202) 225-0600; Minority Leader Richard Gephardt (D-MO) at (202) 225-0100; Sen. Ted Stevens (R-AK) at (202) 224-3004; Sen. Robert Byrd (D-WV) at (202) 224-3954; Rep. C.W. "Bill" Young (R-FL) at (202) 225-5961 and Rep. David Obey (D-WI) at (202) 225-3365. The main number for the Capitol is (202) 224-3121 or connect to www.now.org/congress.

The message:

Please do not end the 106th Congress without passing the Local Law Enforcement Enhancement Act (S. 622, H.R. 1082). Improving the ability of law enforcement officials to effectively investigate and prosecute hate crimes is critically important. It is essential that we federal law prohibit hate crimes that are based on sex, sexual orientation or disability. I urge you to do everything in your power to assure that this legislation is adopted this year.

Trafficking Bill Offers Some Advances, But Needs More Work

The Trafficking Victims Protection Act, H.R. 3244, after much impassioned speech on the floors of the Senate and House, takes only modest steps in attempting to halt the invidious practice of trafficking women and children for exploitation in the sex industry. Sponsored by Reps. Sam Gejdensen (D-MN) and Chris Smith (R-NJ), with Sens. Sam Brownback (R-KS) and Paul Wellstone (D-MN), the legislation establishes new criminal laws against trafficking and provides for asylum and assistance to some victims.

The bill passed the House on May 9th and the Senate on July 27th. The final version is contained in the Victims of Trafficking and Violence Protection Act Conference Report with other legislation such as VAWA reauthorization. It was approved by both houses in early October and signed into law by President Clinton on October 28th. In radio remarks the same day, President Clinton noted that "every year a million or more women are forced or tricked into lives of utter misery — into prostitution, sweatshop work, domestic or farm labor or debt bondage. This is slavery plain and simple."

The Central Intelligence Agency has estimated that some 50,000 persons are brought into the United States for commercial sexual exploitation each year. They come from around the world, with a substantial number originating from countries of the former Soviet Union that are impoverished by a shaky transition to capitalism. Women from Central American, South American and Asian countries are also trafficked into the United States.

Often the young and vulnerable victims are deceived by their recruiters, who promise attractive jobs and high wages, but then keep them in virtual captivity through debt bondage and tight restraints on their activities. Many survivors of sex trafficking tell of death threats to their families if they attempt to escape, of being drugged and beaten to break their resistance, and of severe damage to their physical and mental health.

H.R. 3244 creates new felony criminal offenses for trafficking in human beings and requires any person convicted of these crimes to forfeit their assets. Those found guilty can be fined or imprisoned for not more than 20 years, or both. The language strengthens protections for victims of trafficking, allowing application for asylum in some cases, witness protection and better access to other federal benefits. The legislation establishes a cabinet level interagency task force to combat and monitor trafficking composed of a representative from the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID), the Attorney General, the Secretaries of Health and Human Services and Labor, the Director of the Central Intelligence Agency and others appointed by the President. The Secretary of State will chair the task force and is directed to establish an Office to Monitor and Combat Trafficking. Countries which receive economic assistance from the United States are required to report about severe forms of trafficking, their actions to stop it, their cooperation with other countries and other issues.

One of the factors that caused negotiations over this legislation to be prolonged was that the Clinton administration objected to mandated sanctions against countries that allow implicitly or explicitly trafficking activities. Broad authority to waive the sanction requirements is granted to the president in the final version.

While H.R. 3244 is a first step, it contains numerous flaws that must be addressed. A core problem is an artificial two-tier system, set up to distinguish between trafficking and "severe" trafficking, so as to apply varying prohibitions, penalties and reliefs. A related difficulty is the linkage between "severe" trafficking and a requirement that victims must have submitted because of "force, fraud or coercion." Unless a person falls into this classification and can demonstrate it to the satisfaction of U.S. officials, she cannot become certified by the Secretary of Health and Human Services and, consequently, cannot be eligible for a "T" visa and other government services. An additional barrier is that only 5,000 "T" visas are allowed each year - inadequate considering that there is an estimated influx of 50,000 trafficked persons annually.

On the positive side, a new "U" visa provision, as negotiated by NOW Legal Defense and Education Fund's Battered Immigration Women Office, is included in the VAWA Reauthorization bill and will offer another option for victims of trafficking.

The insistence on the part of the administration and several authors of the legislation that "coercion" be part of the definition of who is trafficked is particularly suspect. It is a retrenchment of a standard achieved more than a half century ago with the 1949 U.N. Convention for the Suppression of the Traffic in Persons and of the Exploitation of the Prostitution of Others, signed by many nations. That international agreement stated that "consent" is irrelevant where sex trafficking is involved; so the U.S., in effect, is reversing progress.

It should be noted that coercion and fraud will be difficult to demonstrate in court since it is the victim's word against the traffickers' use of a consent defense and there will be little or no access to material evidence to prove force. NOW believes that placing the burden of proof on the victim — instead of the trafficker is absolutely the wrong approach. In addition, only a victim of the so-called "severe" trafficking is eligible for assistance under the current welfare system and to public legal assistance. Unfortunately, legal aid offices are seriously underfunded and cannot meet the present demand for services, let alone demand from a significant new source of clients. And trafficking survivors often do not speak English proficiently.

A "Catch 22" exists wherein the trafficking victim is not eligible for services until she gets the certification. The Attorney General is supposed to refer her for help with the T visa, but she is not eligible for services until she is certified! H.R. 3244 fails to specify what kinds of services a victim can get, although an earlier version made reference to the Crime Victims Act and the Crime Victims Fund. Other such contradictions, definitional problems and critical omissions abound. A few critics of the legislation charge that only women that the government wants to use for prosecution of a few high profile cases will get needed services. The others, they charge, will likely be peremptorily sent packing back to their home countries.

International Trafficking:

International observers have estimated that the worldwide sex trafficking business is a multibillion dollar activity, with hundreds of thousands of women and children trafficked around the globe annually. Frequently traffickers are part of other organized criminal activities and employ sophisticated methods of recruitment, management, money laundering, legal representation and, reportedly, even direct government lobbying to protect their interests. A few close observers believe that trafficking interests had a hand in weakening provisions in this new law, but they were less successful in applying pressure to weaken a United Nations policing agreement recently negotiated in Vienna.

U.S. representatives in Vienna, reportedly, fought a broad definition of trafficking (not limited to coercion, force or fraud) in the current international negotiations on the U.N. transnational organized crime agreement. But these efforts failed in the face of a united international feminist position in support of the broad definition and recognition of the vulnerability of victims which makes consent meaningless. NOW and other advocacy organizations actively pressured U.S. representatives to support a broad definition of trafficking in the Vienna protocols.

Action Needed: Several feminist international law experts believe that it will be nearly impossible to protect trafficked women under this new law. The tragedy is that many members of Congress, the administration and other women's organizations (including conservative women's groups like the Concerned Women for America) are under the impression that the Trafficking Victims' Protection Act is a meaningful advance. What it does point up is the urgent need for more bright, trained feminist lawyers and experts at work in our Congress, in our administration and at international forums to effectively advocate for women. Additional information on the antitrafficking law, the issue and the U.N. Convention on Transnational Organized Crime will be provided in a future NOW Legislative Update, with suggested letters to members of Congress and the administration on how to remedy the problems. Stay tuned.

Child Support/Fatherhood Bill May Be Dead for this Congress

November 2000

Promoters of a bill that would provide important improvements in the distribution of child support payments to poor families — as well as authorize a questionable fatherhood and marriage promotion grant program — recently offered a revised version in S. 3189, The Child Support Distribution Act of 2000. With new bipartisan sponsorship in the Senate by Olympia Snowe (R-ME), Herb Kohl (D-WI), Evan Bayh (D-IN), Pat Moynihan (D-NY), Lincoln Chafee (R-RI), John Breaux (D-LA) and John Rockefeller (R-WV), House promoters of a similar bill had hoped to have it added to other legislation that was prioritized for passage in this Congress.

Rep. Nancy Johnson (R-CT), prime sponsor of the similar H.R. 4678, even attempted to have the bill paired with the reauthorization of the Violence Against Women Act. NOW and other organizations strongly objected to this proposal. Her bill, the Child Support Distribution Act, had been approved by the House of Representatives on September 7th by a vote of 405 to 18. Because of the numerous items pending on the calendar and the very few days remaining of the 106th Congress, it seems unlikely that the act will be taken up in the Senate.

Proposed positive changes to the child support collection system would mean that substantially more of the child support collected from noncustodial parents would be passed through for the benefit of their children — instead of immediately reimbursing state governments for past public assistance the family received while child support wasn't being paid. The proposed revision would also pass through a larger amount of support payments collected through interception of tax refunds to noncustodial parents owing past due child support. If fully implemented, this would mean an increase of about $1 billion a year to poor families. An additional change would allow states to authorize their own passthrough policies for families currently receiving cash assistance under the Temporary Assistance to Needy Families (TANF) welfare program.

Unfortunately, the proposal contains negatives as well. The new Senate bill would add more than $100 million for "marriage and fatherhood promotion" programs for media campaigns and services that emphasize marriage, components that Indiana Sen. Evan Bayh (D) wants. Most of those funds — as well as the $155 million authorized for other fatherhood grants — would likely go to "faith-based" organizations and to a few national fatherhood organizations.

A review of the major provisions of the House bill was contained in the Oct. 3 NOW Legislative Update, noting especially its potential for increased risk of family violence. The legislation would reward noncustodial fathers who are in arrears on child support payments that were due while their children were receiving welfare payments — it would forgive their past due support if they marry the mother of their children, or begin to live with their children. They would also receive benefits if they continue to make current support payments. The wholesale emphasis on marriage is objectionable, as is the mandate that 75% of the $155 million grant funds go to charitable (read "religious") organizations that would be allowed to discriminate on the basis of religion and would be permitted to prosyletize. The weakness of provisions addressing domestic violence was addressed in a prior Legislative Update.

The child support sections that would pass through larger amounts of child support payments to families would not become effective until 2005 — a sham offer, in our view. Yet funding for the fatherhood programs would start immediately. Poor families need help now. The far into the future date for helping poor families is one indication that the real agenda in this bill is to fund extremist "fathers' rights" or men's custody activists. Wrapping their $256 million grant program around distant promises of child support assistance is a cruel and deceptive tactic.

Some groups, as previously noted, are effective and responsible entities in counseling poor noncustodial dads. But the emphasis on marriage as a solution to poverty is just plain wrong.

Numerous features of the child support passthrough proposal are desirable and should be adopted, but the fatherhood and marriage grants need to be removed. It should noted that not all provisions in the child support component are positive; for instance, there is a section establishing state demonstration projects to allow private collection agencies to collect past due child support payments. This is regarded as a questionable first step in privatizing the entire collection system in a way that may allow privacy breaches, charging of high fees for collection, and other potential abuses.

Major antiviolence organizations sent a letter to members of the Senate decrying the lack of strong protections for women and children in the Senate bill and proposing that a requirements be added for the adoption of written agreements between fatherhood grantees and domestic violence coalitions that would specify professional training of personnel, screening for violence combined with education and counseling and other procedures.

Action Needed: Deliver a message to your Senators about S. 3189. The main number for Congress is (202) 224-3161, just ask for your Senator's office. In addition, you can consult www.now.org/congress for phone, fax and email addresses for each Senator. Here is what you can tell them:

• I question the underlying notion of the Child Support Distribution Act that marriage is the solution to poverty. Evidence accumulated over the last halfcentury about the causes of poverty amply demonstrates that it is a complex problem of inadequate education, few job skills, lack of access to jobs that pay living wages, and insufficient provision of child care, transportation and health care services. Congress must address poverty in ways that are realistic and reflect the knowledge that we have gained over the past five decades.

• The child support passthrough provisions in S. 3189, the Child Support Distribution Act, are important and should be adopted. However, waiting five years for those improvements to become effective will mean that poor families will have to continue to receive very little help. The Senate should work out an agreement with the states to implement the child support pass through much sooner.

• I urge you to oppose S. 3189, the Child Support Distribution Act of 2000, unless the marriage and fatherhood grant programs which would risk increased violence to poor women and their children are dropped. The provisions under the fatherhood title that address domestic violence in the bill are far too weak.

We Win Another Round Against Bad Bankruptcy Bill

November 2000

On Nov. 1, Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott (R-MS) attempted to stop debate and have a final vote on the socalled Bankruptcy Reform Act (originally H.R. 833/S. 3046, now S. 3186, included in the Conference Report on H.R. 2415). But the move failed to draw the necessary 60 votes and the bill may be dead for this Congress. Seventeen Senators were absent and Sen. Lott indicated that he may make another try after the general election. The banking and credit card industry desperately wants the bill passed this session and reportedly has pumped more than $40 million into lobbying and campaign contributions to both Republicans and Democrats.

The legislation, which NOW and other consumer and women's organizations oppose, has been kept from a Senate floor vote by Democratic maneuvering and a veto threat from the President Clinton. The House passed the bankruptcy Conference Report by a voice vote in October.

The legislation would make it much more difficult for individuals to declare bankruptcy. Low income persons, especially, would have more difficulty because of additional complexities making it necessary to hire an attorney. More families would lose their homes, cars and necessary household goods and face eviction because of new requirements. The bill would also make it less likely that custodial parents owed past due child support by the bankrupt person would be able to collect it, because other debts (like credit card debt) would no longer be dischargeable.

Another serious problem with the bill is the fact that the Clinic Violence Amendment was deleted by the Conference Committee. This provision would have closed a loophole that allowed defendants in clinic violence cases to avoid paying judgments and fines by declaring bankruptcy. The President criticized this deletion in his letter to the Senate, promising a veto.

Action Needed: Continued opposition to the bankruptcy bill is important. If you have a chance to talk with members of your Congressional delegation during the election break, reinforce your concerns about how the bill will hurt women, children and low income persons.