Legislative Update

March 3, 2003

GENERAL
            Bush Budget/Tax Cuts Aim to Reduce Gov't Programs
REPRODUCTIVE RIGHTS
            Stem Cell Research Ban Passes House
            Abortion Procedure Ban Legislation Returns
ECONOMIC EQUITY
            Bush's Bad Welfare Bill Passes House
            Punishing Bankruptcy "Reform" Bill Back on Agenda

GENERAL

Bush Budget/Tax Cuts Aim to Reduce Gov't Programs

In what can easily be described as the most fiscally irresponsible federal budget ever proposed, the Bush administration wants to spend $2.23 trillion in fiscal year 2004, while offering nearly $700 million in tax cuts and creating a $300 billion deficit. Many human needs programs would be funded at the same level as the previous fiscal year (which is in effect a cut, not allowing for inflation or increased demand for services), but the Department of Defense is given a staggering $339 billion budget with $193 billion in increases over the next 6 years. And, the Bush budget does not provide for what may be as much as a $200 billion price tag for a war in Iraq!

Bush's new tax cut package would primarily benefit the highest income-earners, eliminating taxes on corporate dividends and inheritances. The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities indicates that millionaires would receive a windfall average of $90,000, in contrast to a mere $256 average that middle income earners would received under the Bush tax cuts. About 40 million workers would receive no benefits. This package together with making previous tax cuts permanent are estimated to produce a total of $2.5 trillion loss to the treasury over ten years.

Bush has attempted to sell his tax cut package as a stimulus to the economy, but few folks are buying it. More than 400 economists, including several Nobel laureates, have criticized the plan and both Democrats and some Republicans have expressed their doubts about whether the tax cuts would provide the needed near term economic trigger. The Democrats have offered their own package of more modest tax cuts for middle class workers and a limited, near term economic stimulus.

Enormous losses in federal revenue because of huge tax cuts and the effects of a limping economy mean that fewer and fewer public dollars will be available. The federal government will be forced to drastically cut aid to public schools, public health, civil rights enforcement, environmental protection and many other vitally important programs. It is the goal of right wing politicians, including some in the White House, to severely curtail governmental spending and "let the private market" take care of social needs. This "trickle down" theory of economics was found to be ineffective during the years following Ronald Reagan's slash and burn budgetary policies when thousands were made unemployed and homeless.

Of special interest to feminist activists are the following Bush FY 04 budgetary items:

• Another squeeze on public education where the $2.28 billion allotment provides $75 million in a new voucher program for private schools, $226 million in tax credit vouchers, refundable tuition tax credits to private or religious schools, while eliminating 46 important programs such as dropout prevention and Native American programs.
• Elimination of education loan forgiveness to child care providers working in low income neighborhoods.
• $4 million funding for the Women's Education Equity Act (WEEA) eliminated.
• Level funding of $2.1 billion for the Child Care and Development Block Grant Program—a tiny fraction of the total need.
• A $10 million reduction to $15 million for the Child Care Access Means Parents in School (CAMPUS) that funds campus-based child care centers, before- and after-school care for children of low-income parents. (Note: the administration says that the cuts are due to decreased demand—critics say that many of those parents have had to quit school and go to work because of welfare reform policies.)
• A massive cut of nearly $100 million for the Community Services Block Grant ($650 to $552 million) which supports programs for assistance in housing, employment, education and training, nutrition, health and substance abuse.
• Level funding of $1.7 billion for the Social Services Block Grant for programs including child care, child welfare, employment services, and special services for the disabled.
• Level funding for Temporary Assistance to Needy Families (TANF) despite proposals to increase work force participation rates and work hours.
• Title X family planning programs at $265 million, the same amount as FY 2002.
• A $3 billion cut for Department of Labor programs such as Adult employment and training, Occupational Safety and Health Administration and the Women's Bureau
• Women in Apprenticeships and Nontraditional Occupations zeroed out.
• International Family Planning programs get $21 million less (total, $425 million)
• Programs combating labor and sex trafficking slashed by half to $10 million.

The most profound budgetary impact will be felt in the Medicaid program which provides health care coverage to millions of low income persons, where the Bush administration places primary financing responsibility on the states. Nearly all states are in fiscal trouble and will not have sufficient funds to meet demand; some states have already raised eligibility standards or are cutting the program in other ways.

The above list is only a sample of the many cuts being made to programs that affect women and children; for a fuller accounting see www.womenspolicy.org for the FY 2004 Budget Briefing Paper.

Congress does not necessarily have to accept any of the administration's proposed funding levels and, undoubtedly, will make many changes. The House and Senate will draft in early March a Budget Resolution which establishes funding targets within which appropriations committees must set funding amounts. The budget resolutions may be completed by mid-March, with final adoption expected by April 15, Tax Day. If this year's budget battles are anything like last year's, we can expect to see the final budget adopted well into the next fiscal year which begins in October.

REPRODUCTIVE RIGHTS

Stem Cell Research Ban Passes House

Human reproductive cloning would produce human individuals with the same gene structure as an already living human. Therapeutic cloning (embryonic stem cell research) does not produce a human being, only DNA and cells. The DNA and cells can be used to produce tissue and organs and could lead to effective treatments and even cures of chronic and fatal diseases.

Opponents of abortion rights have made this bill part of their agenda insofar as it supposedly illustrates their view that all embryos or even zygotes are "persons" and that such research would be immoral. NOW, numerous patient organizations and a bipartisan group of Senators support stem cell research and many assert that to deny potentially life-saving treatments is, in itself, immoral. The Senate is expected to take up a cloning bill soon with a hearing scheduled for March 7.

Abortion Procedure Ban Legislation Returns

The so-called Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act (S. 3, sponsored by Sen. Rick Santorum, R-Penn., and 37 others) could be brought up in the Senate as early as the week of March 10 and the vote count is not encouraging The legislation is virtually the same as the Nebraska law found unconstitutional in Carhart v. Stenberg. It does not provide an exclusion to preserve the health of the woman. In lengthy set of findings, the new bill argues that "partial-birth abortion is never medically indicated to preserve the health of the mother." NOW and reproductive rights allies emphatically disagree on that point.

The same problem with vague language exists in the current bill as it did in Stenberg and the ban could be interpreted to apply to abortions conducted at any stage of pregnancy. As there is no such medical term or specific procedure as a "partial-birth abortion," it would be difficult for physicians to determine what is meant. Since sponsors know that several provisions are clearly unconstitutional, it is not obviously not their intention to see the ban become law, but rather to continue using the issue as an inflammatory political device. The House may take up the bill soon as well.

ECONOMIC EQUITY

Bush's Regressive Welfare Bill Passes House

Clearly demonstrating the right wing false and malicious view that poor mothers are lazy and must be made to work, the House of Representatives passed (230-192) on Feb. 13 the same punitive bill they adopted in the last Congress. The bill (H.R. 4, the Personal Responsibility, Work and Family Promotion Act of 2003, sponsored by Rep. Deborah Pryce, R-Ohio, is the Bush administration version of welfare reauthorization that requires welfare recipients engage in 40 hours of work-related activities a week—something that would be very difficult for women with small children and for women trying to further their education. The bill increases the burden upon fiscally-strapped states in helping recipients find work, in funding other TANF-related services and in assuring that 70 percent of their welfare caseload was engaged in 40 hours of work-related activities by 2008. Level funding to the states of $16.5 billion was authorized; but many governors are concerned about the bill's added requirements and lack of flexibility.

Other provisions include: strict limitations on the amount of time recipients can spend in education and training programs, a continued ban on services to legal immigrants, $300 million in grants to states for marriage promotion programs, a study of the effectiveness of so-called Responsible Fatherhood programs, $50 million for "abstinence education", sanctions for an entire family when one member fails to comply with welfare requirements, and a lifetime cap of five years welfare assistance for any recipient. Child care funding was modestly increased by about $2 billion over five years—a woefully inadequate amount. (TANF child care funding at $2.9 billion annually through FY 08, increased by $200 million each year; the Child Care and Development Block Grant at $2.3 billion, increased to $3.1 billion in FY 08.)

NOW opposed the Bush bill because it would place significant hardships on many poor families, especially those who deal with mental or physical handicaps, cannot read or have problems with substance abuse. Those "harder-to-serve" individuals comprise a substantial number of the very low income households. New Census data show that 60 percent of all poor adults are women; nearly one out of every eight women are poor and working women were 40 percent more likely than men to be poor. Recent reports indicate that welfare rolls are rising in many states as a result of the economic downturn.

The House rejected (124-300) a substitute bill that was originally sponsored by the late Rep. Patsy Mink (D-Hawaii) that would have rewarded states for reducing poverty, provided more opportunity for education and training for welfare recipients, maintained same workload requirements as currently in effect, authorized $20 billion over five years for child care programs and eliminated many harsh elements of the current program. Reps. Dennis Kucinich (D-Ohio) and Barbara Lee (D-Calif.) offered that bill. This was legislation developed by NOW, NOWLDEF, and other anti-poverty allies.

Another substitute was offered by Rep. Ben Cardin (D-Md.) containing moderate work requirements, authorizing $11 billion in child care funds over five years, eliminating bans on eligibility for legal immigrants and other punitive elements. That was defeated in a party line vote of 197-225.

Punishing Bankruptcy "Reform" Back on Agenda

Reportedly, the same welfare "reform" bill (H.R. 333, 107th) that a House-Senate conference committee negotiated for most of last year has been introduced by Rep. James Sensenbrenner (R-Wis.) and 50 co-sponsors. However, absent from the new version (H.R. 975) is the Schumer-Hyde amendment that would close a loophole in bankruptcy law that let clinic violence defendants declare bankruptcy to avoid paying fines, fees and other costs. Just prior to the closing of the 107th Congress last fall, House anti-abortion extremists prevented a final vote because of their opposition to the Schumer-Hyde amendment.

The so-called reform bill would enhance the power of banking and credit card companies to collect on credit card debt, while making it more difficult for individuals in financial trouble to re-organize their finances. Most persons who declare bankruptcy have lost their jobs, experienced a catastrophic illness or been divorced. Understandably, most of those are women, lower income and older individuals; the number of bankruptcies increased last year due to our poor economy. Opponents of the legislation, like NOW and dozens of consumer, union and progressive advocacy organizations, oppose the legislation—especially at this time when millions of workers are unemployed and having difficulty find new jobs. In addition, NOW opposes the bill for the difficulty in collecting payments it would pose for women owed past due child support. Supporters of the bill say that the problem has been fixed, but, in fact, it has not.