[Peace-discuss] Fwd: Welfare Reauthorization
Ricky Baldwin
baldwinricky at hotmail.com
Mon Jun 10 14:18:02 CDT 2002
<html><div style='background-color:'><DIV>
<P>>From: National Organization for Women <NOW at NOW.ORG></P></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>>Reply-To: National Organization for Women <NOW at NOW.ORG>
<DIV></DIV>>To: now-action-list at now.org
<DIV></DIV>>Subject: now-action-list Legislative Update Special Report II: Welfare Reauthorization
<DIV></DIV>>Date: Fri, 07 Jun 2002 11:24:08 -0400
<DIV></DIV>>
<DIV></DIV>>Please feel free to forward the following to activists:
<DIV></DIV>>
<DIV></DIV>>From the National Organization for Women Action Center:
<DIV></DIV>>
<DIV></DIV>>Legislative Update Special Report II: Welfare Reauthorization
<DIV></DIV>>
<DIV></DIV>>June 2002
<DIV></DIV>>
<DIV></DIV>>Punishing Welfare Bill Passes House; Senate Action Expected Soon
<DIV></DIV>>----------------------------------------------------------------
<DIV></DIV>>
<DIV></DIV>>By now, it should be clear to anyone that the Bush administration
<DIV></DIV>>and many
<DIV></DIV>>Republican (and a few Democratic) members of Congress do not want to
<DIV></DIV>>end
<DIV></DIV>>poverty, nor do they care about the well-being of poor women and
<DIV></DIV>>their
<DIV></DIV>>children.
<DIV></DIV>>
<DIV></DIV>>A bill that requires poor mothers to work even more hours a week,
<DIV></DIV>>limits
<DIV></DIV>>their educational and training opportunities while seriously
<DIV></DIV>>under-funding
<DIV></DIV>>Temporary Assistance to Needy Families (TANF) programs was passed in
<DIV></DIV>>the
<DIV></DIV>>Republican-controlled House on May 16. By a vote of 229-197,
<DIV></DIV>>representatives approved the Bush administration's punishing plan
<DIV></DIV>>for
<DIV></DIV>>welfare reauthorization in the Personal Responsibility, Work and
<DIV></DIV>>Family
<DIV></DIV>>Promotion Act of 2001 (H.R. 4737), sponsored by Rep. Deborah Pryce
<DIV></DIV>>(R-Ohio). All but four Republican members (Kerns, Hostettler,
<DIV></DIV>>Morella and
<DIV></DIV>>Paul), helped by 14 Democrats (Barcia, Boyd, Cramer, Edwards, Hall
<DIV></DIV>>of
<DIV></DIV>>Texas, Holden, Lucas, Luther, Peterson of Minnesota, Phelps,
<DIV></DIV>>Pomeroy,
<DIV></DIV>>Shows, Taylor of Mississippi and Wu) supported this regressive
<DIV></DIV>>legislation.
<DIV></DIV>>
<DIV></DIV>>Allowed only one amendment, Democrats offered as a substitute for
<DIV></DIV>>H.R. 4737
<DIV></DIV>>a more moderate bill sponsored by Rep. Ben Cardin (Md.), ranking
<DIV></DIV>>member of
<DIV></DIV>>the Human Resources subcommittee of the House Ways and Means
<DIV></DIV>>Committee,
<DIV></DIV>>that placed heavier emphasis on education and vocational training
<DIV></DIV>>opportunities. It failed by 222 to 198. Several elements from the
<DIV></DIV>>progressive TANF reauthorization Act (H.R. 3113), sponsored by Rep.
<DIV></DIV>>Patsy
<DIV></DIV>>Mink (D-Hawaii), that NOW and allies supported were included in the
<DIV></DIV>>Cardin
<DIV></DIV>>bill.
<DIV></DIV>>
<DIV></DIV>>Block grant funding was kept at the same level ($16.5 billion) as
<DIV></DIV>>was
<DIV></DIV>>authorized in the 1996 act -- which with inflation and a continuing
<DIV></DIV>>recession will not be adequate over the five year period. In defense
<DIV></DIV>>of
<DIV></DIV>>level funding, Republicans claim that because welfare rolls have
<DIV></DIV>>dropped
<DIV></DIV>>50% in the last five years less funding is needed. But most states
<DIV></DIV>>are
<DIV></DIV>>experiencing budgetary shortfalls and, in all probability, will have
<DIV></DIV>>great
<DIV></DIV>>difficulty in meeting what could be a doubling of their TANF
<DIV></DIV>>caseload
<DIV></DIV>>required to be in designated "work activities."
<DIV></DIV>>
<DIV></DIV>>MORE WORK FOR POOR MOMS
<DIV></DIV>>
<DIV></DIV>>The legislation increases required work hours from 30 to 40 per
<DIV></DIV>>week, with
<DIV></DIV>>70% of states' TANF recipients to be employed in at least 24 direct
<DIV></DIV>>employment hours (and the other 16 in "countable" work activities as
<DIV></DIV>>defined by the states) per week by 2007. Even women with children
<DIV></DIV>>under age
<DIV></DIV>>six will be expected to work increased hours each week and with more
<DIV></DIV>>work
<DIV></DIV>>demands it is unlikely that poor parents will have the time to
<DIV></DIV>>pursue GEDs,
<DIV></DIV>>obtain vocational training or attend college. Currently, single
<DIV></DIV>>parents
<DIV></DIV>>(without a child under age 6) must work 30 hours (with a minimum of
<DIV></DIV>>20
<DIV></DIV>>hours in direct work), the remaining time in specified work
<DIV></DIV>>activities
<DIV></DIV>>(i.e., work experience, community services, on the job training, job
<DIV></DIV>>search, job readiness assistance or vocational education (limited to
<DIV></DIV>>12
<DIV></DIV>>months)).
<DIV></DIV>>
<DIV></DIV>>CHILD CARE FUNDING INADEQUATE
<DIV></DIV>>
<DIV></DIV>>Only $2.9 billion a year in child care funding was authorized, a
<DIV></DIV>>fraction
<DIV></DIV>>of the amount needed. One of the most common barriers to work
<DIV></DIV>>encountered
<DIV></DIV>>by poor parents is the lack of affordable, good quality child care
<DIV></DIV>>services. Conservative government estimates place the need at
<DIV></DIV>>between $8
<DIV></DIV>>and $11 billion -- although NOW and other child care activists
<DIV></DIV>>believe that
<DIV></DIV>>even these estimates are low. The increased work hours translate to
<DIV></DIV>>higher
<DIV></DIV>>demands for infant care, toddler, after-school and summer care
<DIV></DIV>>programs -
<DIV></DIV>>for which critically insufficient federal and state funding will be
<DIV></DIV>>available. Recent reports from around the country indicate that
<DIV></DIV>>states are
<DIV></DIV>>already cutting their funds for TANF support and child care
<DIV></DIV>>services.
<DIV></DIV>>
<DIV></DIV>>MARRIAGE AND FATHERHOOD PROMOTED
<DIV></DIV>>
<DIV></DIV>>In addition, the legislation expands the emphasis on marriage
<DIV></DIV>>promotion by
<DIV></DIV>>establishing a $200 million grant program ($100 million federal
<DIV></DIV>>dollars
<DIV></DIV>>with state matching funds) for states to develop public advertising
<DIV></DIV>>campaigns on the value of marriage, support high school courses,
<DIV></DIV>>conduct
<DIV></DIV>>relationship counseling and employ divorce reduction efforts, among
<DIV></DIV>>other
<DIV></DIV>>activities. Another $100 million in grants to states and localities
<DIV></DIV>>is
<DIV></DIV>>included for research, technical assistance and demonstration
<DIV></DIV>>projects that
<DIV></DIV>>promote the formation of two-parent families, reduce teen
<DIV></DIV>>pregnancies and
<DIV></DIV>>increase the ability of non-custodial parents to financially support
<DIV></DIV>>and
<DIV></DIV>>care fore their children. The Secretary of Health and Human Services
<DIV></DIV>>is
<DIV></DIV>>required to consider the possible risk of domestic violence in
<DIV></DIV>>marriage
<DIV></DIV>>promotion projects.
<DIV></DIV>>
<DIV></DIV>>Marriage promotion and "responsible fatherhood" are identified in
<DIV></DIV>>the bill
<DIV></DIV>>as among the four main goals of TANF. The legislation would require
<DIV></DIV>>every
<DIV></DIV>>state to describe how they will promote marriage, the involvement of
<DIV></DIV>>fathers and a reduction of non-marital births, including specific,
<DIV></DIV>>measurable performance objectives. States may also spend money in
<DIV></DIV>>these
<DIV></DIV>>areas to allow individuals who are not TANF recipients to
<DIV></DIV>>participate --
<DIV></DIV>>which, of course, will mean fewer dollars for poor families.
<DIV></DIV>>
<DIV></DIV>>NOW and many other organizations object to the inclusion of marriage
<DIV></DIV>>promotion programs under TANF because of the coercive potential that
<DIV></DIV>>they
<DIV></DIV>>hold for poor women and for the invasion of personal privacy such
<DIV></DIV>>policies
<DIV></DIV>>imply. An even greater concern relates to the heightened risk of
<DIV></DIV>>domestic
<DIV></DIV>>violence as up to 60% of TANF recipients have experienced domestic
<DIV></DIV>>violence
<DIV></DIV>>in their lives. (Check http://www.nowldef.org for testimony on the
<DIV></DIV>>marriage
<DIV></DIV>>promotion provisions.)
<DIV></DIV>>
<DIV></DIV>>The fatherhood involvement provisions establish new programs
<DIV></DIV>>designed to
<DIV></DIV>>promote "responsible parenting, encourage positive father
<DIV></DIV>>involvement,
<DIV></DIV>>enhance the abilities of unemployed or low-income fathers to provide
<DIV></DIV>>material support for their families or to avoid or leave welfare by
<DIV></DIV>>taking
<DIV></DIV>>full advantage of education, job training and job search programs."
<DIV></DIV>>In
<DIV></DIV>>addition, assistance can be provided to help fathers effectively
<DIV></DIV>>manage
<DIV></DIV>>family business affairs, including household management, budgeting,
<DIV></DIV>>and
<DIV></DIV>>home maintenance while encouraging "healthy marriages" and "married
<DIV></DIV>>fatherhood." It is noteworthy, that such programs would provide far
<DIV></DIV>>more
<DIV></DIV>>opportunities and special assistance to fathers than to poor
<DIV></DIV>>mothers!
<DIV></DIV>>
<DIV></DIV>>Several substantial grant programs are authorized, including
<DIV></DIV>>competitive
<DIV></DIV>>grant programs for public and nonprofit community organizations, as
<DIV></DIV>>well as
<DIV></DIV>>religious organizations, to carry out the activities noted above.
<DIV></DIV>>The bill
<DIV></DIV>>has no requirements that only low-income or TANF parents be served,
<DIV></DIV>>but
<DIV></DIV>>does require that the larger grant-supported projects consult with
<DIV></DIV>>domestic
<DIV></DIV>>violence and child abuse agencies. Additionally, grants for
<DIV></DIV>>multi-state
<DIV></DIV>>and multi-city projects are authorized and a third category for
<DIV></DIV>>activities
<DIV></DIV>>of "national significance" is established. The latter would relate
<DIV></DIV>>to the
<DIV></DIV>>promotion of father involvement, via a large media campaign,
<DIV></DIV>>dissemination
<DIV></DIV>>of information and provision of research and technical assistance.
<DIV></DIV>>NOW
<DIV></DIV>>fears that theses monies will end up with groups who promote
<DIV></DIV>>custody-switching tactics and assist so-called fathers' rights
<DIV></DIV>>activists in
<DIV></DIV>>their quest to undermine domestic violence/child sexual abuse
<DIV></DIV>>protections.
<DIV></DIV>>
<DIV></DIV>>CHILD SUPPORT POLICIES SLIGHTLY IMPROVED
<DIV></DIV>>
<DIV></DIV>>Current TANF law requires that TANF recipients co-operate with
<DIV></DIV>>paternity
<DIV></DIV>>establishment and child support enforcement. Only a demonstration
<DIV></DIV>>of good
<DIV></DIV>>cause (including the threat of domestic violence or child abuse) can
<DIV></DIV>>exempt
<DIV></DIV>>a parent from being sanctioned if they do not comply. States may
<DIV></DIV>>now
<DIV></DIV>>retain child support monies collected on behalf of current and
<DIV></DIV>>former TANF
<DIV></DIV>>recipients' children as a reimbursement for states' expenditures in
<DIV></DIV>>TANF
<DIV></DIV>>support to those families. Advocates for poor moms have pressed for
<DIV></DIV>>pass-through of all child support monies or an increase in a
<DIV></DIV>>disregard of
<DIV></DIV>>$50 (not taken into account when determining TANF eligibility). H.R.
<DIV></DIV>>4737
<DIV></DIV>>offers states an incentive to choose a pass-through and to disregard
<DIV></DIV>>up to
<DIV></DIV>>about $100 of child support per month, but pass-through of the
<DIV></DIV>>entire
<DIV></DIV>>amount of child support was not made mandatory. A fee of $25 for
<DIV></DIV>>successful child support collection of $500 or more is imposed and a
<DIV></DIV>>series
<DIV></DIV>>of other modest changes in child support enforcement are adopted.
<DIV></DIV>>
<DIV></DIV>>ANTI-VIOLENCE MEASURES DOWNPLAYED
<DIV></DIV>>
<DIV></DIV>>The Family Violence Option (FVO) which encourages states to screen
<DIV></DIV>>and
<DIV></DIV>>provide services for TANF recipients for problems with domestic
<DIV></DIV>>violence is
<DIV></DIV>>retained in the reauthorization bill, but it is not made mandatory
<DIV></DIV>>of
<DIV></DIV>>states as it should be. Despite extensive efforts by NOW, NOW Legal
<DIV></DIV>>Defense
<DIV></DIV>>and Education Fund and domestic violence victim advocates five years
<DIV></DIV>>ago,
<DIV></DIV>>implementation across states is uneven and in some cases not
<DIV></DIV>>implemented at
<DIV></DIV>>all. Congress twice approved a mandatory approach in 1996, but the
<DIV></DIV>>provision was watered down in conference committee.
<DIV></DIV>>
<DIV></DIV>>Legal immigrants remain excluded from the TANF program in H.R. 4737
<DIV></DIV>>which
<DIV></DIV>>means that their U.S. born children are denied benefits. Caps on the
<DIV></DIV>>proportion of the TANF caseload that can be enrolled in educational
<DIV></DIV>>or
<DIV></DIV>>vocational training activities are maintained as are time
<DIV></DIV>>limitations,
<DIV></DIV>>making it extremely difficult for poor women to attain the necessary
<DIV></DIV>>skills, education and direct experience that they need to succeed.
<DIV></DIV>>
<DIV></DIV>>NO SCREENING FOR BARRIERS
<DIV></DIV>>
<DIV></DIV>>One of the most egregious features of the legislation is that states
<DIV></DIV>>are
<DIV></DIV>>not required to screen TANF recipients for barriers to employment or
<DIV></DIV>>provides services to aid recipients to overcome those barriers (drug
<DIV></DIV>>abuse,
<DIV></DIV>>depression, illiteracy, physical or mental illness or having a child
<DIV></DIV>>with a
<DIV></DIV>>disability). Further, the bill does not prohibit states from
<DIV></DIV>>sanctioning
<DIV></DIV>>individuals who cannot meet work requirements due to barriers.
<DIV></DIV>>However, the
<DIV></DIV>>bill contains provisions that require states to establish a
<DIV></DIV>>self-sufficiency plan for all families receiving TANF could allow
<DIV></DIV>>for
<DIV></DIV>>addressing these barriers. But these plans can be prepared without
<DIV></DIV>>consulting the recipient, caseworkers are not required to have any
<DIV></DIV>>training
<DIV></DIV>>for this task and no additional time is allowed in time limits for
<DIV></DIV>>individuals to adequately comply
<DIV></DIV>>
<DIV></DIV>>WAIVER AUTHORITY RISKS PROTECTIONS
<DIV></DIV>>
<DIV></DIV>>One of the commonly-used tactics of the Republican majority is to
<DIV></DIV>>not allow
<DIV></DIV>>much time for opponents to review proposed legislation or to be
<DIV></DIV>>informed
<DIV></DIV>>well in advance of the timing of important votes. An alarming
<DIV></DIV>>provision in
<DIV></DIV>>the TANF reauthorization bill was disclosed only a few days before
<DIV></DIV>>the
<DIV></DIV>>floor vote, assuring that very few people would have the chance to
<DIV></DIV>>evaluate
<DIV></DIV>>the proposal. Under this, states would be allowed to apply for what
<DIV></DIV>>is
<DIV></DIV>>termed a "super-waiver" that would exempt the state from many TANF
<DIV></DIV>>requirements and from certain other federal laws and regulations.
<DIV></DIV>>States
<DIV></DIV>>could fashion their welfare programs in essentially any manner they
<DIV></DIV>>want --
<DIV></DIV>>reshaping or limiting their provision of Food Stamps, child care,
<DIV></DIV>>job
<DIV></DIV>>training, adult education, health care, homeless programs or public
<DIV></DIV>>housing.
<DIV></DIV>>
<DIV></DIV>>Loud objections from Democrats and anti-poverty advocates produced a
<DIV></DIV>>modification of the super-waiver that prohibits waiver of laws
<DIV></DIV>>regarding
<DIV></DIV>>civil rights, discrimination, health or safety standards, labor
<DIV></DIV>>standards
<DIV></DIV>>under the Fair Labor Standards Act or environmental laws. Also, the
<DIV></DIV>>waiver
<DIV></DIV>>could not be used to transfer funds Congress appropriated for one
<DIV></DIV>>program
<DIV></DIV>>to certain other programs. Considering that more than 40 states are
<DIV></DIV>>in a
<DIV></DIV>>fiscal bind, the super-waiver would allow them to adopt any number
<DIV></DIV>>of
<DIV></DIV>>approaches to reducing aid to poor families. Moreover, anti-poverty
<DIV></DIV>>and
<DIV></DIV>>good government advocates are very concerned about the precedence
<DIV></DIV>>that such
<DIV></DIV>>broad-sweeping executive authority would have for the legislative
<DIV></DIV>>branch's
<DIV></DIV>>ability to promote responsible public policies to protect vulnerable
<DIV></DIV>>groups. (For more information on the super-waiver:
<DIV></DIV>>http://www.cbpp.org)
<DIV></DIV>>
<DIV></DIV>>FULL FAMILY SANCTIONS MANDATORY
<DIV></DIV>>
<DIV></DIV>>As noted, H.R. 4737 requires that states develop "self-sufficiency"
<DIV></DIV>>plans
<DIV></DIV>>for all families receiving TANF, requiring work-eligible individuals
<DIV></DIV>>to
<DIV></DIV>>participate in activities in accordance with the plan. TANF
<DIV></DIV>>caseworkers do
<DIV></DIV>>not have to involve TANF recipients in the preparation of these
<DIV></DIV>>plans and,
<DIV></DIV>>in fact, other members of the family can have participation
<DIV></DIV>>requirements
<DIV></DIV>>imposed on them. Currently, states may impose full family sanctions
<DIV></DIV>>(denying benefits) when a TANF recipient is not meeting work and
<DIV></DIV>>other
<DIV></DIV>>related requirements. But H.R. 4737 would require states to cut off
<DIV></DIV>>all
<DIV></DIV>>benefits to the entire family for at least one month, if an
<DIV></DIV>>individual does
<DIV></DIV>>not comply for an extended period of time. Children, clearly, will
<DIV></DIV>>be hurt
<DIV></DIV>>by this provision.
<DIV></DIV>>
<DIV></DIV>>ACTION NEEDED: H.R. 4737 is an example of how much disrespect there
<DIV></DIV>>is for
<DIV></DIV>>poor women and their children and of the refusal of Congressional
<DIV></DIV>>policy-makers to learn from the experience of the last five years.
<DIV></DIV>>To sum
<DIV></DIV>>it up: the House-passed bill contains insufficient TANF block grant
<DIV></DIV>>funding
<DIV></DIV>>to the states (many currently in fiscal trouble), unrealistic work
<DIV></DIV>>requirements for poor parents trying to care for children and get
<DIV></DIV>>their
<DIV></DIV>>lives together, greatly limited opportunities for education and
<DIV></DIV>>training,
<DIV></DIV>>drastically under-funded child care assistance that undermines
<DIV></DIV>>children's
<DIV></DIV>>safety and learning opportunities, coercive marriage promotion
<DIV></DIV>>programs for
<DIV></DIV>>vulnerable women, more help for fathers than for poor mothers, and a
<DIV></DIV>>sweeping executive waiver authority that imperils many protections
<DIV></DIV>>in
<DIV></DIV>>federal law relating to services for poor families.
<DIV></DIV>>
<DIV></DIV>>Please call, email or fax your Senator with a strong message that
<DIV></DIV>>the
<DIV></DIV>>Republican welfare reauthorization bill is wholly unacceptable.
<DIV></DIV>>Check the
<DIV></DIV>>NOW website for talking points from the May Special Legislative
<DIV></DIV>>Report
<DIV></DIV>>(http://www.now.org/issues/legislat/200205.html#talking) and for the
<DIV></DIV>>welfare reauthorization principles adopted by the NOW and the
<DIV></DIV>>National
<DIV></DIV>>Council of Women's Organizations
<DIV></DIV>>(http://www.now.org/issues/economic/welfare/principles.html). Use
<DIV></DIV>>the NOW
<DIV></DIV>>interactive political page (http://www.now.org/Congress) to send
<DIV></DIV>>your
<DIV></DIV>>message. The Senate Finance Committee is expected to unveil their
<DIV></DIV>>legislation soon and will attempt to finalize the bill beginning in
<DIV></DIV>>mid- to
<DIV></DIV>>late June.
<DIV></DIV>>
<DIV></DIV>>-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
<DIV></DIV>>This Legislative Update was compiled by the Government
<DIV></DIV>>Relations/Public
<DIV></DIV>>Policy Team at the NOW office. Questions? Call Jan Erickson,
<DIV></DIV>>Government
<DIV></DIV>>Relations Director, at (202) 628-8669, ext. 122. To receive free
<DIV></DIV>>copies of
<DIV></DIV>>any bill, call your U.S. Senator or Representative at (202) 224-3121
<DIV></DIV>>or
<DIV></DIV>>connect to thomas.loc.gov on the web. This Update is mailed monthly
<DIV></DIV>>to the
<DIV></DIV>>NOW leadership. Any NOW member can receive a copy of this Update by
<DIV></DIV>>mail
<DIV></DIV>>for $25 per year; or you can read it at
<DIV></DIV>>http://www.now.org/issues/legislat/. Join our Action Alert email
<DIV></DIV>>network by
<DIV></DIV>>sending the message subscribe now-action-list to majordomo at now.org.
<DIV></DIV>>
<DIV></DIV>>==================================================
<DIV></DIV>>now at now.org
<DIV></DIV>>To unsubscribe, send a message to mailto:majordomo at now.org with the
<DIV></DIV>>text:
<DIV></DIV>> unsubscribe now-action-list
<DIV></DIV>>or visit http://www.now.org/actions/unsubscribe.html
<DIV></DIV>>Please *do* unsubscribe before cancelling an e-mail account.
<DIV></DIV>>
<DIV></DIV>>Visit the NOW Web site at http://www.now.org/ where you can support
<DIV></DIV>>these
<DIV></DIV>>efforts by joining NOW or purchasing from our catalog.
<DIV></DIV>>
<DIV></DIV>>Visit our Legislative Action Center at http://www.now.org/congress
<DIV></DIV></div><br clear=all><hr>MSN Photos is the easiest way to share and print your photos: <a href='http://g.msn.com/1HM505401/46'>Click Here</a><br></html>
More information about the Peace-discuss
mailing list