In a rapid series of developments,   House and Senate committees approved their respective Perkins reauthorization bills on March 9th, and on the following day the Senate voted unanimously to pass S. 250, the Carl D. Perkins Career and Technical Education Improvement Act of 2005. The House is expected to pass their measure, H.R. 366, in early April.

Both House and Senate bills closely resemble their counterparts from the 108th Congress. (For an analysis of provisions affecting women in transition, review the September 2004 Insider). Most importantly, both bills would require the use of local funds to prepare displaced homemakers and single parents for high skill, high wage occupations leading to self-sufficiency. Women Work! supports the provisions in these bills, and will work closely with key members of Congress during the remainder of the reauthorization process to continue to improve provisions affecting women in transition.

While Congress works to reauthorize Perkins, the budget process that shapes annual federal spending threatens to eliminate Perkins funding entirely. Under the federal appropriations process, Congress must pass a "budget resolution," legislation that contains instructions and spending limits for federal programs. The current budget resolution bill would extend the tax cuts by $70 to $106 billion over five years, while slashing vital programs by $32 to $68 billion during the same time period.

Vital programs like Perkins vocational education and Pell grants may go entirely unfunded if these cuts are passed. Congressman David Obey (D-WI), ranking member of the House Appropriations Committee, said that passing this budget resolution would make it easy for President Bush to eliminate vocational education and other popular education programs. With strict spending limits in place, Congressional appropriators would have no choice but to drastically under-fund key programs. Currently, education programs could be cut by $8.6 to $21 billion over five years. Unfortunately, an amendment offered by Senator Tom Harkin (D-IA) that would have protected Perkins funding failed by a vote of 56-44.

The budget resolution will be passed in both House and Senate chambers in April. It is urgent that Women Work! members send a strong message to Congress that the cuts in the budget resolution are dangerous and would devastate the economic security of women in transition.

On March 2nd, the House of Representatives passed H.R. 27, the Job Training Improvement Act of 2005, by a vote of 224 to 200. Unfortunately, H.R. 27 does nothing to expand training opportunities for women in transition.

Under H.R. 27, there is no requirement that funding be targeted to displaced homemakers and women training for nontraditional jobs. In fact, the bill block-grants separate funding streams into one pot of money to serve all workers, which in theory provides each state with flexibility to administer the program. In reality, block-granting pits different groups of workers against one another in competition for resources, which hurts women returning to the workforce or seeking nontraditional training. The needs of women are seldom made a priority when funds are scarce. A recent Government Accounting Office (GAO) study found that when programs are block-granted, the focus and purpose of the specific programs are lost; federal funds do not go where they are most needed; accountability for spending is reduced; and overall funding for the program tends to decline over time.

In addition, H.R. 27 does not go far enough in easing access to training for women and all members of workforce. There is no assurance that one-stops provide the counseling and support needed by displaced homemakers and those training for nontraditional jobs. And, there is no measure to assure that the jobs women attain provide for their long-term self-sufficiency.

Congressional leaders attempted to reverse some of the bill's shortcomings during a committee session held on February 16th. An amendment to H.R. 27, introduced by Congresswoman Lynn Woolsey (D-CA), a long-time champion of women's issues, would have allowed local areas to fund programs serving displaced homemakers and single parents, and would have placed a priority on exposing women to high wage, high skill and nontraditional occupations. However, the amendment was voted down on party lines, 21 to 19.

WIA reauthorization must now continue in the Senate. The Senate introduced their proposal, The Lifetime Education Opportunities Act (S. 9), on January 24th. Senate staff have indicated they aim to pass this bill by the end of May. Women Work! will continue to monitor the reauthorization process and keep members apprised of new developments.

top

On March 17th, the Senate voted 52-48 to pass a bipartisan amendment sponsored by Senators Gordon Smith (R-OR) and Jeff Bingaman (D-NM) that stripped cuts to Medicaid from the Senate's FY 2006 budget. The Senate's budget contained an estimated $14 billion in cuts over five years to the most critical health care program for low income women. Debate preceding the vote was intense, as Medicaid cuts represented the largest reduction in mandatory spending in the Senate's budget. Passage of the amendment trimmed total cuts to $17 billion in the Senate's bill - compared to $69 billion in the House's current budget.

The vote represents a critical step in preserving funding for Medicaid, which provides health coverage to one in ten adult women and 40% of all single mothers. Indeed, 71% of all adult Medicaid beneficiaries are women. As reported in the February Insider, President Bush targeted Medicaid for a $60 billion reduction over ten years in his FY 2005 budget proposal. If enacted, a funding cut of this magnitude would result in women and their families without health care in every state. States depend on federal funds for around half of their Medicaid costs, and would be forced to reduce eligibility, and eliminate or cap services in order to recover from the loss of funding.

Women can qualify for these important health care services through Medicaid:

• Comprehensive, preventive health care for low-income parents with dependent children
• Prenatal care
• Comprehensive and long-term care for low-income elderly women in nursing home settings
• Treatment for breast and cervical cancer
• Family planning, including contraceptive supplies, reproductive counseling, infertility treatments, and STD testing and treatment

The battle to preserve Medicaid funding is not over. The House budget bill contains up to $38 billion in cuts over five years. Women Work! will continue to monitor the federal budget process and keep members apprised of any important developments. For more information on women and Medicaid, please visit the National Women's Law Center website.

top

Congress is currently in the process of passing the largest overhaul of bankruptcy legislation in 27 years. The Republican-sponsored reform would, according to supporters, curb abuse within the system. But opponents argue that the new regulations would harm vulnerable citizens most, including low-income women and families.

Bankruptcy is a critical issue to women's economic self-sufficiency. The rate at which women have filed for bankruptcy has almost tripled over the past two decades, and today women filers outnumber their male counterparts by 150,000 per year. In 2005, more than 1 million women will file for bankruptcy; 9 out of 10 will do so due to loss of employment, medical emergencies or separation/divorce. In fact, a Harvard University study found that medical costs due to illness led to about half of all personal bankruptcies, and that most who file for bankruptcy because of medical problems have health insurance.

Single mothers are more likely than any other group to file for bankruptcy; 50% more likely than married parents, and 3 times more likely than childless people. According to current projects, one in six single mothers will file for bankruptcy by 2010. Experts generally attribute these trends to the high poverty rate of single mothers and their occupational segregation in low-wage jobs. Women's Work!'s recent report, Chutes and Ladders: The Search for Solid Ground for Women in the Workforce indicates that nearly half of all single mothers live in or near poverty, and 53% are employed in service or administrative fields that tend to offer low earnings, few benefits and little opportunity for advancement.

For women who find themselves in unfortunate circumstances, bankruptcy is the last resort option that provides them with an opportunity for economic renewal. While there are many negative consequences that result from filing bankruptcy, including years of damaged credit, it can allow a woman homeowner to keep her home, or discharge certain debts in order to pay back student loans. However, the bankruptcy overhaul would make it more expensive to file, increase payback requirements and reduce the scope of debt relief, regardless of a debtor's current income or reasons for filing.

Another significant factor in women's high instance of bankruptcy is the widespread failure of fathers to pay child support and alimony. In 2004, $95 billion in child support payments went uncollected. Only 39% of women collect all the child support owed to them, affecting single mothers and displaced homemakers alike. Current bankruptcy law protects women whose ex-husbands file for bankruptcy. The child support and alimony owed cannot be discharged by bankruptcy, and must be paid after other debts are wiped out. In addition, a man whose credit card debts have been discharged is in a better position to support his family financially.

The bankruptcy reform bill before Congress would change the law to allow credit card companies to recoup more of their outstanding loans than under current law. This leaves single mothers and displaced homemakers trying to collect child support and alimony in competition with other creditors over payments.

The Senate voted to pass the bankruptcy reform bill on March 10th. Senator Edward Kennedy (D-MA) offered an amendment on the Senate floor that would have extended protections to struggling single moms, but the amendment was voted down, 58-41. The reauthorization process then continued to the House, where the Judiciary committee approved the Senate's bill on March 16th. The House is expected to vote on the bill in early April, and it is likely the bill will soon become law. 

top

On March 7th, the Senate rejected two different proposals to increase the federal minimum wage. The first, sponsored by Senator Edward Kennedy (D-MA), would have increased the minimum wage from its current $5.15 per hour to $7.25. The second, backed by Senator Rick Santorum (R-PA) included an increase to $6.25 per hour, as well as other pro-business provisions. Both proposals were offered as amendments to the bankruptcy overhaul bill.

Raising the minimum wage is a key issue for single mothers and displaced homemakers. While women comprise around half of the workforce in the United States, approximately 61% of all minimum wage workers are women. Over 600,000 single mothers stand to receive a direct raise if the federal minimum wage were increased, and thousands more would benefit indirectly. Minority women would benefit disproportionately from an increase-African American and Latina women represent one-third of the female minimum wage workforce.

The need for an increase in the minimum wage is critical. Today, the minimum wage is 33% less than the average American wage, the lowest level since 1949. The increases passed by Congress in 1996 and 1997 have since been completely eroded by inflation. Today's minimum wage is now worth less than 1995 minimum wage of $4.25 an hour. Increasing the minimum wage to $7.00 an hour could translate into an additional $3,800 annually for a full-time minimum wage worker. For a low-income family of four, this additional income could purchase 10 months of groceries, 8 months of rent, and an entire year of community college tuition.

top

TANF reauthorization proposals moved forward in the House and Senate, while both chambers prepared to pass the latest in a series of continuing resolutions, likely through June 30. Although TANF reauthorization is progressing, current law is set to expire on March 31st and it is not possible that Congress will complete reauthorization by that deadline.

The Senate's Finance Committee voted to approve its bipartisan TANF reauthorization proposal (S. 667), Personal Responsibility and Individual Development for Everyone (PRIDE), on March 9th. This bill resembles the Senate's bill from last year, but also reflects a number of key compromises between Republican and Democrat authors. Key provisions include:

• an additional $6 billion over five years in child care funding
• the optional postsecondary education program, based on Maine's Parents as Scholars, for up to 10% of a state's caseload
• increased work hours for single mothers to 24-34 hours/week
• continued limit on amount of time TANF participants can spend in vocational education programs (12 months)
• continued limit on proportion of a state's caseload that can count vocational education as "work" (30%)
• federal funding for "healthy marriage promotion activities"

The bill now heads to the Senate floor for a full chamber vote, which could take place some time in April. A number of amendments are planned that would improve the bill, including an amendment sponsored by Senator Jim Jeffords (I-VT) which would allow welfare moms to participate in vocational education for two years without loss of benefits. However, the PRIDE bill stands a good chance of being passed by the Senate since it was approved on a bipartisan basis by the Finance committee.

On March 15th, the House Subcommittee on Human Resources voted along party lines to pass on their TANF reauthorization proposal, H.R. 240, to the full Committee on Ways and Means. The full committee expects to consider the bill in April and approve it for full House floor vote.

Unlike the Senate's PRIDE bill, H.R. 240 does not represent a bipartisan compromise, and would increase work requirements for TANF participants without expanding opportunities for education and training. In addition, the subcommittee voted down an amendment offered by Rep. Pete Stark (D-CA) to increase child care funding in the bill. Key provisions include:

• increased work hours for all TANF participants to 160 hours/month, or 37 hours/week
• continued limit on amount of time TANF participants can spend in vocational education programs (3 out of every 24 months)
• continued limit on proportion of a state's caseload that can count vocational education as "work" (30%)
• federal funding for healthy, married, 2-parent families

TANF reauthorization will continue, although exact timing is unclear. Senate GOP leaders have indicated that completion of a new law is included in their priorities for the first half of 2005.

top

top