Posted on 09/09/2007 1:11:28 PM PDT by MountainFlower
Good afternoon -
Congress returns to work in Washington, DC today after a month long District Work period. I wanted to give everyone a thorough update on where we stand with regard to both the Title V and CBAE programs. September is going to be a very busy month for federal abstinence education programs.
CBAE:
FY2008 CBAE funding is currently being considered by Congress. The CBAE program is funded as part of the Labor, Heath and Education Appropriations package, a mulit-billion package that funds all of the programs in these three agencies. The House has passed its version of the FY08 Labor HHS bill, and included a $28 million increase for CBAE, bringing total CBAE funding to $141 million. The House passed version protects the "A-H" criteria, and makes no damaging changes to the CBAE program. The Senate Appropriations Committee has offered its proposal for CBAE, cutting CBAE by $28 million for a total funding level of $85 million. The Senate proposal also eliminates the "A-H" criteria, leaving the CBAE program with no definitions governing the program.
The next step in the CBAE process will be consideration by the full Senate, where damaging amendments such as medical accuracy and proven effectiveness are possible. Senate consideration of the Labor HHS bill is likely to happen toward the end of September.
Once the Senate has completed its consideration, a House/Senate Conference Committee will convene to resolve the differences between the House and Senate bills. Because the proposals for CBAE differ dramatically between the House and the Senate, CBAE will be a topic of discussion during these negotiations.
Title V:
The Title V program is scheduled to expire on September 30, 2007.
The House has proposed a two year extension of the SCHIP program, with a series of damaging changes, as part of the State Children's Health Insurance Program (SCHIP). SCHIP is also scheduled to expire on September 30, 2007. The House passed proposal includes three new Title V provisions, including State flexibility, medical accuracy, and proven effectiveness.
* State flexibility allows states to use Title V funding for either abstinence education as defined by "A-H"; OR to use Title V funding for comprehensive sex education. * Medical accuracy requires that Title V programs must provide information that is free from medical innaccuracy, and defines medical inaccuracy as any information that is either unsupported or contradicted by peer-reviewed journals. * Proven effectiveness requires Title V programs to show a reduction in pregnancy, STDs, or HIV.
The Senate also passed an SCHIP extension, but the Senate SCHIP proposal was much smaller in scale and does not include an extension of Title V Abstinence Education. As a result, the Title V extension will be the topic of Conference negotiations to resolve the differences between the House and Senate SCHIP proposals.
SCHIP Conference negotiations are still in beginning stages. Members who will serve on the Conference Committees have not yet been appointed, and a framework for the negotiations has yet to be established. Title V will not be discussed until a framework for the negotiations has been agreed upon. The negotiations will be tense and controversial, and the White House has already threatened a veto of the SCHIP packages passed by the House and Senate. Now that Congress has returned to work after the August recess, we expect these negotiations to begin quickly and in earnest.
Statements of Support:
Two champions for abstinence education submitted statements of support to the Congressional Record during debate on the SCHIP package, Rep. Joe Wilson (SC) and Rep. Robin Hayes (NC). To view the debate, please click here.
Request for Information:
We would like to reiterate its request for information and specific examples that we can use to help us combat the three damaging Title V provisions that have been proposed by the US House. For example, one program in Alaska has shared with us a case supporting why the demonstration of effectiveness would have an unfair impact on abstinence education in Alaska. The state of Alaska has a law requiring active parental consent to conduct a questionnaire or survey, whether anonymous or not, that inquires into personal or private family affairs of the student not a matter of public record or subject to public observation unless written permission is obtained from the student's parent or legal guardian. In order to survey students within the Anchorage School District, it requires approval from the school district administration first. While this program has repeatedly requested approval to obtain active parental consent for many years to obtain information on demonstrated effectiveness, the district has repeatedly declined the request for class time to survey the youth and the work involved in obtaining active parental consent. The school district declined the survey request due to teacher time to obtain active parental consent and classroom time away from items vital to the No Child Left Behind measures. This very succesful program -- supported by the school district -- would not be able to compete for Title V funding due to its inability to collect this data.
Please send us any information that you can citing specific examples like this one that show why these proposals are unworkable for your program and the students it serves. We also urge you to share with us any leave-behinds that you have provided to your legislators that we can share with their offices in Washington, DC.
We will continue to keep you updated. September is going to be a busy month for both Title V and CBAE. If you haven't already, we urge you to be in touch with your legislators to highlight your programs in their states and districts. Please don't hesitate to contact us with any questions!
PING!
bump!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.