Utah Reauthorization Project
P. O. Box 270090 Fruitland, UT 84027-0090
(435) 548-2630 FAX (435) 548-2438
wrw@ubtanet.com      www.slcap.org/UREAP/ureap.htm

UREAP III MEETING SUMMARY

Tuesday, May 24, 2005
2:00 - 4:00 p.m.
Horizonte Education and Training Center
1234 S. Main Street, SLC

In Attendance
Mark Greenberg, Center for Law and Social Policy (CLASP), via speakerphone
Helen Thatcher, Department of Workforce Services (DWS)
Pam Silberman, Utah Issues
Robyn Lipkowitz, Utah Issues
Don Uchida, Vocational Rehabilitation
Pat Nielson, League of Women Voters, American Association of University Women
Bill Walsh, Walsh & Weathers Research and Policy Studies, UREAP staff
Shirley Weathers, WWRPS, UREAP staff

Welcome
Bill Walsh welcomed everyone. He said that Mark Greenberg of CLASP would be joining the meeting by speakerphone. During introductions, Utah Issues' Pam Silberman introduced Robyn Lipkowitz as her replacement representing Utah Issues with UREAP. Pam announced that she was taking a new position at  Comunidades Unidos, based in Midvale.

Updates from Mark Greenberg
Since the night before the UREAP meeting, press reports and news stories announced that a compromise had been reached among 14 Senators not to invoke the "nuclear option," Bill asked Mark Greenberg to comment on this development. Mark said the critical thing that happened was that there was enough of a resolution so that the Senate would not be paralyzed. He said there were genuine concerns that if the ultimate filibuster vote did occur, work in the U.S. Senate would slow to a crawl, except for the most serious matters. The overall situation remains a very contentious environment, but they dodged a bullet, and there was  now hope for passage of important legislation. It is encouraging that Senate moderates want to work together to get some things done.

Workforce Investment Act (WIA)
The WIA bipartisan mark-up bill, S. 1021, "Workforce Investment Act Amendments of 2005," passed the HELP Committee unanimously on May 18 without debate. Mark said that analyses were not out yet. The National Governors Association will soon release a side-by-side. S. 1021 is  quite similar to the 2003 WIA bill. The two most important things about the bill that Republicans and Democrats agreed on were: 1) not combining funding streams, although allowing up to 45% transferability between Adult and Dislocated Worker, and 2) that the Employment Service be co-located in the One-Stops (not an issue in Utah because this has already been done). He said the day before the HELP vote, the Secretary of Labor, Elaine Chao, sent a letter to Senator Enzi, strongly objecting that many Administration positions were not included in S. 1021, indicating that the Administration would seek amendments on the Senate Floor, and warning that the President likely would not sign a bill unless it contains the House provision to allow faith-based organizations to use religious preferences in hiring. (Don Uchida had brought copies of the letter for the group so these were passed out.)

Mark said the letter complicates matters considerably. It is no longer clear if and when S. 1021 will be brought to the Floor. It revives fears among Democrats that provisions they support could be wiped out in the Conference Committee, overturning the bipartisan process that created and passed S. 1021. The letter notes many Administration's priorities that we have heard debated over the last two years. It is not known what it means that the HELP Committee proceeded to pass their bipartisan bill on a voice vote with the letter before them. There is concern that Republicans may be re-evaluating their support for S. 1021 after the fact. Uncertainty again settles over WIA.

Don asked if WIA could be attached to some other related bill. Mark said it was possible but he suspected that the Senate took their job of making legislation seriously and would probably resist such a move.

In discussing possible action steps, Mark said CLASP considers S. 1021 to be much more positive than HR 27, the bill that passed the House on March 2. Shirley indicated that UREAP has come to a similar conclusion and that can be communicated to Senators Hatch and Bennett and Governor Huntsman.

TANF Update
Mark recounted that in April, the Finance Committee passed S. 667, a bipartisan TANF Reauthorization bill also known as the PRIDE Act, with only one dissenting vote, but before it could come to the Floor, the Chair of the Budget Committee, Senator Judd Gregg, objected to the amount of Child Care funding in the bill. TANF was then put aside as the Budget Resolution was conferenced and passed in the Senate and House. Because of this, now there is talk of folding TANF into the Budget Reconciliation Bill to be considered in the Fall and turning away from proceeding with the stand alone bill. Mark explained that each Committee has been given financial targets through the Budget Resolution. The Finance Committee has jurisdiction over TANF and Medicaid. It has a target amount, plus instructions to cut $10 billion from Medicaid. If it stays on schedule, the Finance Committee will turn in its recommendations in the Fall, they will be folded into the Reconciliation Bill along with recommendations from other committees, debate on the full bill will be limited to 20 hours, and a vote will be taken. A simple majority is all that's required to pass the Budget Reconciliation bill.

In this context, there are some grave complexities to be considered. Mark noted that, to meet its target amount, other  low-income programs under the Finance Committee would have to be cut if TANF provisions requiring new money are to be included. This creates a difficult, painful situation. Moreover, many are questioning what, of a policy nature, may or may not be able to happen if TANF moves forward in the Budget Reconciliation bill. A Senate rule, the Byrd Rule, provides that only budget outlay matters can be included. If other matters, such as policy changes, are attempted, one Senator may raise a point of order and the provision may not be included. The way TANF reauthorization would play out under this scenario is extremely uncertain and is being heavily studied and debated. Any positive new policy provisions included in S. 667--e.g., increased countable activities, penalty relief for states making progress but not meeting new participation rates, and the replacement of caseload reduction credits with employment credits--may well be excluded under the Byrd Rule. On the other hand, some national advocates see in the Byrd Rule a way to avoid negative policy changes in S. 667 and HR 240. Meanwhile, SS. 667 is, indeed, stalled because Senators Gregg and Frist are disinclined to allow it to move forward.

Mark stressed the precariousness of either courses, but said CLASP believes the stand alone bill provides a better course than relying on the Byrd Rule to prevent implementation of negative policies. He pointed out that the original TANF bill, PRWORA, was part of Reconciliation in 1996, despite the enormous number of substantive policy changes it included. He explained that TANF funding in the "baseline" was relatively secure, but additional TANF funds for state supplemental grants, Transitional Medicaid, Abstinence Education, and Child Care funding are not in the baseline and they could well be left out in reconcilation. The Administration included and extra $2 billion for TANF which could survive if TANF were a stand-alone bill. Policy matters, such as requiring more hours of participation, may or may not be included in a Reconciliation Bill. It is impossible to predict what would occur in either scenario.

When asked what UREAP could do, Mark suggested continued communication with Utah's Senators is always helpful. He said that, if UREAP still supports the stand alone bill, we could ask HHS Secretary Mike Leavitt to weigh in with the Administration to get TANF moving. Mike Leavitt could be persuasive with the Administration on TANF, but so far, he hasn't made any moves in that arena. Mark said that governors are also key in TANF discussions, especially Republicans.

Shirley asked Mark if he thinks there is any chance to improve WIA or TANF reauthorization bills at this point. Mark said positive TANF amendments were drafted when action was expected, and many or all will likely be offered if TANF comes to the Senate Floor as a stand-alone bill. Mark mentioned amendments to increase countable months of education and training, to extend health coverage for immigrant children and pregnant women, the Alexander/Nelson amendment to allow a set of states to be accountable for outcomes rather than participation rates. It is unlikely that positive changes would find an avenue if TANF is folded into reconcilation. The WIA dynamic is different because a bipartisan bill was produced and an attempt to proceed to the Floor with a Unanimous Consent  motion seemed possible, but now things are uncertain because of the Administration's intense pressure. Mark then asked which amendments would UREAP like to see. Bill listed WIA items UREAP has favored throughout the process and Shirley listed TANF preferences. Mark said that it may turn out that if reconciliation is the vehicle for TANF reauthorization, a message will have to be developed that significant policy changes cannot be done without additional funding.

Mark said CLASP and other national advocates appreciated the work UREAP was doing and encouraged us to continue working on these issues. Shirley and Bill thanked Mark for his tireless assistance and excellent information.

Additional Discussion
There was group consensus to write to Mike Leavitt about UREAP's priorities and our sense that S. 667 as it passed the Senate Finance Committee offers the most positive future for TANF. Shirley and Bill will draft a letter, put it out via the UREAP email list for feedback, and send the final product to Secretary Leavitt. The group agreed that the same message should be sent to Governor Huntsman and Jason Chaffetz, his Chief of Staff. It was also suggested to contact Robin Arnold-Williams to get her perspective on these matters. Helen Thatcher noted that the Western Governors Association wrote a letter urging action on TANF.

Don announced that a D.C. protest was scheduled against the Administration's proposal to close ten Regional Rehabilitation Offices, eliminating 60 FTEs, half of whom are people with disabilities. The Senate HELP Committee put language in S. 1021 to keep the offices open. He also explained a new requirement in S. 1021 for VR services to younger children in transition. The service increase is not accompanied by increased funding to do the job.

Bill handed out a document he prepared for the meeting describes how the Senate HELP Committee's bill relates to UREAP's preferences and to the House bill. The group agreed that a letter supporting S. 1021 should be sent to Senators Hatch and Bennett. The letter to Senator Hatch should thank him for his work on that bill. Shirley and Bill said they would draft letters, put them out for comment, and then finalize and send them to Senators Hatch and Bennett. Governor Huntsman and Jason Chaffetz will be cc'd.

Bill said that he and Shirley have to attend a training in June in Kansas City, so they suggested scheduling the next UREAP meeting in July. It was agreed.

Next UREAP meeting: Tuesday, July 26, 2005 at Horizonte, 2:30 - 4:30 p.m.