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, July 26, 2005
2:30 - 4:30 p.m.
Horizonte Education and Training Center
1234 S. Main Street, SLC

In Attendance
Becky Shipp, Senate Finance Committee staff to Senator Charles Grassley, via speakerphone
Helen Thatcher, Department of Workforce Services (DWS)
Sheila Walsh-McDonald, Salt Lake Community Action Program
Robyn Lipkowitz, Utah Issues
Mary Beth Vogel-Fergeson, Social Research Institute, U of U
Garth Mangum, Inner City Project
Lois Kelson, Provo Community Action Agency
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 Jace Johnson, Senator Hatch's Legislative Director, would join the meeting via speakerphone to talk primarily about TANF reauthorization and that Becky Shipp, staff to Senate Finance Committee Chairman Charles Grassley, had said she would try to call in, as well. Jace called first, but Bill mistakenly cut him off. Becky immediately thereafter--from a separate phone--and participated in the TANF discussion. Bill was unable to get Jace back on the call because of long distance restrictions on the Horizonte phone system.

Updates from Becky Shipp
Becky indicated that there was progressively less of a chance that TANF reauthorization will proceed through a stand alone bill, rather it is likely to occur as part of budget reconciliation. She said that Senators Grassley, Hatch, and Santorum have done all they can to try to get the Senate Finance Committee's bill to reauthorize TANF, S. 667 "Personal Responsibility and Individual Development for Everyone" (PRIDE) to the Senate Floor for debate, but she said that now, unless there was a groundswell of activity from Governors, states, advocates and Democrats, it will probably not happen. She said it had been known last year that, if TANF reauthorization was not accomplished, the chances of it happening through the regular legislative process, including with additional money for child care in the Senate bill, were becoming slimmer. As she had predicted then, budget-reduction activities called for in the FY 2006 budget resolution, have caused resistance to provisions in the PRIDE bill, but insistence by Democratic Leadership on bringing up peripheral issues and refusal to agree to limits on debates prevented action in by the last Congress. She said the stakes have become very high and, although UREAP's support for the PRIDE bill is appreciated, pressure to proceed via Floor consideration needs to come from other places. She said it could be helpful if Health and Human Services Secretary Mike Leavitt would act to encourage the Senate to finish its work on the bill so that it could be conferenced with the House bill, without special efforts from him, Governors, states, or a groundswell from national advocates, the matter would be settled in the fall through the budget process. She noted that, at that point, Senate negotiators would have a difficult time obtaining any sway on policy particulars differing with what the House brings in because the Senate has never passed a bill like the House has.

Becky was asked about the Bryd Rule. She explained that the Byrd Rule was designed to prevent significant program policy changes unrelated to fiscal issues from being accomplished through reconciliation bills. She said that House Ways and Means staff were preparing arguments for the FY 2006 reconciliation bill, tying many policy provisions in the House TANF reauthorization bill to fiscal issues so that they can, in fact, be implemented. This is what occurred when 1996 welfare reform legislation passed as the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconcilation Act. She said any Senator can bring up the Byrd Rule if he or she wishes to challenge a policy change in a reconcilation act as failing to be grounded in budget items. However, counting on the Byrd Rule to prevent an outcome more like the House bill than the PRIDE bill isn't necessarily realistic. She said it had been a mistake for advocates to hold out for a better deal over the last few years. The situation now is quite grim. She said she expects TANF reauthorization via reconcilation to go essentially with provisions in the House bill, including those that differ from the PRIDE bill. It would probably include 70% state participation rates and 40 hour per week of participation for clients, no new child care funds, no penalty relief for states, no state supplemental funding, and no Transitional Medical Assistance.

Becky indicated that Senators Hatch, Grassley, and Santorum worked hard at the time of the last Continuing Resolution to bring the PRIDE bill to the Senate Floor but were not successful. There just wasn't widespread support. She granted that the Republican Governors Assocation sent a letter of support, but a letter wasn't enough. The best opportunity for the Senate to pass a TANF bill was last year when it was on the Floor and child care funding had been added. But the Democrats diverted the discussion to the minimum wage issue and the opportunity was lost. If there is not a big push for PRIDE bill to come to the Senate Floor before September, it will most likely become part of reconciliation. That will likely pass in the November- December time frame. Unfortunately, good provisions will be lost in the reconciliation process.

Everyone thanked her for calling, but lamented the fact that prospects for positive TANF Reauthorization had become so diminished.

Additional TANF Discussion
Shirley reported that she had discussed TANF's prospects with Mark Greenberg from CLASP and said he essentially agreed with Becky that chances for consideration of a stand alone bill in the Senate are looking slim. He continues to believe that Secretary Leavitt may hold a key to gaining enough support to finish TANF reauthorization through the legislative process. Mark complimented UREAP for continuing efforts, but said it looked as though TANF decisions were out of our hands, as well as beyond the reach of national advocates.

Sheila Walsh-McDonald pointed out that if the State Supplement, Transitional Medical Assistance, and child care funding, among others, were not included in TANF through the reconcilation process, Utah programs would be hurt. She asked Helen Thatcher to comment. Helen said that the State Supplemental was indeed extremely important to Utah as it constitutes 10% of the state's TANF budget. She predicted that with fewer TANF dollars coupled with higher participation requirements for parents requiring more spending for child care, DWS would be forced to restrict child care assistance to working poor families in order to cover the needs of TANF families. The Legislature could be asked to put more state match into the Child Care and Development Block Grant to draw down additional federal funds, but even if successful, that wouldn't solve the problem.

Helen indicated that there are other concerns, as well. DWS will need to develop job sites to fulfill the progressively higher participation rates, but a large proportion of potential job sites involve information technology. Security and technology requirements mean that it will be challenging to find places for TANF/FEP parents on these job sites. About the only hopeful factor is found in predictions being made by Mark Knold that more entry-level jobs will be becoming available in 2006 and 2007.

Helen expressed concern that higher state participation rates could impact Utah severely in another way. If Utah were sanctioned for failing to meet the higher rates, the penalty is financial. There would likely be serious program rule changes and restrictions. Shirley pointed out that the PRIDE bill contains a provision freeing states from fiscal sanctions if they fail to meet participation rates, but still improved at least 5 percent over the previous year. The House bill includes no such relief. Fiscal sanctions for failing to meet rates automatically starts a downward spiral of trying to do more with less from which they  almost cannot hope to recover. This chain of events is bound to harm families. Helen agreed that caseload reduction credits will not help. Utah's caseloads had risen slightly. She said some other states are even worse off.

Bill reminded the group that on July 1, 2005, UREAP sent a letter to Secretary Leavitt requesting that he and/or the Administration get involved in supporting continued movement on TANF reauthorization through the regular legislative process, rather than folding it into reconciliation. There had been no response yet. All in all, meeting participants were not especially hopeful about the future of TANF reauthorization and the future of the program.

Workforce Investment Act (WIA)
Bill recapped that the Senate's bipartisan WIA reauthorization bill, S. 1021, "Workforce Investment Act Amendments of 2005," passed the HELP Committee unanimously on May 18 without debate. S. 1021 is  quite similar to the 2003 WIA bill. Just prior to the vote, Secretary of Labor Elaine Chao, sent a letter to Committee Chairman Enzi, strongly objecting that many Administration positions were not included in S. 1021. She indicated that the Administration would seek amendments on the Senate Floor. It was not clear initially what the next step would be, but by now, it looks unlikely that S. 1021 will be brought to the Floor. That would mean WIA reauthorization would be abandoned and would have to be started over again next year. If it does come to the Floor and passes, the intense pressure being brought by the Administration raises concerns that many of the provisions negotiated through bipartisan cooperation could be lost in the conference committee that would follow passage. Secretary Chao's letter notes many Administration priorities that UREAP has studied over the last two years and elected to oppose. Unlike TANF, WIA Reauthorization will not be folded into a reconciliation bill.

Helen reported that nationally and in Utah, entities were looking at Adult Education and how to incorporate it under existing rules. Under TANF, if a student is over 19 years of age, working towards high school completion is not considered a countable activity, even if desired or needed. DWS is looking at ways to simultaneously have the student work at, or while going to, school. In the federal budget process, Adult Ed funding was restored in the Senate Committee, but the future there is uncertain, as well.

Announcements
Mary Beth Vogel-Fergeson and Robyn Lepkowitz announced that the next Utah Issues Monthly Meeting would be on the University of Utah campus and deal with changing regulations triggered in part by prolonged congressional discussions and legislation pertaining to TANF. That meeting is scheduled for August 12, 2005, 1:00 - 4:00 p.m. in the Social Work Building. Utah Issues and other advocates believe that the time has come to work with DWS to prepare for changes coming to Utah programs, even before the actual reauthorization of TANF has occurred. Food and parking will be made available. Shirley said that the meeting invitation will be sent out to the UREAP email list.

Bill distributed a Medicaid Principles sign-on document that Utah Issues was circulating. He recommended that UREAP sign on to the document based on previous positions taken. He also said UREAP should circulate the document to our email list and encourage others to sign-on. The group agreed that these actions should be taken.

Garth Mangum announced that a new book, Utah's Poor, would be available shortly. Bill Crim, Judi Hillman, and Garth were the editors and wrote chapters. It is an updated version of On Being Poor In Utah,  written by Garth, Judy Kasten Bell, Scott Lazarus, and Shirley Weathers (1998).

Next UREAP meeting
It was decided not to meet in August. UREAP staff will send out a notice when the next meeting is scheduled--they asked people to try to keep September 27 in mind for that meeting.