Brustein & Manasevit, PLLC Julia Martin 3 Independents - PDF document

Brustein & Manasevit, PLLC Julia Martin

3 Independents Republicans Democrats Senate: 114 th Congress

 With Republicans in control of both chambers, stronger negotiating position against President on:  Repeal/ replacement of health care law  Immigration  Federal funding generally  Education  Including: gainful employment/ for-profit colleges, student loans/ aid, ES EA, charters, etc.  BUT S enate already a highly contentious body where some procedures require 60+ votes  54 votes is not a “ filibuster-proof” maj ority  The “ pizza party” rule

Republicans Democrats Vacant

 Increased Republican maj ority represents less of a change here  Republicans already in maj ority  S traight maj ority still most important in House (but some efforts require 2/ 3)  Partisan fights between and within parties (especially between Republicans) continue

 S enate Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions  New Chairman: Lamar Alexander (R-TN)  New Ranking Member: Patty Murray (D-WA)  House Committee on Education and the Workforce  Rep. John Kline (R-MN) remains Chairman  New Ranking Member: Rep. Bobby S cott (D- VA)

 Voted in overwhelmingly conservative House and S enate  Many governorships/ S tate legislatures changed hands to Republicans  BUT  Voters in CO, TN, and ND rej ected fetal “ personhood” amendments  AK,OR, and DC legalized recreational marij uana possession/ use  AK, AR, IL, NE, and S D increased minimum wage  Voters in WA passed gun background check bill

 What will it mean for this Congress?  Lack of conservative mandate?  S ome more mainstream/ moderate legislation  Desire to re-make Republican party as “ party of education”  But also confusion about what voters want/ find important

 “ I don’ t want the American people to think that if they add a Republican president to a Republican Congress, that’s going to be a scary outcome. I want the American people to be comfortable with the fact that the Republican House and S enate is a responsible, right-of-center, governing maj ority.”

 Joint op-ed from November lists priorities as:  S implify tax code  Reduce spending by revising entitlement programs and other drivers of debt  Legal reforms, including medical malpractice  Regulatory Reforms  Education reform

 Reform federal involvement in education through:  Expanding charter school access  Reducing college costs T Act reintroduced on 2 nd day of new Congress  F AS  Reforming K-12 education by: (mostly part of H.R. 10)  Revamping teacher evaluations  Giving S tates/ districts more control over use of federal funds  Increasing school choice options

 Policy-based:  Approve the Keystone XL Pipeline  Changes to health care law  Immigration reform  Deadline-based  Medicare “ doc fix” (March)  Highway trust fund (May)  FY 2016 Appropriations (S eptember)  Child nutrition (S eptember)  Debt Ceiling (fall)

 Current appropriations bill expires S eptember 30, 2015

 What to look for in negotiations:  Republican-controlled Congress looks to flex muscles  Pressure to trim federal spending overall  S equestration returns!  End of Murray-Ryan spending caps agreement means more wrangling on whether to keep existing sequester or change it  Republican push to eliminate sequestration on Defense spending, which would push more cuts to non-defense side

 Likely Outcomes  Debate pushes toward (or through!) end of FY 2015  No more discretionary grant programs that offer “ blank checks” to ED  Almost certain to have small cuts to spending “ caps”  Which means lower appropriations across the board  Possible there will be larger cuts to non-defense spending  And need to look for additional money within Labor-HHS - ED appropriations to cover new costs  Possibly leading to increased cuts

 Overall in Congress, education not top priority  Instead, focus is on:  “ must-pass” legislation  Vote-generating legislation  Emergent crises  How to determine what is a priority?  Time  Legislation  Bill number

 For House/ S enate Committees, ES EA is reauthorization priority #1  S enate Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions  Discussion draft released, hearings began mid-January  S tarting from scratch – not Harkin bill  Promises to craft bipartisan Alexander-Murray bill for introduction  House Committee on Education and the Workforce  S tudent S uccess Act (H.R. 5) introduced early February, approved by Committee February 11 th  No hearings – building on debate in 113 th Congress

 S et for vote last week of February, but bill was pulled from schedule before final vote  S cheduling bill on same day as Homeland S ecurity funding vote meant it was lower priority  Obj ections from conservative Republican groups:  Not enough of a departure from NCLB tates/ districts  too  Not enough flexibility for S prescriptive  Keeps support for Common Core  House bill did not allow Title I portability funds to be used at private schools

 What’s Definitely Out  AYP  Instead: S tates design and implement plans for intervention and improvement  Requirement to adopt specific college- and career-ready standards  Instead: leaves standards and assessments up to S tates  Race to the Top (and i3)  Instead: focus on formula funding (and budget-cutting)  Teacher evaluations  Instead: focus on S tate licensure/ training/ PD  Also: no more HQT  Maintenance of Effort

 What’s Definitely In  Title I structure, formula  S upplement, not supplant  Charter school grants  And focus on S tates with laws more open to charters  Limitation on S ecretarial waiver, decision-making authority  Funding flexibility between Titles II and IV  Consolidation of some programs/ titles  Limitation on appropriations through 2021

 Assessment Frequency  Background  S enate draft bill contains two options on assessments:  Option 1: allow S tate-designed schedule  Option 2: maintain current testing frequency  House Bill would require current testing frequency  Input  Parents: reduce testing  Advocacy groups: maintain accountability through current testing  Administration, S peaker Boehner: maintain current testing  Likely outcome: current requirements remain

 Title I Portability  Background: both House and S enate bills allow S tates to set up systems where Title I funding follows low-income student to school of their choice  In S enate, includes private schools  Input:  White House, left-leaning advocacy groups highly critical  Right-leaning groups, lawmakers see as extension of “ school choice”  Likely outcome: unclear (private school funding unlikely, but portability option may remain)

 Busy House/ S enate schedule  Democratic opposition  From Democrats in Congress  Lack of bipartisan cooperation in drafting?  Disagreements over assessments/ accountability  From President/ administration  Concerns about “ walking back” accountability/ civil rights  President has no fears of issuing veto threat  Republican opposition  S en. Tim S cott (R-S C): won’ t vote for a bill if they’ ve given up too much to Democrats  Opposition from conservative Reps., action groups

 Two choices (assuming S enate Passes bill):  House passes S enate bill (or vice versa)  Then S enate passes revised version with any House amendments, sends to President for signature  House and S enate meet in “ conference” to work out differences between bills  Final compromise legislation must be passed by House and S enate, then sent to President for signature  BUT if House rej ects its own bill: reauthorization is DOA

 If ES EA reauthorization is not passed:  ES EA waivers continue into next Congress  Congress may pass smaller stand-alone bills, including:  S uccess and Opportunity through Quality Charter S chools Act (H.R. 10)  Passed House with strong bipartisan support in 2014  Revamps federal charter school programs, drives funding to S tates with laws more open to charters and with stronger charter accountability  S trengthening Education Through Research Act (H.R. 4366)  Reauthorizes Education S ciences Reform Act  Easily passed House in February  Due for S enate floor action

 WIA Reauthorization: DONE  Workforce Investment and Opportunity Act (WIOA) passed July 2014  Child Care and Development Block Grant: DONE

 Administration plan announced in President’s 2014 S tate of the Union address  $77 billion in subsidized universal pre-K for low/ middle-income families over next decade  Federal share drops from 90% to 25% over 10-year period  S tates receive funding for adopting certain quality standards  S enate 2014: S trong S tart for America’s Children Act  S imilar to President’s proposal  S en. Murray wants to roll into ES EA reauthorization?  Preschool Development Fund  Appropriations special proj ect in FY 2015, part of President’s request for FY 2016