By SHANNON O. WELLS
Since the federal government reopened on Nov. 12 following a protracted, politically fueled shutdown that started in October, not “a lot has actually happened” as far as appropriations go, which leaves a narrow window for numerous outstanding appropriations bills to work their way through Congress.
That’s what David Brown, vice chancellor for government relations, reported to the Senate Research Committee at its Nov. 21 meeting. He was there to offer “a sense of what we think might happen and actually what we would like to happen,” since President Trump signed a continuing resolution to reopen the government until Jan. 30.
That leaves a “short amount of time” to try moving forward the remaining nine appropriations bills, Brown said.
The continuing resolution the U.S. House and Senate approved to end the government shutdown included what Brown called a “mini-bus” of three appropriations bills, covering such non-controversial matters as milk options in schools and primary funding for Congressional agencies and operations.
“So it was easy to kind of package those and get those attached to the continuing resolution and move those,” he said.
Building momentum for the remaining nine appropriations bills, however, will be “challenging” because upcoming holiday season vacations leave fewer working days for members of Congress to “get that work done.”
“At the moment, I think there is some congressional interest in moving a new mini-bus package” that includes some bills beneficial to Pitt and higher education in general, he noted.
Those include the Departments of Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education, and Related Agencies or “Labor HHS,” bill — which includes the National Institutes of Health (NIH) and the Department of Defense — and the Commerce, Justice, Science and Related Agencies, or “CJs,” bill — which covers the National Science Foundation (NSF).
Other bills in the mini-bus pertain to transportation and Housing and Urban Development (HUD) subsidies.
“The primary bill that could kind of take those bills along, if you will, for the ride, would be the defense bill,” Brown said, noting a package containing Labor HHS, CJs, transportation and HUD bills. “That is being discussed, and it’s certainly something that the (higher education) research community … has been pushing toward supporting.”
Although it “remains to be seen” whether that will happen, Brown said it’s “certainly preferable” to a continuing resolution if members of Congress can’t move more appropriations bills. “I think from an appropriator’s perspective, they are certainly interested in moving appropriations bills during this time period and trying to move (as many) appropriations bills as they possibly can.”
Brown reminded Research committee members that there’s more support for NIH, NSF and other research programs important to the University on the Senate side as opposed to the House.
“The first thing that we are working on as a higher education research community is to push for the higher numbers on the Senate side,” he said, noting that as appropriations committee members try to package these bills, they have to reconcile the difference between the House and Senate numbers “and come to an agreement before they can move them and get them to the president’s desk.”
Brown called this push, relative to NIH and NSF the “first order of business,” with those numbers found on the Senate side and its bills, although “both chambers actually have to move those bills through the floor.”
Prior to the shutdown, the only movement on the Labor HHS and CJs bills has been through the full appropriations committee. “They have not been taken to the floor yet, so there’s some work still being done there,” he said. “That, along with compromising on or agreeing to the overall spending number for labor rates for CJs, is yet to be determined, but hopefully we can get some momentum and get those appropriations bills moving.”
Indirect costs update
In other research-related topics, Brown discussed Pitt’s advocacy regarding indirect cost reimbursement rates for university-based research projects.
“There is some effort afoot from the administration, in particular, the Office of Management Budget (OMB), to offer what’s called a uniform guidance around indirect cost rates,” he said. “We’re hearing rumors and some more definitive information about that, but we don’t know what the timing is.”
Government Relations is “working very hard” with the Association of American Universities (AAU), Association of Public Land Grant Universities and other associations to generate support for the Joint Associations Group’s Financial Accountability in Research (FAIR) plan, which Brown called an “alternative model for indirect costs.” He said they hope to “include provisions within the appropriations bills to move the FAIR model forward.”
Brown added that there “is some interest” within the Senate Appropriations Committee to include language regarding support for the FAIR model through the appropriations process. “So we’re trying to utilize that avenue and leverage that support to move that model forward.”
There’s also interest in the FAIR model on the House side, “but not to the extent at this moment that we’re seeing on the Senate appropriations side,” he said.
Mike Holland, vice chancellor for science policy and research strategies, elaborated on some aspects of uncertainties surrounding indirect costs.
He said the Senate appropriators are including language “that says, basically, don’t change the model. The House hasn’t really done that yet,” Holland said. They’ve heard that OMB and the White House are expected to issue new uniform guidance for public comment soon.
Traditionally there would be a 90-day comment period, he said, but a new executive order sets the default comment period “to 28 days or 14,” Holland said, which means OMB has “basically given itself permission to move faster.”
That change in the comment period is likely subject to litigation, he added, “but the moral of the story is if Congress takes too long to enact legislation that includes the protections, and OMB completes its regulatory process, then OMB’s proposal becomes the thing that controls our F&A (facilities and administration) rate.”
With OMB reportedly in “mild alignment with the FAIR model,” which takes certain categories of cost out of the indirect pot and “moves them to the direct side,” Holland noted, that would in some measure lessen a 15% indirect costs cap. “And they want to assure themselves that total reimbursement … for these things that have been traditionally covered under the F&A, is less than what the current practice is.”
If OMB gets its regulation finalized before Congress enacts or passes legislation that “prevents this unilateral change,” the only remedy is the Congressional Review Act, Holland said, noting there are only three ways for Congress to override a regulation.
“They can change the underlying statute. They can refuse to fund the staff and infrastructure to enforce a regulation, or they overturn the regulation with the Congressional Review Act,” he said. “All of those are very complicated, so there’s a … potential race between OMB and the appropriators to get this taken care of.
“It’s complicated, (with) a lot of things moving, and we’re not really certain what the final is going to look like.”
Shannon O. Wells is a writer for the University Times. Reach him at shannonw@pitt.edu.
Have a story idea or news to share? Share it with the University Times.