CONTENTS
BUDGET, APPROPRIATIONS & TAXES
- House Budget Committee Approves FY16 Budget Resolution
- Senate Budget Committee Offers Fewer Details in its FY16 Budget Resolution
- Student Aid Alliance Expresses Strong Opposition to the House Budget Resolution
- AAU Publishes FY16 Agency and Program Funding Requests
CONGRESSIONAL ISSUES
- Two Senate Panels Hold Hearings on Abusive Patent Practices
- Senator Durbin Introduces American Innovation Act
- Senators Introduce Manufacturing Universities Bill
- House Passes “Secret Science” Bill
- Associations and Universities Express Concerns about Secret Science Bill
BUDGET, APPROPRIATIONS & TAXES
HOUSE BUDGET COMMITTEE APPROVES FY16 BUDGET RESOLUTION
The House Budget Committee on March 19 approved its FY16 budget resolution, proposing to reduce federal spending over the next 10 years by $5.5 trillion through cuts to several entitlement and mandatory programs and to nondefense discretionary spending. Defense discretionary spending would be increased significantly over the decade. The House budget resolution seeks to balance the federal budget in 10 years.
Under the plan, nondefense discretionary spending—which includes spending for the civilian research agencies and education programs—would be essentially frozen at $493 billion in FY16, with significant cuts below the already-tight budget caps through FY25. (NOTE: the CFR Update incorrectly stated that nondefense discretionary spending would be frozen over the 10 years.) In contrast, defense discretionary spending would be slated for significant increases over the 10-year period. (See the committee’s summary budget tables here.)
The plan originally proposed by Committee Chairman Tom Price (R-GA) would have increased defense discretionary spending in FY16 from the $523 billion level mandated by the Budget Control Act (BCA) to $617 billion by adding $36 billion to the President’s FY16 request of $58 billion for the Overseas Contingency Operations (OCO) fund, which is not subject to the budget caps. The OCO fund would total $94 billion. (See Politico’s description here.) But fiscal conservatives forced removal of that provision during committee consideration, retaining defense spending in FY16 at the $523 billion level. An increase in the OCO fund is expected to be added back by the House Rules Committee in advance of House floor action next week.
Among the proposed changes to higher education programs, the House budget resolution would freeze the Pell Grant maximum award for the next 10 years and eliminate the mandatory portion of its funding. It also would abolish the in-school subsidy on Stafford Loans, remove the recent expansion of income-based repayment, and end public-sector loan forgiveness, reports the Chronicle of Higher Education.
The budget document (page 27) asserts that the proposed budget “envisions a framework that uses federal dollars more efficiently, accounts for student loans in a way that reflects their true cost, and invests in a sustainable higher education system that is good for students, institutions of higher education, and taxpayers.”
SENATE BUDGET COMMITTEE OFFERS FEWER DETAILS IN ITS FY16 BUDGET RESOLUTION
The Senate Budget Committee approved its FY16 budget resolution on March 19, but with far fewer details than the House version. As introduced, the Senate version proposed to cut less spending over 10 years than the House—$4.4 trillion rather than $5.5 trillion—with significant increases for defense discretionary spending and spending below the BCA caps for domestic discretionary spending over the period (see charts in the committee summary). The measure would maintain the FY16 BCA discretionary spending caps for both defense and nondefense. During committee consideration, however, the panel approved an amendment to add $38 billion to the chairman’s mark of $51 billion for the OCO in FY16 and to pay for the increase with unspecified defense cuts later in the 10-year window, reports CQ.com. The Senate is scheduled to begin debate on the budget resolution on Monday, March 23.
Like the House budget resolution, the Senate version would eliminate mandatory spending for the Pell Grant program. It also would move student loans to a scoring system called "fair-value accounting," which would show student loans adding to the federal deficit over time, rather than earning the government money, reports Politico. The House and Senate have different proposals for fair-value accounting.
STUDENT AID ALLIANCE EXPRESSES STRONG OPPOSITION TO THE HOUSE BUDGET RESOLUTION
The Student Aid Alliance, a group of 80+ organizations and institutions, including AAU, sent a letter to all Members of the House on March 19 expressing strong opposition to the House FY16 budget resolution because it would cut more than $150 billion in federal student aid over the next 10 years.
The letter says, “It would be difficult to overstate the significant negative impact this budget resolution would have on American college students,” citing several examples, including the measure’s proposed cuts in the Pell Grant program, elimination of the in-school interest subsidy for low-income borrowers, and a cut in domestic discretionary spending of $759 billion over the next 10 years. The letter concludes:
“We urge you to affirm the historic, bipartisan commitment Congress has made to America’s students and reject the draconian cuts proposed in the House Budget Resolution. The pathway to economic growth requires a continued investment in postsecondary education.”
AAU PUBLISHES FY16 AGENCY AND PROGRAM FUNDING REQUESTS
AAU has published its FY16 funding requests for research and higher education programs. They are for: the National Institutes of Health, the National Science Foundation, the Department of Defense, the Department of Energy Office of Science, NASA, the Department of Education, the National Endowment for the Humanities, and the Agriculture and Food Research Initiative.
CONGRESSIONAL ISSUES
TWO SENATE PANELS HOLD HEARINGS ON ABUSIVE PATENT PRACTICES
Two Senate committees held hearings on patent issues this week.
The Senate Judiciary Committee on March 18 held a hearing to discuss the economic impact of abusive patent litigation practices and potential legislative remedies. One of the witnesses was Dr. Michael Crum, Vice President for Economic Development and Business Engagement at Iowa State University, who testified on behalf of his university and six higher education associations, including AAU.
Dr. Crum told the committee that universities vigorously support efforts to rein in abusive litigation practices, but they believe that sweeping patent legislation is not the right instrument. Rather, universities stand ready to work with Members of Congress in crafting carefully targeted legislation that “can effectively combat abusive patent practices while maintaining the capacity of our robust patent system that supports the innovation and economic competitiveness that serves this nation and its citizens so well.”
The Senate Committee on Small Business & Entrepreneurship held a patent hearing the following day, which Committee Chairman David Vitter (R-LA) characterized in his opening statement as an opportunity to discuss “how to best balance the legislative path moving forward.” He said abusive patent litigation practices must stop, but “it would be similarly disturbing if we uprooted a major portion of the U.S. economy to address harmful behavior from some bad actors. The discussion surrounding patent reform must include a detailed analysis of how legislation would further impact small businesses, investors, and universities.”
SENATOR DURBIN INTRODUCES AMERICAN INNOVATION ACT
Senator Richard Durbin (D-IL) on March 16 introduced the American Innovation Act (S. 747), legislation to provide significant and steady increases in federal non-biomedical research funding over the next decade. The measure would authorize annual budget increases of five percent above inflation over the next 10 years for the National Science Foundation, the Department of Energy Office of Science, science and technology programs at the Department of Defense, the NASA Science Directorate, and science and technical research at the National Institute of Standards and Technology.
The bill is a complement to the American Cures Act (S. 289), which Senator Durbin introduced earlier this year to provide similar funding growth for the National Institutes of Health (NIH).
AAU issued a supportive statement on the legislation.
SENATORS INTRODUCE MANUFACTURING UNIVERSITIES BILL
A bipartisan group of five Senators on March 18 introduced a bill that aims to strengthen university engineering programs and high-tech manufacturing by designating 25 universities as “manufacturing universities.” The Manufacturing Universities Act of 2015—introduced by Senators Chris Coons (D-DE), Lindsey Graham (R-SC), Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY), Kelly Ayotte (R-NH), and Tammy Baldwin (D-WI)—would provide each designated university with $5 million per year for four years to meet specific goals, including focusing engineering education programs on manufacturing, building new partnerships with manufacturing firms, expanding training opportunities, and promoting manufacturing entrepreneurship. The program would be run by the National Institutes of Standards and Technology, in coordination with other federal agencies.
AAU and several other associations and individual universities have endorsed the bill.
HOUSE PASSES “SECRET SCIENCE” BILL
The House of Representatives on March 17 approved the Secret Science Reform Act of 2015 (H.R. 1030), legislation that seeks to increase access to the research findings that underlie regulatory actions by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Associations and Universities Express Concerns about Secret Science Bill
A group of 35 associations and universities, including AAU, wrote to Members of the House of Representatives on March 16 expressing serious concerns about the possible unintended consequences of the Secret Science Reform Act of 2015.
The organizations’ letter, spearheaded by the American Association for the Advancement of Science, details the research community’s concerns about key terms in the bill, the difficulty and high cost of reproducing long-term public health and other studies, and the uncompensated financial burden on research grant recipients of sharing and archiving research results that might be used in a regulatory action by EPA.
The organizations note that the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy is working with federal agencies to establish policies on access to research data and suggests that Congress “wait to review the agency policies before imposing new statutory requirements.”