Congress ended its session Oct. 11, leaving many questions about higher education unanswered.

by Jeff Vincent
When the gavel fell in the U.S. Senate on Oct. 11, most members of that august body headed for Washington-area airports to get the first plane back to their home states. After an extraordinary weekend session aimed at tying up loose ends, they were more than eager to reconnect with their constituents before the national elections on Nov. 2.

The senators were actually a few steps behind members of the U.S. House of Representatives, who left town three days earlier after a mad dash to wrap up the most pressing business. However, after the dust settled, it was clear that this congressional session ended with plenty of unanswered questions.

Many so-called “special interests” will be kept in suspense for months to come, and higher education is no exception.

Congress did pass a number of pieces of significant legislation, including a Medicare prescription drug bill, funding for military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, major tax cuts for individuals and corporations and emergency aid for hurricane victims. Left on the table, at least for now, were such measures as a major highway spending bill, welfare reform, national energy policy, medical liability limits, intelligence reform and the 9/11 Commission recommendations.

Primary legislation was left unresolved in three areas of intense interest to colleges and universities: federal appropriations for university-based research; funding for federal student aid programs; and reauthorization of the Higher Education Act, the broad bill that will shape federal policy in this area for the next six years. Legislation in all three of these areas is already two months past deadline.

Warning Flags for Research Funding
Thus far, Congress has approved an annual funding bill for only two of the many agencies that sponsor university-based research, the Departments of Defense (DOD) and Homeland Security. This is despite the fact that the new fiscal year began on Oct. 1. Since then, all other agencies have been kept in business through a now-routine process of “stop-gap” spending measures, otherwise known as continuing resolutions.

One of the many downsides of doing business this way is that continuing resolutions usually provide funding at the previous year’s level, thus providing no room for inflation or other growth. In addition, they do not allow for new programmatic initiatives.

Still waiting in various stages of congressional approval is the fiscal year 2005 funding that pays for research sponsored by the National Institutes of Health (NIH), National Science Foundation (NSF), Department of Energy, National Aeronautics and Space Administration, Department of Education and National Endowment for the Humanities, among others. NIH is far and away the largest source of federal research grants and contracts at Vanderbilt, with NSF ranking number two, just ahead of the DOD.

Congress is expected to return to Washington on or about Nov. 15 for a post-election “lame duck” session. Passage of the remaining FY05 funding bills is expected to be at the top of the agenda. But there is no guarantee that they will receive final approval, especially if the outcome of the presidential election creates new political uncertainties or turmoil. It is possible Congress could pass another continuing resolution to fund the agencies through next January or February, leaving the business for the next Congress.

Beyond the uncertainty of timing are some very real concerns about the levels of federal research funding. The DOD bill included healthy increases for research – albeit mainly for research on advanced applications as opposed to basic research – benefiting from the high priority given to national defense and homeland security needs.

But the other research agencies are expected to receive very modest increases at best, reflecting the increasing squeeze on spending for “domestic discretionary programs” (those that are not entitlement programs, such as Medicare and Social Security). In fact, the American Association for the Advancement of Science now estimates that, “Excluding a modest increase for biomedical research, nondefense R&D would decline under the latest plans [by the House of Representatives].”

All of the outstanding funding bills for research agencies will eventually be settled by conferees from the House and Senate. But NIH, which saw a doubling of its budget during the five-year period ending in FY03, can expect to see only about a 3 to 3.5 percent increase in FY05. And it was the NIH increases that helped pull along investment in research at other agencies.

Federal Student Aid Sees Little Growth
Meanwhile, next year’s funding for federal student aid programs is also in limbo. But the outlook is no rosier than that for university-based research.

Student aid legislation has made it almost all of the way through the House and Senate, and almost all of the federal grant and loan programs have been “flat-funded” in FY05 (i.e., no increases over last year). For example, funding for Perkins Loans and federal work-study programs remains unchanged, while funding for Supplemental Education Opportunity Grants would increase just 3 percent. All of these programs are important to Vanderbilt.

The centerpiece of federal student assistance is the need-based Pell Grant program, which receives an annual commitment of over $12 billion. This program is so significant that President George W. Bush and Sen. John Kerry have tangled over it on the campaign trail and during the televised presidential debates.

Bush points to the fact that a million more students have come into the program during his term in office. Kerry counters that economic conditions have pushed more students into the program and that the maximum Pell Grant has not changed since a slight increase from $4,000 to $4,050 in FY02. For FY05, Congress is likely to accede to the White House request to keep the maximum grant at that level.

Last year, 722 Vanderbilt students received Pell Grants.

Higher Education Policy Issues to Heat Up in 2005
Congress left far more up in the air than just next year’s funding levels. Ever since late 2003, various lawmakers and committees have been working on “reauthorization” of the Higher Education Act. Renewal of this baseline legislation – it provides the framework and policy direction for all college programs administered by the Department of Education – is required every six years.

Despite the fact that the act was due to expire on Sept. 30, 2004, Congress made only fragmented progress this year. Before leaving town for the election, the legislators passed a resolution extending the current bill’s provisions, including the all-important student aid programs, through Nov. 20. When Congress returns for its lame-duck session, members are expected to approve yet another measure, this one extending the law until Sept. 30, 2005.

Thus far, the lion’s share of action on the HEA reauthorization has been in the House of Representatives, where Rep. Howard “Buck” McKeon, R-Calif., chairman of the House subcommittee that oversees higher education, has been pushing hard for major reforms. With the backing of Rep. John Boehner, R-Ohio, chairman of the full Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee, McKeon has driven an agenda aimed at what he calls “the three A’s”: affordability, accountability and accessibility.

Some of the McKeon proposals – particularly tuition price controls and a requirement for colleges to accept transfer credits from other institutions – have caused considerable anxiety among higher education groups, which have actively lobbied against greater federal involvement in their business. At times, the debate has become contentious, including a particularly strong (and public) exchange of letters between Boehner and the heads of 47 higher education groups, including the Association of American Universities.

The Senate has moved more deliberately on HEA reauthorization. Sen. Judd Gregg, R-N.H., chairman of that body’s education committee, reportedly has drafted his own version of a new higher education bill and is expected to introduce it in November or early next year. Details are not known, but it is expected to take a somewhat “softer” approach than the McKeon-Boehner proposals in the House.

It may include, for example, provisions aimed at easing the regulatory burden on colleges and universities, and simplifying the federal student aid processes.  A central question will be how it addresses the high-profile issue of continuing, sizeable tuition increases, particularly among public universities. Sen. Lamar Alexander, R-Tenn., is chairman of the HELP subcommittee that oversees higher education. He is expected to play a major role in the Senate debate on these issues.

The one thing for certain is that the debate over HEA reauthorization will heat up significantly after the new Congress begins business in January 2005. The outcome of this week’s national elections could have a major impact on how that debate is framed. “Accountability” for K-12 students has been the hallmark of the administration’s “No Child Left Behind Act.” Already, there have been indications that, during a second term for President Bush, the White House would push to extend accountability measures into higher education.

Jeff Vincent is the assistant vice chancellor for federal relations and executive director of Vanderbilt’s Washington, D.C., office.

Posted 10/25/04