 |
|
|
Contents:
This information was authored by Rich Holdren,
Senior Associate Vice President for Research, for use by the Oregon State University community.
The Federal Agenda is a set of initiatives and requests that OSU submits each year to Oregon's federal Congressional delegation, asking for its assistance in promoting our educational and research programs, and more generally, in maintaining the health of federally supported research in general. The Federal Agenda is vital to our efforts to attract the federal funds needed to support OSU
Some requests are for earmarking funds for specific programs. For example, OSU has received wonderful, ongoing support for a national oyster brood stock program. Other requests highlight especially worthwhile legislative initiatives benefiting a broader constituency than OSU alone. OSU's support of the Pharmacist Aid Act of 2002 is an example of this type of activity.
Projects considered for the Federal Agenda align with OSU's priorities, promise to become self-sustaining, and offer benefits statewide.
Based on feedback received from the campus community in recent years, the Federal Agenda apparently is a mysterious and poorly understood aspect of OSU's overall development strategy. The purpose of this document is to add some clarity about the purpose of the Federal Agenda, how it is assembled, and generally, to demystify the process. The objective is to improve the Federal Agenda by assuring the best input. We cannot be successful unless we know about the full range of needs, strategies, and opportunities
As you think about the Federal Agenda as a potential funding option, please be aware: the Federal Agenda is NOT a substitute or alternative funding option for projects or programs that should be submitted through a competitive process. If you have an idea that is primarily a research concept, the Federal Agenda is probably NOT the proper venue to consider for funding.
The Federal Agenda packet compiles two types of information.
First, we reaffirm annually that students are our top priority. To this end, we provide the Congressional delegation with demographic information about our student body, and about the level of federal assistance students receive from the various programs supported by Congress. Typically, we request that our delegation look at the level of funding of Pell Grants - a major source of assistance to OSU students - and ask that they increase the maximum per award amount. (The current administration has maintained a constant funding level for these grants, which, in these tight financial times, has limited access for some students.)
The second, larger portion of our Agenda packet is devoted to requests for our Oregon delegation to personally support specific appropriations for projects, programs, or specific pieces of legislation that will be coming before Congress. The requests are grouped into categories. The first two categories include priority OSU needs that have not previously received federal funding. The Federal Agenda also contains a series of requests for continued support for existing, funded programs. Finally, we include requests for legislative authorizations or appropriations that only indirectly benefit OSU faculty and students - usually through some competitive mechanism.
Brief descriptions of these categories are provided below.
The Oregon University System approves and submits to our delegation up to a maximum of 21 initiatives each year; by their rules, we are allowed to submit only three proposals for inclusion in the OUS packet. The Chancellor supports the OUS initiatives, and these are the ONLY initiatives that he allows the system's legislative liaison to work on to obtain congressional support. In all cases, these are initiatives that have not, to-date, received federal funding, and it is not uncommon for these initiatives to appear in several consecutive federal agenda packets.
Because the OUS Initiatives receive the highest visibility and the best system support, they generally have the highest probability of receiving funding .
We try to align these selections with OSU's strategic priorities, build in disciplinary diversity, and identify programs that will sustain congressional interest over several years.
Frequently, we receive more high-quality proposals than can be accommodated by OUS. We can include a limited number of these in the Federal Agenda package as OSU initiatives. However, our delegation has asked us to restrain our requests to no more than four initiatives. In general, these proposals have the same characteristics as the OUS proposals.
The System does not support these initiatives, so most of the "leg work" required to keep these in front of our delegation falls to the OSU community.
The continuing initiatives are those projects that now receive federal funding and where sustained funding is appropriate. Most of these programs are related to agriculture, extension, and forestry, although we also include requests for ongoing support of our Radiation Center, Space Grant, Sea Grant and a few other programs.
If the original proposal requested funding for a fixed period of time, e.g., two or three years, the members of our delegation expect that at the end of this time, they will not receive additional, unsolicited requests for funding, even if the project has not received the level of funding requested.
OSU faculty are involved in a number of multi-state and national programs for which the leadership frequently resides at other institutions. The purpose of this section of the agenda helps to make sure our delegation is aware of these larger programs and their benefit to Oregon. Frequently, the delegations from other states will have the lead for making sure the requests are built into the appropriations legislation, but if they are to successfully wend their ways through the myriad committees, the support of our delegation is essential.
A number of programs provide large competitive opportunities for research funding (as opposed to earmarks for a specific institution). OSU has proven time and again to be very competitive in these programs. They are highlighted here to encourage our delegation to remain supportive of these programs and to encourage the Congress to retain them as purely competitive programs (free of earmarks). While earmarks may seem appealing, if competitive programs become subject to earmarks, it will be very difficult for Oregon institutions to compete with those in other states with larger delegations.
These projects are ones for which OSU receives no direct benefit, but that would put a program into place for which members of the OSU community could compete for funding. For example, the Pharmacist Aid Act of 2002 created scholarships for students in pharmacy schools. No funding came directly to OSU, but our students' benefit from the scholarship and loan funds made available.
In contrast to the state fiscal year, which runs from July 1 through June 30, the federal fiscal year operates from October 1 through September 30. What we hear in the newspaper each spring and summer (and frequently into the fall) are the wranglings of Congress as it works to build the budget for the coming federal fiscal year. In reality, however, the budget process is much more thoughtful than what we see in the newspapers.
There are generally two categories of legislation pertinent to the budgeting process: authorizing legislation, and appropriations
This is legislation under which specific programs are created and operate. It may provide spending authority and set spending ceilings on expenditures, but it does not provide the money. Most of the programs and projects we pursue are covered under existing authorizing legislation. For example, programs directed at improving undergraduate and graduate education falls under the Department of Education's FIPSE program (Fund for the Improvement of Post-Secondary Education), and the majority of agricultural programs fall under the umbrella of the USDA-CSREES or the USDA-ARS.
The development of authorizing legislation is an ongoing process. There is no particular time of the year when bills are introduced, and the only deadlines generally encountered are those imposed when a particular program needs to be re-authorized.
Because authorizing legislation generally deals with very large, broad issues, it is inappropriate to pursue budgetary earmarks at this level. (However, be aware that OSU could seek authorizing legislation for Oregon-specific programs. For example, if we wanted to have HMSC in Newport serve as the data hub for incoming data from an ocean observing system, OSU could ask the delegation to build this into a specific bill.)
The normal appropriations process is fairly lengthy and thoughtful. Most of the process occurs behind the scenes and is rarely highlighted in news stories. Briefly, the key parts of the process include:
|
The Federal Agenda attempts to influence the budgeting process after the President has released the budget proposal. Hence, the packet is delivered to the members of our delegation shortly after the President's budget proposal is released. The most effective way to fund an initiative would be to have that initiative already in the budget when it is released to Congress (in this case, the primary function as part of our Agenda would be to track the progress of the activity through the budget process). Otherwise, we can focus on obtaining funds through the appropriations process via the mechanism of hard or soft earmarks
These are created when an institution and dollar amount are specifically named in the appropriations language. For example, if an appropriation indicated that Oregon State University is to receive some amount of money to study African HIV/AIDS that would be a hard earmark.
A soft earmark means that a dollar amount is not specified, but the project will receive priority consideration when an application is made for federal funds, assuming all eligibility criteria are satisfied.
The process is complicated because many individuals need to be coordinating their work toward the same goals, if we are to be successful at having our priority needs met through the federal legislative process. Therefore, we ask that all contacts and activities with our Federal Congressional Delegation and their staffers be coordinated through the office of the Vice President for University Advancement.
The process, and much of the responsibility for moving a project forward, starts with the investigator. The proposal has to be realistic from a political as well as a pragmatic perspective. It helps tremendously if the investigator has worked with the agency from whose budget the funds will eventually come. Obviously, it helps if the agency is excited about the initiative. At a minimum, they must see it as supportive of their mission. Occasionally, Congress will ask an agency about proposed earmarks. If the agency is not supportive or doesn't know anything about your request, it is frequently passed over (many proposed earmarks meet their untimely death in this manner). Therefore, it is vital for the investigator to work with the agency to coordinate the request with its mission and goals throughout the budget process.
| A variation on this theme is to work directly with our delegation's staff. If a representative or senator has a particular concern or goal, and if the initiative is supportive of that goal, one may be able to work with the delegation's staff to get the proposal into an appropriate package. For example, employment in Oregon currently is of high interest to our delegation. If what you have to propose will contribute significantly to long-term, family wage jobs in Oregon, our delegation may be interested in helping to move the initiative forward. If you believe that this is an appropriate path to pursue, you must work through the office of the Vice President for University Advancement to coordinate our efforts. It is bad for your credibility and bad for the university if we don't present a unified front to our delegation! |
|
The above is a general description of the legislative process and of broad strategies for becoming more effective in the federal legislative/appropriations process. In the next section, we give a brief overview of how the Federal Agenda development works internally within OSU.
As alluded to above, it is best to think of proposal development as a two-stage process: an informal developmental process that may require a year or two of effort by the investigator working with one or more agencies, and a formal application process that is completed in about four months.
The development process can come about in any number of ways. In most cases, concepts are investigator-originated. Other ideas develop out of an existing relationship that one of our faculty have with a company, industry group, state agency, hospital, or non-governmental organization (NGO), or with collaborators at other academic institutions. Regardless of the players, once the idea is hatched, the group decides that the most appropriate funding vehicle would be a federal earmark.
The developmental process should evolve around a strategic plan for obtaining the federal funding. Although each plan will be different, it is important to consider the following:
This begins in late September or early October of each year, when the OSU Research Office issues a call for proposals for the Federal Agenda. The call will include a set of instructions for submission. There will be two submission deadlines identified in the call. New initiatives will be due to the Research Office (RO) in the first half of November. Continuing project descriptions will be due in the RO in early December. An administrative panel will review proposals, and projects accepted will be assigned to one of the project categories within our agenda. For those projects that are selected for inclusion within the Federal Agenda, the descriptions will be returned to the lead author for formatting.
Because of the limit on the number of proposals accepted by OUS and our delegation, we must be selective in building the agenda. Every attempt is made to promote those proposals that are strategically aligned and that have the best prospects of success.
The following criteria are given to the evaluating committee for their use in evaluating previously unfunded requests:
For continuing proposals, i.e., those that are receiving funding in the current fiscal year, and for which a plan is in place to continue that funding, there is minimal review. These are incorporated into our packet based on previous commitments.
The evaluation panel varies in composition from year to year. Generally, we try to assemble a 7-person panel including the following:
Members may be deans, heads, chairs, or senior faculty members.
In the identification of evaluation panel members, an effort is made to minimize potential conflicts-of-interest: a panel member who is or should be an advocate for a particular proposal will be excluded from conversations about it. We do not concern ourselves with conflicts on proposals for continuing projects. Those projects are active and, for the most part, move unencumbered through our system.
Once a concept is incorporated into the university agenda, our Congressional delegation will champion the concept through the legislative process. The principal investigators should not directly participate in legislative advocacy, unless our delegation makes specific requests.
If your proposal is included in our Federal Agenda, expect the Research Office to request that you prepare multiple sets of forms describing your request. Both Oregon senators and several of the representatives request information in a format specific to their office. The Congressional offices will send forms to the University, which will we forward to each principal investigator in an email with an attached blank form. Each principal investigator will be expected to fill out the forms for each senator or representative for their initiative and return it to the OSU Research Office. We will email the forms to the appropriate offices. The Congressional offices usually require a short turn-around time for the finalized form (7-10 days).
The members of our delegation have provided some tips about information they look for when deciding on initiatives for support. They have also cautioned us against some types of projects.
First, understand that earmarks are difficult to get, especially with a relatively junior delegation such as ours. It helps if there are multiple institutions supporting the request. Following are some of the things our delegation looks for when deciding where to put their energy:
Will the project, if funded, serve interests that transcend those of the university? The members of our delegation are profoundly interested in demonstrable impacts on the environmental, social, and economic welfare of the state. In the current economy, family wage jobs and opportunities for long-term employment are high priority issues. Similarly, poverty and hunger are topics of interest, especially if projects involve developing support systems for the very old or very young.
Will the project, if funded, become self-sustaining after a defined period of time? If the project is going to require federal subsidies indefinitely, the members of our delegation will be less excited about spending political capital to make the project happen - unless the funding agency is strongly supportive of the proposal.
The evaluation panel will generally not put more than one proposal forward in any thematic area.
The following are topics that will not be considered:
Our delegation has asked that we not submit major capital construction projects as hard earmarks. There may be help on the front end with funds for design and architectural drawings or if we have a building almost built, it might provide two to three million dollars for accoutrements (e.g., furniture, network backbone). - But the delegation has been clear that it will not consider requests for bricks and mortar.
Avoid proposals for research projects that could and should be submitted through the peer-review system. The intention of the federal requests is not to supplant or circumvent the peer-review, competitive system. Exceptions may be made IF the proposal provides prospects of significant net employment gains in Oregon, or IF the proposal provides prospects of significant cost benefits to the federal government. (Look for benefit-to-cost ratios in the hundreds!)
Refer to recent examples: (For questions about accessibility of these documents, contact OSU Government Relations, 541-737-3307. )
Help us refine this document! Please let us know if this explanation of the Federal Agenda is helpful: Is this the information you need? Is there additional information or explanation that would help further clarify the process? Have we presented the wrong information? Is there some aspect of the process that needs additional clarification? Please send comments to Rich Holdren in the Research Office: rich.holdren@oregonstate.edu.
Each Fall, the Research Office releases the Call for Proposals. (Link to the Call - version on the web) For additional information, please contact Rich Holdren in the Research Office: rich.holdren@oregonstate.edu.
Also, refer to OSU Government Relations http://oregonstate.edu/government/
Oregon State University Research Office
312 Kerr Administration Building, Corvallis, OR 97331
Phone 541-737-8390 Fax 541-737-9041
researchsupport@oregonstate.edu
Copyright © 2009
Oregon State University
Contact Us | Site Map | OSU Home Page | OSU Disclaimer