Legislation and Guidance
- Supplemental Bill Pushed Back Until After Memorial Day
- OMB Releases 2008 Compliance Supplement
- Senator Kennedy’s Absence Stalls Education Legislation
- New STEM Bill Introduced
- Clerical Error Complicates Farm Bill Process
Legislation and Guidance
Supplemental Bill Pushed Back Until After Memorial Day
The Senate passed its own version of the supplemental appropriations bill this week, setting up a second round of voting in the House, which passed its bill last week. The House will not move on the bill until after the week-long Memorial Day recess. Once Congress reconvenes and the House passes the revised supplemental bill, the legislation still has to survive a likely veto from the White House, due to excessive domestic spending attached to the measure. Although the Senate passed both domestic and war spending amendments by veto-proof majorities, the House remains a wild card in regards to the bill’s future.
The Senate bill is divided into two separate amendments, broken down by domestic spending and funding for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Although Democrats failed to policies tied to troop redeployment timelines, they were able to pass the two pieces of the bill with more than 70 votes each, giving them a solid veto-proof majority. The domestic spending portion of the bill passed 75-22, and includes a moratorium on proposed Medicaid changes to payments for schools, as well as $400 million for a one-year extension of the Secure Rural Schools Act. The House passed a similar domestic spending package that includes the moratorium language, but not the rural schools funding.
The bill must go back to the House now, because the Senate passed additional domestic spending not included in the House bill. The House also failed to actually attach the war funding, the main purpose of the legislation. After House Republicans protested the majority’s decision to add domestic spending by refusing to vote in favor of an amendment including funding for the war, the House passed a supplemental bill that only included domestic spending and policy directions for Iraq. Republicans are not likely to block the war funding vote again, especially knowing that the President intends to send the bill back to Congress due to excessive domestic spending.
If Congress cannot override the probable veto, it may be forced to pass a supplemental bill that only includes war funding. This will place both rural school funding, as well as the Medicaid moratorium, in jeopardy, since the funding runs out and the Medicaid regulations take effect on June 30th. If the rural school extension and Medicaid moratoriums are not passed by then, many school districts across the country are going to find themselves in dire financial straits. At a time when most states are experiencing large budget deficits, school administrators do not want to risk losing additional federal funding.
With the supplemental debate dragging on in both chambers, as well as clerical fiascos relating to the Farm Bill, Congress was again forced to push back work on a final joint budget resolution (BR). The traditional May 15th deadline passed last week, but appropriators were willing to hold off before Memorial Day, giving the budget conferees time to complete their work. At this point, appropriators are likely to wait an additional week. If there is not a final joint BR by June 6th, appropriators are likely to begin deeming their own spending caps, just so they can finally begin work on fiscal year 2009 appropriations. If Congress does pass a BR, it will be the first one passed in an election year since 2000.
Resources
David Clarke and Liriel Higa, “War Bill Delayed Until After Recess,” CQ Today, May 22, 2008.
David Clarke, “Budget Vote Postponed Until After Recess,” CQ Today, May 22, 2008.
OMB Releases 2008 Compliance Supplement
Earlier this week, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) released the 2008 OMB Circular A-133 Compliance Supplement. Circular A-133 sets forth the audit rules and standards, as well as establishing audit requirements for grantees. The Compliance Supplement is published to guide auditors when conducting the required annual audit for entities that spend more than $500,000 annually in federal funds, also known as a single audit. An additional benefit is that the Compliance Supplement is very useful to program administrators because it serves as a roadmap and gives insight into how the auditors will conduct a single audit. Entities that spend less than $500,000 in federal funds will also find the Supplement useful because it can help in determining compliance with federal requirements. Specifically, the document contains a section that applies to Department of Education grants that is pertinent in that it outlines certain audit tests that will be used when determining compliance with federal education requirements that apply to multiple programs.
There are a few noteworthy new sections in the 2008 Compliance Supplement. Specifically, sections addressing employee time and effort documentation are of particular importance because they discuss the types of records required for employees paid with federal funds, which is the largest category of cost in a federal program’s budget. Two significant topics related to time and effort documentation are schoolwide programs and consolidated administration.
Time Distribution in Schoolwide Programs
The 2008 Compliance Supplement simply recites the Title I fiscal guidance that was released in February 2008. The old language of the 2007 Compliance Supplement was replaced by the 2008 guidance. There is no longer any mention of consolidating Federal, State, and local funds into a “single account,” as stated in the 2007 Compliance Supplement. Instead, the funds are in a “consolidated schoolwide pool,” and an employee who is paid with funds from that pool is not required to file a semi-annual certification because, “there is no distinction between staff paid with Federal funds and staff paid with State of local funds.” Effectively, when an employee is paid from the single consolidated schoolwide pool, it certifies that the employee works only on schoolwide program activities.
When the guidance was released, it raised questions as to what type of time and effort documentation is required for a school operating a schoolwide program, and in particular, how a “single cost objective” is defined. If a schoolwide school does not consolidate Federal funds with State and local funds into a consolidated schoolwide pool, then an employee who works on a Federal program or cost objective, if that employee is working solely on a single cost objective, must furnish a semi-annual certification that he or she has been working solely on activities supported by the applicable source.
Time Distribution under Consolidated Administration
The 2006 Compliance Supplement stated that consolidated administration is regarded as a single cost objective and that semi-annual certification requirements applied under OMB Circular A-87. In order to meet the semi-annual certification requirements, the 2006 version gave two options: 1) maintaining the certification every six months, or 2) through time and attendance certifications under normal standards for payroll documentation. The second approach could have been used if: (a) the standards for payroll documentation complied with A-87 standards; (b) the employee was coded as a “dedicated function” (i.e., single cost objective) in the State or district’s payroll system; and (c) the employee’s potential assignment to multiple programs or activities was not within the authority or purview of the supervisor responsible for certifying time and attendance for payroll. If these three conditions were met, the payroll certification was accepted in lieu of the time and effort semi-annual certification.
In contrast, the 2007 Compliance Supplement reversed the 2006 version by stating, “[a]n employee who works on a Federal program whose administrative funds have been consolidated is not required to file a semi-annual certification.” The 2007 edition did not discuss how the district might meet the applicable semi-annual certification rules that were discussed above. Rather, it suggested that the semi-annual certification rules no longer apply.
Interestingly, the 2008 Compliance Supplement reverts back to the 2006 version and requires a semi-annual certification. It considers consolidated administration to be a single cost objective. However, the current language is more elaborate than its 2006 counterpart. Additionally, it seems to be aligned with the schoolwide program language regarding time and effort requirements. Even though there is similar language, consolidated administration is clearly classified as a single cost objective, while the schoolwide program guidance is not as clear.
The 2008 Compliance Supplement also includes a discussion of the revised Perkins Act. The requirements of the Card D. Perkins Vocational and Technical Education Act of 1998 (Perkins III) were completely replaced by the requirements in the Carl D. Perkins Career and Technical Education Act of 2006 (Perkins IV). In addition to the name change, four program objectives have been added to the prior list in order to develop career, technical, vocational, and academic skills of secondary and post secondary students. The additions include: (1) conducting and disseminating national research; (2) providing technical assistance; (3) supporting partnerships among secondary, postsecondary and baccalaureate degree-granting institutions, area and technical education schools, local workforce investments boards, business and industry, and intermediaries; and (4) providing individuals with opportunities to develop, in conjunction with other educational and training programs, the knowledge and skills needed to keep the United States competitive. Additionally, under the 2008 Supplement, in order to receive funds for program year 2007 (July 1, 2007 – June 30, 2008), the State must submit either a 1-year transitional or a 6-year State plan for career and technical education or a unified plan. This differs from the 2007 Compliance Supplement’s guidance that a 1-year transitional or a 5-year State plan needed to be submitted. If a 1-year plan was submitted, under the 2007 or 2008 Compliance Supplement, then a 4-year or 5-year plan, respectively, needed to be submitted for the subsequent program year.
Other distinctions between the 2007 and 2008 Compliance Supplements concerning Perkins can be found in the “Activities Allowed or Unallowed Section.” For example, in the 2007 Supplement, in reference to Secondary School Vocational Educational Programs and Postsecondary and Adult Vocational Education Programs, it was stated that a “State must distribute all available funds to subrecipients to improve vocational education programs.” This language does not appear in the 2008 Supplement. Additions to the 2008 Supplement include: (1) a section concerning State Leadership Activities and the uses for which a State may use State leadership funds; and (2) a declaration that a State may not use State leadership funds for administrative costs. Lastly, the revised Supplement made some language changes. For example, “vocational education” is often replaced by “career and technical education.”
Please note that this article is not a complete review of all the changes made from the 2007 to 2008 OMB Circular A-133 Compliance Supplement. The complete 2008 Compliance Supplement can be found at the White House Office of Management and Budget Web site.
Senator Kennedy’s Absence Stalls Education Legislation
Washington paused this week to digest the news that Senator Ted Kennedy (D-MA), “the lion of the Senate,” was diagnosed with malignant glioma, a brain cancer. Senator Kennedy has served in the Senate since 1962 and has had a profound impact on federal legislation and law. The news caught Washington and the nation off guard and triggered an outpouring of support for the lawmaker. Kennedy is an historic statesmanship and gifted legislator.
His absence is already felt. As the Chairman of the Senate Committee on Health Education Labor and Pensions, Kennedy’s absence will delay the reauthorization of the Higher Education Act. House and Senate staff are currently reconciling the two versions of the bill, House Resolution 4137 and Senate Bill 1647, in pre-conference. There was hope to complete the work in the next month or so, but now, that is unlikely.
This development also likely slows progress on any potential reauthorization of the No Child Left Behind Act. Kennedy is an original architect of the law and has been working closely with Representative George Miller (D-CA) to build upon the law’s successes and repair the law’s flaws. He is a true believer in the moral purpose of the law and a staunch defender of a central Federal role in education. How that would translate into legislative text during the reauthorization remains to be seen, but his direction is critical and unique. The future is uncertain for the Lion of the Senate. Our thoughts and prayers go out to him and his family.
New STEM Bill Introduced
On Wednesday, Congressman Mike Honda (D-CA) introduced House Resolution 6104, the Enhancing Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics Education Act. This is the first piece of legislation aimed at improving science, technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM) education since the President signed the America COMPETES Act into law last fall. Although many STEM advocates continue to criticize Congress for failing to fully fund the programs in that bill, House Resolution 6104 is working to help streamline the programs the government already supports.
The bill aims to coordinate science education efforts on a national level by establishing an Office of STEM Education in the U.S. Department of Education (ED) and a STEM Education Committee in the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy. In addition, the legislation would authorize a voluntary State Consortium on STEM Education to standardize education in different regions of the country and a National STEM Education Research Repository to help educators share successful science teaching methods. Congressman Honda believes ED should view the proposed approach as an opportunity to access a range of resources to support its mission.
Honda, and other sponsors of the bill claim that all agencies that oversee STEM programs were consulted in the bill’s development. Thirty-two cosponsors, including Education and Labor Committee Chairman George Miller (D-CA), have signed onto the bill. Senator Barack Obama (D-IL) also expects to introduce a companion bill. This bill is now ready for review and mark up, though no schedule is set, and Senator Obama is obviously preoccupied through November, so there is no timeline for the legislative process.
Resources
Erin Uy, “Rep. Honda introduces STEM coordination bill,” Education Daily, May 22, 2008.
Megan Eckstein, “Lawmakers Introduce Bill to Coordinate Science Education,” Congress Now, May 21, 2008.
Clerical Error Complicates Farm Bill Process
As expected, the President vetoed House Resolution 2419, the Farm Bill. What no one could have expected is that due to an administrative error by the Clerk of the House, the bill that Congress meant to pass is not the same as the bill they sent to the President. The clerical snafu threw a wrench into the majority’s plan to pass the Farm Bill before the Memorial Day recess. The House was forced to restart the process, reintroducing the Farm Bill and setting up yet another veto show down with the President.
Of the 15 titles of the Farm Bill that Congress passed last week, only 14 made it to the President’s desk. The House Clerk failed to include portions of Title III of the bill (trade provisions) in the version that was sent to the White House. Both the House and the Senate were able to override the President’s veto, but that only places 14 of the 15 titles as actual federal law. To avoid possible constitutional challenges to the manner in which the incomplete bill was passed, the Senate plans to vote on a new package that the House passed on Thursday, which includes all 15 titles.
Technically, this would mean that the Nutrition title of the bill is now federal law. Congressional leaders are worried that the administrative error will create credible complaints against the legislation that would be negated once the new complete bill is passed. However, because the new package is considered an entirely new bill, the President will once again have the chance to veto the legislation. Although both House and Senate votes demonstrate that there is enough support for an override, this will further delay the process, which cannot start up again until legislators return to Washington in June.
Resources
Geof Koss, “Despite Senate Override Today, Farm Bill Saga Not Over Yet,” Congress Now, May 22, 2008.
Catharine Richert, “Farm Bill’s Missing Title Complicates Its Passage,” CQ Today, May 22, 2008.
