Sen. Collins Asks OMB to Withdraw Parts of Grant Rule, Extend Comment Period

Washington, D.C. - U.S. Senator Susan Collins (R-ME), Chair of the Appropriations Committee, sent a letter to Russell Vought, Director of the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), on the agency's proposed rule, Regulation for Federal Financial Assistance.

Sen. Collins asks OMB to extend the comment period by no less than 90 days and withdraw portions of the rule that would potentially harm small and rural communities and scientific and biomedical research.

Read the full letter below:

----

"Dear Director Vought:

"I write to request that you extend the comment period for the Office of Management and Budget's (OMB) proposed rule, Regulation for Federal Financial Assistance, and that you meaningfully address stakeholder feedback on the rule and the impacts it is likely to have on small and rural communities and scientific and biomedical research.

"The proposed rule would make extensive changes to the Guidance for Federal Financial Assistance ('Uniform Guidance'), the government-wide framework for administering grants, cooperative agreements, and other forms of assistance. OMB states that the intent of these changes is to "improve transparency, accountability, and oversight" for these awards. While I agree these principles should guide the administration and oversight of Federal funds, the rule would impose new, burdensome requirements on award recipients that would harm small and rural communities, undermine scientific and biomedical research, and conflict with Congress' control over the federal funding process.

"The proposed rule would allow Federal agencies to terminate any discretionary grant, cooperative agreement, or other federal assistance at any time, if an agency 'determines that a termination is in the interest of the Federal agency…, including if a Federal award does not effectuate program goals, Federal agency priorities, or the national interest.' Prior iterations of the Uniform Guidance included provisions allowing for termination of awards that are not consistent with 'program goals or agency priorities' but afforded agencies discretion to consider whether to include this term in their financial assistance agreements. The proposed rule would take away this discretion. In addition, if awards are terminated under this new provision, the termination would not be subject to the administrative hearing requirements for compliance-based terminations, thereby limiting an entity's ability to appeal the decision.

"Authorizing mid-award termination of Federal awards, with limited ability to appeal, would inject uncertainty into the Federal award process, especially for awards that span multiple years and phases and make these awards more costly. For example, the termination of clinical trials would leave patients without treatment and could well result in significant scientific and financial losses to both the recipient and the Federal government. This uncertainty could disincentivize scientific researchers and institutions from seeking the Federal financial assistance they need to participate in multi-year, lifesaving trials.

"The proposed rule would also require that following the merit-review process for any federal assistance awards, senior appointees must perform a pre-issuance review that, in part, requires them to consider whether the award "demonstrably advance[s] the President's policy priorities." Additionally, when conducting this review, the proposed rule requires senior appointees "to use their independent judgment when evaluating Federal award proposals." Adding this additional review for awards that have already been selected through a scientific, merit-based peer review process would undermine the objective that the Federal government fund scientific and biomedical research projects based on scientific merit and value, rather than political ideology.

"The proposed rule would add additional burdens on recipients and sub-recipients of federal financial assistance awards, even though OMB states that an objective of the proposed rule is "to reduce recipient burden." For example, the proposed rule would require recipients and sub-recipients of Federal financial assistance awards to submit a written justification for every payment request, whether the payment is made in advance or as a reimbursement. Imposing this requirement would create significant administrative burdens on small institutions and small communities that may need to hire additional staff to ensure they receive funds on a timely basis.

"Finally, OMB states that one of the purposes of the proposed rule is to ensure that, where applicable, "activities performed under Federal awards are consistent with … policy." The proposed rule also would impose new requirements on agencies to consider the President's policy priorities, when administering grants, cooperative agreements, and other forms of assistance. The proposed rule, however, fails to address how OMB and agencies would ensure that consideration of the President's policy priorities does not supersede congressional intent for the administration of these awards.

"The proposed revisions are the most significant changes proposed to the Guidance since it was adopted. Yet, OMB has provided stakeholders only 45 days to comment on the rule, with a stated intent to finalize the rule by October 1, 2026, to align with the upcoming fiscal year. I have heard from numerous stakeholders that the current comment period is inadequate, and therefore, I request that OMB extend the comment period for the rule by no less than 90 days and withdraw portions of the rule that would unduly burden scientific and biomedical research and small communities.

"Thank you for your consideration of these important issues.

Sincerely,

Susan M. Collins

Chair"

###