Farm Bill Inches Along as FASEB Continues to Oppose Class B Dealer Provisions
There was a flurry of activity related to the Farm Bill this week, in anticipation of the April 18th expiration date on the current
short-term extension. The House and Senate named conferees, who met multiple times in an attempt to work out a spending deal that
would move the cumbersome legislation toward passage. The House and Senate versions of the Farm Bill contain similar provisions that
would prohibit the purchase of non-purpose bred cats and dogs for research from animal dealers the USDA has licensed as Class B.
If Congress passes the bill, the prohibition could have immediate negative consequences for ongoing research studies. FASEB continued to
work on removing the language this week, contacting key conferees and mobilizing scientists in those conferees’ districts to oppose the
Class B provisions. NIH, meanwhile, is moving forward in commissioning an independent study of the use of non-purpose bred animals in
biomedical research, a mandate the FY2008 appropriations bill for the agency includes. FASEB supports this study and has urged lawmakers
to refrain from introducing an interdiction, via the Farm Bill, before NIH has examined the issue fully.
Although the Class B animal issue is important for biomedical research, it remains an infinitesimal issue compared to the larger battle
Congress is waging over the Farm Bill. The primary problem is money: the House and Senate are having trouble off-setting the cost of
programs the new Farm Bill authorizes, and the tax solution proposals to cure those expenses are proving controversial. Unable to reach a
decisive agreement, both the House and Senate have passed another week long extension of the bill. Unfortunately, none of the ongoing
debate seems to favor a substantial increase for funding for competitive research at the USDA. To that end, FASEB recently submitted
testimony to Congressional appropriators, urging funding increases for the National Research Initiative and the Agricultural Research
Service. It remains unclear whether lawmakers will be able to complete the Farm Bill reauthorization within the extra week they have
granted themselves and, if so, whether the President will sign the legislation.
TOP OF PAGE
FASEB Submits Testimony to the House and Senate for FY2009
This month, FASEB submitted written testimony to House and Senate appropriations committees, recommending fiscal year 2009 (FY2009)
funding levels for the National Science Foundation (NSF) and the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) in preparation for the FY2009
Commerce, Justice and Science and the Military Construction and Veterans Affairs appropriations bills. The recommendations in the
testimony are consistent with FASEB’s Federal Funding for Biomedical and Related Life Sciences Research FY2009 publication (Federal
Funding Report) earlier this year.
For NSF, FASEB recommended an appropriation of $7.33 billion in FY2009 in keeping with the America COMPETES Act of 2007. The written
testimony highlights some recent accomplishments at NSF in research and education as well as projections for future progress at the
agency. The testimony concludes that “without a greater commitment to NSF, our country faces the grave possibility of losing its global
dominance in science and technology.” FASEB’s written testimony for NSF is available
here.
The testimony that FASEB submitted for the VA recommended funding the VA Medical and Prosthetics Research Program at the $555 million
level in FY2009 plus an additional $45 million for renovation, major equipment and new research buildings. The recommendation for the
Medical and Prosthetics Research Program is the level necessary to maintain the VA’s investment in medical research and provide the best
care for current and future veterans, and the recommendation for infrastructure is the requisite level for the renovation and replacement
of VA research infrastructure at least every 50 years rather than at the current rate of once every 75 to 100 years. The written testimony
provides examples of research accomplishments and outlines the need for additional research at the VA. FASEB’s written testimony for the
VA is available here.
TOP OF PAGE
INSIDE (The Beltway) SCOOP – Gretchen Opper
“Funding the sure thing instead of the big, risky ideas is like slowly walking up the stairs instead of taking the elevator.”
- Susan Lindquist, Ph.D.
Massachusetts
Institute of Technology
Given that there is no public discussion of progress on the fiscal year 2009 (FY2009) congressional Budget resolution and that the House
and Senate have not yet named conferees, and given that the FY2009 appropriations process is still in its infancy, the talk around town
is focusing primarily on the war supplemental. Since Congress may not pass the FY2009 appropriations bills until the new administration
assumes office next spring, the perception of the war supplemental that lawmakers are currently crafting is that it may well be the last
funding train leaving the station for some time.
Therefore, the supplemental is becoming increasingly subject to a wish list of domestic spending, and we are heartened to see that most
even short lists include science funding as one of the priorities. Tracking the kaleidoscopic progress of the supplemental over the past
week has been challenging, however, inasmuch as House and Senate leaders are holding their strategy close to their vest. Earlier this
week, it looked as though House leaders wanted to split the supplemental into two separate bills: one for Iraq; and one for Afghanistan.
According to this plan, they apparently wanted to add domestic funding to the Afghanistan portion and leave it to the Senate to splice
the two bills into a single war supplemental. On Tuesday, though, House Defense Appropriations Subcommittee Chairman John Murtha (D-PA)
said that breaking the money for Iraq and Afghanistan into separate funding measures would not be feasible.
Then, by Wednesday, the plan seems to have morphed into a different strategy to combine the Administration’s request for war funds for
next year with the supplemental funds for this year and create a massive $170 billion supplemental. Apparently, Democratic leaders are
under the impression that by offering this large sum for war funding, they can blunt Republican attacks on them for failing to support
the troops as well as increase their leverage to seek extra discretionary funding. Republican leaders, however, warned against this
strategy, saying it would not be a successful way to add domestic funding to the bill.
On Thursday, the most recent Democratic tactical approach surfaced, whereby House leaders appear to be considering bypassing the committee
markup process for the supplemental spending legislation and bringing their package straight to the House floor for a vote to increase
the likelihood of passing it with non-defense spending attached.
The bottom line is that the supplemental has become a partisan issue, with many Republicans steeling themselves against the inclusion
of any non-defense spending at the Administration’s request and with Democrats determined to find a way to include domestic funds.
Since the President has promised to veto any supplemental bill that includes more than his $108.1 billion request for FY2008 war
operations, and since congressional Democrats have responded by promising to add domestic funds, the situation is becoming reminiscent
of the collision between Congress and the White House over the Labor, HHS, Education appropriations bill in December that culminated in
the unsuccessful veto override attempt.
In fact, some Democratic Hill staffers have confirmed off the record that the current strategy is to send a war supplemental bill with
non-defense spending, which we assume will include some funding for science, to the President for his veto. At that point, the Democratic
message will be that by vetoing the bill, which will include the President’s entire request for the troops, the President will have
demonstrated his lack of concern for the domestic economic situation. If this scenario comes to pass, the outcome of the standoff will
be either an attempt at a veto override or a renegotiation between Congress and the Administration that leaves a few domestic priorities
still standing in the bill.
It will remain important for advocates to continue to urge members of Congress to support the inclusion of science funding as the process
moves forward.
House leaders expect an initial vote on the war supplemental in early May, and the White House and Congress agree that they want to wrap
the whole matter up before Congress leaves for Memorial Day recess on May 26th.
TOP OF PAGE
Postponement of the Science Debate: Scientists Speak Out
Regrettably, Hillary Clinton, John McCain and Barack Obama declined invitations to a science debate that sponsors had scheduled for today
in Philadelphia. Still, investment in research remains essential for our nation’s health and well being, and we cannot afford to let this
issue fade into the background. All three campaigns have faced mounting pressure from the scientific community. Last week, the journal
Science featured an article discussing the movement for a presidential science debate and its effect on the public discourse surrounding
the 2008 campaign. Yesterday, Nobel laureates David Baltimore and Ahmed Zewail published an op-ed in the Wall Street Journal, calling for
the next administration to reinvigorate funding for science in order to advance health, economic prosperity and global competitiveness.
To read the articles and learn about FASEB and the greater scientific community’s efforts in the campaign, click
here.
PAGE 1 |
PAGE 2 |
PAGE 3
GO BACK TO APRIL 18,
WASHINGTON UPDATE |
