|
FY2008 BUDGET RESOLUTION
On March 15, 2007, the Senate Budget Committee
marked up its “Concurrent Resolution on the
Budget for fiscal year (FY) 2008.” The
resolution was approved on a 12-11 party line
vote. While both the President’s budget request
and the Senate proposal would balance the
Nation’s budget by 2012, Senate Budget Committee
Chairman Kent Conrad’s (D-ND) plan rejected
President Bush’s spending cuts for health care
and education by providing $18 billion more for
discretionary spending than the President
proposed in his FY2008 budget. Specifically, the
Budget Committee proposes $949 billion in
overall discretionary spending for FY2008, which
is $16 billion above the President’s FY2008
request. The additional $2 billion is provided
through an accounting maneuver in the form of
“advance appropriations” from the following
fiscal year. The Chairman assumes that most of
the discretionary spending above the President’s
request will go toward domestic programs, which
potentially will benefit the programs FASEB
advocates for, including NIH, NSF, DOE’s Office
of Science, USDA’s National Research Initiative,
VA medical research and NASA.
You may remember that the Budget Resolution is a
concurrent resolution of the Congress that
establishes a general framework for subsequent
congressional action on spending and revenue
bills. While it does not require presidential
signature and does not become law, the budget
resolution does place limits on how much money
the appropriations committees are allowed to
allocate to discretionary programs. Therefore,
as stated above, the Senate Budget Committee
proposes to cap discretionary spending at $949
billion in FY2008. However, the authority to
allocate discretionary spending among the
hundreds of government programs belongs to the
Congressional members serving on the twelve
appropriations subcommittees.
The Budget Resolution is expected to be debated
on the Senate floor at some point next week. The
House Budget Resolution is expected to be marked
up next week.
TOP OF PAGE
ACTIVITIES INVOLVING
PRESIDENT'S FY08 BUDGET REQUEST
FASEB Encourages Senate to Support Dear
Colleague Letter to Increase NSF’s Budget
FASEB is working in partnership with the broader
physical science community to support an effort
to recruit additional Senators to sign-on to a
Dear Colleague letter from Senators Christopher
Bond (R-MO) and Joseph Lieberman (I-CT)
requesting that the Appropriations Subcommittee
on Commerce, Justice, Science and Related
Agencies provide $6.43 billion to the National
Science Foundation (NSF) in FY2008. FASEB sent
an
individual letter to every Senator who had
not signed on to the Dear Colleague letter and
provided a
thank you letter to those Senators
who had already signed on to the letter.
VA Chief Research and Development Officer
Testifies before House Committee
On March 14, 2007, Dr. Joel Kupersmith, Chief
Research and Development Officer, Veteran’s
Administration (VA), testified in front of the
House Appropriations Subcommittee on Military
Construction, Veterans Affairs and Related
Agencies, to defend the Administration’s FY2008
budget request for the Medical and Prosthetics
Research Program. President Bush’s FY2008 budget
request for the program is $411 million. Dr.
Kupersmith remarked that the FY2008 budget
proposal would fund 2,100 high priority research
project grants, and stated that the research is
paying dividends in promoting good health and
managing chronic conditions among the veterans
population. Subcommittee Chairman, Chet Edwards
(D-TX) expressed support for the research
program and asked what percentage of its budget
would fund new research project grants in
FY2008. Dr. Kupersmith responded that 13.1% of
its budget would be directed toward new research
project grants in FY2008. Chairman Edwards noted
that the program’s flat budget, coupled with the
fact that 87% of its funds are tied up in
FY2008, “doesn’t leave much room to confront the
pressing problems veterans are facing.” Ranking
Member Roger Wicker (R-MS) explained that he is
eager to be educated about VA research after
spending twelve years on the Labor-HHS-Education
appropriations subcommittee and learning about
the wonderful research NIH supports.
Representative Wicker asked if it always has
been the philosophy to support VA research
intramurally, and expressed an interest to know
if VA researchers leverage its research dollars
with NIH funding. Dr. Kupersmith explained that
many researchers supported by the VA have joint
appointments at nearby research institutions and
often also receive NIH funding. In fact, Dr.
Kuprsmith provided the following accounting in
terms of how much NIH funding is supporting
veterans research: $589 million in FY2003; $568
million in FY2004; $624 million in FY2005; and
$684 million in FY2006.
House Appropriations Hearing on NIH
On March 6, 2007, Dr. Elias Zerhouni, Director,
National Institutes of Health, testified before
the House Labor, Health and Human Services,
Education and Related Agencies appropriations
subcommittee on the President’s FY2008 budget
request for NIH. Carrie Wolinetz, FASEB’s
Director of Communications, provided the
following summary of the hearing.
Members in attendance: David Obey (D-WI,
Chair); James Walsh (R-NY); Michael Honda
(D-CA); Barbara Lee (D-CA); Jesse Jackson, Jr.
(D-IL); Dave Weldon (R-FL); Jerry Lewis (R-CA);
John Peterson (R-PA); Betty McCollum (D-MN);
Lucille Roybal-Allard (D-CA); Tim Ryan (D-OH);
Ralph Regula (R-OH); Dennis Rehberg (R-MT)
Witnesses: Dr. Elias Zerhouni, Director
of National Institutes of Health
[Note: Although Dr. Zerhouni was the only
witness to testify, he was accompanied by a
number of IC Directors who participated in the
Q&A, including: Dr. John Niederhuber (NCI); Dr.
Elizabeth Nabel (NHBLI); Dr. Anthony Fauci (NIAID);
Dr. Duane Alexander (NICHD); Dr. John Ruffin (NCMHHD);
Dr. Griffin Rodger (NIDDK, Acting)]
Opening statement – Obey
-
I’m asking everyone who appears before the
appropriations committee, what will the
country look like in 10 years? In your case,
what will be the scientific opportunities?
The health needs?
-
The budget sent by the President may be
called a status quo budget, but this is not
reflected in reality because it is not
adjusted for inflation and population
growth. On a per capita basis, it amounts to
a cut, a step backwards.
-
We were forced to cut many programs in ’07
because we were left to finish the budget of
the previous Congress, but we prioritized
NIH, which received a more than $600 million
bucks increase.
-
What we’re seeing from the President in ’08
is a cut, and OMB is treating NIH like the
“Bank of Bethesda” by taking money out for
the global HIV / AIDS fund; this is a worthy
cause but given the current fiscal
situation, it doesn’t make sense to take it
away from NIH.
Opening Statement – Walsh
-
Continually impressed with the discoveries
coming out of NIH and believes that those
discoveries really do affect people’s lives
and health.
-
Wants to ensure that these advances are
actually getting to doctors.
-
We need to move research advances more
quickly into practice – understanding that
there are safety concerns and standards that
must be satisfied.
-
Congress has increased NIH’s budget
significantly, therefore we need to make
sure that there is strong financial
management at NIH, something Zerhouni as the
Director has espoused; must ensure that we
are investing wisely.
-
Likes Zerhouni’s model of the 4P’s
(predictive, preemptive, personalized and
participatory) of health care recognition
that we are moving towards more chronic
diseases.
Opening Statement – Zerhouni
[Note: Zerhouni used many of the same slides
that have been presented in other forums,
showing decreasing rate of disease, cost per
American, NIH priorities and his 4 P’s approach
– the statement can be
read here - a very brief summary is below]
-
NIH supported research has contributed to
considerable life saving and cost saving
advances in heart disease, cancer, age
related disabilities and diabetes
-
Major breakthroughs have occurred in the
development of the HPV vaccine, the
identification of a new molecular target for
an HIV vaccine, and in the area of RNAi
-
Challenges include: shift to chronic
disease; aging population; rising health
care costs; health disparities, etc.
-
Moving towards more proactive, rather than
reactive medical care – predictive,
preemptive, personalized and participatory
(4P’s); identifying molecular cues that can
be targeted before a disease begins, rather
than after it manifests.
-
A major challenge is biological complexity,
the more we learn the more complicated we
realize the molecular and cellular
environments we’re working in are.
Question and Answer Session:
[Note: Answers are by Dr. Zerhouni unless
otherwise indicated]
Obey
Q: About the decision to cut the National
Children’s Study, was that a decision based on
the budget or on science?
A: We have to set priorities within the budget.
If we were to fund that, it would drastically
reduce NICHD’s ability to fund other research.
Q: Don’t worry, we’ll put that money back and it
won’t have to squeeze the research budget. I
have a series of questions, but we don’t have
time for them now. I’ll give them to you after
the hearing and I would like you to submit
answers for the record. For example, I have some
questions about NIH’s conflict of interest
policies and how they’re working out. And how
those policies are being used for grantees. I
also have some questions regarding contractors.
But for now, can you tell me why NIEHS received
such a large cut?
A: The decrease for NIEHS was not out of the
ordinary. In addition, they are receiving an
additional $40 million for the genes and
environment studies.
Q: Which reminds me, I also have a question for
Dr. Collins regarding genetic discrimination
which I’ll submit to him in writing. Hopefully
we can finally get a bill to the floor. But tell
me what happens in the outyears of funding. In
real per capita terms, the NIH budget has
decreased. What would happen if that trend
continued for the next ten years?
A: Clearly there would be an impact – a loss of
purchasing power is a loss of purchasing power.
Nearly 75 percent of our budget goes to funding
scientists. At the end of the day, a loss of
purchasing power means a decrease in the number
of scientists you can support. But the absolute
numbers are not as important as what we’re
likely to lose. New investigators are very
vulnerable in times of lean funding, as are
clinical tirals.
Q: (More of a commentary, really) The
Administrations budgetary request represents a
$511 million decrease. Sometimes there are ways
to reduce the deficit besides cutting programs
like NIH. I remember in 1979 when we were told
we had to reduce the budget by $16 billion or we
would be overwhelmed by the deficit. So we sat
for days in Senator Byrd’s office and we found
$16 billion to cut. And the deficit doubled,
because of what was going on in the economy.
[Note: Congressman Regula entered at the very
end of the hearing and asked a couple of
questions about pandemic preparedness by the
Office of Personnel Management, Down’s syndrome,
and a water-purifying technology, to be used to
make baby formula in developing nations – but
there was nothing of significant interest.]
Walsh
Q: Regarding human embryonic stem cell (hESC)
research, tell me about the new avenues for
pluripotent cells. Is there any chance that we
can move beyond the debate and eliminate the
need for hESC? I’m struck by results from groups
at Harvard and in Japan who have succeeded in
reprogramming adult stem cells or the use on
cells from amniotic fluid. Can we put the hESC
debate to rest?
A: The goal of stem cell biology is to
understand the basic biology of programming that
takes place at the level of DNA. Adult stem
cells are only one side of the coin, in that we
are looking at our ability to reprogram these
cells, something we have had limited success in.
But embryonic stem cells are not yet programmed,
they are blank slates, so we need to study them
to understand how programming works. From a
scientific standpoint, science demands we pursue
all avenues of stem cell research.
Q: But what about these groups at Harvard and
Japan, haven’t they already reprogrammed adult
stem cells into pluripotent cells like hESC?
A: No. The Harvard group fused an embryonic and
adult stem cell together and produced an ES-like
cell, but they haven’t figured out what to do
about the additional chromosomes, so it is too
soon to tell. In Japan, they were able to use 4
factors to reprogram adult stem cells in the
mouse, but this research is in very early
stages. Ultimately, we would like to be able to
identify all of the factors that are involved in
molecular reprogramming, but we need to continue
to pursue the basic research. From a scientific
viewpoint, we should be investing in this.
Jackson
Q: What is your vision of the role of the
National Center on Minority Health and Health
Disparities?
A: Health disparities are one of NIH’s top
priorities. NCMHHD needs an adaptive strategic
plan and we need to focus on training a more
diverse scientific and medical workforce.
Q: I want to talk about the recent IOM report on
health disparities. They criticized NIH and
NCMHHD for not publishing a strategic plan for
the ’04-’08 period, I gather such a plan exists
but has not been approved? Is there a strategic
plan at NIH regarding health disparities?
A (Ruffin): We are going to put it on our
website and will send you a copy, although there
is nothing specific directing us to send a copy
to Congress.
Q: Back to the IOM report, it seems that NIH
continues to struggle with the role and
authority of NCMHHD. Do the ICs all understand
and recognize this authority?
A: We take the IOM report very seriously. Part
of the Road Map was focused on health
disparities. As far as I know, all ICs are
aware.
Lewis
-
Lewis began by relating a story in which his
granddaughter was found to have what was
thought to be a stage V melanoma, via a
referral at Loma Linda Hospital, she ended
up consulting with NCI turns out it was a
dysplastic naevus (?), she’s doing fine, but
he wanted to express gratitude on behalf of
his family and the nation
Q: While there is non-partisan support for
research, we are also in a time of limited
budgets. There are some who feel NIH is like a
club, once you’re in, you’re in. If you’re out,
you’re out. For example, in Loma Linda, there
was a innovative program on proton treatment
which NIH didn’t want to support, but turned out
to be very important in cancer diagnostics.
There are those at NIH who feel the pie should
be divided evenly. I don’t agree. How do we cut
off folks that are unsuccessful and diversify
the club?
A: This is why we appreciated passage of the NIH
Reform Act, whose provisions will help NIH
track, through OPASI, our portfolio and how we
are spending the money. The truth is that only
50% of NIH grants get renewed and less than 5%
of scientists hold on to an NIH grant for 20
years or more. So there is high turnover.
Lee
Q: I also have questions about minority health
disparities. Although we may be making gains in
health in the general population, as Dr.
Zerhouni cited in his slides, this in not true
among minorities, who may suffer twice the rate
of conditions like coronary heart disease. I
specifically want to know about the A1C test for
diabetes, which can yield a high incident of
false positive among African Americans with
sickle cell disease. I’m
very concerned this is leading to patients
taking medication for a condition they don’t
have.
A: (Rodgers) We need to make sure that
treatments and knowledge are available in the
communities we wish to reach. Diabetes has
reached epidemic proportions in some minority
communities. Our goal is to prevent
pre-diabetics from becoming diabetics and we’ve
shown that modest lifestyle adjustments can have
huge impacts. The real question is how do we
translate this into practice? We are working
with the CDC and both public and private
partners on that.
Q: You didn’t answer my question about A1C –
shouldn’t patients be warned?
A: [Note: Rodgers did his best here to explain
the science behind the diagnostic test, but the
truth is that this is a regulatory question
beyond the scope of NIH] I believe most
physicians know that in individuals with sickle
cell disease to use a different test.
Weldon
Q: Thanks for assembling a workshop so quickly
regarding the Vaccine Safety DataLink in regard
to whether vaccines are connected to autism. I
note that the experts at that workshop concluded
that the data in the VSD, on which the claim
that autism is not connected to vaccine
additives, is flawed. But I wanted to ask you
about translational research, how much progress
are you making in this direction? Given your
limited budgetary discretion as Director, do you
think the institutes are making progress in
translation?
A: ICs have contributed across the board to
facilitate translation. This year we have also
established the CTSA.
Q: Regarding clinical trials and clinical
research, is money a key problem? Can
universities not afford to do clinical trials
anymore?
A: Clinical trials are very expensive,
especially as safety concerns and regulations
increase. They are very difficult to do in a
tight or decreasing funding environment, which
is why IC directors often look to them as the
first thing to cut.
Q: Can you please expand on the discovery of a
new target for HIV?
A: (Fauci) Through crystallography, we have
identified a cross-reactive epitope on HIV that
looks very promising for a future vaccine.
Q: You mentioned that the drop in cardiovascular
disease is only 30% attributable to statins? Is
that true? What else contributes?
A: A number of factors – smoking cessation, high
blood pressure medications, anti-clotting drugs,
etc.
Q: But the most recent sudden drop, over the
past few years, is probably because of statins,
right?
A: Most likely, yes.
Honda
Q: I like your focus on pre-emptive, predictive
medicine and this future looking paradigm. But
how do you match that to your budget and
priority setting? How is your budget designed to
meet those goals?
A: It is difficult to match a budget to a
paradigm, especially since you would really have
to look at the individual ICs. But you can see
cross-cutting themes in this direction, such as
the focus on biomarkers.
Q: I understand that, but the budget process is
about setting priorities. If you want to focus
on the future paradigm, the budget needs to
reflect that. Two other issues, I have
obstructive sleep apnea, so I’m curious what
your doing on sleep and also have an interest in
minority health disparties.
A: (Nable and Ruffin) Briefly report on sleep
and minority health disparities activities
Q: I want to ask a question about NIH’s policy
of requiring funded researcher to place their
publications in a freely available electronic
database after six months. I have heard from a
number of people that they are concerned about
the scientific societies that run the peer
review system, that this is a movement toward
peer review being reduced or paid for by tax
payer dollars. I think you must work with the
scientific societies to make sure peer review is
preserved. Can you address what you’re doing in
that regard?
A: We agree with the principle of not damaging
peer review and I will submit the answer to the
rest of your question in writing for the record.
Rehberg
Q: Thank you for the Road Map programs. I’m
curious about an RFP for a new anthrax vaccine
that was recently rescinded, why was that
withdrawn?
A: (Fauci) Put out an RFP for a third generation
anthrax vaccine, upon receiving the proposals,
we felt the science was not mature enough and
the companies were not ready to move forward. We
need more basic science.
Q: I traveled recently to Cuba with
Congresswoman Lowey and we toured a medical
research facility. Are our policies towards Cuba
preventing us from sharing ideas? Do you
communicate with Cuba, is there a chance they
could have a great idea or discovery and we
would miss out?
A: We have the flow of information that takes
place through scientific societies, meetings and
publications, but I don’t think NIH researchers
travel to Cuba. From a scientific standpoint,
the more sharing of information the better.
Statement from Rehberg: If we can send down
crops, we should send down scientists to share
ideas!
McCollum
Q: Concerned about NIH as a pass-through for the
Global HIV / AIDS fund? Would your paperwork, in
terms of budget submissions, be easier if we
didn’t do it that way?
A: Well, it is health related, so NIH has always
made a contribution. In this case, our
contribution has been raised an additional $200
million (to a total of $300 million) out of a
total $232 million increase for ’08. Is there a
better way to do it? I leave that up to the
appropriators.
Q: [Note: It took McCollum quite a while to ask
this rather rambling question and when she
eventually did, the wording was somewhat
confusing – this is a distilled version, but
Zerhouni et al.’s answer does not fully address
it, I suspect, because it was not very
straightforward] In terms of programmatic losses
related to global health and U.S.
competitiveness, what lost opportunities have
you experienced as a result of decreased
investment in basic research?
A: Worldwide, all governments are investing in
life-sciences – this is the battleground of
competitive science today. The U.S. is still
number one by far, but we are no longer as
dominant as we used to be.
A: (Fauci) The U.S. is still the leader in the
field of infectious disease, but global health
is becoming a more important component in what
we do, particularly as relates to infectious
diseases in developing countries.
A: (Nabel): There are clearly problems in health
care delivery throughout the world.
Hypertension, for example is a huge problem is
some areas of the world because of lack of
adequate treatment, diagnostics and knowledge.
We are proud of the fact that our training
programs are used to train scientists from all
over the world who then go back and apply that
knowledge in their home countries. But we are
now training 44% less foreign scientists through
our training programs because of reductions in
funding.
Peterson
Q: Is it true that the current generation, for
the first time ever, does not have a longer life
expectancy?
A: Hard to say - depends on the impact of
obesity and emerging diseases.
Q: Are we a less fit nation?
A: We are seeing a decrease in disabilities in
the elderly, but the rates of obesity in younger
generations is very concerning.
Q: And aren’t mental health diseases a growing
problem?
A: If you look at not just morbidity and
mortality, but quality of life measurements,
mental health disorders rank 2nd in terms of
health problems facing us.
Q: I come from a rural district where we don’t
have a lot of psychiatrists or other mental
health professionals, so most people end up
going to their family doctor. These general
practitioners tells me that more than 50 percent
of the patients they see are depressed. Does
that seem especially high?
A: I don’t have the numbers with me, but it is
true we need to translate what we know about
mental health intro practice. This is why we’re
focusing on practical clinical trials. And it’s
true we’re seeing mental health issues in the
young. I’m going to let Dr. Alexander talk about
this in relation to children.
A: (Alexander) We’re seeing two main mental
health disorders in children, depression and
ADHD.
Q: How important is physical activity in mental
health? A: (Alexander) Although the magnitude or
extend of the impact is not clear, clearly there
is a link. However, we are definitely seeing
growing evidence that today’s children are
missing out on outdoor activities and
interaction with the natural environment which
is probably detrimental.
Q: [Note: This is a summary of Peterson’s fairly
passionate statement on the importance of
exercise] Well, I definitely think there’s a
link between mental illness and exercise. I have
a lot of members of my family suffering from
mental illness. I don’t and I think it’s because
I am very physically active. You never see
people who are at the gym three, four times a
week suffering from depression. They’re usually
happy. Why aren’t our physicians telling their
patients to get out and swim, to get out and
run? Whose job is it to get people exercising?
A: (Alexander) As you might imagine, it is very
difficult to get people to comply, even if they
have the information.
Roydal-Allard
Q: I am very interested in the longitudinal
Hispanic health study. How much money is being
dedicated to this, which IC is taking the lead?
A: (Nabel) NHBLI is the primary institute and we
are spending $61 million over 6 years, trying to
work with outyear commitments so we don’t
diminish our capacity to do other
research. I don’t like to start research
projects I can’t pay for, but we are dedicated
to this study and other longitudinal studies,
like the Framingham heart study.
Q: I am also interested in early diagnosis of
genetic disorders. I will be introducing a
newborn screening bill next year. Can you talk
about this topic?
A: (Alexander) There are clearly very positive
results from newborn screening – leading causes
of retardation, like PKU, have virtually been
eliminated because of screening. We’re advancing
to new technologies to help, such as chips and
microbeads. This fits in well with Dr.
Zerhouni’s preemptive medicine strategy.
Ryan
Q: I’m disturbed by the report that life
expectancy has decreased, but admire what you do
for only $44 per day. Can you tell me about the
current status of the embryonic stem cell ban?
Has this ban on funding led to investment by
other countries, such as those in Asia? What is
the long term effect on our ability to reach new
discoveries, is there a brain drain?
A: If you look at the hESC research NIH is
funding, we have been able to make progress,
even with the 21 approved lines. From a purely
scientific standpoint, we need to allow our
scientists access to as many research models as
possible, including more hESC lines. There a
race going on to understand the basic mechanisms
of programming, as mentioned earlier, trying to
crack the code that can be used to reprogram
cells. But I wouldn’t say there’s any evidence
of a major brain drain problem, scientists are
staying here and still working on hESC research.
But there’s no doubt that in terms of
publications, the number of international papers
on hESC is increasing relative to the number of
U.S. publications, although we are still
dominant. We are currently holding our own in
this field, but that may not be the case looking
forward. The country that cracks the code of
programming will win, it will be like recreating
Microsoft.
Q: Can you tell me whether NIH is doing any
research on stress? Because it seems to me that
stress in life is a major factor in many of the
diseases you mentioned, heart disease, high
blood pressure, mental illness. And I fully
agree with Congressman Peterson that there’s no
emphasis on physical education or fitness, so
there’s no outlet for stress. What is NIH doing
to address the problem of exercise and physical
education.
A: This is a multifactorial problem and is not
just related to health care. It involves urban
planning and community development and
education. For example, if we were to not allow
elevator usage, except for those who were
disabled, for the first three floors of any
building, and forced people to walk up the
stairs, we could reduce obesity in this country
by more than 25 percent.
TOP OF PAGE
INSIDE (The Beltway)
SCOOP - Jon Retzlaff, Legislative Director
The Senate Budget Committee took a huge step in
the right direction this week when it approved
an FY2008 budget that would provide additional
spending for non-defense discretionary spending
and expressed its support for providing NIH with
an increase in FY2008 of at least $700 million
above the President’s request. While documents
provided by the Budget Committee did not
specifically reference their intent to increase
NIH’s budget by at least $700 million above the
President’s request in FY2008, budget committee
staff clearly communicated this information
during the Budget Committee mark-up and in
response to a question from Senate Budget
Committee Ranking Member, Judd Gregg (R-NH).
Senate Democrats strongly support Budget
Committee Chairman Kent Conrad’s decision to add
an additional $18 billion for domestic
discretionary programs, and it’s expected that
the House Budget Committee will approve a
similar increase for discretionary spending when
it marks up its bill next week. Senate Democrats
pointed out that the $933 billion cap for
discretionary spending proposed by the President
in FY2008 budget is $13 billion below the amount
needed to maintain purchasing power for current
programs. In fact, under the President’s cap for
discretionary programs, cuts would occur
throughout government, including at NIH, CDC,
the Department of Education and the Department
of Labor. House Appropriations Chairman David
Obey (D-WI) actually pointed out during NIH’s
appropriations hearing that the President’s
FY2008 budget request would result in a $511
million cut in program level funds at the
agency. Representative Obey stated that he
intends to provide additional funds to NIH in
FY2008 in order to ensure that the agency does
not fall further behind. Of course, this action
by Chairman Obey would require the availability
of additional funds for domestic discretionary
programs, which the Budget Committees are in the
process of doing.
TOP OF PAGE
PAGE 1 |
PAGE 2
GO BACK TO MARCH 16,
WASHINGTON UPDATE |
