|
FY2008 BUDGET RESOLUTION-SENATE
On March 23, 2007, the Senate approved its
“Concurrent Resolution on the Budget for fiscal
year (FY) 2008,” by a vote of 52-47. The Senate
resolution provides an additional $18 billion
for non-defense discretionary spending, which is
on top of the President’s budget request for the
fiscal year that begins October 1, 2007.
Specifically, the Senate budget resolution
provides $448 billion in non-defense
discretionary spending for FY2008, which is $16
billion above the President’s FY2008 request for
non-defense discretionary programs. The
additional $2 billion is provided through an
accounting maneuver in the form of “advance
appropriations” from the following fiscal year.
During Senate floor debate, Senators Arlen
Specter (R-PA) and Tom Harkin (D-IA) offered an
amendment to provide an extra $2.2 billion for
NIH, the Centers for Disease Control and health
professions training programs. Senators Specter
and Harkin offset the increase for NIH, CDC and
health professions programs by reducing
administrative expenses throughout government.
FASEB
thanked the authors of the amendment and
sent letters to every Senator requesting
that they support the effort to provide
additional funding for these important programs.
The amendment was accepted by unanimous consent
and was included as part of the manager’s
amendment.
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. However, the
authority to specifically allocate discretionary
spending among the hundreds of government
programs
belongs to the Congressional members serving on
the twelve appropriations subcommittees.
FY2008 BUDGET RESOLUTION-HOUSE
On March 22, 2007, the House Budget Committee
marked up its “Concurrent Resolution on the
Budget for fiscal year (FY) 2008.” The
resolution was approved on a 22-17 party line
vote. While both the President’s budget request
and the House proposal would balance the
Nation’s budget by 2012, House Budget Committee
Chairman John Spratt (D-SC) plan fully funds the
President’s defense request and rejects
President Bush’s spending cuts for health care
and education by providing $22 billion more for
non-defense discretionary spending than the
President proposed in his FY2008 budget. 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.
On March 29, 2007, the House passed its budget
resolution by a vote of 216-210. The House and
Senate will conference the Budget Resolution
following the Easter/Passover recess and likely
bring the compromise version to the floor the
week of April 16, 2007.
TOP OF PAGE
ACTIVITIES INVOLVING
FY08 APPROPRIATIONS CYCLE
FASEB Encourages House to Support Dear
Colleague Letter to Increase NIH’s Budget
FASEB is working in partnership with the broader
biomedical research community to support an
effort to recruit additional House Members to
sign-on to a Dear Colleague letter from
Representatives Edward Markey (D-MA), David
Reichert (R-WA), Henry Waxman (D-CA),
Christopher Shays (R-CT), Janice Schakowsky
(D-IL) and Christopher Smith (R-NJ) requesting
that the Appropriations Committee provide a 6.7
percent increase for the National Institutes of
Health (NIH) in FY2008. A 6.7 percent increase
in NIH funding for each of the next three years
would at least recoup the losses caused by
biomedical research inflation. FASEB sent an
individual letter to every House Member
who had not signed on to the Dear Colleague
letter and provided a thank you letter to the
110 House Members who had already signed on to
the letter. The authors of the Dear Colleague
will continue to accept signatures until April
23, 2007.
FASEB Submits Public Witness Testimony for
the Record
On March 30, 2007, FASEB submitted
written testimony for the record to the
House Appropriations Committee, Subcommittee on
Labor, Health and Human Services, Education and
Related Agencies. As the subcommittee begins its
deliberations on appropriations for agencies
under its jurisdiction, FASEB provided
information in support of NIH and offered its
views on funding for the National Institutes of
Health (NIH) in FY2008. FASEB recommended that
that the National Institutes of Health receive
$30.8 billion in FY 2008, an increase of 6.7
percent over the level for the previous fiscal
year. A 6.7 percent increase in NIH funding for
each of the next three years would at least
recoup the losses caused by biomedical research
inflation since 2003.
House Appropriations Hearing on NIH
Monday, March 19, 2007
Senate Labor-HHS-Education (L/HHS)
Appropriations Subcommittee Hearing
re: NIH's FY2008 Budget
On Monday, March 19, 2007, the Senate L/HHS
Appropriations Subcommittee [Tom Harkin (D-IA),
Chairman] held its annual hearing to question
NIH’s Director, Dr. Elias Zerhouni, regarding
the President’s FY2008 budget request for the
agency.
L/HHS Chairman Harkin’s Opening Remarks:
Senate L/HHS Appropriations Subcommittee
Chairman Tom Harkin (D-IA) opened the hearing by
stating that one of his proudest accomplishments
in the Senate was to work to double NIH’s
funding from 1998 to 2003. Unfortunately, his
mood since has turned to disappointment as NIH
has lost 13% (in real terms) of its purchasing
power. He criticized the President’s budget,
which would result in a cut of $529 million in
NIH’s FY2008’s budget, and said that NCI would
be reduced by $79 million, NHLBI would lose $36
million and the Children’s Health Study would be
halted. While he voiced optimism about the Joint
Funding resolution that provided NIH with an
increase of $637 million in FY2007, Senator
Harkin remarked that it marked the fourth year
in a row that NIH’s increase was below the rate
of inflation. Chairman Harkin also said that
this was the first of six hearings on NIH and
that the subcommittee looked forward to hearing
from every Institute and Center (IC) Director.
L/HHS Ranking Member Specter’s Opening
Remarks:
Senate L/HHS Appropriations Subcommittee Ranking
Member Arlen Specter (R-PA) observed that it is
scandalous for NIH to have a budget less than
$30 billion (in the context of a $2.9 trillion
Federal budget). He said that while Senator
Harkin and he are strong advocates for NIH, we
need to put political pressure on the other 533
Members of Congress. He encouraged the advocacy
community to organize a million persons march
for research on Capitol Hill. Senator Specter
also commented that many Members of Congress are
focused on the issue of cost savings in the
health care arena. Therefore, he recommended
that advocates broaden its message to include a
discussion of how biomedical research can lead
to reductions in health care costs. However,
Senator Specter maintains that the primary
reason for supporting increased funding for
biomedical research is to alleviate suffering
and death from diseases. Senator Specter also
announced that he and Senator Harkin will be
asking for additional money in the Senate Budget
Resolution to ensure a healthy increase for NIH
in FY2008.
Dr. Zerhouni's Testimony:
Dr. Zerhouni thanked Senators Harkin and Specter
for their efforts to provide NIH with an
increase in FY2007, and discussed how our
country’s ability to compete globally will be
based on our mastery of the biological world. He
said that no country will excel without advances
in the life sciences occurring. He also
explained how advances in research can make a
difference in confronting the challenges of
rising U.S. health expenditures, and predicted
that advances in science will allow us to
address diseases before they reach the critical
stage. Dr. Zerhouni concluded by explaining that
it’s vitally important for our political leaders
and research advocates to communicate the
strategic importance of NIH, especially when the
rest of the world is investing heavily in the
life sciences. Below is the link to Dr.
Zerhouni’s testimony and slides:
http://www.nih.gov/about/director/budgetrequest/fy2008directorssenatebudgetrequest.htm
Questions/Concerns Expressed During
Question and Answer Period:
1.) Stem Cells:
Questions - Senator Harkin asked if scientists
would have a better chance of finding cures if
the ban on embryonic stem cell research is
lifted. He also wanted to know why it is
important for NIH to support the research when
so many individual States are willing to fund
the research. Senator Harkin also asked if adult
stem cell research or research using stem cells
from umbilical cords is sufficient.
Answers - Dr. Zerhouni stated that the
scientific community is in agreement that (since
2004) the stem cell lines currently available
are not sufficient, and our Nation’s scientists
would be better served if additional embryonic
stem cell lines were made available. Dr.
Zerhouni also discussed the influential role NIH
would play in this area of research. He
specifically mentioned that NIH’s support would
stimulate the field, provide depth of research
and ensure adequate oversight of the research.
He also voiced concern about the patchwork of
different standards emanating from the
individual states. In response to the question
concerning whether research on adult stem cells
is sufficient, Dr. Zerhouni said that the
alternatives to human embryonic stem cell
research are overstated, and it’s important to
pursue all angles of stem cell research. He
stated emphatically that our Nation must find a
way to allow all areas of research to be
supported. Dr. Zerhouni said that we cannot be
second best in this area, and we shouldn’t have
one hand tied behind our back.
2.) Quantifying NIH’s Influence & Effects of
Budget Cuts:
Questions - Senator Specter asked numerous
questions about cancer, specifically how much of
the decline in cancer deaths can be attributed
to NIH?; how many different
strains of cancer exist?; and how long is it
going to take before we’ve cured cancer and at
what cost? Senator Specter encouraged Dr.
Zerhouni to provide an analysis with regard to
what’s happening as a result of the decrease in
NIH funding since 2003, and what effect the
President’s proposal (for a $500 million cut)
would have on research.
Answers – Dr. Zerhouni remarked that cancer is
an extremely complex disease (more than 200
separate diseases), and said that it is vitally
important that NIH-funded researchers are
provided with sufficient funding to make
progress at the basic molecular level. Dr.
Zerhouni pointed out that NIH has historically
funded an average of three grants for every ten
received (30% success rate), and that this
percentage has allowed NIH to get the return it
desired. However, today’s success rate has
dropped to 20%. Dr. Zerhouni stated that to
sustain our research goals it will require
increasing success rates over time. It also was
pointed out that the success rates have dropped
because of both flat funding and an increase in
applications. Dr. Zerhouni believes that more
scientists are going to be needed in order to
study the complexity of the diseases NIH is
confronting. In response to the question about
the effects of the cuts on NIH, Dr. Zerhouni
replied that NIH has been favoring
investigator-initiated research grants at the
expense of clinical trials because of how
expensive clinical trials are. Therefore, flat
funding is resulting in NIH supporting less
clinical trials and the overall impact is
primarily in NIH’s ability to translate research
from the bench to the bedside.
3.) Benefits of Providing NIH with a $1.9
Billion Increase:
Questions - Senator Harkin mentioned that NIH
advocates are supporting 6.7% increases over the
next three years to recoup NIH’s lost purchasing
power since 2003. Senator Harkin wanted to know
how things would be different if NIH were to
receive a $1.9 billion increase in FY2008.
Specifically, what could be attained with that
kind of increase?
Answers – Dr. Zerhouni responded that NIH would
be able to sustain its scientific workforce in
the U.S. (326,000 scientists), including
providing the scientific investigators in the
labs with the resources to recruit and retain
scientists in order to tackle the complex
scientific questions that exist. Dr. Zerhouni
also said that NIH would recover its ability to
conduct clinical trials at a rate necessary to
improve translation. In addition, Dr. Zerhouni
stated that success rates would increase,
resulting in less anxiety and more discoveries.
Questions - Senator Specter asked numerous
questions about cancer, specifically how much of
the decline in cancer deaths can be attributed
to NIH?; how many different strains of cancer
exist?; and how long is it going to take before
we’ve cured cancer and at what cost?
Answer- Senator Specter encouraged Dr. Zerhouni
to provide an analysis with regard to what’s
happening as a result of the decrease in NIH
funding since 2003, and what effect the
President’s proposal (for a $500 million cut)
would have on research.
4.) NIH Common Fund:
Questions - Senator Harkin asked about the NIH
Common Fund that was recently authorized, and
specifically if the common fund would support
particular initiatives, such as disease specific
initiatives that cross ICs.
Answers – Dr. Zerhouni said that 1.5% of NIH’s
budget is dedicated to the Common Fund. He views
the Common Fund as sustaining our ability fund
innovative science, as well as providing the
resources for emerging areas of science that
don’t necessarily fit into one IC, such as
nanotechnology. He explained that the Common
Fund would support the frontiers of science,
serve all areas of science, and be time-limited.
In response to a question about funding specific
diseases that cross ICs, Dr. Zerhouni stated
that unless an area of science requires a broad
stimulus, funding for disease specific
initiatives should remain the responsibility of
the ICs.
5.) Public Access:
Questions - Senator Harkin asked Dr. Zerhouni
what scientific value does the public access
policy provide, why should the policy be for
twelve months and not six months and why does
Congress have to legislate it?
Answers – Dr. Zerhouni responded that (in the
current information age) publicly funded
databases should be available, as long as
peer-review is not sacrificed. He also stated
that it’s important for NIH to have availability
to the articles, as long as the individual
journals are not harmed. Dr. Zerhouni pointed
out that a six-month policy would harm the
journals. In conclusion, Dr. Zerhouni said that
it appears the policy must be mandatory for NIH
to achieve its goals, but that he understands
that there must be some flexibility with regard
to the specific time-frame put into place.
House Committee on Science and Technology
Hearings on NSF Reauthorization
Part I:
The House Science and Technology’s Subcommittee
on Research and Science Education convened its
first of two hearings on March 20, to discuss
forthcoming legislation to reauthorize the
National Science Foundation. Dr. Arden Bement,
Jr., Director of the National Science Foundation
(NSF), and Dr. Steven Beering of the National
Science Board (NSB), presented testimony to the
Subcommittee. The Subcommittee is chaired by
Congressman Brain Baird (D-WA), and Congressman
Vern Ehlers (R-MI) is the Ranking Member on the
Subcommittee. Dr. Bement testimony emphasized
NSF’s current efforts to ‘nurture young
investigators’ and how NSF is striving to strike
the appropriate balance between
interdisciplinary and disciplinary research. Dr.
Beering comments focused on the NSB’s focus on
additional funding for Research and Related
Activities to "increase the funding rate for
[all] grants, so that… gifted new researchers
will not become discouraged and leave their
careers in research.” Dr. Beering also
referenced a forthcoming report from the NSB’s
Commission on 21st Century Education in Science,
Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics on STEM
education.
Part II:
On March 29, the Subcommittee on Research
and Science Education reconvened for a hearing
entitled, “National Science Foundation
Reauthorization, Part II.” Dr. Catherine T. Hunt
(President, ACS), Dr. Phyllis M. Wise (Provost,
University of Washington, Seattle), Dr. Margaret
L. Ford (President, Houston Community College
System–Northeast), Dr. Carlos A. Meriles
(Assistant Professor of Physics, City College of
New York) and Dr. Jeffrey J. Welser (Director of
the Nanoelectronics Research Initiative)
testified before the Subcommittee. Dr. Hunt’s
testimony concerning interdisciplinary research
suggested that "the grand challenges of today…
will require strong collaborations between
scientists and engineers in universities,
industry and the national laboratories. However,
this emerging paradigm… for scientific endeavors
is relatively new.” Dr. Meriles, a current
recipient of NSF’s CAREER award and a NIRT grant
encouraged reviewers to place a ‘greater
emphasis on creativity and originality when
judging proposals from junior scientists.’
TOP OF PAGE
PAGE 1 |
PAGE 2
GO BACK TO MARCH 30,
WASHINGTON UPDATE |
