Great Ape Protection Act Introduction in House
The House of Representatives introduced the Great Ape Protection Act (H.R. 5852) on April 17th. Representatives Edolphus Towns
(D-NY), Thomas Allen (D-ME), Roscoe Bartlett (R-MD), Bruce Braley (D-IA), John Campbell (R-CA), Mary Bono Mack (R-CA), James Langevin
(D-RI), and Dave Reichert (R-WA) cosponsored the bill. The legislation would end all invasive research on great apes, the bill’s
definition of which includes chimpanzees, gorillas, bonobos, orangutans, and gibbons, as well as mandate federal support of permanent
retirement for all great apes that institutions receiving federal funds currently use in research. Unfortunately, the bill, which
groups such as the Humane Society of the United States strongly support, defines “invasive research” relatively broadly and would
prohibit activities including blood draws and sedation. The legislation would extend even to instances where the purpose of research
is the medical benefit of apes and would, therefore, regulate research at many zoos. Currently, FASEB is reviewing the potential
impact of the legislation, which the House has referred to the Energy and Commerce, Foreign Affairs, and Ways and Means committees.
The Senate has not yet introduced an equivalent bill.
TOP OF PAGE
INSIDE (The Beltway) SCOOP – Gretchen Opper
“This year, we will spend about $5.5 billion on total cancer research, or the cost of about two weeks of the war in Iraq. Yet every
year, cancer kills 560,000 Americans –
1,500 people per day.”
- House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA)
It’s looking increasingly likely that there won’t be an agreement on the budget resolution this year. Although Democratic budget
leaders have been negotiating a final budget resolution, the spending panels ultimately may move forward instead with deeming
resolutions, which would serve as a blueprint for the twelve annual appropriations bills. Congress has passed deeming resolutions in
recent election years, and it would spare House and Senate Budget Chairmen John Spratt (D-SC) and Kent Conrad (D-ND), respectively,
further time wrangling over the alternative minimum tax issue, which has become a sticking point.
Failure to pass a budget resolution wouldn’t be disastrous, but it would mean that the two chambers might have different spending
targets for their appropriations bills since the House and Senate deeming resolutions wouldn’t be identical; it would also lead to
some criticism of the Democratic majority’s ability to govern because it won’t have managed to reach an agreement even with control of
both houses. We wouldn’t expect Congress to pass a deeming resolution, however, until after it has settled the matter of the war
supplemental.
Likewise, with the exception of the fiscal year 2009 (FY2009) Defense authorization bill, Congress is forestalling work on the FY2009
appropriations bills as well until it has resolved the supplemental. In fact, the Senate Appropriations Committee postponed a hearing
last week, at which National Institutes of Health (NIH) Director Elias Zerhouni, M.D., National Cancer Institute Director John
Niederhuber, M.D., and National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases Director Anthony Fauci, M.D. were supposed to testify on
the FY2009 NIH budget.
In terms of the supplemental, much of the discussion is still behind-the-scenes, and disputes over whether and how to fund the war as
well as domestic priorities have complicated the process. Earlier this week, it looked like House and Senate Democratic leaders were
planning to streamline the process by bypassing the Appropriations Committees and sending the supplemental spending measure directly
to the House and Senate floors. Republicans
objected to the strategy, seeking a chance to mark up the bill in the Appropriations
Committees prior to the vote, and notwithstanding Republican complaints, Speaker Pelosi projected that the House would send the
supplemental directly to the floor for a vote next week.
Then on Wednesday, Senate Appropriations Committee Chairman Robert Byrd (D-WV) threw a wrench into the plans when he publicly promised
Senate Appropriations Committee Ranking Member Thad Cochran (R-MS) that he would mark up the supplemental in committee prior to the
Senate vote on the floor. This created a dilemma for Democratic leaders, who don’t want to override Senator Byrd’s statement.
Therefore, by Thursday, Democratic leaders were backtracking on their timeline, saying that the House Appropriations Committee may
consider the supplemental as well before members vote and that the bill may not make it to the House floor for a couple of weeks.
They’ve also had to extend their timeline for sending the bill to the President and are no longer promising to complete it before
their Memorial Day recess, which begins on May 26th.
We have heard that Democratic leaders have decided against pushing the President to veto the war supplemental, which means that the
list of domestic priorities that will make it into the bill has become shorter. Whether science funding is on that short list is
still an open question; staffers in Pelosi’s Office say that the answer changes day to day. We have done what we can to rally for its
inclusion, and in fact, a
recent article in Politico mentions FASEB in its discussion of the grassroots call-in campaign last month to
request science funds in the supplemental. Additionally, the Campaign for Medical Research, of which FASEB is a member, sent a
letter
last week to the House and Senate leadership and to the chairs and ranking members of the Appropriations Committees urging the
inclusion in the supplemental of National Institutes of Health funding at the Fiscal Year 2008 level that Congress approved before it
reverted to the omnibus package.
We’ll be able to determine within the next couple of weeks, when the bill makes it to the House floor one way or another, whether we’ve
made the cut.
TOP OF PAGE
FASEB Past President Leo Furcht Publishes New Book on Stem Cell Research
 FASEB Past President Leo Furcht, M.D., Allan-Pardee professor and Chairman of the Department of Laboratory Medicine and Pathology at the
University of Minnesota Medical School, has recently published a book for general audiences on stem cell research. In Stem Cell Dilemma:
Beacons of Hope or Harbingers of Doom? Furcht and his co-author, William Hoffman, summarize recent developments in stem cell research and
explore the challenges and opportunities that they present.
Providing a cogent and well written introduction to the science for a non-technical reader, Furcht and Hoffman also present a thoughtful
and balanced discussion of the political and ethical issues that have resulted from the research and its potential applications. This
book is not a one-sided defense of the science. In a balanced approach that is respectful of the views of both proponents and opponents
of stem cell research, the authors provide the data necessary for a rational discourse on this topic, and their efforts could lead to a
more informed and fruitful public debate on how to formulate public policy.
One particularly valuable contribution of this book is its successful placement of the stem cell controversy into a broader historical
context. Using examples from other areas of intellectual history, including an extensive metaphor based on the anatomical drawings of
Leonardo da Vinci, Furcht and Hoffman demonstrate how major innovations have challenged social mores in the past and how societies have
come to terms with and ultimately incorporated new innovations and resulting paradigms into their cultures. The scholarship is impressive
and helps integrate discussions of science, ethics, and public policy.
For more information on the book, visit the
publisher’s
web
site.
TOP OF PAGE
Congressional Schedule
The House and Senate are in session.
PAGE 1 |
PAGE 2 |
GO BACK TO MAY 2,
WASHINGTON UPDATE |
