|
APPROPRIATIONS - STATUS &
OUTLOOK FOR FY07 SPENDING BILLS
FY2007 Outlook
The 109th Congress pushed an extraordinary
amount of unfinished business into this final
legislative work week before the November 7th
elections. However, while it was able to
complete work on the FY2007 Defense and Homeland
Security appropriations bills, Congress left the
remaining nine appropriations bills for the
“lame duck” session, which is scheduled to begin
on November 13, 2006.
The FY2007 Defense appropriations bill included
a continuing resolution (CR) lasting through
November 17, 2006, for all agencies funded by
unfinished spending bills. For those agencies
that are affected by the CR, the funding rate is
at the FY 2006 current rate. House
Appropriations Chairman Jerry Lewis (R-CA) and
Senate Appropriations Chairman Thad Cochran
(R-MS) are expressing concern that Congressional
leaders will propose bundling together the
unfinished FY2007 spending bills into an omnibus
package after the elections, in order to avoid
working beyond Thanksgiving. The respective
Chairmen have lodged a formal plea to Republican
leaders to avoid this strategy.
NIH
The biomedical research community came together
this week to ask Senate and House Members to
support increased funding for the FY2007 Labor-HHS-Education
appropriations bill. Senators Arlen Specter
(R-PA) and Tom Harkin (D-IA) are circulating a
“Dear Colleague” letter, and requesting that the
seventy-three Senators who voted for their $7
billion amendment to the FY2007 budget
resolution sign the letter seeking an additional
$2 billion that was not included in the Labor-HHS-Education
Subcommittee’s FY2007 allocation. FASEB
sent letters to the Senate, urging the
lawmakers to sign the “Dear Colleague” letter.
Without such additional funding, NIH’s FY2007
appropriation most likely will fall somewhere
between the levels recommended by the Senate
($28.5 billion, a 0.78 % increase) and
House ($28.3 billion, an amount equal to
FY2006).
In addition, Representative Mike Castle (R-DE)
has sent a letter to House Majority Leader John
Boehner (R-OH) to remind him of his commitment
to add funding to the Labor-HHS-Education
appropriations bill this year. FASEB
sent letters to a targeted list of moderate
House Republican members encouraging them to
sign the letter to Mr. Boehner. FASEB also
alerted our society member colleagues in the
targeted Congressional districts to do the same.
NSF & DOE
The appropriations bill that funds the National
Science Foundation and Department of Energy’s
Office of Science also will be considered in
November. Though, significant increases are
likely for both agencies as they are part of
President Bush’s American Competitiveness
Initiative. The FY2007 budget for NSF is
expected to reach $6.0 billion, which would
represent a 7.9 % increase over FY2006.
The FY2007 budget for the Department of Energy’s
Office of Science will most likely be $4.1
billion, which would represent a 14.1 %
increase over FY2006.
TOP OF PAGE
NIH REAUTHORIZATION
During the past two weeks, the issue of NIH
Reauthorization has taken center stage within
the House Energy and Commerce Committee. On
Tuesday, September 12, 2006, the Committee
released its NIH Reauthorization Reform Act of
2006. A week later, FASEB’s President, Leo T.
Furcht, M.D.,
testified before the House Energy and
Commerce Committee in support of Chairman Joe
Barton’s (R-TX) proposal. The following day
(September 20, 2006), the Committee voted 42-1
to report the bill. And, on September 26, 2006,
the House of Representatives debated H.R. 6164,
and passed the legislation, 414-2.
Complete summaries for each of the four major
events follows, beginning with the most recent
action that occurred (please click on any of the
following events to go directly there:
9/26/06 – House of Representatives Debate
H.R. 6164 – Bill to Reauthorize NIH
9/20/06 - Energy & Commerce Committee Marks-up
NIH Reauthorization Bill
9/19/06 - Energy & Commerce Committee Holds
Hearing on Reauthorizing NIH
9/12/06 - Energy & Commerce Committee Releases
Legislation to Reauthorize NIH
09/26/06 – House of Representatives Debate
H.R. 6164 – Bill to Reauthorize NIH
The House of Representatives passed H.R. 6164,
the National Institutes of Health Reform Act of
2006, on September 26, 2006, by a vote of 414-2.
In his opening remarks, Chairman Joe Barton
(R-TX) outlined why is he is so proud of
this legislation, including: 1) the bill
maintains the merit based, peer-review process;
2) the bill creates a reporting system to
increase transparency and accountability; and 3)
the bill establishes a common fund to spur
trans-NIH research to take advantage of
scientific opportunities. Chairman Barton stated
that the NIH Reauthorization bill will help solidify
NIH’s status as the Crown Jewel of the Federal
Government, and explained that passage of the
legislation will go down as the single most
important achievement by the House Energy and
Commerce Committee this year.
The Democrats also expressed support for the
bill, and thanked Chairman Barton for his
efforts. Representative Anna Eshoo (D-CA),
who represents Palo Alto, CA, which includes Stanford
University, stated that the NIH Reauthorization
bill is an important piece of legislation, and
represents hope for the future. Representative
Eshoo said that, “it is a good, solid bill that
makes progress, despite the fact that it doesn’t
guarantee funding for the agency.”
Representative Ed Markey (D-MA) thanked
Chairman Barton, but pointed out that the single
most glaring deficiency in the legislation is
the 5% authorization level because it doesn’t
take into account biomedical inflation.
Representative Lois Capps (D-CA) thanked
Chairman Barton, expressed support for the bill
and stated that it would help NIH achieve
groundbreaking discoveries. However, she
expressed concern that the Breast Cancer &
Environment Research Act (to mandate that NIH
create eight centers to study the relationship
between breast cancer and the environment) was
not included in the bill.
The Republican Manager of the bill,
Representative Michael Burgess (R-TX)
responded to Representative Capps' comment by
quoting from parts of the
letter Chairman Barton received from FASEB.
Representative Burgess stated, “I would like
to quote Leo T. Furcht, President of the
Federation of American Societies for
Experimental Biology.’ ‘We thank you for
your leadership in protecting NIH from
disease-specific funding set asides. From the
FASEB perspective, directed research initiatives
fail to recognize several principles inherent to
the nature of medical research. Basic research,
recognized universally as the foundation of most
advances in disease-specific research, will
inevitably suffer in a politically based system
of allocating scarce dollars. Thus, we doubly
appreciate your legislation’s emphasis on
investigator-initiated competitive research.”
9/20/06 - Energy & Commerce Committee
Marks-up NIH Reauthorization Bill
On September 20, 2006, the House Committee on
Energy and Commerce met to mark-up Chairman Joe
Barton’s (R-TX) NIH Reauthorization Bill. In the
end, every member but one (42-1) voted to send
the bill to the full House for its
consideration. Chairman Barton admitted that he
negotiated and listened very closely to the
major stakeholders, including FASEB, AAMC and
AAU, and as a result, moved substantially from
what he initially proposed. A summary of the
mark-up follows:
Opening Statements:
Democrats focused their opening remarks on
criticizing the Republicans for providing NIH
with inadequate funding levels during the past
few years. Democrats expressed suspicion that
the Republicans’ purpose in passing this bill
and providing NIH with 5% annual authorization
increases was designed to provide political
coverage for Republicans during the upcoming
elections. Democrats are not confident that NIH
will be appropriated any additional money in
FY2007, and commented that Republicans will use
this bill to deceive the public into thinking
that they support increases for the agency.
However, Democrats did not cite many other
concerns with the bill, other than stating that
they hadn’t had enough time to review it. Many
of the Democrats remarked how much they
appreciated Chairman Barton’s willingness to
consult with them and other stakeholders. In
fact, many of the Democrats acknowledged that
key stakeholders had testified the day before in
support of Chairman Barton’s legislation,
including: FASEB’s President, Leo Furcht, M.D.;
Darrell G. Kirch, M.D., President, Association
of American Medical Colleges (AAMC); Robert H.
Eckel, M.D., Past President, American Heart
Association (AHA); and Edward D. Miller, M.D.,
Chief Executive Officer, Johns Hopkins Medicine.
Amendments Considered:
The Committee considered numerous amendments.
However, the following four amendments are the
one’s that would most directly affect FASEB
Society Members (the first three amendments
failed and the last one was withdrawn):
1) Representative Edward Markey (D-MA)
proposed to increase the NIH authorization
levels to 5% + the percentage for the biomedical
cost of inflation.
Representative Markey claimed that his amendment
would propose a “real” increase for NIH of 5% for each of the next three years.
Therefore, the increase would equal 8% if the
biomedical cost of inflation is 3%. Chairman
Barton’s proposal is to provide authorization
increases of 5% each year, regardless of the
calculation for biomedical inflation.
Chairman Barton opposed the amendment because he
believes the Committee must put forward a
proposal that’s both realistic and doable. He
said that it’s not right that NIH has been
receiving minimal increases during the past few
years (a 1.5% increase in FY2005, flat in
FY2006, and flat again proposed for FY2007). He
said that he’s not opposed to Members asking for
more money for NIH, but stated that he wants to
be able to visit the Secretary of HHS and
Chairman of the House Appropriations Committee
and ask for a reasonable increase for the
agency. Chairman Barton believes he will have
more credibility and leverage with these
decision makers if he is asking for a realistic
number. Otherwise, they won’t take him
seriously.
2) Representative Markey proposed
that the 50/50 split between the common fund and
NIH Institute and Centers would be calculated on
all new dollars above the biomedical inflation
rate. For example, if the biomedical inflation
rate is 3.4 % and NIH receives a 5%
increase, the 50/50 split between the common
fund and IC's is calculated only on the
remaining 1.6 %.
Representative Markey said that the common fund
should not be increased until NIH’s budget is
increasing at a rate above biomedical inflation.
Chairman Barton opposed the amendment. He said
that many support the common fund, and expressed
concern that if Markey’s amendment was adopted,
it would be very difficult to reach 5%
in the common fund. Chairman Barton stated that
there must be real dollars available in the
common fund, and pointed out that he initially
had proposed a 15% common fund.
3) Representatives Lois Capps (D-CA) and
Henry Waxman (D-CA) proposed to include the
“Breast Cancer and the Environment” bill they
are co-sponsoring. 255 House Members have
co-sponsored the legislation. The bill
would create up to eight centers to examine the
link between breast cancer and the environment.
Representative Waxman stated that Congress needs
to be responsive to those (such as breast cancer
advocates) who are worried about an issue, and
remarked that Congress should not be reluctant
to tell NIH what to do, especially if 255
Members of Congress support it.
Chairman Barton said that he would respectfully
oppose the amendment, and then became very
emotional because his aunt died of breast
cancer. Chairman Barton said that it was more
important to complete an overall NIH bill first
so that a framework would be established for
bringing these kinds of disease-specific bills
forward. Chairman Barton suggested that he
envisions that common fund dollars could be used
to support these kinds of initiatives (assuming
the science is peer-reviewed and meets
scientific merit requirements). Chairman Barton
remarked that he doesn’t want to micro-manage
NIH, and expressed concern that proposing
disease-specific and organ-specific mandates are
not helpful to NIH. He also said that NIH must
maintain flexibility for the research it
supports, and that Congress should not tell NIH
how to do its job. Therefore, he summed it up by
saying he was opposed to providing NIH with
another directive.
4) Representative Mike Doyle (R-PA)
stated that he was prepared to offer an
amendment to mandate that NIH-funded researchers
submit their scientific papers to NIH no later
than six months after publication. However, he
withdrew it after pleas from Chairman Barton to
help keep the bill “clean.”
Note: Chairman Barton visited with
Representative Doyle for 5-10 minutes during
the hearing and asked him to not offer
his amendment. Chairman Barton fought hard to
make sure Mr. Doyle’s amendment was not added to
the bill because he knew that FASEB and the
American Heart Association (AHA) were adamantly
opposed to the amendment.
9/19/06 - Energy & Commerce Committee
Holds Hearing on Reauthorizing NIH
A week after releasing his legislation, Chairman
Barton chaired a hearing titled, “Improving NIH
Management and Operation: A Legislative Hearing
on the NIH Reform Act of 2006.”
Witnesses:
The following witnesses testified in support of
Chairman Barton’s legislation to reauthorize NIH:
FASEB’s President, Leo Furcht, M.D.; Darrell G.
Kirch, M.D., President, Association of American
Medical Colleges (AAMC); Robert H. Eckel, M.D.,
Past President, American Heart Association
(AHA); and Edward D. Miller, M.D., Chief
Executive Officer, Johns Hopkins Medicine. NIH
Director, Elias A. Zerhouni, M.D., was the lone
witness on the second panel.
Members Present:
The following ten Republicans and eight
Democrats attended parts or all of the hearing:
Joe Barton, Chairman (R-TX), Fred Upton (R-MI),
Nathan Deal (R-GA), Charlie Norwood (R-GA), John
Shimkus (R-IL), Lee Terry (R-NE), Marcia
Blackburn (R-TE), Michael Burgess (R-TX), Tim
Murphy (R-PA), Mike Rogers (R-MI),John Dingell,
Ranking Member (D-MI), Henry Waxman (D-CA),
Bobby Rush (D-IL), Bart Stupak (D-MI), Eliot
Engel (D-NY), Albert Wynn (D-MD), Gene Green
(D-TX) and Mike Doyle (D-PA).
Opening Remarks:
In his opening statement, Chairman Barton said
that he supports NIH and its mission (he called
it the crown jewel of the Federal government),
but said that NIH can do even better. He
believes that the agency requires more
transparency and must be given the tools to
reorganize and revitalize itself. Reauthorizing
NIH has been one of his priorities since
assuming the Chairmanship of the Committee, but
he never imagined it would take three years to
get it done. He believes the bill will be on the
President’s desk before the end of the year. He
stated that the bill’s not perfect, but it is
very good and does the right things for the
right reasons.
In their opening remarks, many of the
Republicans commented that they appreciated
Chairman Barton’s efforts to move his
legislation forward because of the length of
time that’s passed (thirteen years) since the
last NIH Reauthorization. Many of the members
specifically embraced the proposal to create a
common fund and favored the bill’s emphasis on
improving collaboration between Institutes and
Centers (ICs). Ranking Member Dingell commented
that while much of the substance of the bill is
good, he is concerned that there is not enough
time to address some of the concerns and issues
associated with the bill. However, Mr. Dingell
agreed that NIH Reauthorization was overdue.
Congressman Waxman expressed a desire to proceed
with caution because “NIH is not broken.” Some
of the specific concerns expressed by Democrats
included:
1) Even if NIH receives a 5% increase in FY
2007, the individual ICs will not receive
increases to cover biomedical inflation because
half of that increase will be designated to the
common fund (Waxman);
2) The authorization funding level of 5% is too
low and should be a floor (Dingell, Engel);
3) The Council of Councils requires
clarifications (Green);
4) The NIH Director is provided with too much
power to reorganize NIH (Waxman) [However,
please note that many took issue with Mr. Waxman
on this issue because Chairman Barton was not
changing current law with respect to the NIH
Director’s authority to eliminate and
consolidate ICs]
FASEB President Leo Furcht (middle) speaks
with NIH Director Elias Zerhouni (right) after
the NIH Reauthorization hearing.
FASEB’s/Dr. Furcht’s Testimony:
Committee staff were extremely complimentary of
Dr. Furcht, his
testimony and the answers he provided to
Members’ questions. In fact, Dr. Furcht’s answer
to a question about the importance of allowing
NIH to retain flexibility in how it conducts and
supports research, especially basic research,
was both a compelling message and one of the
highlights of the hearing. Dr. Furcht explained
how studying animal cells that were infected by
different cancer viruses (in the 1970’s and
‘80s) resulted in major research discoveries and
led to drugs that exist in the marketplace
today. Therefore, Dr. Furcht pointed out that
many patients are benefiting today because of
research discoveries made by studying tumor
viruses in mice and chickens twenty and thirty
years ago.
Open Access Issue:
Representative Doyle expressed concern that NIH-funded
researchers were not complying with the
voluntary policy to submit their scientific
papers to NIH. Mr. Doyle asked Dr. Zerhouni what
specific actions NIH could take to make this
policy work. Dr. Zerhouni agreed that it’s
important for NIH to receive the articles for
portfolio management in a reasonable time-frame.
However, Dr. Zerhouni said that they must find
the “sweet spot,” because the publishers and
scientific societies make important
contributions to the entire publication and peer
review process, and he wants to make sure that
he does not implement a policy that
would harm them. Representative Doyle asked Dr.
Zerhouni if he agreed with the recommendations
of the NLM group to change the policy to six
months. Dr. Zerhouni reiterated that it is a
balancing process, and noted that the vote of
the NLM group was not unanimous.
9/12/06 - Energy & Commerce Committee
Releases Legislation to Reauthorize NIH
• Chairman Barton’s legislation would revise
Title IV of the PHS Act and create the Division
of Program Coordination, Planning, and Strategic
Initiatives, to be supported by the Common Fund.
• The bill authorizes NIH to receive 5% increases each year for three years.
Therefore, the bill stipulates $29,747,874,000
for FY 2007, $31,235,628,000 for FY 2008 and
$32,797,032,000 for FY 2009.
• The bill establishes a Common Fund to provide
a permanent funding mechanism for trans-NIH
research projects identified through the
aforementioned Division, and stipulates that it
should grow until it reaches 5% of
NIH’s budget.
• The bill creates a new, comprehensive
electronic reporting system that will catalogue
all of the research activities of the NIH in a
standardized format.
• The bill calls for the establishment of a
Scientific Management Review Board to review the
structure of NIH every seven years.
• The bill also authorizes the NIH Director to
award grants for demonstration projects for
research bridging the biological sciences with
the physical, chemical, mathematical, and
computational sciences; and authorizes the
establishment of demonstration programs that
award grants, contracts, or engage in other
transactions, for high-impact, cutting- edge
research demonstration programs.
TOP OF PAGE
PAGE 1 |
PAGE 2
GO BACK TO SEPT 29,
WASHINGTON UPDATE |
