U.S. House of Representatives vote on NSF funding bill

On May 10, the U.S. House of Representatives approved the commerce, science and justice appropriations bill for fiscal 2013 by a vote of 247-163. The CJS bill sets funding for several government agencies, including the National Science Foundation.

The House set NSF funding at $7.33 billion for FY13, an increase of $299 million (4.3 percent) over the FY12 level. While the NSF ultimately fared well, U.S. Rep. Jeff Flake, R-Ariz., did propose an amendment to reduce the funding for research and related activities at the NSF by $1.2 billion. Fortunately, the amendment failed by a vote of 121-291.

However, several other amendments were approved that affect NSF funding in FY13. The amendment proposed by U.S. Rep. Chip Cravaack, R-Minn., to cut funding for the climate change education program at NSF, passed by a vote of 238-188. An additional amendment by Flake to cut funding for the political science program in the Social, Behavioral and Economic Sciences Directorate of NSF, also passed by a vote of 218-208. View all the adopted amendments here.

The U.S. Senate will now have to approve its CJS appropriations bill before the two chambers will conference to determine the final allocations for NSF and the other agencies included in the CJS bill. The Senate is believed to begin their deliberations after Memorial Day. The ASBMB science policy blotter will keep you up-to-date with all the breaking appropriations news!

U.S. House and Senate appropriations committees vote on NSF budget for FY13

It appears that Congress is making every effort to return to normal working order for the fiscal 2013 appropriations process, by already voting on several appropriations bills in both the U.S. House of Representatives and the Senate. Despite the tight fiscal environment for FY13, the National Science Foundation received an increase over the FY12 budget from both chambers.

The appropriations subcommittee on commerce, science and justice establishes the funding levels for several government agencies, including the NSF.  On April 19, the Senate appropriations committee approved the CJS appropriations bill by a vote of 28-1, setting NSF funding for FY13 at $7.27 billion, $240 million (3.4 percent) above the FY12 level. A summary of the Senate CJS bill can be found here.

The House appropriations committee followed suit the next week by passing itsversion of the CJS appropriations bill, funding NSF at $7.33 billion for FY13, an increase of $299 million (4.3 percent) over the FY12 level. Also of note, the committee approved an amendment to the CJS bill put forth by U.S. Rep. Jeff Flake, R-Ariz., that encouraged science and engineering graduate students be retained in the U.S. after their training was completed. A summary of the House CJS bill can be found here.

While both chambers gave the NSF’s budget an increase for FY13, the allocations were both still below the president’s requested level of $7.37 billion.

Next, the full House and Senate must approve their respective CJS bills before a joint conference will be set to determine the final funding level for NSF and the other agencies included in the CJS bill. Stay tuned to the ASBMB science policy blotter for all the latest new on the FY13 appropriations process.

U.S. House hearing on public access

On March 29, the U.S. House of Representatives subcommittee on investigations and oversight held a hearing to address proposed public access models and their effects on scientific research. Five witnesses from scientific societies and university groups testified before the committee to provide insight on whether or not research papers that result from federal funding should be freely available to the public.

Two years ago, the Scholarly Publishing Roundtable brought together a group of scientific publishers, librarians and university officials to discuss the issue of public access for research funded by federal agencies. The group reached a compromise, recommending that all federal agencies develop their own public access policies to make available publications from federally funded research. The National Institutes of Health’s public-access policy, implemented in 2008, states that peer-reviewed articles based on NIH-funded research must be made publically available one year after their initial publication date.

In his opening statement, subcommittee chairman Paul Broun, R-Ga., emphasized the complicated nature of the issue of public access, acknowledging the need for increased transparency on federally-funded research, while also protecting publishers and scientific societies whose business models depend on revenue generated from journal subscriptions.

At the hearing, the witnesses representing scientific societies were concerned about a federal mandate that all federal agencies adopt the NIH-style public access policy, fearing that journal subscriptions would be canceled if publications were made freely available, even with a year embargo period.  However Elliot Maxwell, from the Center for Economic Development, highlighted a recent study that showed the NIH public access policy did not harm publishers, while also granting the public greater access to federally-funded research.

The Office of Science and Technology Policy will be releasing a report on public access in the upcoming weeks. Read the press release from the investigations and oversight subcommittee hearing here.

ASBMB supports the NIH public access policy and in January submitted a response to the OSTP request for information on open access.

What the U.S. House budget proposal could mean for science funding

On March 20, the chairman of the U.S. House of Representatives Budget Committee, Paul Ryan, R-Wis., released the House budget resolution for fiscal 2013. The House budget proposal caps discretionary spending (the portion of government funding for science-funding agencies like the National Institutes of Health and the National Science Foundation) by $1.03 trillion. This level is actually $19 billion below the cap set by the Budget Control Act of 2011.

While the FY13 budget is 99 pages long, it does very little in actually laying out a plan for where those cuts will from. To say that the budget proposal neglected to address some key areas of federal funding, would be an understatement. The plan makes only one mention of research, stating that “this budget would continue funding essential government missions, including energy, security and basic research and development.”

Unsurprisingly, the Obama administration was less than enthusiastic about the House budget proposal. The acting director of the Office of Management and Budget, Jeffrey Zients, released a response  on March 21, focusing on the effects of the proposal on non defense discretionary spending.

Zients had this to say about how the spending cuts could specifically affect the research enterprise:

“Investments in science, medical research, space and technology would be cut by more than $100 billion over the next decade. The number of new grants from NIH for promising research projects would shrink by more than 1,600 in 2014 and by over 16,000 over a decade, potentially curtailing or slowing research to fight Alzheimer’s disease, cancer, and AIDS.  The National Science Foundation would cut over 11,000 grants over the next decade, eliminating support for over 13,000 researchers, students, and teachers in 2014 alone.”

The House Budget Committee approved the proposal by a vote of 19 to 18 on March 21. On March 29 the budget was passed by the full House with a 228-191 partisan vote. The Democratic leaders of the Senate Budget Committee have said that they don’t plan to pass a budget resolution because the Budget Control Act already has set the spending caps for FY13.

NIH appropriations hearings in the House and Senate

This month, for the first time in almost two years, the appropriations subcommittees on labor, health and human services and education in both the U.S. House of Representatives and Senate held hearings on the National Institutes of Health.

On March 20, members of the House subcommittee heard testimony from NIH Director Francis Collins on the fiscal 2013 budget for the NIH and the development of the new NIH center, the National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences. In their opening statements, both Chairman Denny Rehberg, R-Mont., and Ranking Member Rosa DeLauro, D-Conn., commented on the bipartisan support for the NIH and biomedical research. During the hearing, several other subcommittee members expressed the need for strong federal funding for the NIH, specifically providing at least $32 billion for NIH in FY13.

Rehberg did voice his concern that NIH may be focusing too much of its efforts on translational research and moving away from its core mission of basic research.  In addition to Collins, three other witnesses from the extramural community testified about the function and goals of NCATS. Roy Vagelos, former Merck CEO and American Society for Biochemistry and Molecular Biology member, was skeptical of whether or not NCATS would be able to fulfill a unique position in the translational research pipeline. However both Scott Koenig, CEO of the biotech company Macrogenetics, and Todd Scherer, CEO of the Michael J. Fox Foundation for Parkinson’s Research, were more supportive of the NCATS mission.

Then, on March 28, Collins testified before the Senate Appropriations LHHS subcommittee. This hearing focused almost entirely on the FY13 budget plan for NIH. Chairman Tom Harkin, D-Iowa, voiced concern over President Obama’s request for an additional $80 million to the NIH for Alzheimer’s research. Harkin emphasized that the research funding should not come from the Department of Health and Human Services fund, stating that the NIH had the flexibility to account for the additional money within its own budget. However this could force the NIH to further squeeze the amount of funding that would go to grants on other areas of research in order to carve out extra money for Alzheimer’s-specific research grants.

At both the House and Senate hearings, Collins was asked how NIH would be affected if Congress fails to agree on a plan to cut the federal deficit and if NIH is hit with a mandatory 7- to 9-percent budget cut. Collins replied that a cut of that size could result in as many as 2,300 fewer new and competing grants in the next fiscal year. Collins stated simply, “It would be devastating.”

On March 29 the House subcommittee heard from testimony from twenty witnesses representing various research, health and education organizations in a public hearing before the subcommittee members. Among the witnesses was ASBMB president Suzanne Pfeffer. Pfeffer’s testimony highlighted the many contributions basic research has made to improve the health of our nation and called for an allocation of $32 billion for the NIH in FY13, with the goal of $35 billion by FY15.

There is discussion that the House could begin marking up its appropriations bills for FY13 as early as May. Stay tuned to the ASBMB science policy blotter for updates on the appropriations process.

ASBMB president, Suzanne Pfeffer, urges congress to support a budget of at least $32 billion for NIH

On March 29, ASBMB president, Suzanne Pfeffer, testified before the U.S. House of Representatives Appropriations subcommittee on labor, health and human services, education and related agencies. Twenty witnesses representing various research, health and education organizations testified in the public hearing before the subcommittee members.

Dr. Pfeffer’s testimony highlighted the many contributions basic research has made to improve the health and well-being of our nation. She explained how research on cholesterol has led to the development of new drugs to fight cardiovascular disease and how basic molecular biology techniques laid the foundation for the large-scale, synthetic production of molecules like human insulin and antibodies.

Pfeffer also emphasized the considerable economic benefit of an investment in biomedical research. She pointed out that every NIH grant produces seven jobs and that for every $1 invested in NIH, the economy derives a $2 return. “The American biomedical research enterprise plays a critical role in creating high-tech, high-paying jobs, helping to keep America a global leader in innovation and discovery, but it cannot do so without a reliable and robust federal investment,” Pfeffer insisted.

While Pfeffer thanked the subcommittee members for their support of NIH in the past she warned that without sustained funding for NIH, America was in serious jeopardy of losing its standing as the leader in biomedical research enterprise stating that, “when setting budgetary priorities, it is important to remember that technological innovation will be a key component for our future economic security and international competitiveness.”

In her testimony, Pfeffer emphasized that, “the president’s proposal of flat funding [for NIH] will not support the amount of science that was supported last year,” due to increases in inflation. She called for an allocation of $32 billion for the NIH in FY13, with the goal of $35 billion by FY15. She emphasized that only with predictable, sustained funding can the NIH and biomedical researchers hope to “continue to modernize our nation’s research laboratories and facilities, spur innovation and provide an immediate boost in employment for our nation’s workforce.”

FY12 Appropriations bill introduced in the House

Late Wednesday evening, U.S. House of Representatives Appropriations Chairman Hal Rogers (R-Ky.) announced the final nine FY12 appropriations bills had been combined into a large omnibus bill and introduced in the House. In addition to the nine appropriations bills, the legislation package includes a bill providing funding for disaster emergencies and a bill containing offsets for the disaster funding.

Of particular interest to the research community, is the FY12 funding level for the National Institutes of Health. The bill provides the NIH with $30.6 billion in funding, $239 million above the FY11 level, but $758 million below the President’s request. The bill also contains the establishment of the National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences and the dissolution of the National Center for Research Resources. The bill includes the following specifics:

• $576 million for the National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences
• $10 million for the Cures Acceleration Network (No funds were provided for CAN in FY11)
• $487 million for the Clinical and Translational Sciences Awards program
• $1.46 billion for the Office of the Director (FY11 comparable funding was $1.177 billion)
• $125 million for Buildings and Facilities (FY11 comparable funding was $50 million)

A summary of the bill can be found here and the complete text of the legislation that deals with NIH funding can be found here. The ASBMB Office of Public Affairs will continue to analyze the specifics of the bill to identify any policy riders that may affect the research community.

The 2012 fiscal year began on Oct. 1 and the government has been running under continuing resolutions since that time. The current CR expires on Dec. 16, so one final short-term CR may be necessary to give both the House and the Senate more time for a final vote on the bill.

The ASBMB Office of Public Affairs will continue to monitor the appropriations process and keep you updated on its progress.

NSF receives budget increase for fiscal 2012

Late Monday evening, a finalized conference report was released after a week of intense negotiations between members of the U.S. Senate and U.S. House of Representatives. The “minibus” bill set FY12 spending levels for several government agencies such as agriculture, criminal justice, transportation and housing agencies and several science-funding agencies, including the National Science Foundation.

Science-funding agencies, particularly the NSF, were big winners in the final bill. Over the summer, the proposed House Commerce/Justice/Science appropriations bill held the NSF budget steady at $6.68 billion for FY12. The corresponding Senate bill proposed a reduction of $162 million for NSF, putting the FY12 budget at $6.7 billion. Many in the science and legislative communities believed the final FY12 spending level for the NSF would end up somewhere in between the two numbers. Surprisingly, in the final bill from the joint conference, the NSF received an increase of $173 million from FY11, setting the FY12 NSF budget at just over $7 billion.

Attached to the FY12 funding bill is another short-term continuing resolution that keeps the government funded until Dec. 16. Appropriations leaders hope to bring the bill to a vote by the House on Thursday, with the goal of complete passage by Friday when the current continuing resolution expires.

Chairman Hal Rogers, R-Ky., made the following statement on the conference report:

“The legislation introduced today represents a bipartisan compromise that will prevent a potential government shutdown, support important programs and services that the American people rely on, and make hard but necessary cuts to help rein in the nation’s deficit.”

Stay tuned to the ASBMB blotter for continued coverage of the FY12 appropriations process.

Joint U.S. House-Senate conference on the first FY12 “minibus” appropriations bill begins

On Thursday, members of the U.S. House of Representatives and Senate met to begin working out their differences on a FY12 spending measure for three groups of federal agencies.

The 18 senators and 20 House members are tasked with agreeing upon spending levels in a bill that will fund federal agriculture, criminal justice, transportation and housing agencies, as well as science-related agencies, such as the National Science Foundation and NASA.

U.S. House Appropriations Chairman Hall Rogers, R-Ky., said the joint conference “represents the will of the Congress to return to regular order and an open, transparent and inclusive funding process.” (Read the full statement here.) He acknowledged that the Thursday meeting was largely introductory in nature but said that subcommittee chairmen will soon begin negotiating the individual provisions of the bill.

The conference is slated to end next week, and both chambers are to hold final votes on the measure by Nov. 17, only a day before the continuing resolution that is keeping the government running expires.

Another short-term continuing resolution is expected to be attached to minibus bill to keep the government running through mid-December while Congress continues negotiations.

The ASBMB Office of Public Affairs will continue to keep the research community updated on the ongoing appropriations process.

Appropriations – Where are we now?

Omnibus – minibus – continuing resolution – super committee … what does it all mean for the biomedical research community right now?  Well, here it is in a nutshell.

EXISTING SITUATION:  Currently, the government is operating under a Continuing Resolution (CR), which funds the NIH at the FY2011 level through November 18, 2011, which is $30.7 billion.  FY11 ended on September 30, 2011, however Congress did not pass a single appropriation bill, which lead to the need for the CR extending FY11 funding levels through mid-November.  This “stop-gap” funding is in place to offer Congress more time to resolve budget issues, and pass a budget for FY2012.  Just today, House Appropriations Chair Hal Rogers all but conceded that an additional CR would be necessary to keep the government funded through Christmas 2011, to provide Congress still more time to pass a budget for FY12.

COMPETING OPTIONS:  Both the House, and the Senate, have made proposals in terms of funding for NIH for FY12.  (IMPORTANT NOTE:  Neither of these options have been voted on and approved by their full originating chamber.)  Here is a top level summary of the options:

REHBERG OPTION (HOUSE) Never voted on by subcommittee. Overall cuts $4 billion from the Labor-Health and Human Services (HHS) appropriation for FY12. Increases the NIH appropriation for FY12 by $1 billion (to $31.7 billion) matching the President’s request for FY12. Includes language to codify the following: Sets a floor of 9,150 grants funded by NIH in FY12. Formally establishes the “10-year rule” for projects funding through the Common Fund. Mandates a 90% extramural /10% intramural split of NIH research grants. $2 million for Cures Acceleration Network Board formulation

SENATE OPTION Voted out of subcommittee on a partisan voice vote. Overall cuts $300 million from the Labor-Health and Human Services (HHS) appropriation for FY12. Cuts the NIH appropriation for FY12 by $190 million. Includes language that: Creates the NIH’s National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences (NCATS). Funds the Cures Acceleration Network (CAN) at a level of $20 million for FY12. Encourages NIH to “rethink the way it allocates funding

 

As is the case with so many of these issues, the devil is in the details.  The House “mark”, which was never voted on by the House Labor-HHS Appropriations Subcommittee, increases the NIH budget, but defunds an overwhelming majority of the provisions of the Affordable Care Act (often referred to as “Obamacare”).  Those cuts have a significant impact to our friends in the health community, and puts the research community in a spot where we want to support the NIH increase proposed by the House, but also support our partners who are facing drastic cuts.

The Senate – of course – has a cut to the NIH which is a difficult pill to swallow, and includes language establishing NCATS, an NIH proposal which concerns the basic research community as it may change the focus of NIH from basic, to translational science.  We are in between the proverbial rock and a hard place.  How have we straddled the line on this issue? The position we have used going forward is to “Support the House funding level for the NIH, but not the bill as written.”

WHAT’S NEXT?  At some point, Congress is going to have to pass a budget for FY12, and negotiations must take place between the House and Senate to close the more than $1 billion gap between the two proposed funding levels for NIH.  Most everyone involved does not feel that the final NIH appropriation with be at the level proposed by the Chairman Rehberg in the House, so the final appropriation will likely be between the high of the House and the low of the Senate.

The question is how will the FY12 budget be passed?  A long-term CR, which would extend the FY11 funding level for the remainder of FY12 is highly unlikely, and the least popular option.  What other options exist?

1. Normal Appropriations Bill Passage.  In this scenario, the House and Senate would pass all 12 appropriations bills one-by-one, determining the funding level for FY12 on a series of 12 separate bills.  This is not a reality.
2. Omnibus Passage.  From the Latin omnibus meaning “for everything,” this would be one bill which includes the appropriations for all agencies.  This would bundle up all 12 individual appropriation bills into one vote.  This is not the likely outcome.
3. Minibus Passage.  Congress can bundle up appropriations bills into groupings of bills, essentially the compromise between normal appropriations passage and an omnibus.  The Senate is currently exploring this option and may vote on a minibus include appropriations for the departments of Commerce, Justice, Agriculture, Transportation, Housing and Urban Development, and science related agencies such as the National Science Foundation (NSF) and the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA).

WHAT’S THE SUPER COMMITTEE?  Over the summer, during the debt-ceiling crisis we all experienced, the President established a Joint Select Committee on Deficit Reduction (aka the super committee), a bicameral group of 6 Democrats and 6 Republicans.  The committee is charged with issuing a recommendation by November 23, 2011 for at least $1.5 trillion in additional deficit reduction steps to be undertaken over a ten‐year period starting in FY2013.  The activities of the super committee will not directly impact the FY12 negotiations, except to add pressure to Congress to begin making spending cuts in the future.