Posts filed under ‘LHHS subcommittee’
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.”
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)
|
SENATE OPTION
|
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?
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
Sebelius Responds to Questions About NCATS
Work by Nature has uncovered a letter written by Secretary of Health and Human Services Kathleen Sebelius about the creation of the National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences at the National Institutes of Health. The letter, dated July 6, 2011, comes as a response to poignant questions from, Rep. Denny Rehberg, R-Mont., who back in June wrote a scathing letter to Sebelius, demanding information about the new center and pointing out his concerns with the failure of NIH to provide any specific budgetary details to Congress. Rehberg chairs the House of Representatives Appropriations subcommittee that provides funding to NIH.
In her letter, Sebelius provides a lengthy response to Rehberg, reaffirming her desire to “establish NCATS as soon as feasible in FY 2012.” Included is a budget request for NCATS of $721.6 million for FY12, which includes $100 million for the authorized Cures Acceleration Network. The letter goes on to insist that the creation of NCATS would be “budget neutral,” merely transferring funds from other institutes (primarily the National Center for Research Resources, which would be eliminated).
Sebelius also defended the agency’s recent actions regarding NCATS, which several members of Congress and the scientific community have interpreted as rash and arrogant, as “preliminary planning in the interest of being able to implement efficient changes related to NCATS.” In that vein, she promised not to hire a Director “until NCATS is established.”
It is unclear whether Rehberg will be satiated by this response, or if his subcommittee will be able to incorporate the NCATS budget request into the overall FY12 budget, which was scheduled to be marked-up today before being postponed indefinitely. NIH leaders are developing a strategy that would allow NCATS to be funded should Congress be forced to rely on a Continuing Resolution to fund the government if appropriations bills are not finalized by the start of FY12 on October 1.
ASBMB Public Affairs staff will continue to monitor the situation and provide updates.
NIH Under Fire (Again) Over Proposed New Center
Last week, Representative Denny Rehberg, R-Mont., chairman of the Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education Appropriations subcommittee that funds the NIH, became the latest member of Congress to express his unhappiness over the proposed National Center for the Advancement of Translational Sciences at the National Institutes of Health. In a letter to Department of Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius, Rep. Rehberg voiced his concern over several aspects of the new center. Rehberg questioned Sebelius about the continued lack of budget details for NCATS, pointing out that “until such information is provided [Congress] cannot responsibly take any action” on determining funding for the new center.
Rehberg also expressed his anger at the failure by NIH to answer repeated congressional inquiries about NCATS, including those posed by Appropriations committee staffer (and former NIH Budget Director) John Bartrum back in January. In addition, Rehberg described himself as “very troubled” by the announcement made by the NIH of its plans to commence searching for a director of NCATS, and instead suggested that “NIH cease all action related to establishing NCATS until the President submits a formal [budget] request and congressional action is completed.”
ScienceInsider is reporting that Rep. Michael Capuano, D-Mass., has also written to NIH expressing his concerns about NCATS, in particular the functionality of the CTSA program and how the new center would affect basic research. ASBMB members met with the offices of both Rep. Capuano and Rep. Rehberg during the March Hill Day and discussed the benefits of investment in basic scientific research.
ASBMB, in conjunction with out coalition partners, has been actively engaged with both Congress and the NIH on this issue, and will continue to speak for the scientific community to ensure that the voice of basic researchers is heard.
FY11 Funding Update: House Republicans Unveil Spending Plan
Last Thursday, the House Budget Committee re-started the FY 2011 budget process by releasing its spending caps for appropriations bills. The overall discretionary appropriations level was set at $1.055 trillion, which is $74 billion less than President Obama had initially requested for FY11. However, the cap is “only” $35 billion less than the FY10 enacted level, much less extreme than the $100 billion cuts proposed by Republicans in their September “Pledge to America.” In response, Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan, R-Wisc., claims to have essentially pro-rated the cuts, given the fact that the proposal is being submitted more than four months into FY11, and promised to “continue to tackle the country’s fiscal problems by advancing spending cuts and spending reforms, and by charting a new course with a new budget for the upcoming fiscal year.”
Based on the cap set by Chairman Ryan, House Appropriations Chairman Harold Rogers, R-Ky., then dictated allocations to each of the twelve Appropriations subcommittees that reflected the decreased spending. The Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education subcommittee, which funds the National Institutes of Health, was allocated $157 billion, a 4 percent decrease from FY10. Much more severe was the cut to the Commerce, Justice and Science subcommittee that funds the National Science Foundation, which received a 16 percent overall decrease in allocations, relative to FY10. By contrast, Defense spending will actually rise from FY10, though only by 2 percent. It will now fall to the individual subcommittees to determine which specific agencies and departments will see their budgets cut.
Moving forward, it is expected the Appropriations subcommittees will report back to the full committee with their bills sometime this week. From there, the individual bills would be combined into a single omnibus appropriations bill that would be debated on the House floor before being taken up for a vote, likely during the week of February 14. The process would then fall to the Senate to complete before the continuing resolution that is currently funding the government expires on March 4.
