Posts filed under ‘Senate’
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.
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.
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)
|
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.
Senate Appropriations Committee Approves FY 2012 Budget for NIH and NSF
The past two weeks have seen tremendous activity in the Senate Appropriations Committee, particularly from subcommittees that control funding for the National Institutes of Health and the National Science Foundation.
On September 15, the Senate Appropriations Committee passed the FY 2012 Commerce, Justice and Science subcommittee appropriations bill. The CJS subcommittee controls funding allocations for the National Science Foundation and set the FY12 NSF budget at $6.7 billion, 2.4%, or $162 million, lower than the level for FY11. Chairwoman, Sen. Barbara Mikulski (D-MD), was clearly disappointed in the reduced funding allocation for NSF noting that the committee had historically followed recommendations given in the America COMPETES Act.
In July, the equivalent House Appropriations Subcommittee approved a bill that held the 2012 NSF funding level steady at $6.86 billion. Since the Senate and House bills must agree for their final approval, members of the community have suggested the NSF budget could be restored to that presented in the House bill.
Then on Wednesday, September 21, the Senate Appropriations Committee approved the FY 2012 Labor, Health and Human Services and Education subcommittee appropriations bill, which set funding for NIH at $30.5 billion, a cut of 0.6%, or $190 million, from the 2011 level. Also included in the Senate LHHS subcommittee bill, was funding for the creation of the National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences (NCATS), a new center at NIH dedicated to “translating biomedical research more rapidly into cures.” While a top priority for NIH director, Francis Collins, the creation of NCATS has been met with some controversy within the scientific and legislative communities.
The House LHHS subcommittee was scheduled to mark up its corresponding bill on September 9, but was postponed until an as yet to be determined date. The Hill reports that the hold-up may be due in part to concern from several Republican members over the overall spending level.
To further complicate matters, as the end of the fiscal year approaches on September 30, the House introduced a Continuing Resolution that would allow the government to continue to function until November 18. While the first attempt to pass the CR was defeated in the House, it was approved late Thursday night after minor revisions. The text of the CR can be found here. Consequently, the CR does not contain a provision for the creation of NCATS.
The CR is expected to be passed by both chambers before legislators are recessed for the Jewish high holy days.
ASBMB Public Affairs staff will continue to monitor the appropriations process and provide updates as they arise.
Coburn Deficit Reduction Plan Supports NIH, Knocks NSF
Sen. Tom Coburn, R-Okla., released a deficit reduction plan on Monday, detailing over $9 trillion in savings over the next decade through cuts to nearly every government agency. Surprisingly, Coburn’s report, titled “Back in Black,” proposes a 1 percent annual increase in the budget for the National Institutes of Health, which it praised as “the nation’s premier medical research agency.” The report also expresses support for the scientific peer-review process, stating that “scientists are more qualified to determine what research holds the most promise and which grant applications have the most merit” than members of Congress. However, the report retains for Congress the “responsibility…to conduct oversight on NIH spending,” and suggests consolidating “duplicative” medical research projects currently conducted across multiple agencies and transferring oversight to the NIH.
The report does contain some criticisms of NIH, in particular singling out various institutes, including the National Cancer Institute and National Institute for Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism, which have, in its estimation, “squandered money on studies and projects with no obvious health benefits.” It also directly calls for the elimination of the National Center for Complementary and Alternative Medicine, and insists on a reduction in the amount of funding for travel to scientific conferences.
The generally positive tone of the report with regard to NIH comes in stark contrast to that towards the National Science Foundation. Continuing a theme established by Coburn’s “Under the Microscope” report that eviscerated the NSF, the Back in Black report details “pervasive problems at the agency” that include:
- “Wast[ing] millions of dollars on low-priority projects”
- “Lack[ing] adequate oversight of its grant funding, which has led to significant mismanagement, fraud, and abuse”
- “Fac[ing] extensive duplication challenges within the agency and across the federal government”
The report proposes changes, including eliminating the Social, Behavioral and Economics Directorate and consolidating the Education and Human Resources with other federal educational programs, that it claims would save over $14 billion.
In a press release accompanying the report, Coburn stated that he would “welcome” congressional debate over the report, though whether any relevant legislation will be introduced is yet to be seen.
Senators Sign Letter Opposing Cuts to NIH
Mirroring a call from their brethren in the House of Representatives, a bipartisan group of 41 Senators have penned a letter to the Senate Appropriations leadership urging them to “maintain a strong commitment to funding for the National Institutes of Health.” The letter, organized by Sens. Robert Casey, D-Penn., and Richard Burr, R-N.C., points out that “investment in the NIH has yielded an unprecedented number of scientific advances that have improved health outcomes and contributed significantly to the Nation’s economic growth,” a message that ASBMB has repeatedly made during meetings with congressional offices. However, the Senators stopped short of endorsing a specific budget number for NIH in FY12, giving little indication as to what they would consider a “strong commitment.” ASBMB, in conjunction with the Federation of American Societies for Experimental Biology, have called for an FY12 budget of $35 billion; currently, the NIH budget is $30.8 billion.
ASBMB encourages you to reach out to your Senators to thank them for signing on to the letter. To obtain contact information for your Senators, go to www.senate.gov or the FASEB Capwiz page (http://capwiz.com/faseb/home/). Then call their Washington, DC offices and ask to speak with either the Senator or their health aide. When you reach the Senator or health aide:
- Tell him/her that you sincerely appreciate that Senator [ ______ ] signed the letter that Senators Casey and Burr circulated in support of strong FY 2012 funding for NIH
- Thank him/her for being willing to maintain a strong commitment to funding for NIH
- Remember to mention that you are a constituent
- SPECIAL NOTES:
- If your Senator did not sign the Casey-Burr NIH funding letter, it is appropriate for you to call or email them (or their aides) to ask why the Senator made that choice.
- Note that some members of the Appropriations Committee have a policy of not signing letters that are addressed to the committee. If this is the case with your Senator, ask him/her (or the aide with whom you speak) to give serious consideration to the message in the letter.
- Since the letter was addressed to Senators Inouye (D-HI), Cochran (R-MS), Harkin (D-IA), and Shelby (R-AL), you do not need to call their offices.
- If you are calling Senator Casey (D-PA) or Burr’s (R-NC) offices you can just thank them for being champions for NIH!
- It is fine to leave a voicemail or telephone message if you cannot speak directly with your Senators or the health aides.
The list of signers in alphabetical order (Republicans appear in bold) is as follows:
Daniel Akaka (D-HI)
Mark Begich (D-AK)
Jeff Bingaman (D-NM)
Richard Blumenthal (D-CT)
Barbara Boxer (D-CA)
Scott Brown (R-MA)
Richard Burr (R-NC)
Maria Cantwell (D-WA)
Ben Cardin (D-MD)
Robert Casey (D-PA)
Susan Collins (R-ME)
Christopher Coons (D-DE)
Mike Crapo (R-ID)
Dick Durbin (D-IL)
Dianne Feinstein (D-CA)
Al Franken (D-MN)
Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY)
Kay Hagan (D-NC)
John Hoeven (R-ND)
Tim Johnson (D-SD)
John Kerry (D-MA)
Amy Klobuchar (D-MN)
Mary Landrieu (D-LA)
Frank Lautenberg (D-NJ)
Patrick Leahy (D-VT)
Carl Levin (D-MI)
Robert Menendez (D-NJ)
Jeff Merkley (D-OR)
Barbara Mikulski (D-MD)
Jack Reed (D-RI)
John Rockefeller (D-WV)
Charles Schumer (D-NY)
Jeanne Shaheen (D-NH)
Olympia Snowe (R-ME)
Debbie Stabenow (D-MI)
Jon Tester (D-MT)
Mark Udall (D-CO)
Tom Udall (D-NM)
Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI)
Roger Wicker (R-MS)
Ron Wyden (D-OR)
NCATS Budget Details Finally Released
Months after recommending the creation of the National Center for the Advancement of Translational Science, the National Institutes of Health have finally outlined the expected budget for the new entity. On Monday, Department of Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius sent a letter to Sen. Tom Harkin, D-Iowa, chairman of the Senate Appropriations subcommittee on Labor, Health and Human Services, Education and Related Agencies (which funds the NIH) detailing the expected budgetary outlays for NCATS in FY12. Importantly, though the letter will likely allay some concerns by clarifying the agency’s expectations, it does not represent an official budget request to congressional appropriations committees, leaving the fate of NCATS unresolved.
According to the draft, the budget for NCATS in FY12 would be $722 million, with over $553 million coming from programs currently located in the National Center for Research Resources, the bulk of which would be provided by the Clinical and Translational Science Awards program. The Therapeutics for Rare and Neglected Diseases program, currently housed in the National Human Genome Research Institute, will receive $50 million, up from its current allocation of $24 million. $100 million will be provided for the Cures Acceleration Network, which was congressionally authorized (but not appropriated) in 2010.
The letter also details how the various components of NCRR will be re-allocated within NIH, with program placements essentially matching the proposed model released by NIH in February. The big budgetary “winner” will be the National Institute of General Medical Sciences, which will see an increase of nearly $350 million in its budget as it inherits the Institutional Development Awards program. The Office of the Director, which will subsume several educational and resource programs from NCRR, will receive an additional $184 million in FY12.
The letter is intended to mollify growing concerns over the NIH’s intentions surrounding NCATS that had lingered since the proposal for reorganizing the agency first surfaced last December. Despite a including a thorough description of NCATS in their FY12 budget request, the NIH conspicuously omitted any fiduciary details, leading to speculation that the agency was unprepared to go forward with the plan by the start of FY12 on October 1 of this year. In a hearing last month, Sen. Richard Shelby, R-Ala., also expressed concern about the lack of a budget for the planned center. Though NIH has now provided the first glimpse of these details, unless Congress is able to pass appropriations bills this year, NCATS will remain a pipe dream.
Coburn Report Targets National Science Foundation
In what has become an annual routine, Sen. Tom Coburn, R-Ok., released yet another report last week claiming to identify wasteful government spending, this time going after the National Science Foundation.
In “The National Science Foundation: Under the Microscope,” Coburn criticizes the NSF for “lack[ing] adequate oversight of its grant funding, which has led to mismanagement, fraud, and abuse and lack of knowledge regarding research outcomes.” He goes on to list several examples of “questionable NSF projects,” a hackneyed method (also used in the infamous “YouCut” project) purporting to identify specious research projects merely from risqué-sounding titles. Coburn also called for the elimination of the Social, Behavioral and Economic Sciences Directorate, questioning whether “any of these social studies represent obvious national priorities.”
One of the more damning claims was that the NSF had not returned $1.7 billion of unspent funds. A quick investigation revealed that the majority ($1.67 billion) of these funds had been allocated for multi-year grants, and would thus be duly spent as expected over the duration of the grant lifetime. In spite of his distaste for much of the work financed by NSF, Coburn resisted the urge to completely micro-manage the agency, claiming that “ultimately, the decision as to what constitutes ‘transformative’ or ‘potentially transformative’ [research] should be left to the scientific community rather than Congress.”
The report was immediately criticized by scientific organizations, as well as by several of the individual researchers whose work had been targeted in the report. The NSF released its own statement in response:
“The National Science Foundation is renowned for its gold-standard approach to peer review of each of the more than 40,000 proposals it receives each year. The discoveries and innovations that have resulted from NSF-funded research have advanced the frontiers of science and engineering, improved Americans’ lives, and provided the foundations for countless new industries and jobs. While no agency is without flaws, NSF has been diligent about addressing concerns from members of Congress about workforce and grant management issues. Indeed, NSF’s excellent record of tracking down waste and prosecuting wrongdoing is apparent from Sen. Coburn’s report, which notes that NSF has aggressively pursued cases of wrongdoing; terminated and even turned over for criminal prosecution employees found to have violated NSF rules or laws; and diligently collected and returned to the U.S. Treasury any fraudulently used funds. We believe that no other funding agency in the world comes close to NSF for giving taxpayers the best return on their investment.”
ASBMB is working with its partner organizations to craft a thorough response. Stay tuned to the Blotter for further updates..
