Due to the unusual controversy in passing the Labor, Health & Human Services and Education Appropriations bill which funds the National Institutes of Health, House Speaker Dennis Hastert (R-IL) was forced to pull the bill from floor consideration. However, in order to meet the House’s self-imposed deadline of October 29, the bill was "pre-conferenced" with the Senate and attached to the D.C. Appropriations bill and passed as an amendment. In the “pre-conference,” Senator Arlen Specter (R-PA) and Rep. John Porter (R-IL), Chairmen of the Labor/HHS Subcom-mittees, and Tom Harkin (D-IA) and David Obey (D-WI), the ranking Democrats, worked out the differences between the House and Senate bills even though only the Senate’s was passed. The outcome was $2.3 billion for the NIH for FY 2000, an increase of 15% over FY 99. By attaching the full Labor/HHS appropriations bill to another appropriations bill, the House was able to bypass a contentious amendment-ridden floor debate. But it is now likely that the President will veto the bill because he feels it includes insufficient funding for education programs.

The Senate bill, which passed 75-23, included a $2 billion increase for the NIH budget for a total FY 2000 budget of $17.6 billion. In order to reach this goal, the Senate was forced to use budget “gimmicks.” It is hoped that the final negotiations over the Labor/HHS appropriation retain an increase of at least $2 billion over FY99 for the NIH.

Stem Cell Research Debated in the Senate

Consideration of the Senate Labor/ HHS Appropriation markup prominently featured debate of stem cell research. Senator Specter had originally included language in his bill that “carves out an exception to the human embryo ban to permit Federal researchers to derive human embryonic stem cells from embryos obtained from in vitro fertilization clinics.” But Specter deferred to Majority Leader Trent Lott (R-MS) who asked him to strike the language, after Specter received reassurance that he could bring the issue before the Senate next year. Despite the withdrawal, Senator Tom Harkin (D-IA) went on record to defend the stricken language.

On the House side, Rep. Jay Dickey (R-AR) had planned to offer an amendment at the full Appropriations Committee to ban stem cell research, but he too chose to pull it from consideration based on a request from House Whip Tom Delay (R-TX). Rep. Dickey has declared his commitment to offering the amendment if the President vetoes the bill.

On October 7, the Washington Post published a forceful editorial opposing a ban on stem cell research (see http://www.washingtonpost.com/). The following Saturday's Post provided a page-one follow-up on the scientific potential and political viability of stem cell research.

Varmus Resigns NIH Post

On October 7, Harold Varmus announced that after six years as the Director of the National Institutes of Health he would step down to become President of Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center effective January 1, 2000.

As NIH Director, Varmus, an ASCB member, facilitated increasing the NIH budget from $10.6 billion in 1993 to a potential $17.9 billion for FY 2000. He is widely credited for high scientific standards, for his key recruitments to the NIH leadership and for the credibility he has won in Congress. Varmus has also skillfully guided the Institutes though complicated and controversial issues, including the re-ordering of funding priorities, public involvement in NIH decision-making and ethical issues such as cloning and stem cell research.

Department of Health & Human Services Secretary Donna Shalala said, "the appointment of Harold Varmus as Director of the National Institutes of Health was one of the most important accomplishments of this Administration. From the day he arrived at NIH he began making a great institution extraordinary. To have a scientist of his brilliance and stature lead NIH has been invaluable to the scientific community and to the American people."

Ruth Kirschstein, currently NIH Deputy Director, was appointed Interim Director by Secretary Shalala, effective with Varmus' departure. This is Kirschstein's second appointment as Interim Director: she served in that capacity when Varmus was awaiting Senate confirmation in 1993. Shalala has indicated that every effort is being made to find a permanent Director as quickly as possible, and that the Administration intends to have the new Director confirmed before the next presidential election.

The Society will honor Varmus for his extraordinary service with the 1999 ASCB Public Service Award (see page 1).

Porter to Retire from Congress

Congressman John Porter (R-IL), Chairman of the House Labor Health & Human Services Appropriations Committee, who has led the House effort to double federal funding for the NIH over five years, announced on October 12 that he will not run for re-election in 2000 after serving in Congress for 21 years.

In his public statement, Porter indicated that his decision was personal. He went on to say, "I'm particularly proud that my Subcommittee has made biomedical research a very big priority and that we are working now to double the funding for biomedical research over five years. I think it is one of the most important priorities for human beings across the world. That, I am very proud of."

Porter's announcement sparked immediate concern for the current negotiations over the NIH budget. But Porter appears to have redoubled his determination to procure the highest increase possible for the agency.

It is not clear who will succeed Porter as Subcommittee Chair. Under current rules of the Republican Caucus, Porter would have been required to relinquish his chairmanship in 2000. If the Republicans retain control of the House, Rep. Henry Bonilla (R-TX) will be the ranking Member on the Subcommittee, but one of the other Appropriations Committee chairmen would have seniority should one of them choose to Chair the L/HHS Subcommittee.

The coincident departure of Rep. Porter as Subcommittee Chairman and Harold Varmus as NIH Director (see above) makes vulnerable the support enjoyed by the agency on the Hill and in the White House in recent years.

NSF Receives 6.5% Budget Increase

House and Senate appropriators negotiated a final VA-HUD Appropriations bill which includes a $3.91 billion FY 2000 budget for the National Science Foundation. The increase represents $240 million over the agency’s FY 1999 $3.6 billion appropriation.

As reported in the October issue of the ASCB Newsletter, the House version of the VA-HUD bill would have cut the NSF by some $34 million, but the Senate version included $3.912 billion for the agency, an increase of $240 million, or 6.5%. Under pressure, the House went along with the higher Senate figure. The final appropriation was close to the President’s FY 2000 budget request of $3.92 billion for the agency; he signed the final bill.

The Research & Related Activities account in the NSF budget was awarded $3.007 billion, an increase of about $3 million. The bill also included $105 million for information technology research, $50 million for biocomplexity programs, $60 million for the plant genome program, and $25 million to support arctic logistics. In addition, Congress provided $95 million for major research equipment, $10 million above the President’s request for the agency. NSF Education & Human Resources received $696.6 million, an increase of $34.6 million over FY 1999. Within EHR, the Experimental Program to Stimulate Competitive Research received $65 million.

OMB Issues Final Rules on FOIA Requests

The Office of Management & Budget published on October 8 the final revision to OMB Circular A-110, outlining public access to data from federally supported research at universities, teaching hospitals and non-profit organizations under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA).

Although the new version of the rule leaves standing the concept that federal grantees are subject to FOIA requests, it is much improved from the perspective of the research community. The regulations limit the impact on researchers by restricting FOIA requests to "data relating to published research findings...that were used by the Federal Government in developing an agency action that has the force and effect of law."

The NIH and other federal agencies are working to help grantees understand and comply with the new regulations. For further information see the NIH Office of Extramural Research web page at http://grants.nih.gov/grants/oer.htm. The complete text of the final OMB rule on Circular A-110 is at www.whitehouse.gov/OMB.

Joint Steering Committee Holds Semi-Annual Meeting

On October 7, the same day that former JSC member Harold Varmus announced his resignation from the NIH, the Joint Steering Committee for Public Policy met for its semiannual meeting in Boston. At-large members as well as representatives of the four JSC societies — the American Society for Biochemistry & Molecular Biology, the American Society for Cell Biology, the Genetics Society of America and the Biophysical Society — were present.

JSC Congressional education consultants Peter Kyros and Belle Cummins briefed the Committee on federal appropriations, and the Committee discussed strategies for the coming appropriations cycle.

The group also discussed advocacy for other science agencies, notably the NSF.

The Committee determined to work with presidential candidates to inform them about the need to support funding of biomedical research. The Committee also discussed the great progress of the Congressional Biomedical Research Caucus. Caucus membership has grown to over 100 members in the House and 15 in the Senate, from both parties. There were ten briefings in the House this year on issues ranging from learning disorders to heart failure to stem cell research, all well-attended. 1999 marks the 10th year of the Caucus; the JSC will recognize the milestone with a small print ad campaign. The Caucus plans to further recognize the achievement with a presentation to jointly honor the scientific community and Congressional Caucus members.

Tom Pollard led the discussion of the JSC’s district organizing project. Alec Stone, the National District Coordinator, reported on the progress of the Congressional Liaison Committee, which now enjoys membership of over 3,000 nationwide. Pennsylvania, North Carolina and Illinois have been singled out for focused organizing and each state has experienced strong growth in membership and involvement. Each has hosted Capitol Hill days (see this page), bringing scientists to Washington to meet with their Members of Congress. The JSC hopes to turn next to California if it is able to raise support for the effort.

The Committee discussed the succession of the NIH directorship and considered strategies to ensure the appointment of another outstanding scientist to succeed Varmus.

JSC Chair Eric Lander of MIT gave a "Millenium Talk" at the White House a few days after the JSC meeting, and used the opportunity to reaffirm the importance of basic biomedical research to Senior Administration officials.

Joe Palca of National Public Radio consulted with the Committee about a proposal to promote science in the media. The JSC is working with Palca and others to develop a strategy to promote basic science through radio or television.

The Committee discussed the debate of the prior year on stem cell research. The JSC agree to send the CLC an alert with regard to stem cell research if a ban were to be proposed before the House of Representatives.

Marc Kirschner of Harvard Medical School, one of the founders of the JSC and its first Chair, announced his resignation from the Committee after ten years of service.

For more information on the JSC, see http://www.jscpp.org/.

Illinois Hill Day

On September 15, five Illinois members of the Congressional Liaison Committee met with Congressional Representatives and staffers on Capitol Hill. Student Jacob Mayfield of the University of Chicago wrote the following summary:

Secretly I wanted a meeting scheduled for that day back home, so I could spring my best excuse ever: I cannot be there because I have been called to Washington.

It was true. On September 15 I was lucky enough to join five professors, four from the University of Illinois in Chicago and one from the University of Chicago, for the first Illinois Day on Capitol Hill. Our packed schedule included meetings with five House and Senate offices. By describing the impact of our research, we hoped to reinforce the importance of increasing funding for basic science research. But our role as educators was only part of the reason for the trip — we hoped to learn a valuable lesson ourselves. It is now and will continue to be of critical importance that scientists champion their own political causes.

Chairman John Porter (R-IL) explains the budget process. Left to right: Jacob Mayfield, Rhonna Cohen, Donald Chambers, Rep. Porter, and Lon Kaufman

My advisor could not attend the day and asked me to go in her place. I knew I would be the only graduate student there, but figured it was good for both sides: I would learn how Washington worked and Washington would see firsthand that the funding they provide for research also serves to train future scientists. From the onset of the trip, and even nine months before during my first interaction with the Joint Steering Committee for Public Policy at the ASCB meeting in San Francisco, I saw the Joint Steering Committee make a strong effort to encourage graduate student participation.

My day in Washington actually began the day before, when I caught an evening flight to avoid my typical early morning stupor. The briefing material provided by the Joint Steering Committee contained backgrounds on the Senators and Representatives we would visit, summaries of previous funding levels and descriptions of the plan to double NIH funding over a five-year period. This information helped me to understand where scientists stand in terms of government support for research, where we hope to go, and who we need as allies to get there. As an Arabidopsis researcher with a strong belief in model systems biology, it disappointed me to learn that while the NIH has gained strong, bipartisan support under the banner of curing human disease, agencies like the NSF and USDA suffer.

During the morning briefing I began to get an idea of how the day might go. Our group included Don Chambers, Rhonna Cohen, Lon Kaufman, Mark Rasenick and me. Peter Kyros and Belle Cummins, JSC Congressional Education Liaisons, briefed the group on the NIH initiative, its position in the Labor, Health & Human Services bills, the challenges in meeting the necessary increases due to budget caps, and the key players supporting the bill. Then Kyros described how the meetings would go: we were to stick to descriptions of our research and statements about how increased funding is not only good, but necessary. Kyros stressed the critical importance of focusing on only the issue at hand — biomedical research funding — to not dilute our efforts.

Illinois CLCs meet with Senator Richard Durbin (D-IL). Left to right: Donald Chambers, Rhonna Cohen, Mark Rasenick, Sen. Durbin, Jacob Mayfield and Lon Kaufman

Sticking to a brief description of our research, with emphasis on implications for medicine and agriculture, the scientists in the group presented a memorable impression and undeniable argument for basic research. The rest fell easily into place: our important research was funded by federal agencies and completed by scientists trained on federal training grants; increased funding would impact all labs, including new faculty, compensating for years of insufficient support and maintaining the current pace of discovery; during the past few decades scientists have unearthed secrets that can revolutionize science, but only if the infrastructure and personnel stand ready.

Our first meeting was with Jim Kawka, a staff member of Illinois Senator Peter Fitzgerald. A conservative freshman, Fitzgerald has not formed a strong opinion on science funding issues. Unlike many politicians we would visit later, this meeting actually had the potential to garner new support. As turned out to be the case for all of the Members we visited, Fitzgerald’s staff was extremely well informed about the NIH initiative. Kawka showed reasonable concern about the ability of scientists to use additional funding, as well as about the use of fetal tissue in research. I left with the feeling that we might not have changed Fitzgerald's position, but our arguments would at least be considered.

Left to right: CLC members Jacob Mayfield, Donald Chambers and Mark Rasenick attend the Congressional Biomedical Research Caucus briefing with Co-chair Rep. George Gekas.

Our second meeting was with Illinois Representative John Porter, a true champion of science. Porter stated his desire to increase NSF funding as well as NIH, but acknowledged that he must tackle one issue at a time. Because he authored the House version of the bill that would double NIH funding, Porter was able to give us a detailed description of the constraints of budget caps, despite strong bipartisan support for the NIH.

Lunch was at the Congressional Biomedical Research Caucus briefing, where John Gearhart talked about his work in stem cell research [see October ASCB Newsletter], a touchy area that prevents some pro-life politicians from actively supporting research.

Rep. Jan Schakowsky (D-IL) (center) meets with CLC members Rhonna Cohen (left) and Donald Chambers (right).

After lunch we talked to Mike King and Amy Jensen, staff members for Representative Ray LaHood (R-IL) and Speaker of the House Dennis Hastert, respectively. Both were interested in our research and its implications, both expressed a desire to support science funding, and both admitted that if it came to doubling the NIH budget versus dipping into the Social Security excess, the NIH would lose. These two sessions taught another lesson, both frustrating and enlightening: believing in a cause does not mean supporting it. Few politicians oppose curing disease and increasing crop yield, but it must become a priority. In this uncertain realm scientists can make the difference.

We also visited Representative Danny Davis (D-IL), Representative George Gekas (R-PA), and Senator Richard Durbin (D-IL) and his staff. All are already strong supporters of science funding: our easier role this time was positive reinforcement.

Each of the scientists visiting that day paid their own way to get to Washington — and this was not a waste of time or money. With a constant show of support and willingness to explain cloudy issues, we can strengthen our position. This was another lesson: we must support our own cause. This might mean educating the public about stem cell research, traveling to Wash-ington or a political office in your own state, or writing letters.

One fascinating aspect of teaching is that you can always learn something new yourself. The first Illinois Day on Capitol Hill was exactly that sort of experience. Not only could I present the science I know, I learned a bit about Washington. Not just about the miles of tunnels running under the Capitol, House and Senate buildings, but also about how I could influence the future of science funding. The impact of my trip may have been greater on me than on Washington, but in the end that may turn out to be equally important.

CONGRESSIONAL BIOMEDICAL RESEARCH CAUCUS

Rep. Joel Hefley (R-CO), Rep. Steve Horn (R-CA), Eric Olson, Rep. George Gekas (R-PA), Rep. Ken Bentsen (R-TX) and Rep. Lois Capps (D-CA) at the briefing on heart disease.	Caucus Co-Chair Rep. Ken Bentsen with Eric Olson before Olson’s briefing of the Caucus.
Eric Olson of the University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, briefs the Caucus on heart disease.	Rep. Lois Capps, who chairs the Heart Caucus in Congress.