This is from the Washington fax. See bottom of post to get your trial
subscription ( if you want one )The fax service said  could post this
if  I gave them credit and told you how to get that trial subscription


> Senate L/HHS funding bill still surviving in floor debate
>
> House version may be a casualty of internal GOP politics
>
> Though it's taking longer than expected, Senate Republicans are confident
> they can complete work later this week on legislation that would provide a
> $2 billion boost to the National Institutes of Health (NIH). Getting the
> bill through the Senate has gained added significance of late, since the
> House version of the measure--which has a $1.35 billion increase for
> NIH--is in deep trouble.
>
> House Republican leaders reportedly are determined to take the FY 2000
> Labor, Health and Human Services, Education, and Related Agencies (L/HHS)
> spending bill to the House floor for a vote. But their effort to shift more
> money to the legislation--and thus give it a chance of passing--blew up
> Thursday when GOP presidential candidate George W. Bush accused them of
> trying to "balance their budget on the backs of the poor" with a plan to
> delay government payouts to recipients of the Earned Income Tax Credit
> (EITC). (see Washington Fax 10/1/99)
>
> The EITC provision, approved Thursday by the House Appropriations
> Committee, would bring $8.7 billion to the bill. More importantly, it is
> the linchpin in the House GOP strategy to produce L/HHS legislation that
> has enough funds to assure passage on the House floor but does not eat into
> Social Security revenues. However, Bush's comments quickly transformed the
> EITC offset from merely controversial to a political poison pill.
>
> A Republican staffer predicted that the EITC language could end up being
> the "family planning amendment of FY 2000," a reference to divisive
> language that stymied work on the FY 1999 bill. But as of Monday, sources
> said, Republican leaders had not come up with a way to plug the $8.7
> billion hole that would be created should the EITC provision be stripped.
>
> Given the size of the federal budget surplus, FY 2000 money woes are
> really, in fact, political problems. Republicans have insisted on staying
> within the spending limits established in the 1997 budget deal while also
> staking their political fortunes on a pledge not to dip into the Social
> Security portion of the surplus. As a result, they have engaged in a
> variety of accounting maneuvers in an effort to claim they're sticking with
> their program.
>
> The Senate has more flexibility in such a game, and that's why most
> observers believe its version of the L/HHS bill is likely to win approval
> on the Senate floor later this week. For example, Senate Appropriations
> Committee Chairman Ted Stevens, R-AK, simply acted unilaterally last week
> to shift several billion dollars to the L/HHS bill from the Defense
> appropriations bill, with the proviso that the money would be replaced by
> declaring a portion of Defense spending an "emergency."
>
> (Emergency money is not included in the tally that determines whether
> budget limits have been breached and thus has become a popular device for
> GOP appropriators.)
>
> But affecting a similar reallocation in the House would require the
> approval of the full House Appropriations Committee, something that aides
> say would be difficult or impossible to accomplish.
>
> One possible outcome reportedly under discussion among House and Senate
> staff would be to skip the House floor altogether and work out a compromise
> between the bill expected to be produced by the Senate and the L/HHS
> measure approved by the House Appropriations Committee. Such a
> "conferenced" bill could then be attached to another appropriations measure
> and voted on by both bodies.
>
> The problem with that tactic, say those close to the discussions, is
> Republicans are worried about any move that would lessen their influence in
> the process. They are determined to send President Clinton individual
> appropriations measures and then negotiate on a bill-by-bill,
> issue-by-issue basis. Many Republicans view last year's budget
> negotiations, in which most spending was rolled into a massive, omnibus
> bill as a process that cedes most power to the president.
>
> The good news for science programs is despite the problems besetting the
> L/HHS spending bill, no one is suggesting NIH will end up with anything
> short of a substantial increase. Also, the L/HHS dilemma has prompted
> Republicans to try to keep their headaches to a minimum by speeding up work
> on other appropriations bills.
>
> That desire for action resulted in more money being added last week to
> legislation that funds the National Science Foundation (NSF). The extra
> cash makes it more likely the House, which produced a bill that cut NSF by
> $34 million, would agree to the Senate mark for the agency, which provides
> a $250 million increase--the equivalent of what President Clinton requested
> in February. The architects of the House legislation have said they want to
> give more money to NSF and would do so if extra funds were added to the
> bill.
>
> As it now stands, for NIH the only potentially negative effect of the FY
> 2000 accounting gymnastics is the Senate L/HHS bill would hold back $3
> billion in NIH funds until the end of the fiscal year. Section 215 of the
> Senate legislation stipulates that $3 billion in NIH appropriations "shall
> not be available for obligation until September 29, 2000." The House
> measure contains no such language.
>
> If the Senate provision is retained in whatever L/HHS funding legislation
> is finally enacted, it could mean grant awards normally doled out
> throughout the last quarter of the fiscal year would not be paid until the
> last day of the fourth quarter. It is not yet clear what the consequences
> would be for NIH-funded investigators, beyond posing administrative
> difficulties.
>
> On the positive side for NIH, the Senate bill employs an accounting
> technique known as "forward funding" to double the amount available for
> extramural construction, from $30 million to $60 million. The only catch is
> half of that money would not be available until October 1, 2000, the
> beginning of the 2001 fiscal year. However, advocates for increased
> facilities funding say it still should be counted as a victory for FY 2000
> because research institutions would be able to apply for the money and NIH
> could review applications in FY 2000, even though they would technically
> not be able to send out any cash until October 1.
>
> The House bill contains $30 million for extramural facilities construction,
> none of it forward funded.
>
> --Matthew Davis
>
> A summary of the Senate L/HHS bill with links to bill and report language
> is available through the Senate Web site at [
> http://www.senate.gov/~appropriations/hhsfull.htm].
>
>
> (C) 1998 WASHINGTON FAX, an established news and information service
> specializing in science policy [http://www.washingtonfax.com]. Apply for a
> free trial subscription at [http://www.washingtonfax.com/auto-trial.htm],
> or e-mail [[log in to unmask]].
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
>