 |
 |
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]]. > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------------- >