Advocacy Archive

The FY2K Problem for NIH and NSF

March 17, 1999

Dear Colleague:

I usually write about funding for the National Institutes of Health (NIH) and the National Science Foundation (NSF). But that's down the road. In fact, don't you be misled by current discussions of the President's proposed increases for NIH or NSF and how to increase them. Larger budget issues are where the fiscal action is now on Capitol Hill. It's kinda like Y2K - you know, where nobody thought enough ahead so airplanes may drop out of the sky on New Year's? Well, this is FY2K (Fiscal Year 2000), and entire budgets, including for NIH and NSF, may have trouble flying when a new federal year begins on October 1. Here's the deal:

Remember the good old days of a federal deficit - like the beginning of last year? In 1997, Congress and the President set up the latest in aseries of laws to balance the budget. The law involves "caps" (read limits) on domestic and defense spending, writ large. The domestic cap consists of NIH, NSF, and all public health, education, and social programs. No matter that we've developed a surplus since '97. The caps are still in place. Big problem.

Surplus a problem? Yes, because every budget law since 1974 has been about cutting deficits, period. No setting aside the caps in the event of a surplus, and no political agreement on how to spend extra money. Last year, the result was an end-of-session free-for-all that worked only because the election was coming and nobody wanted to shut down the government, so an extra $20 billion was thrown in at the last minute as "emergency" (read gimmick) money. It's true that a 15 percent increase for NIH came out of that melee, but even the winners can't have been pleased about the process.

So, just get rid of the old budget process, right? That's not gonna happen soon, and not without a fight. There is talk of budget reform, but no consensus. There are political tensions on all fronts: Congress v the White House; House v Senate; Republicans v Democrats; Appropriators v Budgeteers (don't ask); Liberals (all five left) v Conservatives v Moderates. They're fighting about tax cuts, fixing Social Security and Medicare, over some spending, with an almost invisible faction arguing the surplus should pay down the national debt. Many of us in the scientific and public health communities, and some in Congress, are asking to raise the caps - remember, the money is there - but the momentum is against us.

One budget plan by Congressional Republican leaders keeps the caps in place while increasing spending for defense and education. That one busts the budget, making unworkable assumptions about where offsetting cuts would come. The Administration's budget, while claiming to be under the caps, also is a buster for similar reasons (albeit with different offsets). And with the caps in place, if Congress wants to give more to NIH than the President's measly 2.1 percent, as it most certainly will, other health-related programs would have to be slashed to keep under the limits. There probably is no stomach for that. And NSF Director Rita Colwell is calling for parity with NIH. Fine, but not under these caps.

The bottom line is that not many on the inside expect all this to be resolved before the end of the fiscal year, even if the projected surplus turns out to be larger than expected when budget forecasts are revised this July. Oh, there will be a semblance of order between now and October 1, with hearings and markups and the like. Those will even inform the final outcome, so I don't want to minimize them. We'll certainly participate, and in good faith. But come the fall, the most likely scenario is a nasty replay of last year. And this time they'll need more than $20 billion.

Best, Alan

p.s. Good news: NIH has declared itself the world's leader in behavioral research. Bad news: NIH's world has its own rules when it comes to behavioral research. Here's the latest: During last summer's tobacco debates, a new voice for behavioral science emerged on the Hill. Sen James Jeffords (R-VT), chair of the Senate committee that sets direction for NIH, honchoed an amendment that would have set aside some of the tobacco settlement for NIH behavioral research - that is, if Congress had passed a tobacco bill. More recently, Jeffords along with Senators Chafee (R-RI), Harkin (D-IA), and Bingaman (D-NM) wrote to NIH Director Harold Varmus "to urge you to dramatically increase the NIH commitment to behavioral research." Varmus wrote back that NIH already is the "world's leader" in behavioral funding, citing research supported by the NIH institutes of Drug Abuse (NIDA) and Mental Health (NIMH) among other examples. But before you get all warm and fuzzy over this revelation, please note that NIDA and NIMH just moved into a new building that NIH christened the Neuroscience Center. No mention of behavior in this new home for two institutes that support more psychology and behavioral research by far than any other discipline. As the world turns, huh?