Advocacy Archive
Violence Research Amendment Approved by House
June 18, 1999
Dear Colleague:
A $25 million increase for behavioral research on violence at NIH came two steps closer to reality when, first, it was added by the House of House of Representatives to a larger bill on youth violence yesterday, and second, the entire bill passed the House late last night. As I emailed you in May, the Senate approved this increase in an identical provision within its version of the bill.
To recap, the violence research initiative would be coordinated through the NIH Office of Behavioral and Social Sciences Research (OBSSR), but carried out by NIH institutes such as those for Mental Health (NIMH) and Drug Abuse (NIDA). It would be funded at $5 million a year for five years, and, importantly, would "supplement and not supplant existing funding for behavioral research activities at the National Institutes of Health." (Entire amendment available upon request.) The funding would support basic and applied investigations into youth violence, including risk factors, the etiology and precursors of violence, the role of social factors such as peer pressure, and potential science-based prevention strategies.
Lead sponsors of the provision in the House were Reps. Jim Greenwood (R-PA) and Bobby Scott (D-VA), both members of the Early Childhood, Youth and Families Subcommittee. They included it as part of a larger amendment on the prevention of violence that was approved on the floor of the House by 424-2. Talk about bipartisan! That non-controversial amendment stood in contrast to the rest of what were many times rancorous and highly partisan proceedings, all prompted by the House's search for solutions to school violence, and particularly by the tragedy of Littleton.
There have been lots of opinions about causes and cures -- some even made it into the bill -- but few are based on what research has to say. If nothing else, the debate made clear just how much we need objective, scientific information about the origins and possible treatment of violence. This is not new research for NIH, but we made the case to Congress that more is needed, and that even where we have information, we need a better understanding of how to apply it.
I used the word "reality" earlier in this email, and I'll use it again here, but in a different context: political realities facing the legislation as a whole. The House debate is following two streams, one on gun control (one bill) and one on so-called "cultural" solutions (the bill voted on yesterday), meaning things like restricted access to violent movies, music and video games or reinstatement of prayer in schools. The politics are that the gun control stream is to be voted on today and whatever passes will be combined with the cultural legislation passed yesterday. The next step would be a House-Senate Conference to reconcile huge differences between bills. The Conference has all the markings of "out of control." Any provision could change dramatically. But the good news is the NIH violence initiative is virtually "non-conferenceable." It is identical in both House and Senate-passed bills. If anything, some are trying to increase its funding. The real question is what the fate will be of the entire package.
Best, Alan