WASHINGTON — Halfway through this year, the future of federal science policy is in the sights of Republicans.
Some of the most vocal critics of scientists and science agencies like the NIH and CDC, including Senator Rand Paul of Kentucky, are poised to gain powerful committee chairs that will allow them to thoroughly investigate and to put health officials on public trial. New presidencies could also give them the opportunity to tighten the purse strings of health agency budgets — and outright deny funding for new Covid-19 measures or other Biden health priorities. At the same time, some of the Republican Party’s biggest advocates for science and science policy are set to retire.
Anthony Fauci is an obvious and already declared target. But beyond the expected litany of coronavirus-related probes, Republican staffers and lobbyists familiar with the discussions tell STAT that Republican leaders plan to shine a light on spending and transparency at health agencies, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention at the Centers for Medicare & Health insurance services.
The agenda reflects growing GOP frustration with what many conservative lawmakers see as unbridled Covid-19 spending and unfettered federal power during the pandemic. This contrasts sharply with the broad bipartisan support science agencies enjoyed before the pandemic; the National Institutes of Health, for example, have seen their budgets increase several times over the past seven years.
These probes are going to be “early, high-profile and very loud,” said Holland & Knight. “So the question will be, can both sides put this aside and… work out some substantive issues?”
The Republican caucus is also acutely aware that even if it wins both chambers, the veto power belongs to President Biden. Going forward, the party’s broad platform is less about legislation that destroys Biden’s recent record — such as sweeping reform to allow Medicare to negotiate drug prices — and more about oversight.
Although polls suggest the House is more likely to swing than the Senate, it’s an upper house change that would have the biggest impact on science.
In the Senate, Richard Burr (R-N.C.), longtime pandemic preparedness advocate and member of the Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee, is retiring, leaving a void that the Republican Senator from Kentucky, Rand Paul, has worked to fill.
The libertarian senator has made his agenda clear: to go after longtime director of the National Institutes of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, Anthony Fauci, and probe the origins of the coronavirus pandemic.
“When we win the House and when we win the Senate,” Paul told a Kentucky crowd as he rallied around GOP candidate for state governor Daniel Cameron, “I will be the president of a committee and I will have the power to subpoena records. And I promise you I will subpoena all of Dr. Fauci’s latest recordings.
The 81-year-old’s upcoming retirement in December has not appeased Paul. “Fauci’s resignation will not prevent a full investigation into the origins of the pandemic,” the senator tweeted shortly after the news. “He will be asked to testify under oath regarding any discussions he has been involved in regarding the lab leak.”
Paul’s accusations that Fauci downplayed NIH-funded coronavirus research in China and misrepresented virus risk have been a feature of Senate hearings during the pandemic and a hint of what’s to come. The two have argued regularly over the past two years, with Fauci calling Paul’s rhetoric “irresponsible” messages that “stir the crazies.”
“It won’t help improve the health of the public,” said Georges Benjamin, executive director of the American Public Health Association, who expressed concern about partisan divisions on topics such as funding for the response to the pandemic — especially with Burr’s impending retirement.
“He was one of the true champions of public health preparedness. It’s a real loss,” Benjamin said. “And hopefully we get a Republican to take that mantle back and move on.”
That’s not to say public health experts don’t see the need for accountability around the Covid-19 response. Benjamin described hopes for a bipartisan 9/11-style commission to examine spending, management and gaps in the federal response.
The prospects for that kind of cooperation remain hazy at best, particularly because there are unresolved questions about the future of the House coronavirus select committee under a GOP majority. Current House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy has not indicated whether he plans to keep the committee in operation, create a new group or leave various existing committees to launch their own investigations.
Even as Democrats maintain their majority in the Senate, health care organizations are bracing for a tonal shift on the Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee. Progressive Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) has signaled he wants to lead the powerful committee if current chair Patty Murray (D-Wash.) steps down to lead the appropriations committee.
And beyond Burr, the Senate Republican caucus is also losing another moderate Republican who helped advance science funding, Sen. Roy Blunt (R-Mo.). Blunt has been a driving force behind year-over-year funding increases for the NIH, and has also supported funds for hospitals in his home state.
The two retirements will likely bode ill for any appointments made by President Biden to fill vacancies in the science leadership. The post of director at the NIH remains vacant and a new permanent chief is expected to be confirmed by the Senate.
Burr and Blunt were critical votes to confirm Robert Califf as commissioner of the Food and Drug Administration, as some Democrats opposed the nominee and Biden needed Republican support. Confirmation from Health and Human Services Secretary Xavier Becerra was equally slim. If the Senate turns around, losing even a few Republicans willing to work across party lines will be a blow to the Biden administration.
In the House, Rep. Cathy McMorris Rodgers (R-Wash.) is vying to chair the powerful Republican-majority Energy and Commerce Committee, a role that puts her at the top of agency oversight and legislation federal health authorities.
McMorris Rodgers and other House Republicans have drafted a list of watchdog hearings that will quickly put them at odds with Biden officials and Democrats.
These include investigations into the origins of the coronavirus pandemic, the Biden administration’s policies on Covid-19 such as remote schooling recommendations and coronavirus-related spending. Outside of the pandemic, Republicans also plan to ask Becerra and CMS Administrator Chiquita Brooks-LaSure about plans to implement drug price negotiations in Medicare, the aide said.
Brooks-LaSure has not testified before Congress since her Senate confirmation. Becerra has appeared before various committees to answer questions about the agency’s sizable budget, but will be set for a series of grillings under new management.
In September markup in Energy & Commerce Committee, Republicans unsuccessfully pushed resolutions demanding documents from HHS regarding ivermectin and Covid-19 vaccines, funding for Puerto Rico’s Medicaid program, and communications from the White House regarding a related public health statement to the pandemic on the US-Mexico border, to name a few.
McMorris Rodgers also supported the Supreme Court’s decision to overturn Roe v. Wade and often invokes his son with Down syndrome when discussing reproductive rights.
However, the Washington Republican still hopes for a bipartisan voice on several health care priorities such as hospital pricing, onshore manufacturing and drug benefit manager legislation, a GOP aide told STAT. Rep. Jim Banks (R-Ind.), who is vying for a leadership job if Republicans take the House, the last Congress released a sweeping hospital pricing reform plan that would regulate what hospitals charge patients. commercial insurers, would strengthen Federal Trade Commission scrutiny of hospital mergers and reduce financial incentives for hospitals to buy out medical practices.
Outside of McMorris Rodgers’ agenda, the House Republican caucus has been relatively silent on health care priorities. House Minority Leader McCarthy released a plan last month dubbed the House Republicans’ “Pledge to America,” including pledges to crack down on fentanyl, “personalize care to provide affordable options,” boost access to telehealth, and lower prices through “transparency, choice, and competition.” This language is echoed in the House Republicans Healthy Futures Task Force.
Although some Republicans, like Sen. Mike Lee (R-Utah), have called for repealing Democrats’ recent law allowing Medicare to directly negotiate drug prices, others say it’s a doomed task. .
Who controlled the House in 2003?
| 108th United States Congress | |
|---|---|
| majority of the house | Republican |
| house tenant | Denis Hastert (R) |
| Sessions | |
| 1st: January 7, 2003 – December 8, 2003 2nd: January 20, 2004 – December 9, 2004 |
Which party controlled the House in 2002? This is the only midterm election since 1978 that has left the president’s party in control of the House. As of 2022, this is the last election in which Democrats were not led by Nancy Pelosi.
Who controlled the House of Representatives in 2003?
Republicans held slim majorities in the House and Senate after the 2002 midterm elections. The 108th Congress (2003-2005) rebuilt the nation’s intelligence community with the intention of centralizing its operations, and in March 2003, approved military action against Iraq.
Who was Senate leader in 1957?
Elected to the Senate in 1946, Joseph McCarthy (1908-1957) did not come to national attention until 1950. See the article : food safety.
Who controlled the Senate in 1953? The 1952 election produced a tightly divided United States Senate, with 48 Republicans, 47 Democrats, and one independent. The Republican Party organized the Senate in January 1953, assigning committees, choosing Senate officers, and assigning committee chairmen.
Who controlled the Senate in 1957?
Overview of Congress Democrats regained control of both houses of the 84th Congress (1955-1957), but support for Republican President Dwight Eisenhower remained strong. To see also : Evernorth and Cigna Health Plan Growth Push Profits to $1.6 Billion.
Why was the Billion Dollar Congress so significant?
Overview of Congress The rules change and the unified government produces the “Billion Dollar Congress”, with the new majority enacting generous military pensions and approving a long stalled naval expansion. See the article : Tracking public health outcomes in the United States. New economic pressures also resulted in the Sherman Silver Purchase Act and the Sherman Antitrust Act.
What is the Billion Dollar Congress? The 51st United States Congress, called by some critics the Billion Dollar Congress, was a meeting of the legislative branch of the United States federal government, consisting of the United States Senate and the United States House of Representatives. United.
When was the Billion dollar Congress?
Congress, which some critics call the “Billion Dollar Congress”, was a meeting of the legislative branch of the U.S. federal government that met in Washington, D.C., from March 4, 1889 to March 4, 1891, for the first two years of President Benjamin Harrison’s administration.
How did Congress earn the nickname Billion dollar Congress?
The Fifty-First Congress earned its nickname for being the first to pass a billion-dollar budget, consisting of the United States Senate and House of Representatives.
Who had Billion dollar Congress?
Substantial appropriation bills were signed by Harrison for internal improvements, naval expansion, and subsidies for steamship lines. For the first time, except in wartime, Congress appropriated a billion dollars. When critics attacked “the billion dollar Congress”, President Thomas B.
What was the biggest problem with the Civil Rights Act of 1957?
The biggest obstacle to civil rights legislation in 1957 was the bloc of Southern Democrats led by Senator Richard Russell of Georgia. Southern senators had blocked every proposed civil rights bill since 1875.
What was the main effect of the Civil Rights Act of 1957? The Civil Rights Act of 1957 authorized the prosecution of those who violated the right to vote of American citizens. The Voting Rights Act of 1965 took the issue one step further and authorized federal law enforcement to ensure that citizens of all people groups, in all states, were allowed to vote. .
Why did the Civil Rights Act of 1957 Fail?
It also created a Federal Civil Rights Commission empowered to investigate discriminatory conditions and recommend corrective action. The final act was weakened by Congress due to lack of support among Democrats.
What were the failures of the Civil Rights Act?
The greatest failure of the civil rights movement was in the related areas of poverty and economic discrimination. Despite the laws we have passed, discrimination in employment and housing is still widespread. Businesses owned by people of color are still denied equal access to markets, funding and capital.
