RESENDING WITHOUT THE DIGITAL GIBBERISH--SORRY!
             Hi all,
             Mixed news:  the HHS bill passed the Senate last night with a $2 billion dollar

             increase,
             but without clear PD-targeting $$$s written in.  However, there was sworn
             testimony at last
             Tuesday's hearing by NIH/NINDS chief, Fischbach, Spector, and Cochoran that PD
will be more
             or less focused on,  and that a better accounting of what is spent on PD by the

             NIH/NINDS
             will be done; additionally, the wording in the following paragraphs I took down

             over the
             phone, if they survive by the time it gets to President Clinton for signature,
             bears out
             that testimony and are very strong and encouraging.  I wanted more:  Actual
$$$s
             spelled out
             for PD and the stem-cell language left in, but this is better than we've have
had so
             far.  Also
             with the $2Billion increase, they have no excuses to not fund PD as mandated in

             the Udall
             bill.  One disturbing thing, though, is that I understand that the increase may

             not appear
             until early October 2000, the beginning of FY2001.  I understand that it is not

             necessarily
             the case that grants could not be funded against this new increases during
             FY2000.  Something called "ForwardFunding"  I call it Fiscal
            Finagling in WDC, which is dizzying!   The  text on this  is the last item.

             I know you're all weary from hearing this, but we've got to keep up the
pressure
             on
             Congress  for just a short while longer:   Pretty please?  For all of us?  Who
             else will do
             it?  [Scroll down for explanation.]

                            From:
                                  Charlotte Mancuso <[log in to unmask]>
                              To:
                                  Kathy <[log in to unmask]>
                          Subject:
                                  NIH LANGUAGE FROM HHS BILL
                             Date:
                                  Thu, 07 Oct 1999 10:15:39 -0700
                          As per Charity Bracey, Sen Feinstein's health aide, this is the
             language Sen.
                          Spector put into
                          the NIH portion of the HHS bill
                          It's very nearly word-for-word (it was difficult to take it down
             perfectly over

                          the phone,
                          but it's very close).
                          ------------------------------
                          The Committee encourages continuing  [discovery into?]  the the
             cause and
                          treatment of
                          Parkinson's Disease, and continues to seek intensified effort by
             NINDS to speed

                          the
                          development for effective therapies for this devastating disorder.

             Several
                          recent findings
                          demonstrate a strong scientific foundation for a major new
             [initiative?] in
                          Parkinson's--focused research.

                          The Committee also recognized the benefits of research
             breakthroughs in this
                          area on other
                          disorders within the Institute's scope.

                          The Committee acknowledges the 1997 enactment of the Udall
             Parkinson's Research

                          Act as a
                          timely recognition of the scientific potential in this field, and
a
             clear
                          statement of
                          intent by Congress to make Parkinson's Research a priority.

                          The Committee is pleased that the Institute [funded?] 3 out of 10
             authorized
                          Udall Research
                          Centers, but it is concerned these initial [?} do not fully
reflect
             the Act's
                          intent to
                          expand Parkinson's focused research.

                          The Committee encourages the Institute to provide sufficient funds

             to increase
                          such
                          initiatives in coordination with other relevant institutes, in
             order to carry
                          out the full
                          intent of the Act, and fully fund it's authorization for research
             focused on
                         Parkinson's
                          Disease.
                          ------------------------------
                          Sounds good, but no $$$$ mentioned; hope this helps.  Charlotte
             P.S.  Called
                          Specter again also.

                          I thought MJFox's appearance on GAM was great; it's great to have
             someone like
                          him speak up
                          for us on all these network shows finally.

                          Thanks to all,

                          Charlotte
                          --
             -------------------------------------------------------
             From:
                                  "Kathy Hayes" <[log in to unmask]>
                              To:
                                  <[log in to unmask]>
                          Subject:
                                  RE: NIH LANGUAGE FROM HHS BILL
                             Date:
                                  Fri, 8 Oct 1999 09:11:25 -0700

                          Charlotte, Last night the Senate voted on their Labor-HHS bill.
             They did
                          vote to increase the NIH budget by $2 billion.  Now the House will

             take up
                          the Labor-HHS bill and come up with their version.  After the
House
             votes it
                          will go to conference and the House and Senate will reach a
             compromise which
                          will then go to the President.  So our focus now is the House and
             apparently
                          we will have 5-10 working days to be contacting them.  Monday is a

             holiday
                          for them and they then have some sticky issues to discuss.  So we
             could
                          easily have all next week and into the following week to bug our
                          Representatives.  We will be sending out an action alert some time

             next  week
             advising everyone what the next step is.  Thanks for everything.
                         We will  also be closed on Monday so I'll talk to you later.  Also
             the Regional
                          Representative packets will be back from the printers on 15th or
             18th.
                          Thanks for your hard work.
                          Kathy
------------------------------------------
To:  [log in to unmask]

                         Subject:  POL: Washington Fax
                                        Date:  Tue, 5 Oct 1999 09:52:02 -0500
                    > 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.  {Yay!!]
                                     >
                                     > 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. [ which it
did]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.
                                     >

                                     >
                                     > 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].
--
Charlotte Mancuso
***************************************************
For advocacy, medical, and other PD-related material, go to:
http://www.onelist.com/subscribe/CurePD-NorCal