 |
 |
Dear Camilla: I want to make sure that you do not feel that I was being loud and obnoxious about the reauthorization v. revitalization difference in my earlier post. When I saw the printed result, I felt I needed to clarify/amplify. This is as good a time as ever to thank you for your vigilant, warm, knowledgable presence. You are always ready to welcome new comers and offer friendship to those of us who have been around, up & down & down the PD roller-coaster ride. Infact, your post made me look up the source and now I understand the difference. Thank you. >From Thomas' government website-- http://thomas.loc.gov/ THE NIH REAUTHORIZATION ACT OF 1996 STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS (Senate - June 21, 1996) Mrs. KASSEBAUM: " Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation which supports the important work of the National Institutes of Health. This bill, the National Institutes of Health Revitalization Act of 1996, will reauthorize the ongoing work of this outstanding Federal research institution. ......... In conclusion, Mr. President, reauthorization of the important work of the National Institutes of Health represents for the American people an investment beyond compare or valuation. I am pleased to welcome Senators Kennedy, Jeffords, Pell, and Hatfield as original cosponsors of this legislation. I urge my colleagues to support the adoption of the National Institutes of Health Revitalization Act of 1996." Regards, Margaret Tuchman(54,dx 1980)