 |
 |
Subject: The Udall bill and the Balanced Budget Amendment Years ago we knew a gentlemen who belonged to a local social- service organization and was the publicity chair. When he opened a newspaper, or heard a news report, he would invariably say, "hmmm, now how does this effect ..(name of organization)?" and we would chuckle. We're reminded of him now. Happenings that may not seem to directly relate to PD research may in fact do just that. We haven't been having an easy time getting the Udall bill and it's $100 million appropriation passed. (Is this an understatement or what?) The bill presented to the 105th Congress will probably contain wording similar to the bill presented to the 104th, which stated, (page 9, line 7) "(g) Authorization of Appropriations.- "(1) In General - For the purpose of carrying out this section, there are authorized to be appropriated $100,000,000 for fiscal year 1996, and such sums as may be necessary for each of the fiscal years 1997 through 2000." In other words, even if the Udall bill is passed this year, we're going to have to remain at the barricades now and yearly thereafter, to ensure the coming year's funding, and continually justify "such sums as may by necessary." We believe that passage of a balanced budget amendment will make the issue of funding for PD research more difficult since it is not one of the more popular diseases, and that a balanced budget amendment could conceivably be used as an excuse by those who oppose the Udall bill to lobby against future funding. If you agree, please contact your legislators ASAP and ask them to vote AGAINST the balanced budget amendment. Senator Torricelli of NJ is said to have not made a decision yet, but all legislators should be contacted. The vote will take place this week.