 |
 |
To All List Members: We were reminded the other day that there are those in Congress who abhor earmarking and for that reason would not support the Udall bill. We were reminded that Senators Bill Frist (R-TN), James Jeffords (R- VT), and Dan Coats (R-IN) "want to minimize Congressional micromanagement of NIHs research directions and in wanting to avoid excessive earmarking of research funds." Senator Coats complained that by adopting a "disease of the month" mentality, Congress was making decisions for NIH based on personal, emotional and political reasons rather than scientific reasons." Senator Jon Kyl, (R-AZ) has written, "Congress has traditionally appropriated an overall amount of funding for research and then deferred to the expertise of the scientists at NIH, who are best able to make decisions---based on science and not politics---." Senator John Ashcroft, (R-MO) has written, "I believe that it is wise for Congress to give deference to the NIH in the determination of what the nation's research funding priorities should be." You may want to reread the speech delivered by President Clinton on the occasion of his announcement of the $2 billion earmarked diabetes package which was posted this AM by Margaret Tuchman, and note his references to the personal and emotional influences that led him to support the bill, and then note that Senators Frist, Jeffords, Coats, Kyl and Ashcroft voted for the diabetes legislation despite their dislike of earmarking. (This legislation is of major importance and certainly worthwhile.) One year's funding of the Udall bill is 5% of the amount designated for this legislation. Don't you think that this should provide the impetus for writing and phoning these legislators to ask that they reconsider their position on the Udall bill?