 |
 |
"You will be pleased to learn that in the final version of the Departments of Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education and Related Agencies Appropriation Bill, a total of $100 million dollars has been appropriated to fund basic research on Parkinson's disease." Translation: 1. Be pleased. 2. We have already thought about that and, although we didn't do what you want (fund the Mo), we sent the Departments of Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education and Related Agencies (perhaps even the NIH) enough that they can pay for the research, The other one says "However, while the bill authorized the National Institutes of Health to spend $100 million on Parkinson's research and education, appropriations bills generally do not provide line item funding for disease- specific research. Instead, In the final report on the appropriations bill, the conference committee stated that it was their understanding from NIH that sufficient funds were available within the amounts provided in the Institute's FY 1998 budget to expand research on Parkinson's. In fact, the projected spending on Parkinson's research for FY 1998 is estimated at $98.5 million." Would anyone care to comment Translation: 1. We don't do specific bills on specific diseases, [implied that what we are asking is out of line-perhaps it is]. 2. However, I heard from that the conference committee was told by someone at NIH, the NIH has enough money to do the job. 3. The FY 1998 budget authorized enough funds to the NIH to expand Parkinson's research. 4. What we did is 98.5% of what you asked--almost as good as full funding for the Mo. In both of these there is a strong implication that: The situation is in control. Please notice that my side is the same as your side. You are getting a reasonable amount of what you are asking for. If you are reasonable that should satisfy you. We know best what you really need. I have avoided the pejorative implication that these agencies are a bunch of bureaucrats whose priorities are suspect because they have stiffed us for years. On the other hand some of the congresspersons probably feel like they are preventing another layer of bureaucracy by doing it this way. The problems I see: 1 Neither Senator plans to vote to support spending on the Mo. 2 We are asking for something special 3 We have enough division in our ranks to not be truly united 4 They passed the Mo last year, but are in no hurry to spend on it. 5 They will respond with $100,000,000 only after we demonstrate ourselves capable of massive amounts of the crudest type of political pressure.