 |
 |
Date: Thursday, July 2, 1998 11:02:51 PM From: [log in to unmask] Subj: PAN response to Phil Thompkins If you have any questions or comments, please contact Michael Claeys at the Parkinson's Action Network -- (800) 850-4726. "Mr. Tompkins, I appreciate your comments on my recent post regarding the House Labor/HHS Appropriations Subcommittee's fiscal year 1999 bill markup. At this time I would like to respond to some of your comments. Phil Tompkins wrote: > Everyone who might benefit from NIH funding - all the disease > organizations, all the research organizations - are now bombarding > Congress with requests to enact the proposal to double NIH funding. > That one's a winner. As much as I agree that NIHx2 is a winning issue, the political reality is that NIHx2 passage this year is far from certain. The question is how to pay for it. Last year, an initiative to pay for NIH doubling with an across the board cut of less than 1% failed by a 53-47 vote in the Senate -- and this vote came only days after the same Senators voted 99-0 in favor of a non-binding "sense of the Senate" resolution to double NIH, but without specifying how the increase would be paid for. And with the future of this year's tobacco legislation still in question, revenue sources for the NIHx2 could become even more difficult to find. And while some disease groups are working in concert this year to push for NIHx2, the effort is far from unanimous or all-out. Cancer advocates are planning a huge march on Washington, DC in October to promote doubling the budget of the Cancer Institute (not the entire NIH, just the Cancer Institute), Alzheimer's advocates are pushing for a $100 million increase in fiscal year 1999 Alzheimer's research funding (Alzheimer's received an estimated $349 million in fiscal year 1998), and we the Parkinson's community are working hard to secure full funding of the Udall Act. All of these groups support doubling the NIH budget, but while the funds are still scarce our first priority remains our individual causes. That's just reality. > I'd guess we'll have to make a big impact for > Udall to be noticed along side this. People might very well think > that NIH X 2 will be adequate for Parkinson's. I'd say we'll need > to make a pretty good case for Udall funding beyond NIH X 2, yes? You are correct, and that is why we continue to make every effort to ensure the maximum appropriation for Parkinson's research in fiscal year 1999. If you have any questions or comments, please contact Michael Claeys at the Parkinson's Action Network -- (800) 850-4726."