RESENDING WITHOUT THE DIGITAL GIBBERISH--SORRY!
Hi all,
Mixed news: the HHS bill passed the Senate last night with a $2 billion dollar
increase,
but without clear PD-targeting $$$s written in. However, there was sworn
testimony at last
Tuesday's hearing by NIH/NINDS chief, Fischbach, Spector, and Cochoran that PD
will be more
or less focused on, and that a better accounting of what is spent on PD by the
NIH/NINDS
will be done; additionally, the wording in the following paragraphs I took down
over the
phone, if they survive by the time it gets to President Clinton for signature,
bears out
that testimony and are very strong and encouraging. I wanted more: Actual
$$$s
spelled out
for PD and the stem-cell language left in, but this is better than we've have
had so
far. Also
with the $2Billion increase, they have no excuses to not fund PD as mandated in
the Udall
bill. One disturbing thing, though, is that I understand that the increase may
not appear
until early October 2000, the beginning of FY2001. I understand that it is not
necessarily
the case that grants could not be funded against this new increases during
FY2000. Something called "ForwardFunding" I call it Fiscal
Finagling in WDC, which is dizzying! The text on this is the last item.
I know you're all weary from hearing this, but we've got to keep up the
pressure
on
Congress for just a short while longer: Pretty please? For all of us? Who
else will do
it? [Scroll down for explanation.]
From:
Charlotte Mancuso <[log in to unmask]>
To:
Kathy <[log in to unmask]>
Subject:
NIH LANGUAGE FROM HHS BILL
Date:
Thu, 07 Oct 1999 10:15:39 -0700
As per Charity Bracey, Sen Feinstein's health aide, this is the
language Sen.
Spector put into
the NIH portion of the HHS bill
It's very nearly word-for-word (it was difficult to take it down
perfectly over
the phone,
but it's very close).
------------------------------
The Committee encourages continuing [discovery into?] the the
cause and
treatment of
Parkinson's Disease, and continues to seek intensified effort by
NINDS to speed
the
development for effective therapies for this devastating disorder.
Several
recent findings
demonstrate a strong scientific foundation for a major new
[initiative?] in
Parkinson's--focused research.
The Committee also recognized the benefits of research
breakthroughs in this
area on other
disorders within the Institute's scope.
The Committee acknowledges the 1997 enactment of the Udall
Parkinson's Research
Act as a
timely recognition of the scientific potential in this field, and
a
clear
statement of
intent by Congress to make Parkinson's Research a priority.
The Committee is pleased that the Institute [funded?] 3 out of 10
authorized
Udall Research
Centers, but it is concerned these initial [?} do not fully
reflect
the Act's
intent to
expand Parkinson's focused research.
The Committee encourages the Institute to provide sufficient funds
to increase
such
initiatives in coordination with other relevant institutes, in
order to carry
out the full
intent of the Act, and fully fund it's authorization for research
focused on
Parkinson's
Disease.
------------------------------
Sounds good, but no $$$$ mentioned; hope this helps. Charlotte
P.S. Called
Specter again also.
I thought MJFox's appearance on GAM was great; it's great to have
someone like
him speak up
for us on all these network shows finally.
Thanks to all,
Charlotte
--
-------------------------------------------------------
From:
"Kathy Hayes" <[log in to unmask]>
To:
<[log in to unmask]>
Subject:
RE: NIH LANGUAGE FROM HHS BILL
Date:
Fri, 8 Oct 1999 09:11:25 -0700
Charlotte, Last night the Senate voted on their Labor-HHS bill.
They did
vote to increase the NIH budget by $2 billion. Now the House will
take up
the Labor-HHS bill and come up with their version. After the
House
votes it
will go to conference and the House and Senate will reach a
compromise which
will then go to the President. So our focus now is the House and
apparently
we will have 5-10 working days to be contacting them. Monday is a
holiday
for them and they then have some sticky issues to discuss. So we
could
easily have all next week and into the following week to bug our
Representatives. We will be sending out an action alert some time
next week
advising everyone what the next step is. Thanks for everything.
We will also be closed on Monday so I'll talk to you later. Also
the Regional
Representative packets will be back from the printers on 15th or
18th.
Thanks for your hard work.
Kathy
------------------------------------------
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: POL: Washington Fax
Date: Tue, 5 Oct 1999 09:52:02 -0500
> Senate L/HHS funding bill still surviving in floor
debate
>
> House version may be a casualty of internal GOP
politics
>
> Though it's taking longer than expected, Senate
Republicans are confident
> they can complete work later this week on legislation
that would provide a
> $2 billion boost to the National Institutes of Health
(NIH). Getting the
> bill through the Senate has gained added significance
of late, since the
> House version of the measure--which has a $1.35
billion increase for
> NIH--is in deep trouble. {Yay!!]
>
> House Republican leaders reportedly are determined to
take the FY 2000
> Labor, Health and Human Services, Education, and
Related Agencies (L/HHS)
> spending bill to the House floor for a vote. But
their
effort to shift more
> money to the legislation--and thus give it a chance
of
passing--blew up
> Thursday when GOP presidential candidate George W.
Bush accused them of
> trying to "balance their budget on the backs of the
poor" with a plan to
> delay government payouts to recipients of the Earned
Income Tax Credit
> (EITC). (see Washington Fax 10/1/99)
>
> The EITC provision, approved Thursday by the House
Appropriations
> Committee, would bring $8.7 billion to the bill. More
importantly, it is
> the linchpin in the House GOP strategy to produce
L/HHS legislation that
> has enough funds to assure passage on the House floor
but does not eat into
> Social Security revenues. However, Bush's comments
quickly transformed the
> EITC offset from merely controversial to a political
poison pill.
>
> A Republican staffer predicted that the EITC language
could end up being
> the "family planning amendment of FY 2000," a
reference to divisive
> language that stymied work on the FY 1999 bill. But
as
of Monday, sources
> said, Republican leaders had not come up with a way
to
plug the $8.7
> billion hole that would be created should the EITC
provision be stripped.
>
> Given the size of the federal budget surplus, FY 2000
money woes are
> really, in fact, political problems. Republicans have
insisted on staying
> within the spending limits established in the 1997
budget deal while also
> staking their political fortunes on a pledge not to
dip into the Social
> Security portion of the surplus. As a result, they
have engaged in a
> variety of accounting maneuvers in an effort to claim
they're sticking with
> their program.
>
> The Senate has more flexibility in such a game, and
that's why most
> observers believe its version of the L/HHS bill is
likely to win approval
> on the Senate floor later this week. [ which it
did]For example,
Senate Appropriations
> Committee Chairman Ted Stevens, R-AK, simply acted
unilaterally last week
> to shift several billion dollars to the L/HHS bill
from the Defense
> appropriations bill, with the proviso that the money
would be replaced by
> declaring a portion of Defense spending an
"emergency."
>
> (Emergency money is not included in the tally that
determines whether
> budget limits have been breached and thus has become
a
popular device for
> GOP appropriators.)
>
> But affecting a similar reallocation in the House
would require the
> approval of the full House Appropriations Committee,
something that aides
> say would be difficult or impossible to accomplish.
>
> One possible outcome reportedly under discussion
among
House and Senate
> staff would be to skip the House floor altogether and
work out a compromise
> between the bill expected to be produced by the
Senate
and the L/HHS
> measure approved by the House Appropriations
Committee. Such a
> "conferenced" bill could then be attached to another
appropriations measure
> and voted on by both bodies.
>
> The problem with that tactic, say those close to the
discussions, is
> Republicans are worried about any move that would
lessen their influence in
> the process. They are determined to send President
Clinton individual
> appropriations measures and then negotiate on a
bill-by-bill,
> issue-by-issue basis. Many Republicans view last
year's budget
> negotiations, in which most spending was rolled into
a
massive, omnibus
> bill as a process that cedes most power to the
president.
>
> The good news for science programs is despite the
problems besetting the
> L/HHS spending bill, no one is suggesting NIH will
end
up with anything
> short of a substantial increase. Also, the L/HHS
dilemma has prompted
> Republicans to try to keep their headaches to a
minimum by speeding up work
> on other appropriations bills.
>
> That desire for action resulted in more money being
added last week to
> legislation that funds the National Science
Foundation
(NSF). The extra
> cash makes it more likely the House, which produced a
bill that cut NSF by
> $34 million, would agree to the Senate mark for the
agency, which provides
> a $250 million increase--the equivalent of what
President Clinton requested
> in February. The architects of the House legislation
have said they want to
> give more money to NSF and would do so if extra funds
were added to the
> bill.
>
> As it now stands, for NIH the only potentially
negative effect of the FY
> 2000 accounting gymnastics is the Senate L/HHS bill
would hold back $3
> billion in NIH funds until the end of the fiscal
year.
Section 215 of the
> Senate legislation stipulates that $3 billion in NIH
appropriations "shall
> not be available for obligation until September 29,
2000." The House
> measure contains no such language.
>
> If the Senate provision is retained in whatever L/HHS
funding legislation
> is finally enacted, it could mean grant awards
normally doled out
> throughout the last quarter of the fiscal year would
not be paid until the
> last day of the fourth quarter. It is not yet clear
what the consequences
> would be for NIH-funded investigators, beyond posing
administrative
> difficulties.
>
> On the positive side for NIH, the Senate bill employs
an accounting
> technique known as "forward funding" to double the
amount available for
> extramural construction, from $30 million to $60
million. The only catch is
> half of that money would not be available until
October 1, 2000, the
> beginning of the 2001 fiscal year. However, advocates
for increased
> facilities funding say it still should be counted as
a
victory for FY 2000
> because research institutions would be able to apply
for the money and NIH
> could review applications in FY 2000, even though
they
would technically
> not be able to send out any cash until October 1.
>
> The House bill contains $30 million for extramural
facilities construction,
> none of it forward funded.
>
>
> A summary of the Senate L/HHS bill with links to bill
and report language
> is available through the Senate Web site at [
> http://www.senate.gov/~appropriations/hhsfull.htm].
--
Charlotte Mancuso
***************************************************
For advocacy, medical, and other PD-related material, go to:
http://www.onelist.com/subscribe/CurePD-NorCal
