Statement of Joint Council of Allergy and Immunology Presented before the Committee on Energy and Commerce Subcommittee on Health and the Environment

FUNDING ISSUES
Allocation of Appropriation
The modifications in TITLE XVIII state that the "Director of
the Office of AIDS Research shall...receive from the President
and the Office of Management and Budget directly all AIDS-related
research funds appropriated by Congress for transfer to, and
obligation and expenditure by, the institute, centers and divisions
of NIH..." Based upon the amendment, the only component that
would be transferred directly to the Institutes, Centers and
Divisions (ICD's) would be the commitment base, or funds to support
ongoing programs. Traditionally, the appropriation of funds to the
NIH ICD's has included the baseline appropriation, all funds
necessary to support the commitment base and competing renewals, as
well as inflationary adjustments and new initiatives. This
amendment takes the position that only the commitment base of the
ICD would remain in the ICD--all other funds, the competing base
and new initiatives--would fall under the authority and discretion
of the Office of AIDS Research.
We believe that this proposal is counterproductive to the
effective implementation of AIDS research, that it will impede
timely commitment of funds, and will be disastrous to the long term
planning of AIDS research efforts. Supporters of this amendment
would argue that it will improve coordination and efficiency in the
program implementation. However, many would disagree and within
the context of this, I offer the following thoughts for your
consideration.
It takes almost eighteen months for the ICD's to begin the
planning process for competing renewals. At the present time, the
ICD's are able to predict their resource base for competing
initiatives and weigh this against evolving research priorities.
What commitments can the ICD's make to these renewals in the
absence of a direct appropriation by the Congress? Will the Office
of AIDS Research reconsider the relative priority of all competing
renewals? If so, what will that process be and how will an
administrative office integrate the specific expertise of the
scientific components--the ICD's--into this process? And, in the
absence of a commitment to enable continuity and planning, what
should the extramural research laboratories across the country do
with their staff and research initiatives while this decision is
occurring?
The precedent of appropriating AIDS research funds to the
Office of the Director is breaking with a longstanding tradition
for the conduct of disease research that cuts across several
Institutes. This approach has served many, many diseases, such as
cancer, asthma, and genetic-based diseases to name a few, quite
effectively. Great progress in research has been made in Cystic
Fibrosis, cancer, heart disease and other areas because ongoing and
competitive research funds have been appropriated to the focal
point of where the science base and scientific experts exist--the