[Fax and Report to Tim Westmoreland from Martin Delaney]

2/5/93' 05:17:35

Martin Delaney

Page 2 of 6

S1 Discussion Points / Analysis I Clarification
Version 2 - 2/5/93
As it stands today, there is a great deal of agreement on the overall thrust and intent of S 1 and the
many advancements it makes in strategic planning, management structures, and budgeting.
Contrary to the volume level of the debate, genuine differences of opinion exist over a single,
important aspect of the legislation. All other issues have already been agreed to. Except for this
particular point, the battle is over and the architects of S 1 have already won. Because it has taken
me quite a while to clearly identify and understand the remaining sticking point, and because
conversations with others suggest a similar lack of clarity on the part of both proponents and
opponents, I submit the following analysis. As is almost always the case in such negotiations, there
are many mistaken notions circulating over what the debate is about. Anyone who feels familiar with
the overall bill might skip ahead to page 3 for a discussion solely of the point of disagreement.
For simplicity, "S1" refers to what the language actually does, as currently written, and the other
perspective "Fauci et al." for the alternative view. This is not to suggest that there are only two
viewpoints, but it is fair to say that there are only two which are likely to have a significant impact on
the outcome.
The remainder of this document includes the following:
TABLE 1 -
A summary of the principle positions taken in Si and the relative position taken by Fauci et al.
DISCUSSION
The Point of Disagreement: a careful description of the dispute terms and intent of the bill.
TABLE 2 -
A. Summary of the supporting arguments for the S1 position, as well as the responses made to
these argument
B. Summary of the supporting arguments for the "Fauci et al" position, as well as the
responses made to these arguments.