[Fax and Report to Tim Westmoreland from Martin Delaney]

25193' 05:20:05

Martin Delaney

Page 4 of 6

S 1 Discussion Points / Analysis / Clarification
II. The Point of Disagreement
There is but a single point of substantive disagreement between the two positions. The exact meaning of that
disagreement, however, is not immediately evident in the language of the bill, and even less so in the ongoing
debate between the parties. Lets see if we can simplify this area of disagreement.
A. S1 requires the OARD to work with the Institutes (etc.) to create an annual budget consistent with the
strategic plan. This budget addresses both the continued funding of the "commitment base, " defined as
"ongoing program initiatives, as well as any "new and competing program initiatives." Budgets. ho.wever, to be
approved by the OARD, will of course have the greatest impact on "new and competing program initiatives.
DEFINITION: "commitment base" and "on going programs"; this includes:
* intramural research (studies and research conducted entirely within the Institutes, centers, and divisions.
* existing extramural grants and programs already committed, for their duration.
DEFINITION: "new and competing program initiatives.;" this includes:
* funding for new grants and programs initiated after the existing grants and programs come to term and
expire, and any existing grants and programs which might be up for renewal.
DEFINITION: "new money:" this includes:
* moneys allocated by Congress in a given budget year, over and above the funds allocated for the
"commitment base and for the "new and competing programs" and the cost of inflation.
B. "Ongoing" programs, although addressed in the budget, planning, and review processes under the OARD,
will continue to be funded as planned at their initiation.
C. Under the current language of the bill (2/4/93) all money, budgeted for either ongoing programs or new
program initiatives, would be paid first to the OARD.
1. From there, money for the ongoing programs would go immediately to the institutes according to original
commitments made to those programs.
2. Money for the new and competing programs would also go immediately to the institutes, based on the
priorities expressed in the budget request.
D. The bill requires that "up to 25%" of "new moneys" would remain in the control of, for use in a
"discretionary fund" as described in the table above.
The single point of disagreement is item C above.
Both parties agree that the money for new and competing programs would be budgeted jointly by the Institutes
and the OARD, with the OARD having the final budget authority, thus giving the OARD front-end budgetary
control over all new and competing programs.
81 as described above, proposes that the money for both the commitment base and for new and competing
programs, once allocated, would not go directly to the institutes and centers which requested the money,
but would go to a fund managed and disbursed by the OARD. As written, however, the bill requires the
OARD to distribute these funds as designed and prioritized in the budget.
It is unclear under the language of the bill whether the OARD would retain any right to reprogram these
funds in ways contrary to the budget agreement made with the institutes.
Dr. Fauci and others argue that once the money is budgeted and appropriated, it should go directly to the
institutes and centers as directed by the budget, without stopping first at the OARD.

The arguments for and against these two positions are as follows: