Prevention Funding: No New Dollars in President's Budget for 1995

President Clinton's budget plan for 1995 is due to be
released February 7. Present indications are that it contains
no new funding for HIV/AIDS prevention. What effect is this
likely to have on prevention efforts in fiscal year 1995 (the
year which begins October 1, 1994)? Mike Shriver, executive
director of Mobilization Against AIDS, points out, "while the
president's budget does not set figures, it does set floors
and ceilings and thus shows where the president believes
priorities should be. By not advocating any new money for
prevention the president is basically giving the message that
he does not believe HIV should be a priority." Those working
in the field, however, believe that prevention must be a
major initiative "if we are to slow down the occurrence of
new cases and save lives."

In the last two years, Shriver explained, HIV/AIDS advocacy
groups have worked intensely with the Centers for Disease
Control (CDC) to reform the way the CDC organizes its
prevention programs, both in the way these programs are
funded and in the way they are delivered. He sees the CDC as
now being committed to a community-planning process which
would lead to much improved targeting of prevention money. It
will, however, "require new government funding of $95
million" to bring these reforms to fruition; if there is no
new money for prevention in 1995, Shriver believes that the
work which has gone into reforming prevention strategies will
have been wasted. Citing these reforms, Steve Morin,
assistant on AIDS for Representative Nancy Pelosi (Democrat,
California), agrees with Shriver, saying that under the
circumstances it is "ironic that the administration would
make prevention such a low priority."

Shriver is adamant, though, that despite the tight financial
situation Congress is dealing with this year, "funding for
prevention must not come at the expense of other HIV-funded
programs such as research, care and housing." This is echoed
by Derek Hodel at AIDS Action Council who also believes it is
vital that there is new funding for prevention but is
concerned that such funding must not come out of other AIDS
programs. John Gurrola, Kristine Gebbie's communications'
director at the Office of the National AIDS Policy
Coordinator, told us they have no comment to make on the
budget recommendations at this point, but they "know
prevention works" and are "heavily involved in advocating for
new money in the budget."

What can our readers do to make sure the president and
Congress realize how important it is that new funding for
prevention is included in the final budget provisions? Mike
Shriver described the development of the budget as a "four-
step process." Essentially planning for the budget begins a
year and a half before the final version is voted into law by
Congress. The first part of this process for fiscal 1995 will
conclude when the president presents his budget intentions in
February. Advocacy for this stage began in September 1993.
The next stage -- the one in which our readers now need to be
involved -- runs from April to September, when the
subcommittee which writes the appropriations bill for the
Departments of Labor - Health and Human Services - Education,
makes actual dollar recommendations based on the president's
intentions i.e. "they carve out numbers." This subcommittee
reports back to the full committee, which takes the Labor -
Health and Human Services - Education Appropriations Bill
(which contains these numbers), to the floor of the House to
be voted on. The Senate goes through a similar process and
then the two Houses work together, in a Joint Conference, to
come up with figures they can both live with. After the Labor
- Health and Human Services - Education Appropriations Bill
goes through the Joint Conference, it is then voted on again
by Congress, and signed into law by the president. This bill
will provide the appropriations for HIV/AIDS care, research,
and prevention for fiscal 1995.

It is urgent, Shriver says, that people "lobby their
Congresspersons intensely, either personally or by letter, to
approach the members of the above-mentioned House
appropriations subcommittee, to let them know it is vital
that new funding is provided for prevention in 1995." Nancy
Pelosi is a particularly influential and concerned member of
that subcommittee, but all members of the subcommittee need
to be targeted.