Diary Prequel Package — page 81

rwer back finally. of having the NIH Recombinant DNA Advisory Committee (RAC) serve as a mechanism to provide a "culture of responsibility" among scientists similar to what was done in the mid-1970s. At the briefing was the usual people - Gen Gordon, Ken Bernard, Richard Falkenrath, Carol Kuntz, several DoE people, WH communications people, etc. Decision was to put together a briefing for the Secretaries. Sept. 18 -19, 2003 - Went to NYC to give Plenary Lecture at the AIDS Vaccine 2003 meeting. While I was there, Hurricane Isabel hit Washington, D.C. and there was widespread devastation with major power outages (3 million people in DC, VA, and MD without power). Power not expected to be restored for at least 1 week. Sept. 24, 2003 - Power back finally. Sept. 25, 2003 - White House meeting with Jay Lefkowitz, Gary Edson, Mark Dybul, Joe O'Neill, Carol Thompson to discuss the controversy regarding $2 Billion versus $3 billion in FY '04 for the President's $15 billion, 5 year plan. Bono and other activists want a full $3 billion in '04. However, if we did that, then we would put less in '05, '06, etc. I recommended to Jay et al to stick with the Plan and leave flexibility to match other funds by 1/3. See below my e-mail to Jay from 9/25/03: Jay/Gary: Just a recap of my suggestion from this afternoon for your consideration. Mark was on the same page on this also. I believe that we must remind people and strongly underscore that the President's Plan is a $15 billion program over 5 years involving 14 countries. Within the context of such a plan (we must emphasize this point), the best way to spend the money and thus to save the most lives is by phasing in with $2 billion in the first year and more than $3 billion per year in subsequent years. We all realize that more money can be spent globally on AIDS and thus more lives can be saved. This is a no-brainer. We never said that the President's Plan of itself would cover all of global AIDS. We should not get into an "absorptive capacity" argument since no matter how clear we are, people will confuse absorptive capacity in the President's Plan of 14 countries and absorptive capacity for the rest of the developing world. I suggest that we take a 2 pronged approach. 1) We stick with the President's Plan as it has been outlined, and; 2) We publicly recognize that more money can indeed be spent on AIDS globally. We are hoping that other countries will follow the President's lead and put more money into programs either bilaterally or through the Global Fund. In fact, we are willing to go the extra mile and to contribute 1/3 of the global effort if other countries rise to the occasion. In '03, the world total was $3.6 billion with $1.4 billion by us (39%). Since we are giving $2 billion in '04, the rest of the world should give $4 billion. If the rest of the world gives more than $4 billion, we will match them by 1/3. Thus, if they want us to give $3 billion in '04, the rest of the world must total $6 billion. If this happens (which it will not), then we will put the additional money into a mix of Global Fund and other countries (beyond the original 14) bilaterally. In this way we show leadership and flexibility. If no one else gives an additional penny, we still are committed to the President's Plan as we have outlined. If other countries meet the above mentioned benchmarks, then we are flexible enough to match them by 1/3. Finally, if the Congress appropriates a couple of hundred million over the $2 billion and the President signs such a Bill, we would give that additional money to the Global Fund and/or additional countries and back up our contention that our funding plan for the 14 countries is indeed sound. I would be happy to discuss this further with you. Thanks, Tony