House Votes $1 Billion for AIDS Research

WASHINGTON —  Serving notice that federal funding to combat AIDS would grow even larger in future years, the House voted overwhelmingly Wednesday for an appropriations bill providing nearly $1 billion for AIDS-related research and education next year.

The special funds, which would double the money spent by the government this year on the deadly disease, were part of a $126.7-billion measure for health and human services, education and labor programs that was passed on a 336-89 vote.

House members, many of them stressing the urgency of AIDS research, beat back several attempts to cut the bill’s funding. They also rejected a last-minute amendment by Rep. Robert K. Dornan (R-Garden Grove) that would have required counselors in programs receiving federal funds to seek out and notify the previous sexual partners of AIDS victims.

The massive appropriations measure now goes to the Senate, which is not expected to act on it until the fall. Most of the money contained in the bill goes for programs like Medicaid, Social Security and Unemployment Insurance.

During a lengthy debate, a multitude of Democrats and Republicans spoke in favor of the legislation’s $945-million AIDS appropriation, which is $200 million more than President Reagan had sought.

“This bill doesn’t do enough to fight the disease, but it’s a step forward,” said Rep. Barbara Boxer (D-Greenbrae). “It takes money to beat this . . . and right now the only vaccine we have is education. That takes money, too. It’s a commitment we have to make.”

In 1984, the government spent $61.4 million to fight acquired immune deficiency syndrome. Now, officials are proposing to spend that much just for the Office of the Director of the National Institutes of Health, an umbrella agency that helps coordinate a national AIDS research program totaling just under $500 million.

Other agencies receiving major funding under the appropriation include the Centers for Disease Control in Atlanta, and the Alcohol, Drug Abuse and Mental Health Administration.

‘Difference . . . Is Sobering’

“The difference in what we’re spending over just a few years is sobering,” said Rep. Steny H. Hoyer (D-Md.). “But as awareness of this grows, I think we are actually spending less than we should. We should be increasing this appropriation by 50%, if we could.”

Several critics, however, tried unsuccessfully to reduce the overall bill--including the AIDS funding--on a series of procedural votes.

Rep. Tom Tauke (R-Iowa) said that the huge increase in AIDS money, 97% more than last year’s amount, “can be questioned . . . everything I’ve heard suggests that this is simply more money than can be reasonably spent by the government in one year on the disease.”

“We are in danger of loading up the deficit with this kind of legislation, “ he said. “Somewhere, we have to draw the line . . . simply because a problem is urgent, we can’t just throw money at it.”

Dornan’s proposal, which failed to come to a vote after a majority of House members decided to end the debate, would have instituted a nationwide “contact tracing” program, to identify previous partners that AIDS victims may have infected.

When Dornan protested that his amendment was not receiving a proper hearing, the chairmen of several health-related committees promised to explore the issue in the future.