This Article  • References  • Full text PDF  • Send to a friend  • Save in My Folder  • Save to citation manager  • Permissions  Citing Articles  • Contact me when this article is cited  Related Content  • Similar articles in JAMA  Social Bookmarking   What's this?

Mark O. Hatfield

JAMA. 1995;274(13):1077.

	Since this article does not have an abstract, we have provided the first 150 words of the full text PDF and any section headings.

AS THE chairman of the US Senate Appropriations Committee, I know all too well the difficulties we as a nation face in dividing increasingly strained financial resources among our domestic priorities. We must cut federal spending. We must reduce the deficit. But certain programs will continue to receive federal support and the new Congress has been actively involved in setting priorities. In my view, the decision whether to continue funding an agency or program is based on three factors. First, is the program vital to the wellbeing of Americans and to our national security? Second, is the activity one that the federal government is best suited to conduct, or would a state or local government deliver the service more efficiently? Third, does the program contribute to our nation's future?

Few programs fit these criteria better than medical research. Medical research offers a tremendous economic return on every dollar spent, and . . . [Full Text PDF of this Article]

Author Affiliations
From the US Senate, Washington, DC. Senator Hatfield is a Republican from Oregon.

Footnotes
Senator Hatfield is the recipient of the 1995 Albert Lasker Public Service Award.

Corresponding author: Senator Mark O. Hatfield, 711 Hart Senate Office Bldg, Washington, DC 20510.

CiteULike    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    Twitter     What's this?