Pass global AIDS bill.

Byline: The Register-Guard

In his State of the Union address in January, President Bush declared war on an insidious foe - not Saddam Hussein, but AIDS.

Bush pledged to fight this battle in more than a dozen African countries, as well as parts of the Caribbean, with $15 billion - $10 billion of it new funds - over the next five years. "Seldom has history offered a greater opportunity to do so much for so many,'' he said.

Three months later, Congress and the White House have become mired in a ridiculous squabble over how that money should be spent. Lawmakers have become preoccupied with myopic, silly issues such as whether it's more important to give people in poor countries condoms or urge them to abstain from sex. With 42 million people worldwide infected with the AIDS virus and the entire continent of Africa facing economic and social catastrophe because of it, isn't it time to move past such foolish debates?

Lawmakers should have approved an AIDS spending package within weeks after Bush's speech. But meddling by the White House and its conservative foot-soldiers in Congress have resulted in repeated postponements of votes in the House and Senate.

Foundering in the House is a bill sponsored by Rep. Henry Hyde, R-Ill., that would allocate $3 billion a year for five years, and would funnel up to a third of that in the 2004 budget year to the U.N.-backed Global Fund to Combat AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria. The measure is a solid compromise that deserves bipartisan support.

Conservative groups - groups that have the ear of the president - don't like Hyde's bill. They want to keep any of the money from going to the Global Fund, which they wrongly claim gives money to the U.N. Population Fund, which in turn supports groups that carry out or advise women about abortion.

Conservatives also argue that Hyde's bill doesn't go far enough toward making abstinence a priority over distribution of condoms, perhaps the single most important barrier to the spread of AIDS and a critical component of AIDS prevention success in countries such as Uganda.

Hyde, ironically is a staunch abortion opponent, understands that the new funding should be used to prevent AIDS deaths and not to satisfy conservative ideologues in the United States. Now the president can prove that he is serious about slowing the global economic and social catastrophe of 42 million people infected with the AIDS virus by putting his full support behind Hyde's bill, a move that would ensure its passage with strong bipartisan backing.

The president's emphasis in the State of the Union address on stemming the AIDS epidemic was remarkable and long-overdue breakthrough. He should not risk eroding that progress by succumbing to pressure from the far right.