I have only time to focus on one of the reasons for voting against this bill. My distinguished chairman of the subcommittee, the honorable chairman and good friend, has a couple of times, several times, pointed out that the NIH budget, the National Institutes of Health budget, is up from $15.6 billion by 14 percent, up to $17.9 billion. What he does not point out, and that he has never mentioned, is that $7.5 billion of that, more than 40 percent, is shifted so that it may not be obligated until the 29th or 30th day of September next year. For him to speak about that would probably cause him to throw up. The number of dollars that are available because of that feature, the number of dollars for medical research in the fiscal year is, in reality, cut by about 15 percent in the year 2000. And that means that medical research on cancer research, on Alzheimer's, on AIDS, as well as genetic causes of disease and biotechnology, all of that has to be slowed down or stopped or put on the back burner.
John W. Olver: “I have only time to focus on one of the reasons for voting against this bill. My distinguished chairman of the…”
Editor's note · Context
Discussing concerns about the NIH budget during a debate on a related bill.
Share
More from John W. Olver
Excuse me. Thank you very much. Please forgive me. You don't even look alike. I think I was mistaking you for a different member of the California delegation. I thank the gentleman from Iowa for correcting me. In any case, I rise in…
And this was an executive order promulgated by President Clinton or by President Bush?
How does that guarantee that California's gas tax moneys will not be used for high-speed rail?
This amendment again, as the gentleman has said, is an amendment that would freeze at the level of the 2012 funding here for salaries and expenses of the Office of Community Planning and Development. Now, this office, it turns out…





