On the recordDecember 11, 2013
I support this legislation, but I want to go through the controversy. First of all, the argument about campaign finance reform, this is about taking money away from political conventions. The majority on both sides of the aisle have supported that. Number two, there is an argument that this does not restore NIH funding. That is absolutely true, and we should restore full funding for the National Institutes of Health. Passing this bill doesn't stop us from doing that. It may even put us a step forward. Third, there is an argument that the money will not get to the intended target because of the way it is designed. But if there is any expression of good faith, it is that the appropriators have made a very clear indication that they are willing to do everything they possibly can in order to make this happen. Fourth, it is limited in its scope and in its funds. That is true. But the fact is it does do something. It takes a step forward. We are having an argument here about whether this is bipartisan or not. We are having an argument about bipartisan or not. We are having an argument about process. But I think if we are candid, we have to acknowledge that, as an institution, both sides have failed when it comes to an overall comprehensive budget, including for the NIH. On August 12, 2011, this Congress voted 269-161 to implement the sequester, and in the I-told-you-so brand of argument, I voted against that.…





