http://www.the-scientist.com/news/home/53858/ US President George W. Bush on Tuesday (Nov 13) vetoed a spending bill that aimed to boost federal funding for the National Institutes of Health. The bill, which was passed by Congress last week, sought to increase NIH funding by about $1 billion from a 2007 budget of about $29 billion to a 2008 budget of about $30 billion. In a statement released by the White House after Bush vetoed the bill, the president decried the Democrat-led Congress for engaging in what he called a "spending spree," and said that the legislative majority was "acting like a teenager with a new credit card." The bill, H.R.3043, also sought to bolster the budgets of the departments of Labor and Education, and carried a request for a total of $150.7 billion. Since its introduction in July, Bush has said he would veto the bill because it overshot his own budget recommendations. "We were hoping that [Bush's veto] wouldn't be the case," Carrie Wolinetz, Federation of American Societies for Experimental Biology (FASEB) spokesperson, told The Scientist. "But the threat had been there." The NIH budget has been stagnant over the past few years, with government funding increasing by only about $1.4 billion between 2003 and 2006. The vetoed bill also included a provision requiring NIH-funded researchers to post the full text of their research papers on the National Library of Medicine's publicly accessible PubMed Central website within a year of publication. This provision survived an attack by Republican Senator James Inhofe in October to remain intact in the final version of the bill sent to the president. The bill cleared the House of Representatives only three votes shy of the two-thirds majority it would have needed to avoid Bush's veto. As H.R.3043 returns to Capitol Hill, where legislators will hold a veto override vote, Wolinetz said that FASEB will continue encouraging its 80,000-strong membership to urge their legislators to support the bill and overturn the presidential veto. "We are working currently to mobilize our society of member scientists in hope of giving some support for the override vote," she said. If Bush's veto of the bill is not overridden by Congress, it will be renegotiated, and legislators will vote on the funding package again. Open access advocate Peter Suber said that even in the face of these potential renegotiations, the open access provision in the bill is likely to remain unchanged. "If they have to revise the appropriation," he told The Scientist, "then I'm optimistic that the open access provision will survive intact." Bush has voiced opposition to what he sees as pork and unnecessary earmarking in the bill, but has not been strongly opposed to the open access provision. "This seems to be small potatoes to the president," Suber said. Wolinetz added that she hopes lawmakers will conduct the veto override vote before Congress recesses for the Thanksgiving holiday next week, but that getting the override through the House and Senate would be a challenge. Congress did, however, override Bush's veto of another appropriations bill, the popular Water Resources Development Act, earlier this month. Bob Grant mail@the-scientist.com
He wants to more money to fight the "war on terror," yet the health of the American population is not important enough for him. Its only a billion dollar compared to the trillions he has wasted on IRAQ WOW
Absurdly, I think the NIH is viewed as a politically opposed group by the Republicans. I find it really hard to fathom a mindset where the quest for scientific understanding is viewed as an opponent, but there it is.
Depends on if you go by headline inflation or core inflaton. Headline, I wouldn't be surprised. But the FED normally goes by core in its decisions.
They might use the money to pursue research on evolution or pursue research on how to cure AIDS and other STD's. Plus scientists from the NIH tend to say that intelligent design is utter garbage, which it is. Oh the Horror!
increasing funds to the NIH is vital to the national interest bc it provides grants to researchers. these grants allow us to look into cures for diseases, new treatment and prevention methods, and better understanding of life. seeing as how all our manufacturing jobs are over seas now, the best way for america to stay ahead economically is through finance, service, education and... RESEARCH!!! new discoveries lead to new jobs, better health care, healthier workforce, savings that go way beyond the initial investment... investing in the NIH is investing in our future... its a pity that this administration has decreased funding for vital programs such as the NIH (and now vetos a bill to increase its funding). how much money is being sent down the drain in iraq? and then the administration doesnt raise taxes (a whole nother topic...) this kinda reminds me of the invitro fertilization controversy when the method was being first discovered. (one of my professors did a lot of research on invitro and had his funding cut when it was deemed that it was "playing god" by religious conservatives) the conservatives fought against invitro and so the US government cut funding. England took up the research slack and was the first country to successfully impregnate a barren woman through invitro. then all of a sudden Americans were up in arms bc Americans should have been the first to discover this technology... today, invitro is an accepted method of pregnancy and we dont think twice about it...
Oh the Irony of Bush criticizing someone for overspending.... The guy came into the Presidency and has spent more than any other president EVER.... And increased the size of the Government to it's largest size ever.... How very un-republican of him. What a joke, 2008 can not get here soon enough. DD
