[Congressional Record Volume 140, Number 27 (Friday, March 11, 1994)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Page E]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]


[Congressional Record: March 11, 1994]
From the Congressional Record Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]

 
                      REPUBLICAN BUDGET INITIATIVE

                                 ______


                          HON. GEORGE W. GEKAS

                            of pennsylvania

                    in the house of representatives

                         Friday, March 11, 1994

  Mr. GEKAS. Mr. Speaker, I support the Republican budget initiative 
for fiscal year 1995, and I intend to vote for it. However, I do 
disagree with the budget priorities contained in both the majority and 
minority budget plans regarding fiscal year 1995 funding for the 
National Institutes of Health [NIH]. Neither plan provides the 
necessary funding to insure essential health research efforts. House 
Concurrent Resolution 218, the majority plan, provides $238 million 
less than the President's proposal. Its 2.5-percent increase over the 
fiscal year 1994 level is less than the rate of inflation. Meanwhile, 
the minority plan freezes NIH funding for fiscal year 1995 at fiscal 
year 1994 levels. Both will cause peer reviewed health research 
projects to be reduced from funding 25 percent of available 
opportunities to only 15 percent of all projects deemed worthy of 
exploration. This appears to be a false economy in light of out of 
control health care costs and the potential savings that health 
research at the NIH can contribute to health reform efforts.
  Health care reform is a top priority for the American people, but our 
budget priorities do not reflect this concern when we reduce health 
research efforts. NIH health research is enabling individuals to 
receive more effective treatment and to return to the workplace and 
productive lives. Health care costs are increased by physicians 
practicing defensive medicine because of the lack of medical 
malpractice reform not because of health research.
  I understand the hard budget choices faced by my colleagues on both 
sides of the aisle, but the NIH is one of our jewels and an institution 
that achieves world recognition for excellence. Additional cuts at the 
NIH send a bad message. Is this how we reward excellence? For the last 
several years I have heard testimony from biomedical research 
scientists during 25 different presentations before the Biomedical 
Research Caucus. They have told us that we are on the threshold of 
tremendous discoveries in the war against human disease, but they need 
the resources to conduct health research at the NIH. We have for the 
first time a world renowned scientist and Nobel laureate, Dr. Harold 
Varmus, as Director of the NIH and our general in this battle against 
disease. We are asking Dr. Varmus to win the battle against diseases 
such as cancer, AIDS, and Alzheimer's, without adequate funding. We are 
asking Dr. Varmus to lead this fight without equipment, something no 
general could ever do in battle. The equipment budget for scientists to 
work at the molecular level at the NIH is practically nonexistent at a 
mere $9 million of an $11 billion budget. Where will Dr. Varmus get the 
new recruits to fight disease with the training budget frozen? We are 
telling our young people that we do not want their talents and training 
in this effort. Do not sign up to make the American people healthy 
because we have no funds for your efforts.
  Our budget priorities in reducing funding for the NIH are not in 
keeping with the priorities of the American people, who want health 
research and who said in recent national polls that they will pay for 
it.

                          ____________________