[Congressional Record Volume 143, Number 32 (Thursday, March 13, 1997)]
[Senate]
[Page S2282]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

      By Mr. HARKIN (for himself and Mr. Specter):
  S. 441. A bill to improve health care quality and reduce health care 
costs by establishing a national fund for health research that would 
significantly expand the Nation's investment in medical research; to 
the Committee on Finance.


               the national fund for health research act

  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I rise today with Senator Specter to 
introduce the National Fund for Health Research Act. This legislation 
is similar to legislation I introduced with Senator Hatfield during the 
last Congress which gained broad bipartisan support in both the House 
and Senate.
  Our proposal would establish a national fund for health research to 
provide additional resources for health research over and above those 
provided to the National Institutes of Health [NIH] in the annual 
appropriations process. The fund would greatly enhance the quality of 
health care by investing more in finding preventive measures, cures, 
and cost-effective treatments for the major illnesses and conditions 
that strike Americans.
  To finance the fund, health plans would set aside approximately 1 
percent of all health premiums and transfer the funds to the Department 
of the Treasury. The Department of the Treasury would then transfer the 
money to the national fund for health research.
  Each year under our proposal amounts within the national fund for 
health research would automatically be allocated to each of the NIH 
Institutes and Centers. Each Institute and Center would receive the 
same percentage as they received of the total NIH appropriation for 
that fiscal year. The set aside should generate sufficient funds to 
provide for a nearly 50-percent increase in funding for the NIH.
  In 1994, I argued that any health care reform plan should include 
additional funding for health research. Health care reform has been 
taken off the front burner but the need to increase our Nation's 
commitment to health research has not diminished.
  While health care spending devours nearly $1 trillion annually our 
medical research budget is dying of starvation. The United States 
devotes less than 2 percent of its total health care budget to health 
research. The Defense Department spends 15 percent of its budget on 
research. Does this make sense? The cold war is over but the war 
against disease and disability continues.
  Increased investment in health research is key to reducing health 
costs in the long run. If we can find the cure for a disease like 
Alzheimer's the savings would be enormous. Today, federally supported 
funding for research on Alzheimer's disease totals $300 million yet it 
is estimated that nearly $100 billion is expended annually on caring 
for people with Alzheimer's.
  Gene therapy and treatments for cystic fibrosis and Parkinson's could 
eliminate years of chronic care costs, while saving lives and improving 
patients' quality of life.
  Mr. President, Senator Specter and I do everything we can to increase 
funding for NIH through the appropriations process. But, given the 
current budget situation and freeze in discretionary spending what we 
can do is limited. Without action, our investment in medical research 
through the NIH is likely to continue to decline in real terms.
  The NIH is not able to fund even 25 percent of competing research 
projects or grant applications deemed worthy of funding. This is 
compared to rates of 30 percent or more just a decade ago. Science and 
cutting edge medical research is being put on hold. We may be giving up 
possible cures for diabetes, Alzheimer's, Parkinson's, and countless 
other diseases.
  Our lack of investment in research may also be discouraging our young 
people from pursuing careers in medical research. The number of people 
under the age of 36 even applying for NIH grants dropped by 54 percent 
between 1985 and 1993. This is due to a host of factors but I'm afraid 
that the lower success rates among applicants is making biomedical 
research less and less attractive to young people. If the perception is 
that funding for research is impossible to obtain, young people that 
may have chosen medical research 10 years ago will choose other career 
paths.
  Mr. President, I am pleased that over 130 groups representing 
patients, hospitals, medical schools, researchers, and millions of 
Americans have already endorsed our proposal.
  Mr. President, health research is an investment in our future--it is 
an investment in our children and grandchildren. It holds the promise 
of cure or treatment for millions of Americans.
                                 ______