[Congressional Record Volume 144, Number 49 (Tuesday, April 28, 1998)]
[House]
[Pages H2383-H2390]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




           A NEW NATIONAL GOAL: ADVANCEMENT OF GLOBAL HEALTH

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Deal of Massachusetts). Under the 
Speaker's announced policy of January 7, 1997, the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania (Mr. Gekas) is recognized for 60 minutes as the designee 
of the majority leader.


                             General Leave

  Mr. GEKAS. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 
5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks on 
the subject of this particular special order.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Pennsylvania?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. GEKAS. Mr. Speaker, this special order is centered around our 
effort to double the appropriations, to double the funding, as it were, 
of the National Institutes of Health over the next 5 years.
  I have for a long time appreciated the special efforts made by our 
scientists, researchers across the country, as have all Members of 
Congress as we see new, spectacular advances made in research and 
development of technologies, new ways to cure age-old diseases, those 
that have scourged the earth for all these years, and new ways of 
treating people who have reached older age, how to treat infant deaths 
and the scourge of handicaps that are across the land.
  All these research methods and scientific methodologies have 
blossomed over the last several years to such an extent that we feel 
confident that to redouble, using those words advisedly, the effort on 
the part of our entire society will benefit that society in a million 
different ways.
  Pursuant to that, back in November of last year I introduced H.R. 
2889. Now this bill would have created and still is extent and could 
create, if passed, a national commission for the new national goal, 
that goal being the advancement of global health.
  Mr. Speaker, the 20th century saw a goal for the United States thrust 
upon it.

                              {time}  1845

  Our country was designated the role in this entire global conflict 
that we witnessed during the 20th century of preserving democracy, of 
repelling total totalitarianism in all of its forms, and advancing the 
cause of democracy throughout the world. We did that in responding to 
World War I, and we did magnificently for the sake of preserving 
Europe; in World War II to preserve the world on every side of the 
planet, as it were. Since then, in all of the skirmishes and battles 
and conflicts that have occurred, including Korea and Vietnam and 
Desert Shield, Desert Storm later, Panama, Grenada, one names it, 
Bosnia today, the 20th century saw the United States emerge as the 
saviour of democracy and the proponent, the chief proponent, of 
democracy. So we met our goal to repel totalitarianism and to preserve 
democracy.
  Now, what should be the goal of the next century, of the 21st 
century? My legislation calls for the establishment of a commission to 
determine that the goal for our country should be to eradicate disease 
from the face of the earth.
  Now, this is a great humanitarian goal implicit in the language that 
I just used, to eradicate disease from the face of the earth, but it 
also carries with it an enlightened self-interest for our country. 
Since our country leads the world in pharmaceuticals and research, in 
development of technologies and biomedical advancements, in 
biotechnical concepts, in all of the science that is required to hone 
in on the eradication of disease, not only will we be steadily moving 
towards the goal of preventing and eradicating disease, but at the same 
time we will fashion a new leadership, economic worldwide leadership, 
for our country in producing the wherewithal by which to eradicate 
those diseases. What that means is more jobs, more enterprise, more 
prosperity, while helping save humanity from the ravages of the 
diseases in every corner of the world that too often are unattended.
  So what this Special Order here tonight does, it fits splendidly into 
the goal, the vision that I see for the 21st century. Our message 
tonight is that now is the time to double, we say to double the 
appropriations, the funding mechanisms for the National Institutes of 
Health, which, after all, are the bulwark of all the research and the 
development that is required to meet these visions that we have of 
combating disease.
  Mr. Speaker, if we relegate funding to the National Institutes of 
Health of something like 15 percent, to increase the funding for the 
next 5 years at 15 percent per annum, we would be doubling the number 
of dollars now being spent for that magnificent institution that 
provides so much benefit to mankind, the National Institutes of Health.
  For instance, right now we spend about $14 billion. We would go up to 
$28 billion, or the doubling about which we speak, by the year 2003. 
Now, we have been averaging about a 7 percent increase each year. I 
understand that this year the President offered a 9 percent increase; 
the Senate version of the proposals would probably be about 11 percent, 
and we hope that we can do a little better than that and meet the first 
leg, the first test of trying to double it by getting up to 15 percent. 
If we do so, then we will see tremendous momentum build up so that we 
can accelerate the rate and the breadth of the research that is 
required to meet that vision of eradication of disease among the 
citizens of the world.
  The other feature of what we are doing here is that we did not come 
up with this idea about the worthwhileness of the National Institutes 
of Health just simply by saying it. About 5 or 6 years ago we 
established the Biomedical Research Caucus here in the House of 
Representatives.
  The gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Callahan), the gentlewoman from 
California (Ms. Pelosi), the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Kennedy) 
and myself are the current cochairs of that Biomedical Research Caucus. 
We have had over 60 or so special lectures by the most advanced 
scientists that we could muster as our lecturers to bring us up to date 
on the various progresses made by the National Institutes of Health. 
Among them have been about a dozen Nobel Prize winners in their 
particular field.
  So you name the disease, Mr. Speaker, and I will name a lecturer, 
renowned lecturer, who has appeared in these very halls of the House of 
Representatives to give us an update on those diseases. Arthritis, 
AIDS, women's breast cancer, multiple sclerosis, Parkinson's disease, 
you name it. I challenge you and I will tell you, not only did we have 
a luncheon on it, I can even tell you the menu for the luncheon, but 
also who was the guest speaker and who brought us up-to-date on these 
developments. In every single case, cloning, new technologies, we even 
had the people from the space program come to tell us the advancements 
that were made by reason of space research in these very same 
scientific methodologies about which we speak.
  Now, what is the purpose of all of these things? To bring us up to 
date to these diseases, but also to give incentives to Members of the 
House to redouble their efforts to bring about solutions and treatments 
for the various diseases about which we speak. I must tell my 
colleagues that in many of these cases, just around the corner lies the 
final solution to a lot of these archaic diseases that have plagued us 
for so long.
  Now, how do we do this? I have colleagues here who are ready to speak 
on these subjects. I will yield to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. 
Stearns).
  Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Pennsylvania (Mr.

[[Page H2384]]

Gekas), and I am honored to be here on this Special Order to help him 
with the endorsement of accelerated funding for the NIH.
  As chairman, cochairman with the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Green), of 
the Genetic Privacy and Health Records Task Force of the Committee on 
Commerce, I can fully understand and appreciate the gentleman's 
feelings about accelerating the funding for NIH.
  It is interesting that when I came to Congress, we were spending 
almost $18 billion a year for foreign aid, and if anybody said, well, 
why are we spending so much money for foreign aid, yet we are spending 
so little for the NIH, I think we have been forceful in trying to get 
more money for NIH, but we still have a long way to go.
  As the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Gekas) mentioned, we are now 
at $14 billion a year. One says, well, that sounds like a lot of money, 
but when we think of the kinds of things it can do for all Americans 
and for all of humanity, this is not enough money, and I think so much 
could be done.
  I would like to just, for example, take my colleagues into the area I 
am familiar with, and that is taking advantage of some of the new 
opportunities in genetic engineering. For example, as we end this 
millennium, we will have completed a program to map and identify the 
entire human genome, but we will not have begun to access this new 
information. As my colleagues may be aware, I have been working on this 
legislation before the Committee on Commerce to ensure protective 
measures for genetic privacy to individuals so that we can move forward 
with these new technologies for all of our mutual benefits.

  But where is this technology occurring? It is occurring at the 
National Institutes of Health. In the new area of NIH research 
opportunities, genetics is one of the most exciting and promising 
developments in molecular medicine. Once the map of the normal function 
of human genes is made available within the next few years, we will 
then, Mr. Speaker, be able to make comparisons with our own unique 
genetic blueprint. This will herald in a whole new era of computer 
collaboration with molecular medicine to develop a DNA chip, 
transferring the functions of human genome to a computer chip to be run 
for comparison for diagnostic and treatment purposes against our own 
genetic map. I mean, that is an enormous endeavor. It is going to 
require a lot of research.
  The NIH is on the leading edge of doing this, and we need to fund 
that project, because the ultimate guarantee for all of us is better 
health by this DNA chip in transferring the function of the human 
genome to a computer chip so that we can run these comparisons to find 
out what particular genes are defective or what particular genes 
provide a predisposition for any of us for certain diseases.
  The software and hardware that will be needed to be developed by the 
cooperative efforts of genome biologists, mathematicians and engineers 
to make the new field of genetics a reality will require this increased 
funding for the NIH. So again, I think it is a good case for all 
Members to be down here on the House floor to argue forcibly the need 
for increased funding for the NIH.
  I think when we talk about funding for the NIH, we perhaps should put 
it into human terms, and I want to give my colleagues a case example of 
where this study, this research, has benefited all of us. The first 
debate in medical circles in the late 1960s and early 1970s was about 
the role of cholesterol in heart disease. Many scientists reasoned that 
a high-fat diet clogged the arteries and must surely contribute to 
heart attacks and strokes. Others argued that because so many Americans 
who dined on high-fat foods had apparently healthy hearts, cholesterol 
might just be sort of a wrong, a scapegoat.
  Two physician scientists, Michael Brown and Joseph Goldstein of the 
University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center of Dallas, were 
treating children at the time, and this is interesting, who had heart 
attacks before the age of 10. Now, they discovered that the kids' 
arteries were as full of cholesterol deposits as those of a 50-year-old 
beef-eating man. Soon they identified the gene that controls special 
receptors on the surface of the liver, and other body cells, that 
removed the bad cholesterol before it has a chance to wreak havoc in 
blood vessels. None of the children with early heart disease had the 
gene needed to break down the bad cholesterol. So in 1985, Dr. Brown 
and Dr. Goldstein won the Lasker Award for discovering the mechanism 
that controlled cholesterol metabolism, and that same year they shared 
the Nobel Prize.
  So that is an example of just simply scientists having the time and 
energy, working through the National Institutes of Health, through the 
grants, are able to solve some of the major problems.
  I would like to identify another case example by Judah Folkman who 
generated a new approach to treating cancer that is directed not at the 
cancer cell itself, but at blood vessels that feed tumors. The cells 
that line blood vessels put out a host of proteins or growth factors to 
which tumors are attracted. If the tumors are deprived of its proteins, 
the cancer can be starved without harming the healthy cells the way 
normal chemotherapy does. This is a remarkable and once ridiculed idea 
that is now being tested in recurring and metastic cancer. Based on 
Folkman's work, experiments with unique tumor-suppressing drugs will 
soon be ready for breast, colon, prostate and other cancer trials.
  So, Mr. Speaker, we have here a need for this funding for research, 
and I think many of us are on the House floor today to say that the 
budget of $14 billion is not enough. A lot of us around here talked 
about being fiscally responsible, but here is a case where the direct 
benefits from increasing the funding for the NIH will be enormous. I am 
happy to say that there are other Members who have stepped forward to 
do just this.
  Recently, Senator Connie Mack from Florida, my Senator, advocated 
doubling the NIH funding over the next 5 years. So I have joined with 
him and others to double this funding, to increase it, because I think 
they are consistent with the views of conservative budget policy. We 
get the biggest bang for the buck by this research to help all 
Americans, particularly when we look at what the population is doing 
today. It is aging, and we have Medicare still not completely out of 
solvency, right now is solvent to the year 2010, but we are going to 
see more and more baby boomers coming in, and we need this research to 
protect their lives.
  So I was glad to join with Senator Mack and others in the House, with 
the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Gekas) to increase funding for the 
NIH. It is a wise investment for the many health care results we 
achieve, and it is not that ambitious an enterprise when we consider 
that at the current rate of expenditures, we will double NIH funding in 
10 years rather than the 5 that the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. 
Gekas), proposed.

                              {time}  1900

  We are suggesting that we provide this additional funding, we do it 
now, and I think the important theme tonight is to make all Members 
aware of the need to get behind this. It is not a lot of money.
  As I say, the foreign affairs budget is almost higher than the NIH 
budget, and so now is the time to continue our efforts.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back to the gentleman from Pennsylvania.
  Mr. GEKAS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for his remarks and I 
now yield to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Nethercutt).
  Mr. NETHERCUTT. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Pennsylvania 
(Mr. Gekas) for yielding to me.
  Mr. Speaker, there is no greater tragedy in life that all of us must 
face at some time or another than facing a debilitating and serious and 
chronic disease. It touches Democrats, Republicans, people of all races 
and religions. It is a fact of life.
  It is my pleasure to be here tonight to talk in support of not only 
the efforts of the gentleman from Pennsylvania to increase funding for 
the National Institutes of Health, but to stand up in support of that 
national health organization that leads the world in health research.
  I just happened to visit for the second time the National Institutes 
of Health a week ago Monday. And I commend that visit to every Member 
of this body; to go out to the NIH and see the resources that we have 
there, that

[[Page H2385]]

we taxpayers fund in order to try to make lives better by curing 
disease. It is a remarkable experience to see it and to meet with the 
leaders of the centers and the institutes, the 21 centers and 
institutes of the National Institutes of Health.
  Mr. Speaker, it is celebrating its 50th year, approximately, this 
year, having been the Public Health Service over the years and being 
the National Institutes of Health in recent times. I must say, Mr. 
Speaker, that the history is a proud one. There have been tremendous 
developments and progress achieved by the scientists, the researchers, 
the medical professionals, the nurses, the administrators at the 
National Institutes of Health. It is worthy of a Federal taxpayer 
commitment to enhance this research, to seek cures in our society for 
the very serious diseases which affect all Americans and, indeed, all 
people around the world.
  I think we have to look at what increased funding would do. It would 
certainly help bridge the gap between the National Academy of Sciences 
and the NIH. There is research going on, scientific research going on 
throughout this entire government. The Department of Defense has a 
breast cancer facility and bank that looks at the incidence of breast 
cancer and blood work that would lead to cures for this terrible 
disease.
  The National Aeronautics and Space Administration does tremendous 
work on microgravity. In fact, as we speak, there is a satellite and a 
space station somewhere and a research facility somewhere engaged with 
NASA doing this great research that is going to help people deal with 
the chronic diseases that affect their lives.
  Mr. Speaker, I happen to have a special interest in diabetes 
research. In fact, I am proud to be one of the cofounders of the 
Diabetes Caucus with the gentlewoman from Oregon (Ms. Furse), and 158 
Members are now part of this Diabetes Caucus. We set out over the last 
three years that I have been in Congress to work very hard to raise the 
interest level and the understanding of diabetes.
  The Speaker of the House, Newt Gingrich, has been a great leader in 
terms of providing additional funding for NIH, for the research mission 
to cure diabetes, because diabetes affects about 27 cents out of every 
Medicare dollar. It is spent in the treatment of diabetes and the very 
serious complications that can come if a diabetic does not take care of 
himself or herself. Things like blindness, amputations, heart disease, 
kidney failure, all of those things are consequences of lack of 
treatment and lack of care for the disease called diabetes that is a 
killer disease in our society.
  So it has been our pleasure, with the other 157 Members, along with 
the gentlewoman from Oregon (Ms. Furse) and myself, to push very hard 
this idea that we have to have increased funding at the National 
Institutes of Health, in specific terms the National Institute for 
Diabetes, Digestive and Kidney Diseases, which does this great research 
on how to cure diabetes.
  Mr. Speaker, if we cure diabetes, we will have a better society. If 
we cure cancer, we will have more productivity among all Americans and 
around the world. So it is in our interest, our national interest, to 
dedicate ourselves to increased funding for the National Institutes of 
Health.
  When I visited the National Institutes a week ago Monday, I had a 
chance to meet with the director of the National Cancer Institute, and 
he showed me some graphic pictures of a gentleman who was a patient 
there of the hospital at NIH with skin cancer, a terrible outbreak. 
Terribly devastating consequences of that disease are present today in 
our society.
  Through the research that has been done at NIH to introduce the 
concept and the substance of Interleukin, to allow the body to beef up 
its damaged-cell fighting capability, its natural mechanism for 
fighting disease, that Interleukin component works wonders. In fact, I 
had the chance to meet the gentleman who was the subject of the 
pictures I was shown with his cancer developed earlier in last year. 
And now I looked at him, and I know through this great research effort, 
his skin was clear.
  So this is one example of how we can cure this disease called cancer 
50 percent of the time. We cannot cure all the cancers in America and 
in the world, but we can cure about 50 percent, I am informed. So it is 
in our interest, having been touched by cancer in my own family and 
having been touched by diabetes in my own family, it is in our interest 
to devote ourselves to this effort to increase research funding for 
this great institute.
  Along with that increased research funding, I think we need to 
encourage the NIH, encourage the scientists, the 55,000 scientists 
around the country, through our university systems who do NIH research 
as NIH grant recipients, to make sure that the money we devote to this 
institute and this agency is spent wisely. I do not doubt that it is, 
but I also feel as though we can focus better, perhaps, the resources 
of America, to allow the NIH to focus better and the institutes to 
focus better, to work better toward preventive cures and prevention of 
disease.
  The gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Gekas) and I and others and the 
Speaker of the House this year, and a lot of Democrats, voted very 
forcefully in favor of the balanced budget agreement which provided $30 
million for diabetes research for five years, $30 million times five; 
and $30 million times five, $150 million, for Native American research, 
which is a population disproportionately affected by diabetes.
  Speaker Gingrich and others worked very hard to get Medicare coverage 
for the preventive side of diabetes, mammographies in women, prostate 
analysis in men, and the colorectal screening, all covered now and in 
this year in the Medicare program. That is going to save dollars on the 
other end.

  And with this kind of research for treatment and cures through the 
NIH, we are going to be a better and healthier and happier and more 
productive and less wasteful society.
  The Diabetes Working Group that we introduced is going to help focus 
the NIDDK, National Institutes for Diabetes, Digestive and Kidney 
Diseases, in how we set a chart, set a pathway to cure diabetes. I 
think it is a great model, Mr. Speaker, for other institutes to follow: 
To marshal the best minds, the best researchers, the patients, the 
children, the people who are affected by these devastating diseases, 
chronic conditions, mobilize them to chart a path, to chart a course to 
a cure or to better treatment or to making life easier with a 
particular disease. That is what the Diabetes Working Group is doing.
  In fact, they are meeting this week again, all of these great minds 
and great scientists from around the country, to focus on how we can 
chart a path for additional research dollars to be spent, all in the 
cause of curing diabetes and its complications.
  I think we have to recognize also that the consumer has a say in all 
of this, and increased funding for NIH, doubling the funding over the 
next five years, coordinating that funding with other scientific 
research throughout the government, has to have as a main component a 
consumer involvement. If we go out to the National Institutes of Health 
and see the National Health Library, it is hooked up to the Internet. 
It gets thousands of hits per month, per week, per day, to see and 
learn about disease and how NIH is working so very dramatically to help 
cure and treat those kinds of diseases.
  That is a component that is very much a part of this NIH funding 
doubling. So that we can have the consumer who is touched by multiple 
sclerosis or AIDS or Alzheimer's or diabetes or cancer or Parkinson's 
or all the other diseases that are prominent in this country, they have 
a resource in the National Institutes of Health to touch immediately, 
to find out about that disease, to help a loved one get through it, to 
learn about it.
  I know that is a common occurrence when people are touched by a 
disease. The first inclination that we all have is to find out about 
it, to learn about it and figure out how we can understand the current 
treatments. This is a value to doctors. It is a value to the consumer. 
It is a value to the researcher. And, by the way, we have to get good 
researchers funded through the NIH, the basic research that is done 
there and the applied research that is done there.
  So this is a joint effort that joins diseases, it joins medical 
specialties across the board. It joins people from Congress, it joins 
special interest

[[Page H2386]]

groups who care deeply about a particular disease. It joins the 
teachers and students, and families. It joins all Americans in one 
common cause, one common objective. That is to cure disease in America 
and throughout the world.
  The United States is the leader in that effort. It is the leader 
because we have the best scientists, the best minds, the best 
technology, the best resources and the greatest commitment, I submit, 
to reach this great goal of curing disease globally.
  So I want to thank the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Gekas) and 
thank the Speaker and all the others who care deeply about this issue. 
We will join with our colleagues and make this a reality in the next 
five years and hopefully get it all done this year.
  Mr. GEKAS. Mr. Speaker, we thank the gentleman. His remarks have been 
right on point. We in the Biomedical Research Caucus recognize the 
gentleman from Washington (Mr. Nethercutt) as one of our leading 
advocates of focus and concentration on the disease of diabetes. We 
thank him.
  Mr. Speaker, the target of all this and the absolute goal of this 
special order is to convince the Committee on the Budget that it ought 
to respond to the resolution that we offered about doubling the funding 
for the National Institutes of Health over the next five years.
  The gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kasich) chairman of the Committee on the 
Budget, and the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spratt) ranking 
member, have been very workmanlike over the past several years in 
preparing the budgets for the entire government, of course. We want 
them to pay special attention to the doubling of the funding effort for 
the National Institutes of Health.
  How do we do that? They have some problems because they are under the 
constraints that they are, of course, trying to convince us we must 
maintain, and they are correct, capping on spending so that we can stay 
within the parameters of the balanced budget that we supported not too 
long ago and which, of course, has to continue in order for our country 
to prosper, to make sure that we never fall back into the deficit mode 
and that the balanced budget carries with it all the benefits that it 
should.
  Well, how do we convince them to be able to do this doubling effort 
and still maintain those caps? That is an interesting problem, and one 
which we think can be addressed if only the chairman and the ranking 
member of the Committee on the Budget will look at the possibilities 
that lie before us to be able to do that without violating the balanced 
budget or the guidelines or the caps that they have instituted to 
protect the fiscal integrity of the Congress and of the government.

                              {time}  1915

  We submit that any proceeds that might be forthcoming from the 
tobacco settlements that may or may not occur or the tobacco financing 
that can still occur, even without the overall settlement to which all 
the States are a party, that is a source of funding which would be a 
natural to devote to medical research, because it does not even have to 
be stated.
  The causes of some of the worst diseases that we have emanate from 
smoking. We want to try to defeat both ends of the smoking cycle, to 
prevent teenagers from taking up the habit and to treat those who did 
not avoid the ravages of smoking, causing all the health problems that 
we know about.
  So we want to be able to say that tobacco increased funding should be 
devoted, at least partially, towards medical research in the National 
Institutes of Health on how to prevent all the dastardly diseases that 
follow a lifetime of smoking.
  So that is a natural, but that is not the only source that we can 
muster for dedication to the National Institutes of Health. We also 
have what is now being termed as the budget surplus. We are fortunate 
enough by all the configurations that have been entered into by the 
Committee on the Budget to be able to proclaim budget surpluses.
  What better source for application of surpluses than that which we 
speak about here tonight, the National Institutes of Health? To be able 
to pour in a couple of billion dollars a year from the $10 billion or 
$12 billion or $14 billion or $20 billion, $30 billion per year surplus 
that we may be enjoying the next several years would be facilitating 
the doubling of the funding that we are talking about without really 
harming the path that we will have established for creating surpluses.
  So we believe that the letter that we have sent to the Committee on 
the Budget serves those purposes. We sent a letter dated April 8, 1998, 
to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kasich), chairman, and the gentleman 
from South Carolina (Mr. Spratt), ranking member, signed by, oh, I do 
not know how many, but a couple of dozen of our Members in which we 
discussed this very same prospect.
  In fact, the last paragraph, the last cogent paragraph, I would like 
to read into the Record.
  We say, ``We respectfully request that the Committee on the Budget 
consider using a combination of sources and funding mechanisms to 
achieve the doubling goal for the National Institutes of Health. These 
funding sources include general revenues, budget surpluses, and budget 
offsets. We also request that the Committee on the Budget consider 
establishing a reserve fund to capture offsets from any tobacco 
settlement for the purpose of funding biomedical research and for other 
purposes stated in the settlement.''
  So we are explicit to the powers that be in the budget process. We 
are not saying, please, oh, help us and double the efforts. We are 
suggesting concrete methodologies for accomplishing the doubling effort 
without harming the balanced budget for which the gentleman from Ohio 
(Mr. Kasich) and the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spratt) have 
worked so hard and which we support and which we do not want to violate 
in any way.
  We just want the priorities to be set for the next century to include 
a heavy emphasis on biomedical research and all the efforts that can go 
into eradicating disease worldwide with the implicit benefits not only 
to humanity but to the economic leadership of our Nation.
  Mr. Speaker, I include for the Record the following:

                                Congress of the United States,

                                    Washington, DC, April 8, 1998.
     Hon. John Kasich,
     Chairman, House Budget Committee,
     Washington, DC.

     Hon. John Spratt,
     Ranking Member, House Budget Committee,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Chairman Kasich and Ranking Member Spratt: As the 
     Budget Committee begins consideration of the Fiscal Year 1999 
     Budget Resolution, we urge you to provide sufficient budget 
     authority and outlays to provide a $2 billion increase (15%) 
     for the National Institutes of Health (NIH). This is the 
     first step toward achieving a doubling of the NIH budget over 
     the next five years.
       We recognize the pressures and trade-offs that you and your 
     Budget Committee colleagues face in maintaining a balanced 
     budget, but we ask that you consider the benefits derived 
     from America's commitment to medical research, including a 
     reduction in health care expenditures. Medical research is a 
     budget saver, not a budget buster.
       Recent breakthroughs in medical and health sciences have 
     dramatically improved the quality of life for all Americans, 
     and continue to yield cures and new treatments for the 
     debilitating diseases which plague our society. The United 
     States leads the world in the field of biomedical research, 
     and will continue to lead the world only through a national 
     commitment to increase support for the NIH.
       Based on this record of success, and the tremendous 
     potential for the future, we support sufficient budget 
     authority and budget outlays to double NIH funding over the 
     next five years, and to provide an increase of $2 billion for 
     Fiscal Year 1999 over the current appropriated level.
       We respectfully request that the Budget Committee consider 
     using a combination of sources and funding mechanisms to 
     achieve the doubling goal for the NIH. These funding sources 
     include general revenues, budget surpluses and budget 
     offsets. We also request that the Budget Committee consider 
     establishing a reserve fund to capture offsets from any 
     tobacco settlement for the purpose of funding biomedical 
     research and for other purposes stated in the settlement.
       As the House Budget Committee begins preparing the FY 1999 
     Budget Resolution, we remind you of the historically strong 
     and bipartisan support for the NIH, the world's premier 
     research enterprise. We hope that you will honor our request 
     to provide sufficient budget authority and budget outlays to 
     accomplish the will of your colleagues in the House.
       Thank you for your consideration. We look forward to 
     working with you on this historic public health and quality-
     of-life initiative.
           Sincerely,
         George W. Gekas, Louise Slaughter, Connie Morella, Martin 
           Frost, James

[[Page H2387]]

           Leach, Randy ``Duke'' Cunningham, Eni F.H. 
           Faleomavaega, Sam Gejdenson, Anna Eshoo, Cliff Stearns, 
           Joseph Kennedy, Brian Bilbray, Rosa DeLauro, Martin 
           Meehan, James Greenwood, Albert Wynn, Steve Horn, Fred 
           Upton, Jose Serrano, Lois Capps, Gene Green, Jim 
           McDermott, Brad Sherman, Robert Borski, Carolyn 
           McCarthy, Edward Markey, Bobby Rush, Frank Mascara, 
           Dennis Kucinich, Bob Clement, Max Sandlin, Harold E. 
           Ford, Jr., Earl Hilliard, Jerrold Nadler, James 
           McGovern, Nydia Velazquez, Members of Congress.
                                  ____



                                Congress of the United States,

                                   Washington, DC, March 24, 1998.

   Join Us in Urging the Budget Committee to Make Medical Research a 
                                Priority

       Dear Colleague: As the House Budget Committee begins the 
     process of formulating the FY 1999 House Budget Resolution, 
     we are writing to ask you to sign the attached letter to 
     Chairman Kasich and Ranking Member Spratt Supporting 
     sufficient budget authority and outlays to accomplish two 
     goals. First, to enable the House to provide a $2 billion 
     increase for the National Institutes of Health (NIH) in FY 
     1999, and second, to enable the House to double NIH funding 
     over the next five years.
       Throughout history, the United States has been the world 
     leader in biomedical research. The benefits derived from 
     America's commitment to medical research have led to life-
     saving medical breakthroughs, dramatically improving the 
     quality of life for men and women throughout the world, and 
     substantially reducing health care expenditures. Our 
     investment has contributed to the development of innovative 
     medical technologies and made America's pharmaceutical and 
     biotechnology industries second to none.
       Research has demonstrated that many diseases can be 
     prevented, eliminated, detected or managed more effectively 
     through a vast array of new medical procedures and therapies. 
     The devastation once caused by polio has been virtually 
     eliminated in most of the developed world. For the first time 
     in history, overall death rates from cancer have begun a 
     steady decline in the United States. Genetic research has 
     enabled Americans to learn if they are more likely to develop 
     osteoporosis, breast cancer, Lou Gehrig's disease, sickle-
     cell anemia, or some other disease. People with Parkinson's 
     disease, diabetes, Alzheimer's disease, AIDS, and other 
     ailments are living longer, healthier lives. But there is 
     much more for us to learn, and much more we can do to enhance 
     the quality of life for America's ill, frail, and disabled.
       America's historic dedication of resources to biomedical 
     research has had a real and lasting impact on our lives and 
     those of our parents, children and grandchildren. The health 
     and well-being of future generations depends upon 
     strengthening our dedication to the principle that the 
     federal government, in partnership with the private sector, 
     has a legitimate role to further the advancement of science.
       Turning those discoveries into new methods of treating 
     disease will make every American a beneficiary of these 
     monumental achievements. We ask you to join this effort by 
     agreeing to sign the attached letter to Chairman Kasich and 
     Ranking Member Spratt. To co-sign the letter please contact 
     Seth Johnson in Congressman Gekas' office at x54315.
           Sincerely,
     George W. Gekas.
     Anna Eshoo.

  A full exposition of our plans to double the funding for NIH would 
not be complete without mentioning some key entities that have helped 
us all along in bringing to the floor all the special problems and 
special opportunities that we have as the research community begins the 
work of the 21st century.
  We have four research societies, for instance, like the Whitehead 
Institute, the Human Genome Project, MIT, Dr. Mike Bishop, who is a 
Nobel laureate for oncogenes, co-recipient with the NIH Director Harold 
Varmus as the chief program advisor, all who are the umbrella group 
that helps us put on these biomedical research caucuses, briefings, 
luncheons, and other special projects that have heightened the level of 
understanding among Members of the House as to what progress is being 
made on all these.
  By the way, Mr. Speaker, you should know that, in these biomedical 
research luncheons, not only do Members come but the real important 
people of the House of Representatives attend, the staffers, the 
staffers who are charged with the responsibility in their respective 
Member's offices to discharge the issues of health for their Member, 
for their congressman, attend these luncheons regularly and become well 
updated on all the advances that we have made and which the research 
community has produced.
  We also have the Federation of American Societies for experimental 
biology which issues news bulletins on advances made on a regular 
basis; and, just recently, they provided for us a whole series of 
statements on some of the progress that has been made.
  Some of their goals are to have the NIH increase its investment in 
collaborative translational investigations by supporting more grants 
engaging both basic and clinical biomedical scientists as co-
investigators. These are the wool from which the whole cloth is being 
constructed to try to hone in on and concentrate on eradicating disease 
from the face of the earth.
  We also have lists of research opportunities, if we double this 
effort, from the Campaign for Medical Research, from the Joint Steering 
Committee for Public Policy, as we have mentioned, and from various 
sources that are implicitly and explicitly involved in what we intend 
to try to accomplish.
  Mr. Speaker, I include that list that we have of the cosponsors to H. 
Res. 363 urging the Committee on the Budget to double the funding for 
the Record:


                             44 COSPONSORS

       Rep. Porter--02/12/98.
       Rep. Morella--03/05/98.
       Rep. Stearns--03/05/98.
       Rep. Pickering--03/05/98.
       Rep. Towns--03/05/98.
       Rep. Kennedy, P.--03/05/98.
       Rep. Cooksey--03/05/98.
       Rep. Eshoo--03/16/98.
       Rep. Moakley--03/16/98.
       Rep. Green--03/16/98.
       Rep. Kennelly--03/16/98.
       Rep. Davis, D.--03/16/98.
       Rep. Faleomavaega--03/16/98.
       Rep. Pelosi--03/24/98.
       Rep. Clay--03/24/98.
       Rep. Bachus--03/24/98.
       Rep. Gutierrez--03/24/98.
       Rep. Gonzalez--03/24/98.
       Rep. Greenwood--03/25/98.
       Rep. Filner--04/01/98.
       Rep. Fattah--04/21/98.
       Rep. Gejdenson--04/21/98.
       Rep. Frank--03/05/98.
       Rep. Coyne--03/05/98.
       Rep. Cunningham--03/05/98.
       Rep. Evans--03/05/98.
       Rep. Clayburn--03/05/98.
       Rep. McCarthy, C.--03/05/98.
       Rep. Kennedy, J.--03/16/98.
       Rep. Boehlert--03/16/98.
       Rep. Peterson, J.--03/16/98.
       Rep. Pallone--03/16/98.
       Rep. Woolsey--03/16/98.
       Rep. Mink--03/16/98.
       Rep. Callahan--03/24/98.
       Rep. Bentsen--03/24/98.
       Rep. Furse--03/24/98.
       Rep. Farr--03/24/98.
       Rep. Sanders--03/24/98.
       Rep. Bilbray--03/24/98.
       Rep. McGovern--03/25/98.
       Rep. Spence--04/01/98.
       Rep. Rush--04/21/98.
       Rep. Jenkins--04/21/98.
       Rep. Baldacci--4/28/98.

  That covers everything that I might have wasted the Speaker's time in 
presenting at this juncture.
  Suffice it to say, again, if indeed the United States continues to be 
and wants to remain the leader in the world of pharmaceuticals, of 
biomedical research, biotechnological advances, of all the efforts made 
towards one goal, to eradicate disease from the face of the earth and 
to remain the chief spokesman in the world and the chief entrepreneur 
in these enterprises, then it is a natural gigantic step for us to 
double the funding for the National Institutes of Health. We trust that 
the Members of Congress will see it as clearly as we do and help us in 
this effort.
  Mr. PORTER. Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to speak on the importance 
of doubling funding for the National Institutes of Health.
  In my judgment, basic biomedical research, funded through the 
National Institutes of Health, is one of our Nations highest 
priorities. The work performed by the scientists at the NIH campus, as 
well as those scientists who are funded by the NIH at our Nation's 
premier academic institutions and nonprofit organizations, is virtually 
important. There commitment to battling disease has provided 
signficiant hope for the prevention, treatment, and eventual 
eradication of disease in the future.
  There is hardly a more vital endeavor. Biomedical research lengthens 
and improves the quality of life for every American--indeed, for every 
human on this planet. Our country's continued lead in biomedical 
research--we are the envy of the world in this regard in both basic and 
applied research--means higher economic growth and the kind of high-
tech, high paying jobs for our children and grandchildren that we want. 
Indeed, biomedical research is the best investment our Government makes 
because it pays for itself thousands of times over in terms of health 
care cost savings. The savings from one discover--the Salk vaccine--has 
paid for all the costs of NIH over its entire 50 year history and there 
have been thousands, tens of thousands, of such discoveries. In 
addition, basic research, the kind

[[Page H2388]]

most often pursued by NIH and NIH grantees will only be funded by 
Government; there is no immediate profit motive. Finally, scientific 
opportunities have never been greater. If we fail to find the resources 
to take advantage of them, we risk the lives and health of our people 
and all of the dear economic advantages of our leadership.
  I serve as chairman of the Appropriations Subcommittee which funds 
the National Institutes of Health--as well as the Departments of 
Education, Health and Human Services, and Labor. Because there is such 
potential for real progress in treatment, cure, and prevention of 
disease through NIH research, I'm committed to providing NIH Director 
Dr. Varmus, the resources he and his colleagues need to advance their 
work.
  Over the last several years, we have achieved great success in doing 
just this. In fiscal year 1996, despite tremendous budget battles, and 
frankly, little support from the administration, the Congress provided 
the NIH with a 5.7 percent increase. For FY97, we increased the NIH by 
6.9 percent, and in 1998, by 7.1 percent to nearly $13.65 billion.
  Over its 50-year life, the annual real rate of increase in the NIH 
funding has been about 3 percent. But despite these strong increases 
the number of research proposals funded is barely keeping up with the 
number of promising proposals that are available. Because the 
opportunities in science are unprecedented, I strongly doubling Federal 
funding for all basic research over 5 years. With this strong 
commitment, the NIH will be able to pursue many more scientific 
opportunities that currently go unfunded.
  The goal of finding a cure for the diseases that touch every 
individual in our society is an objective that should be above 
political partisanship and economic and social divisions. I urge my 
colleagues to work for this noble goal by viewing the NIH as a whole, 
the sum of extraordinary science that transcends the artificial 
boundaries of institute and seeks to cure or alleviate all diseases 
that afflict humankind.
  Mr. BENTSEN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to express my strong support 
for maximizing funding for biomedical research through the National 
Institutes of Health (NIH). I believe that our Nation must increase 
this investment to capitalize on recent medical advances and ensure 
that the NIH has the necessary resources to conduct cutting-edge 
research on diseases such as heart disease, diabetes, cancer, and AIDS.
  I believe that doubling the NIH budget is the best approach to meet 
this goal. In the coming weeks, I plan to offer an amendment in the 
House Budget Committee to double the NIH budget. As we know, President 
Clinton has proposed a Fiscal Year 1999 NIH budget of $14.8 billion, an 
increase of $1.15 billion or 8 percent. The President also proposed 
increasing funding for biomedical research by at least 50 percent from 
1999 to 2003. The President's proposal represents a good starting 
point, but Congress must make biomedical research an even higher 
priority, as we have in recent years. The Senate budget resolution 
includes a 11-percent increase in NIH funding, to add $1.5 billion to 
the NIH budget. I believe the House budget should include at least the 
Senate level of funding and preferably the $2 billion increase called 
for in House Resolution 363, which was introduced by our colleague Mr. 
Gekas and which I am co-sponsoring.
  Doubling the NIH budget is necessary to ensure that we are meeting 
the research needs of our scientific community. The NIH supports the 
work of more than 50,000 scientists within the United States. Yet, on 
average only one in five of peer-reviewed NIH grants are funded. We 
need to increase the number of peer-reviewed grants so that more life-
saving and cost-effective treatments and therapies can be discovered. 
In addition, in this age of managed care, the NIH must increase its 
budget to ensure that clinical trials continue. Academic health 
centers, where many of these trials are conducted, have traditionally 
used surplus revenues from patient care to supplement federal funding. 
With managed care, these surpluses are disappearing just as 
our scientific community is ready to develop new treatments and 
therapies for cancer and other diseases. With this added investment, 
more scientists would be able to conduct research that will reduce 
health care costs and save lives.

  I believe that investment in biomedical research is cost-effective 
for taxpayers. A recent National Science Foundation study found that 
advances resulting from government investments in research and 
development, totaling about $60 billion a year, has produced big 
results. This study found that more than 70 percent of scientific 
papers identify government funding, not private research funding, as 
critical to new patents and biomedical discoveries.
  I also believe that investing in the NIH helps our economy to grow. 
For every dollar spent on research and development, our national output 
is permanently increased by 50 cents or more each year. The government 
funds the basic research which biotechnology and pharmaceutical 
companies use to create new therapies and treatments for cancer, 
diabetes, and heart disease.
  As the representative for the Texas Medical Center, one of our 
Nation's premiere research centers, I have seen firsthand that this 
investment is yielding promising new therapies and treatments for all 
Americans. During a recent tour at the Texas Medical Center, I reviewed 
a gene therapy project which is helping to map the human genome. With 
this new information researchers hope to understand the genetic basis 
for disease and provide new therapies by fixing genetic abnormalities.
  I strongly urge Congress to provide maximum funding for the NIH and 
urge my colleagues to support this effort.
  Mr. BILIRAKIS. Mr. Speaker, As chairman of the Health and Environment 
Subcommittee, which has jurisdiction over the National Institutes of 
Health (NIH), I want to take this opportunity to express my strong 
support for increasing Federal funding to support the vital, life-
saving research performed by NIH experts. I recently endorsed a 
proposal to double Federal funding for the National Institutes of 
Health (NIH) over the next 5 years.
  On March 26, my Health and Environment Subcommittee held a hearing on 
new developments in medical research. This hearing was an important 
opportunity to learn more about the NIH priority-setting process and 
ongoing research efforts related to a number of specific diseases.
  At this hearing, we heard testimony from a distinguished group of 
witnesses, including Muhammad Ali, National Spokesman for the National 
Parkinson Foundation, Dr. Harold Varmus, NIH Director, and 
representatives of patient groups. While advocating different 
approaches to disease research funding, all agreed on the need to 
provide more money for biomedical research.
  To that end, I recently introduced H.R. 3563, the Biomedical Research 
Assistance Voluntary Option or ``BRAVO'' Act. This bipartisan measure 
would allow taxpayers to designate all or a portion of their Federal 
income tax refund to support NIH biomedical research. These taxpayers 
would be entitle to a charitable deduction under existing provisions of 
the Internal Revenue Code.
  Under my bill, funds designated by taxpayers for use in biomedical 
research would be transferred by the Treasury Department to the gift 
fund of the National Institutes of Health. The bill specifically states 
that transfers to the gift fund may not offset amounts that otherwise 
would be appropriate for the National Institutes of Health.
  In addition, my bill would give the Treasury Department flexibility 
in developing regulations to implement the Act. The bill would only 
require the designation to be made either on the first page of the 
return or on the page bearing the taxpayer's signature.
  Passage of the BRAVO Act will help channel additional funds to 
support the critical research efforts ongoing at NIH. I remain 
committed to working with my colleagues to achieve the goal of doubling 
Federal funding for NIH over the next 5 years.
  Mrs. MORELLA. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to join my colleague from 
Pennsylvania, Congressman Gekas, in this important special order on the 
critical importance of biomedical research funding. The National 
Institutes of Health (NIH) is located in my congressional district, and 
I am proud to represent this premier biomedical research institution.
  Tonight, we are devoting this special order to the goal of doubling 
the NIH budget over the next 5 years. The NIH, the world's leading 
biomedical research institution, is one of the great success stories of 
the Federal Government. Our current $13.6 billion investment in 
biomedical research is a real ``bang for the buck''--saving lives and 
reducing health care costs, while improving the quality of health care 
and creating jobs and economic growth.
  The historical support of the NIH by Congress and both Republican and 
Democratic administrations has produced a comprehensive network of more 
than 50,000 scientists and technicians at more than 1,700 research 
universities, academic medical centers, and institutions throughout the 
United States.
  NIH-sponsored research provides economic returns of incalculable 
value. The spawning of the biotechnology revolution is beyond question, 
with increased sales in 1996 of $10.8 billion (a 15 percent increase 
over 1995) and the addition of 10,000 new high-tech jobs to our 
national economy. In 1993 alone, NIH contributed nearly $45 billion to 
the U.S. economy and over 726,000 jobs. Our country's economic 
leadership has been secured in large part by our ability to translate 
scientific discoveries into new product development for export.
  However, many Americans still face life-threatening health problems, 
and new medical challenges constantly arise. For most of these 
conditions, research offers the best, and, in many cases, the only 
hope. In recent years, NIH-sponsored research has produced major 
advances in the treatment of cancer, heart disease, diabetes, HIV/AIDS, 
rheumatoid arthritis,

[[Page H2389]]

and mental illness that have helped save hundreds of thousands, if not 
millions, of lives.
  Currently, fewer than one-third of reviewed grants are funded. Our 
failure to improve this ratio will cause important scientific leads to 
be delayed or lost. It will also deter young, talented scientists from 
careers in biomedical research. The resulting loss in scientists and 
new ideas could endanger U.S. competitiveness.

  Funding biomedical research through the NIH is today's investment in 
America's future. We must make a substantial commitment now if we are 
to ensure the future health and economy of our Nation.
  As I have for the past several years, I circulated the congressional 
funding letter, along with Congressman Joe Kennedy, urging the 
Appropriations Committee to provide a 15-percent increase for the NIH 
for Fiscal Year 1999, the first installment toward our goal of doubling 
the NIH budget. I am pleased to report that we had more than 80 co-
signers on this bipartisan letter.
  I am also pleased to be a cosponsor of the resolution, introduced by 
Congressmen Gekas and Porter, expressing the sense of Congress that the 
NIH budget be doubled within 5 years. I also co-signed the letter to 
Budget Committee Chairman John Kasich, urging that the budget 
resolution provide an adequate allocation to the Labor-Health and Human 
Services-Education Subcommittee in order to allow such an increase in 
funding.
  Mr. Speaker, I look forward to continuing to work with my colleagues 
here tonight to substantially increase our commitment to biomedical 
research.
  Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to join my colleague from 
Pennsylvania (Mr. Gekas) in addressing the critical need for increased 
funding for the National Institutes of Health (NIH).
  I am submitting letters from my constituents who have shared with me 
the importance of NIH funding to their lives. These letters eloquently 
make the case for increased NIH funding.
  Again, I want to thank my colleague from Pennsylvania for leading 
this debate tonight and encourage all my colleagues to support 
increased funding for NIH.

                             Arthritis Foundation',

                                    San Diego, CA, April 24, 1998.
     Hon. Randy Cunningham,
     Rayburn House Office Building,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Representative Cunningham: This is to share our 
     concerns and express the importance of doubling the funding 
     to the National Institutes of Health (NIH). Funding research 
     is critical to addressing the causes, treatments, and 
     prevention of arthritis, musculoskeletal and skin diseases. 
     Over 40 million Americans have some form of arthritis and it 
     is predicted that by the year 2020 that number will increase 
     to 60 million.
       Arthritis occurs at all ages, destroys the quality of life 
     for people who have it, and requires medical care over long 
     periods of time. The current economic costs are estimated to 
     be at least $143 billion. Arthritis and related diseases are 
     the most common causes of chronic illness in the United 
     States and are the leading causes of time lost from work.
       Arthritis researchers are making great strides in 
     understanding these diseases. Some of the advances sponsored 
     by NIAMS include: new understandings of the roles of immune 
     system abnormalities, infectious agents, and genetic factors 
     in rheumatoid arthritis; development of new experimental 
     treatments for osteoarthritis, significant insights into the 
     specific genetic factors involved in lupus; and improved 
     total hip replacement materials and techniques that have 
     enhanced quality of life and productivity for many people.
       While these are significant advances, we need to continue 
     to support researchers and new investigators so that more 
     answers can be found to reduce the incidence and prevalence 
     of arthritis.
       The Arthritis Foundation spent $16 million in 1997 on 
     arthritis research and has committed to more than doubling 
     that amount to $37 million by the year 2000. Please support 
     our commitment by doubling the funding to NIH so that we can 
     work together towards finding a cure for and prevention of 
     arthritis.
       Your time and efforts are greatly appreciated by all who 
     have arthritis.
           Sincerely,
                                                   Julie Schwartz,
     Associate Vice President.
                                  ____



                          University of California, San Diego,

                                                   April 27, 1998.
     Hon. Randy ``Duke'' Cunningham,
     House of Representatives,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Duke: I am writing to urge you to support the goal of 
     doubling the budget of the National Institutes of Health 
     (NIH) in 5 years, and to specifically support a $2 billion 
     increase in the NIH appropriation for FY99. Such action will 
     be an important step towards expanding one of our country's 
     greatest assets, namely the biomedical research supported by 
     the NIH.
       To remind you, Federal support of biomedical research and 
     the NIH is of crucial importance to the health and vitality 
     of the people in our country. Historically, this type of 
     research has led to, and continues to lead to, new treatments 
     for previously incurable diseases, as well as new and lower 
     cost treatments for already treatable diseases. Both types of 
     breakthroughs are of crucial economic benefit to the country 
     (imagine the cost of caring for people afflicted with polio 
     if a vaccine had not been developed with federal support). 
     Both types of breakthroughs also reduce much needless human 
     suffering. In addition, biomedical research will be a 
     critical component in the long-term solution of the Medicare 
     financial crisis. Expensive, and ultimately treatable 
     diseases of the elderly such as Alzheimer's, diabetes, and 
     cancer play a large and growing role in skyrocketing medical 
     costs to our society.
       Biomedial and other scientific research are also both 
     economical drivers; they create knowledge and insights that 
     lead to new inventions, new companies, innovation, and 
     economic growth. Research supported by the NIH is the main 
     engine that drives the increasingly important Biotechnology 
     industry in this country, and will continue to do so in the 
     foreseeable future.
       I also want to point out that the health and quality of 
     life of our citizens is just as much a national security 
     issue as is military defense. Surely, the battle against 
     viruses, bacteria, cancer and other debilitating diseases is 
     just as important to the security of all of the American 
     people as is our vigilance against threats from abroad.
       Finally, I want to note that increased funding for NIH 
     research is likely to be supported by the vast majority of 
     your constituents. Recent polls found that 9 out of 10 
     Americans believe that we are not spending enough on medical 
     research; they overwhelmingly favor medical research over 
     environmental, defense, or energy research. In addition, 
     there are data to support the view that Americans are willing 
     to pay for biomedical research. For example another poll 
     found that 71% of Americans would be willing to pay 1% more 
     for insurance if there were some way to funnel the revenues 
     exclusively to biomedical research.
       This is a crucial time in our country's history. The 21st 
     century has the potential to be the golden age of medicine 
     and human health. We must not waver from our determination to 
     make our country the healthiest and wealthiest ever. 
     Biomedical and other scientific research is one of the most 
     time-tested methods for achieving these ends. Your support 
     will help us to achieve these important goals.
           Sincerely,
     Lawrence S. B. Goldstein, Ph.D.
                                  ____



                           University of California, San Diego

                                                   April 24, 1998.
     Hon. Randy Cunningham,
     House of Representatives,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Congressman Cunningham, I understand that you're going 
     to participate in a discussion of the NIH budget on April 28, 
     and I'm writing to urge you to support as strongly as 
     possible the initiatives of the Congress, as well as the 
     Administration to increase the budget allocation for NIH for 
     the next fiscal year. Finally the public realizes that NIH is 
     a magnificent national success story. The United States is 
     leading the world in biomedical research and for the first 
     time in years, morbidity by cancer and cardiovascular 
     diseases is decreasing. The Human Genome Program promises a 
     true avalanche of useful information for diagnostic and 
     follow-up of human diseases and advances made in cellular and 
     molecular medicine continue to be unusually exciting, often 
     leading to practical applications in biotechnology, as well 
     as in the pharmaceutical industry. It would be highly 
     regretful if for myopic financial consideration the momentum 
     we have achieved in biomedical research will be lost. I thank 
     you in advance for your support. I'm available for additional 
     information, if needed and, I remain,
           Gratefully yours,
                                            George E. Palade, M.D.
     Professor, Division of Cellular and Molecular Medicine.
                                  ____



                          University of California, San Diego,

                                                   April 28, 1998.
     Hon. Randy ``Duke'' Cunningham,
     U.S. House of Representatives,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Representative Cunningham: I am writing to thank you 
     for participating in the floor discussion on doubling the NIH 
     budget tonight. As a research scientist, I know first hand 
     the many benefits that biomedical research provides for this 
     country. The federal government's support of basic science 
     has led to spectacular advances in health while also 
     contributing to our national economic growth. Investment in 
     medical research is the first and critical step in 
     prevention, treatment, and control of disease, which in turn 
     will lead to longer, healthier, and more active lives. 
     However, many Americans still face life-threatening health 
     problems, and new medical challenges are arising. For most of 
     these conditions, research offers the best and in many cases 
     the only hope.
       I want to thank you for supporting the effort to 
     substantially increase our investment in biomedical research, 
     which is critical to the health and well-being of our nation.
           Sincerely yours,
                                                     Scott D. Emr,
                     Professor of Cellular and Molecular Medicine.

[[Page H2390]]

     
                                  ____
                                                   April 27, 1998.
     Hon. Randy ``Duke'' Cunningham,
     U.S. House of Representatives,
     Washington, D.C.
       Dear Representative Cunningham: I would like to strongly 
     encourage you to support the goal of doubling the budget of 
     the National Institutes of Health (NIH) in 5 years, and, in 
     particular, to support a $2 billion increase in the NIH 
     appropriation for FY99. The opportunities for advances in 
     biomedical sciences over the coming decades are unparalleled. 
     The United States has provided worldwide leadership in 
     biomedical science research over the years primarily because 
     of the visionary decision to establish the National 
     Institutes of Health in the 1940's. No other country has done 
     this.
       The opportunities in the decades ahead are extraordinary as 
     we see a merging of technologies in the physical, chemical 
     and computational sciences and their applications to biology 
     and disease. Whereas we have made advances with telescopes 
     and rockets that probe the universe in the past, we are now 
     poised to make equivalent progress by focusing our 
     microscopes inward to cells and molecules. An investment in 
     the NIH is not only a sound investment in the benefits it 
     will reap for treating disease, for curing disease, and for 
     eradicating pathogens, it is also a sound economic 
     investment. Not only will it reduce health care costs, the 
     basic science that has grown from basic biomedical research 
     supported by NIH has fueled our rapidly growing biotechnology 
     industry. Once again we are undisputed world leaders. We must 
     continue to lead.
       Federal support of biomedical research and the NIH is of 
     crucial importance for the health and vitality of the people 
     in our country. Historically, this type of research has led 
     to, and continues to lead to, new treatments for previously 
     incurable diseases, as well as new and lower cost for 
     treatments. Both types of breakthroughs are not only of 
     crucial economic benefit to the country, but also reduce much 
     needless human suffering. Biomedical and other scientific 
     research are also both economic drivers; they create 
     knowledge and insights that lead to new inventions, new 
     companies, innovation, and economic growth. As indicated 
     above, research supported by the NIH is the main engine that 
     drives the increasingly important Biotechnology industry in 
     this country, and will continue to do so in the foreseeable 
     future.
       This is a crucial time in our country's history. The 21st 
     century has the potential to be the golden age of medicine 
     and human health. Our ability to realize this vision depends 
     on the creative leadership of you and your colleagues. Your 
     support will help us to achieve these important goals and is 
     greatly appreciated.
           Sincerely,
     Susan S. Taylor, Ph. D.
                                  ____

                                                   April 27, 1998.
     Hon. Randy Cunningham,
     Rayburn House Office Building,
     Washington, DC. 20515.
       Dear Representative Cunningham, Alzheimer's disease is one 
     of the greatest threats to the personal and financial 
     security of most Americans as they reach their retirement 
     years. It is also one of the greatest threats to Medicare and 
     Medicaid. Today, 4 million Americans have Alzheimer's. Most 
     of them are Medicare beneficiaries; on an average, the cost 
     to the Medicare system is almost 70% more than beneficiaries 
     who are not cognitively impaired. This is true even though 
     Medicare does not pay for most of the care they need. Nearly 
     half of the Medicare beneficiaries also receive Medicaid, 
     because they have used up all of their own resources paying 
     for long term care.
       By the time the baby boomers reach the age of greatest risk 
     in the next century over 14 million Americans will have 
     Alzheimer's disease. It is hard to see how we can save 
     Medicare and Medicaid for future generations if we let that 
     happen.
       There is an answer to Alzheimer's disease and to other 
     costly diseases. The answer is medical research. Scientists 
     now know that changes in the brain start as much as 20 years 
     before the disabling symptoms of Alzheimer's appear. That 
     means that in most of the baby boomers who will eventually 
     get Alzheimer's, the disease process has probably already 
     begun.
       The progress that has been made in Alzheimer's research in 
     the past decade is truly remarkable. But just when the path 
     to real answers to the disease is becoming clear, the funding 
     for Alzheimer's research has slowed to the point that 
     scientists cannot begin the important work on prevention that 
     must begin today if we are going to save the baby boomers 
     from the disease.
       If we can delay the onset of Alzheimer's disease for even 5 
     years, we can reduce the incidence of Alzheimer's disease in 
     half and save as much as $50 billion in the annual cost of 
     care. That is one of the best investments in the future that 
     Congress can possibly make.
       Time is running out! That is why the Alzheimer's 
     Association is asking Congress to increase funding for 
     Alzheimer's research this year by $100 million, and to 
     increase the overall funding for NIH by at least 15%. Thank 
     you for your support of cause.
           Sincerely,
                                                      Ron Hendrix.
       Ps: My father died of Alzheimer's disease on December 26, 
     1997, after 10 long hard years. My mother died 7 years 
     earlier due to stresses brought upon by caregiving. I don't 
     want my children to face this disease. Please help!
                                  ____

  

                                                   April 27, 1998.
     Hon. Randy Cunningham,
     U.S. House of Representatives,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. Cunningham: Along with 2,500,000 other Americans, 
     a thief resides in my home, robbing my eleven year old son 
     Skyler of his health, his ability to learn, his self-
     confidence, his personal safety, and perhaps, one day, his 
     life. The intruder is epilepsy, a brain disorder that 
     presents in the form of seizures. Epilepsy can affect anyone; 
     any gender, any ethnicity, at any age, at any time, and in 
     30% of all cases, the cause remains unknown.
       Modern treatments are successful in fully or partially 
     controlling seizures in about 85% of cases. Unfortunately, my 
     son is counted in the additional 15% for whom all known 
     medical treatments have been tried and failed. Skyler has 
     been on every seizure medication available in the world, 
     including clinical and compassionate use trials. At times it 
     has been difficult to distinguish which were worse, the 
     seizures which assault his brain and body, or the drugs which 
     cause him to lose his balance, his speech, his kidney and 
     liver functions, and at times, his will to live. He has 
     undergone obscure medical therapies such as steroid 
     injections, immuno-globulin transplants, and ketogenic diets. 
     And still Skyler has debilitating seizures everyday of his 
     life.
       Mr. Cunningham, research holds the only hope that my son 
     might live a productive and meaningful life. New medications 
     with fewer side effects are desperately needed. Research 
     alone holds the key to treatments for epilepsy and many other 
     catastrophic brain diseases and disorders. Congress must 
     increase the federal commitment to biomedical research by 
     allocating sufficient funding to the efforts at the National 
     Institutes of Health and Center for Disease Control.
       Please, on behalf of all Americans who live with the thief 
     epilepsy, like my son Skyler, support initiatives to double 
     the total national commitment to medical research from all 
     sources. It is Skyler's only hope.
           Sincerely,
     Tracey J. Flourie.
                                  ____

                                                   April 26, 1998.
       Dear Congressman Cunningham: I have a beautiful, lovable 13 
     year old daughter, Cassady, who was diagnosed with Insulin 
     Dependent Diabetes when she was 10. She did nothing to cause 
     it. It is still a mystery why certain people get type I 
     diabetes. She is a normal 13 year old; she loves to go to 
     movies, talk on the phone with friends, play softball, 
     basketball and soccer, figure skate, play piano and go to our 
     church's youth group.
       This could happen to anybody. We do not know of any 
     diabetes in my husband's or my families.
       We say prayers every night and when she was first 
     diagnosed, she would pray for God to help her get over the 
     diabetes. I had to tell her the bad news: once you get 
     insulin dependent diabetes (Type I), it never goes away. 
     Every day for the rest of her life she will have to prick her 
     finger and test her blood from 4 to 6 times a day and inject 
     insulin from 3 to 5 times a day. And the insulin must be done 
     in proper dosages and at proper times or she will die. That 
     is until there is a cure. Diabetes can have a horrible effect 
     on these children's bodies. One of every 7 dollars in health 
     care and one of 4 Medicare dollars are spent on diabetes and 
     its complications.
       So what is the answer? Research to find a cure. These two 
     reasons: (1) to reduce the human suffering and deaths, and 
     (2) to save the billions of dollars that are spent treating 
     diabetes and its complications. Sixteen million Americans 
     have diabetes. (That's Type I and II.)
       That is why, as a mother, I feel it is important to join 
     with the many parents and volunteers at the Juvenile Diabetes 
     Foundation is urging a 15% increase in NIH funding this next 
     year and a doubling of the NIH funding in the next 5 years. 
     Thank you for all you are doing to help. Your compassion and 
     commitment are deeply appreciated.
     Janet Kintner.

                          ____________________