[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.
____________________