[Congressional Record Volume 144, Number 151 (Wednesday, October 21, 1998)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Pages E2299-E2300]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]


          NATIONAL INSTITUTES OF HEALTH FUNDING JUSTIFICATION

                                 ______
                                 

                          HON. GEORGE W. GEKAS

                            of pennsylvania

                    in the house of representatives

                      Wednesday, October 21, 1998

  Mr. GEKAS. Mr. Speaker, in the midst of political controversy, I rise 
to thank my colleagues, Chairman John Porter of the Labor, Health and 
Human Services, and Education Subcommittee, the entire Appropriations 
Committee, and the Speaker for their leadership on the House Labor HHS 
Appropriations bill, thus disproving the disturbing mischaracterization 
of this Congressional session, what some have called a ``do nothing'' 
Congress. Instead, I am proud to be here today to talk about the 
historical achievement that has taken place, the fruit of many years of 
work.
  I'd like to thank my colleagues for making medical research funding a 
priority this year by providing a 15% ($2 billion) increase for the 
National Institutes of Health. Over the years, the Labor HHS 
Appropriations bill has allocated money wisely and responsibly, this 
legislation is known as a fiscally conservative bill. The few 
allocations that are made, such as NIH funding, are carefully 
considered.
  It is essential to point out that money invested in basic research 
cannot be expected to achieve a specific outcome. Instead, we can 
expect to use such funds to accelerate the pursuit of knowledge. As the 
new millennium approaches, we are on the cusp of a ``golden age'' of 
medical and health discoveries. Additional money will help increase the 
likelihood that such discoveries will take place. The outcomes will 
contribute to reducing suffering and improving the quality of life for 
future generations of Americans and all human beings.
  I thank my colleagues for their work and for having the chance to 
discuss this achievement with you today. I encourage my colleagues to 
read the detailed justification for an increase in NIH funding which I 
am submitting for the record.

                 National Institutes of Health Funding

       The National Institutes of Health has been operating for 
     many years at funding levels far below its capacity. Many new 
     and exciting research ideas that hold tremendous promise for 
     the prevention and treatment of disease have gone unfunded 
     because of limited dollars, not due to lack of scientific 
     merit. These trends, coupled with the wealth of emerging 
     scientific opportunity, underscore the need to enhance our 
     national investment in the health sciences.
       An increase of 23% over FY98 in NIH funding would be 
     required to address scientific opportunity in all of the 
     Institutes under a scenario where budget dollars were 
     unrestrained. The ``Omnibus Appropriations'' measure provides 
     an historic 15% increase for the NIH. NIH has developed 
     specific action plans for each of its Institutes to guide a 
     significant resource expansion. Although it is impossible to 
     identify which of the lines of scientific investigation will 
     lead to a new treatment or cure, there is no shortage of 
     emerging scientific opportunity which should, as judged by 
     past example, produce positive results to improve the quality 
     of life in this Nation.
       For example, in the National Cancer Institute alone, 
     professionals have called for a $3.19 billion budget in FY99. 
     The House Appropriations proposal of a 9% increase would 
     provide approximately $2.78 billion for NCI. Richard 
     Klausner, NCI Director, said the difference would mean that, 
     under the full increase, one-third of the agencies' grants 
     would be funded rather than 28% being funded under the latter 
     scenario. Secondly, NCI is considering a major expansion and 
     redesign of its clinical trial system. Funding will affect 
     the speed with which NCI can expand this system so that the 
     trials are faster and more trials can be done. Additional 
     funds would also help bring the clinical trials system up-to-
     date with technology. Instead of the pencil and paper system 
     in place for over 40 years, the additional increase could 
     help pay for a new information-based electronics system to 
     accommodate the more complex clinical trials associated with 
     biological markers.
       The funding increases provided for the NIH in this bill 
     will accelerate research across the board, but particularly 
     in six key areas of emphasis: disorders of the nervous 
     system, genetic medicine, pathogenesis, computers and 
     instrumentation, new approaches to disease prevention, and 
     new avenues to therapeutics.
       In FY99, NIH plans to increase the number of grants 
     substantially to an all-time record of just over 30,000 
     awards. Nearly 8,300 new and competing awards will be made, 
     achieving a success rate very close to 1 of every 3 grants 
     being funded. In addition, the size of the average new and 
     competing award will increase by about ten percent, 
     permitting Institutes to fund a greater number of grants at 
     the levels recommended by review groups and to better support 
     more expensive forms of research such as patient-oriented 
     research

[[Page E2300]]

     or research that requires vertebrate animals to provide 
     models of human disease.
       Funds will be used to develop new and more powerful 
     instruments; to attract trainees and scientists in other 
     fields to the problems posed by biology and medicine; to 
     allow more groups of investigators to purchase shared 
     instruments; and to expand the use of computers for analysis, 
     exchange, and storage of data.
       With increased resources, NIH will be able to enhance their 
     efforts to recruit and train the most talented individuals 
     for careers in biomedical research. The agency will fund 
     innovative research training programs that emphasize trans-
     disciplinary work, will increase by 25% the stipends that are 
     currently provided to graduate students and post-doctoral 
     fellows and a research environment will be created that 
     offers improved stability and increased likelihood of 
     research funding than was true in early years of this decade.
       The promises of biomedical research to better human health 
     can only be achieved if we strengthen the nation's capacity 
     to perform clinical research, especially the research carried 
     out through direct interactions with patient populations. 
     With new funds in FY99, NIH will initiate several new 
     categories of awards to enhance training and support of 
     clinical investigators; a program that will finance a 
     supervised five year apprenticeship for over 400 young 
     investigators; a program that will provide salary support for 
     the clinical research activities of 250 to 400 mid-career 
     scientists who can serve as mentors; and a training program 
     that will bring organized didactic programs in clinical 
     research to over twenty institutions.
       NIH will significantly increase support for the national 
     outstanding centers for clinical research, including the 
     General Clinical Research Centers; will expand their new 
     program on the NIH campus that introduces medical and dental 
     students to clinical research; continue loan repayment 
     programs to clinical trainees from disadvantaged backgrounds 
     in the intramural program and support the continued 
     construction of the Mark O. Hatfield Clinical Research Center 
     of the NIH campus.
       As with all federal agencies, NIH is committed to frequent 
     review and close oversight of its scientific and 
     administrative practices. Despite a traditionally strong 
     reputation for expert review of grant applications, the 
     Center for Scientific Review is currently reexamining and 
     restructuring NIH's peer review panels. Last year, the agency 
     commissioned a large-scale review of administration at NIH, 
     conducted by Arthur Andersen. While the review was generally 
     complimentary of NIH's practices, the agency is currently in 
     the process of implementing recommendations for improvement.
       This year, the Institute of Medicine conducted a study of 
     the process by which NIH identifies priorities for research 
     funding. NIH is moving expeditiously to implement the IOM 
     findings by building new avenues for public input.

     

                          ____________________