[Congressional Record Volume 145, Number 95 (Wednesday, June 30, 1999)]
[House]
[Pages H5143-H5163]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
HEALTH OF THE AMERICAN PEOPLE
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the Speaker's announced policy of
January 6, 1999, the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Gekas) is
recognized for 60 minutes as the designee of the majority leader.
Mr. GEKAS. Madam Speaker, we ought to begin this presentation with
proposing a toast, and perhaps we can raise our glasses to propose a
toast to the health of the American people, because that is what this
special order is all about, the health of the American people.
For a long time now, many of us in the House have been about the
business of trying to double, over a period of 5 years, the funding for
the National Institutes of Health. In doing so, we are focusing
directly on the reason for the toast that we made to start the
proceedings, namely preventive medicine for the health of the American
people, remedies for some of the maladies that afflict the American
people, and long-term strategies to bring about a world safer for our
people, and to rid the world eventually of all of our diseases that so
ravage the lives of so many people.
So doubling the funding for the NIH, for the National Institutes of
Health, is a worthy goal and it accomplishes so many facets of goals
for the American people, and for the citizens of the world, for that
matter, that sometimes we wonder why there is not more support than
there sometimes is shown. But last year, last session, we were
successful, those of us who participate in this endeavor, in making the
first downpayment on the doubling effort over a period of 5 years by
succeeding in having our appropriators list $2 billion into the then
budget, the downpayment on the doubling.
We are now in the posture where we must do the same thing in order to
maintain the momentum by bringing about increased funding for the NIH
for the current session. In doing so we have introduced H. Res. 89, I
believe it is, which asks our Congress, our House of Representatives,
to consider doubling the funding for NIH.
Madam Speaker, I submit for the Record the copy of H. Res. 89, which
takes care of what we are after in the funding for the National
Institutes of Health.
H. Res. 89
Whereas past investments in biomedical research have
resulted in better health, an improved quality of life for
all Americans, and a reduction in national health care
expenditures;
Whereas the Nation's commitment to biomedical research has
expanded the base of scientific knowledge about health and
disease and revolutionized the practice of medicine;
Whereas the Federal Government represents the single
largest contributor to biomedical research conducted in the
United States;
[[Page H5144]]
Whereas biomedical research continues to play a vital role
in the growth of this Nation's biotechnology, medical device,
and pharmaceutical industries;
Whereas the origin of many of the new drugs and medical
devices currently in use is based on biomedical research
supported by the National Institutes of Health;
Whereas women have traditionally been underrepresented in
medical research protocols, yet are severely affected by
diseases including breast cancer, which will kill over 43,900
women this year; ovarian cancer which will claim another
14,500 lives; and osteoporosis and cardiovascular disorders;
Whereas research sponsored by the National Institutes of
Health is responsible for the identification of genetic
mutations relating to nearly 100 diseases, including
Alzheimer's disease, cystic fibrosis, Huntington's disease,
osteoporosis, many forms of cancer, and immune deficiency
disorders;
Whereas many Americans still face serious and life-
threatening health problems, both acute and chronic;
Whereas neurodegenerative diseases of the elderly, such as
Alzheimer's and Parkinson's disease, threaten to destroy the
lives of millions of Americans, overwhelm the Nation's health
care system, and bankrupt the medicare and medicaid programs;
Whereas 4,000,000 Americans are currently infected with the
hepatitis C virus, an insidious liver condition that can lead
to inflammation, cirrhosis, and cancer, as well as liver
failure;
Whereas 250,000 Americans are now suffering from AIDS and
hundreds of thousands more with HIV infection;
Whereas cancer remains a comprehensive threat to any tissue
or organ of the body at any age, and remains a top cause of
morbidity and mortality;
Whereas the extent of psychiatric and neurological diseases
poses considerable challenges in understanding the workings
of the brain and nervous system;
Whereas recent advances in the treatment of HIV illustrate
the promise research holds for even more effective,
accessible, and affordable treatments for persons with HIV;
Whereas infants and children are the hope of our future,
yet they continue to be the most vulnerable and underserved
members of our society;
Whereas approximately one out of every six American men
will develop prostate cancer and over 49,200 men will die
from prostate cancer each year;
Whereas diabetes, both insulin and non-insulin forms,
afflicts 15,700,000 Americans and places them at risk for
acute and chronic complications, including blindness, kidney
failure, atherosclerosis, and nerve degeneration;
Whereas the emerging understanding of the principles of
biometrics has been applied to the development of hard tissue
such as bone and teeth as well as soft tissue, and this field
of study holds great promise for the design of new classes of
biomaterials, pharmaceuticals, and diagnostic and analytical
reagents;
Whereas research sponsored by the National Institutes of
Health will map and sequence the entire human genome by 2005,
leading to a new era of molecular medicine that will provide
unprecedented opportunities for the prevention, diagnosis,
treatment, and cure of diseases that currently plague
society;
Whereas the fundamental way science is conducted is
changing at a revolutionary pace, demanding a far greater
investment in emerging new technologies and research training
programs, and in developing new skills among scientific
investigators; and
Whereas most Americans show overwhelming support for an
increased Federal investment in biomedical research: Now,
therefore, be it
Resolved,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This resolution may be cited as the ``Biomedical
Revitalization Resolution of 1999''.
SEC. 2. SENSE OF THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES.
It is the sense of the House of Representatives that
funding for the National Institutes of Health should be
increased by $2,000,000,000 in fiscal year 2000 and that the
budget resolution appropriately reflect sufficient funds to
achieve this objective.
Mr. GEKAS. Madam Speaker, I also want to enter into the Record the
list of our cosponsors for the resolution, which reads like a who's who
of our current membership in the House of Representatives.
H. Res. 89
Sponsor: Rep Gekas, George W. (introduced 03/02/99).
Cosponsors (58):
Rep. Bentsen, Ken--03/02/99.
Rep. Callahan, Sonny--03/02/99.
Rep. Nethercutt, George R., Jr.--03/02/99.
Rep. Stearns, Cliff--03/04/99.
Rep. Green, Gene--03/04/99.
Rep. Frost, Martin--03/04/99.
Rep. Moakley, John Joseph--03/10/99.
Rep. Horn, Stephen--03/10/99.
Rep. Gonzalez, Charles A.--03/10/99.
Rep. Cooksey, John--03/10/99.
Rep. Ose, Doug--03/10/99.
Rep. Lofgren, Zoe--03/11/99.
Rep. Baldacci, John Elias--03/11/99.
Rep. Slaughter, Louise McIntosh--03/17/99.
Rep. Gordon, Bart--03/17/99.
Rep. Carson, Julia--03/23/99.
Rep. Goss, Porter J.--03/25/99.
Rep. Lewis, John--04/13/99.
Rep. Cummings, Elijah E.--04/13/99.
Rep. Bilirakis, Michael--04/13/99.
Rep. Hooley, Darlene--04/13/99.
Rep. Phelps, David D.--04/13/99.
Rep. Brady, Robert--04/15/99.
Rep. Gejdenson, Sam--04/27/99.
Rep. Wynn, Albert Russell--04/27/99.
Rep. Watt, Melvin L.--05/04/99.
Rep. Sanchez, Loretta--05/26/99.
Rep. Lantos, Tom--06/08/99.
Rep. Forbes, Michael P.--06/22/99.
Rep. Pelosi, Nancy--03/02/99.
Rep. Porter, John Edward--03/02/99.
Rep. Morella, Constance A.--03/04/99.
Rep. Shows, Ronnie--03/04/99.
Rep. McCarthy, Carolyn--03/04/99.
Rep. Pryce, Deborah--03/10/99.
Rep. Cunningham, Randy (Duke)--03/10/99.
Rep. Blagojevich, Rod R.--03/10/99.
Rep. Etheridge, Bob--03/10/99.
Rep. Bachus, Spencer--03/10/99.
Rep. Frank, Barney--03/10/99.
Rep. Nadler, Jerrold--03/11/99.
Rep. King, Peter T.--03/11/99.
Rep. Clement, Bob--03/17/99.
Rep. McIntyre, Mike--03/23/99.
Rep. Price, David E.--03/23/99.
Rep. Hoeffel, Joseph M.--03/25/99.
Rep. Mink, Patsy T.--04/13/99.
Rep. Bilbray, Brian P.--04/13/99.
Rep. Capps, Lois--04/13/99.
Rep. Coyne, William J.--04/13/99.
Rep. Wamp, Zach--04/13/99.
Rep. Eshoo, Anna G.--04/15/99.
Rep. LaFalce, John J.--04/27/99.
Rep. English, Phil--04/27/99.
Rep. Miller, Gary--05/04/99.
Rep. Capuano, Michael E.--06/08/99.
Rep. Borski, Robert A., Jr.--06/10/99.
Rep. McGovern, James P.--06/23/99.
Mr. GEKAS. And, Madam Speaker, I also wish to add to the Record a
statement that I have prepared for this special order in which the
title, quite appropriately, is ``Doubling NIH Budget in Five Years--
Taking the Second Step Toward Doubling.'' That is exactly what we are
talking about.
``Doubling NIH Budget in Five Years--Taking the Second Step Toward
Doubling''
1. Doubling funding for the National Institutes of Health
over the next five years. Is this a reasonable goal? Can we
and should we obtain this goal?
What is the current budget situation for the NIH? The
Congress has a history of doubling the NIH budget over ten
years, so we are suggesting that we accelerate the pace of
discovery by increasing health research from the usual 7% or
8% increase to a 15% increase per year for five years. This
is a reasonable and obtainable goal given our past funding
experience and the future potential for health discoveries.
We are suggesting that the NIH FY'2000 budget contain a $2
billion increase rather than the $1 billion increase the
Congress would usually provide.
The result is that NIH will go from a funding level of
$15.6 billion in FY'99 to $17.6 billion in FY'2000. This
would be the second step toward doubling because we added $2
billion increase to the NIH budget last year. The second step
should be easier than the first. We would take the NIH from a
$14 billion budget to a $28 billion budget.
When I say we would make these increases I am referring to
my colleagues, 56 other Members of the House who are
committed to this same doubling goal and taking the second
step by cosponsoring H. Res. 89. I am introducing for the
Record the list of the 56 cosponsors, the ``Dear Colleague''
letter circulated by the Co-Chairs of the Congressional
Biomedical Research Caucus: Reps. Callahan, Pelosi and
Bentsen, joined by Reps. Porter and Nethercutt, along with a
copy of the bill.
Can we make this goal this year? Certainly those in the
Congress who know the operations of the NIH the best support
us in the effort, including the Chairman of the authorizing
Committee, Rep. Bilirakis and the Chairman of the
appropriations Committee, Rep. Porter. I am pleased that both
have committed to the goal and joined H. Res. 89.
We also have Senate support for the NIH doubling goal in
five years from by fellow Pennsylvanian, Senator Specter, who
has introduced a similar bill, S. Res. 19, to accomplish the
same goal. He was joined in a bipartisan manner by his
ranking Member on the Appropriations Subcommittee, Senator
Harkin. We certainly have the political will to go forward
with the second downpayment, if we call upon it. I am asking
all of my colleagues to join us on this mission and cosponsor
H. Res. 89, so we can call upon our leaders and show that we
support this important funding priority.
2. I may have convinced you that we have the ability to
meet this goal, but you may ask why we should? Here we stand
in June 22nd, 1999, on the brink of the next millennium, very
different, healthier people because of health research, than
the cruel and short lived lives of individuals that witnessed
the dawn of this past 1000 years. Despite the progress that
we have made in health research, we still face major global
health challenges. Because the U.S. is the world leader in
biomedical research, we have a special duty to transfer the
benefits of our discoveries to the people of the world.
Although this is an altruistic statement, we also know that
our own quality of life and security will be enhanced if
infectious diseases are controlled. The spread of infectious
disease is the number one global health issue
[[Page H5145]]
that we all face, according to a recent report of the World
Health Organization, infectious diseases killed 11 million
people globally in 1998 and killed 180,000 people in the
U.S., the third leading killer in the U.S. The NIH is taking
the lead in confronting this global health problem by
establishing a new center for vaccine development. Vaccines
that immunize people against the HIV virus, new highly
infectious strains of TB and against malaria the killer of
children in sub-Sahara Africa are all possible, if we have
the resources.
I feel very strongly about the global effort to transfer
the benefits of NIH research through communication efforts
such as the Internet and through commerce such as vaccine
type drug therapies and prevention strategies. We will
ultimately strengthen the economies of the developing world
by attempting to eradicate disease. Last Congress I
introduced a bill to establish a National Goals Commission
with this purpose as its mission and I invite all of my
colleagues to join me as original cosponsors of a new bill
that also focuses on encouraging increased Internet
conferencing on biomedical research and the control of
infectious diseases through increases in vaccine development.
We are truly at a new frontier with the end of World War
II, the end of the Cold War, where now former enemies in
Europe work together to eliminate despotic state action that
had once been tolerated, earlier in this Century. The U.S.
has mobilized its resources to accomplish these goals and we
can now harness and mobilize our scientists in all
disciplines to assist the world effort to eliminate disease.
This should be our highest priority for a national goal.
3. The increased funding we were able to provide the NIH
last year has had a real impact on new priorities for the NIH
with expanded activities in the following areas:
Expanding clinical research funding through better
translation of research from the bench to the patient.
Accompanying expanded clinical research is promoting more
PH.D/M.D. Researchers, which are on the decline, as the
number of PH.Ds grows.
Expanding opportunities for collaboration with other
science disciplines such as computer science and physics to
work better at the molecular level.
Interpreting the human genome, which will be completed
within the next two years.
4. Congressional Biomedical Research Caucus Briefings for
the Congress have educated the attendees on the latest,
cutting edge research. There have been over 90 briefings for
the Congress since 1990. The 1999 Caucus Series was
particularly instructive of the advances we are making in
health care because of increased funding for research. For
example, last week Dr. Solomon Snyder from Johns Hopkins
University, told us that the role of Nitic Oxide in many
human body functions such as heart pressure and as a
neurotransmitter was only discovered in 1990. Since that
time, medications such as Viagra, for male impotence have
been developed in less than a decade. The pace of discovery
has truly accelerated.
5. Emergency Spending-outside the 1997 budget caps: There
is a global killer on the prowl killing 11 million people
around the world and killing 180,000 people in the U.S. The
World Health Organization just sounded an altert that we must
controll this killer before it is completely out of control.
Emergency spending has been found to assist in the Kosovo
Campaign and I submit that this is no less important.
Madam Speaker, the 56 cosponsors are intent on having people like the
gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Porter) and the gentleman from Florida
(Mr. Bilirakis) use their influence as chairmen of respective
committees vital to this effort, who are also cosponsors, and I offer
at this time the written remarks of the gentleman from Florida (Mr.
Bilirakis), of whom I just spoke, on this subject.
Mr. BILIRAKIS. Madam Speaker, I rise in support of increasing the
federal government's commitment to biomedical research through the
National Institutes of Health. As Chairman of the Health and
Environment Subcommittee of the House Commerce Committee, I am a strong
advocate of this agency's vital mission. I have joined many of my
colleagues in supporting efforts to double federal funding for the NIH.
The NIH is the primary federal agency charged with the conduct and
support of biomedical and behavioral research. Each of its institutes
has a specialized focus on particular diseases, areas of human health
and development, or aspects of research support. When we consider its
role as one of the worlds's foremost research centers, it is amazing to
remember that the NIH actually began its existence as a one-room
Laboratory of Hygiene in 1887.
Medical research represents the single most effective weapon against
the diseases that affect many Americans. The advances made over the
course of the last century could not have been predicated by even the
most far-sighted observers. It is equally difficult to anticipate the
significant gains we may achieve in years to come through increased
funding for further medical research.
Last year, Congress gave a substantial increase in funding to the
NIH. The fiscal year 1999 omnibus appropriations law provided $15.6
billion for the NIH--an increase of almost $2 billion or 15 percent
over the previous fiscal year. This increase represents a sizable down
payment toward the goal of doubling its funding over five years. This
year, I am hopeful that we can make similar progress in that regard.
As we work to increase federal funding, I am also sponsoring
legislation to encourage private support for NIH research efforts. My
bill, H.R. 785, the Biomedical Research Assistance Voluntary Option or
``BRAVO'' Act, would allow taxpayers to designate a portion of their
federal income tax refunds to support NIH research efforts. I
introduced the bill on a bipartisan basis with the Ranking Member of
the Health and Environment Subcommittee, Mr. Brown of Ohio.
Madam Speaker, every dollar invested in research today will yield
untold benefits for all Americans in years to come. Indeed, our own
lives might some day depend on the efforts of scientists and doctors
currently at work in our nation's laboratories. I urge all Members to
join me in supporting a strong federal commitment to biomedical
research.
Mr. GEKAS. And so, Madam Speaker, we see we have an appropriator and
a chairman of relevant committees, as well as many other Members who
are interested in seeing this effort succeed.
And the question arises, well, who is interested in this besides the
people at NIH? Every American citizen ought to be interested in it. It
has to do with the health of the household. Mr. and Mrs. America and
the children and the other residents of the household can hope for
nothing better than for clean, healthy lives so that they can fulfill
their destiny with as little as possible disruption by ravaging disease
and ill health.
So this is our effort, all of us. And it is that simple. Do we want
reduction in health costs? Of course we do. Do we want less
hospitalization for our people? Of course we do. Do we require fewer
and fewer spaces in the future for nursing homes and more people to be
able to remain at home? Of course we do.
All of this is within the scope of what we are trying to do. Because
every effort that the National Institutes of Health makes on research,
biomedical research and other kinds of findings that they can make, all
of that goes to the prevention of disease and the curing of disease.
And not only do we save lives but we save money. That is why we have to
consider the doubling of the effort as being one of an investment in
eventually reducing costs, because we will reduce costs along the way.
The gentleman from California (Mr. Bilbray) has been one of the chief
supporters of this effort, Madam Speaker, and I would like to yield to
him at this time.
Mr. BILBRAY. Madam Speaker, it is an honor to stand in support of the
gentleman's resolution.
Some of our colleagues stood up here today and praised the President
for coming across with the support for helping to finance the cost of
pharmaceuticals for our seniors, and the issue of Social Security being
taken off budget.
And I would like to say that I think those of us on the Republican
side praise the President for coming over and supporting some of the
concepts that Congress took action on not too long ago, this month, in
saying that Social Security is a trust fund, not a slush fund. The
gentleman from California (Mr. Thomas) has been trying to reach
consensus on what we should be able to work out some time within the
near future, and that is the ability of seniors to be able to have
their pharmaceutical drugs paid for.
{time} 1645
So I, for one, am going to stand up here today not only with the
chairman but also to praise the President for coming across and
supporting a lot of congressional priorities. But I think the issue of
pharmaceutical drugs with Medicare is still treating symptoms of the
problem, and that is we have these diseases which continue to be a
problem in our society.
The resolution of the chairman really, as we would say, is an
investment in the future. Because if we can avoid or reduce diseases
such as heart disease, cancer, Alzheimer's disease, if we can reduce
stroke, then we can reduce the cost of having to treat problems related
to those diseases.
This resolution really says that it is time that America makes a
commitment to investing in our public health
[[Page H5146]]
just as we invest in our infrastructure, roads, bridges, and canals.
I would strongly support the contention of the chairman that we need
to double our investment. In fact, I would say clearly by comparison
that Americans one day are going to wake up to the fact that in 1960
President Kennedy stood up and challenged this country to put a man of
the Moon within 10 years, and at that time we increased the funding to
a level that would be about 10 times what we spend on public health
research, in the process of putting somebody on the Moon.
That kind of national commitment was made possible by strong
leadership but really the big point was that level of commitment
resulted within 10 years in the fulfillment of the promise and
fulfillment of the commitment, and the fulfillment of the goal of
placing a man on the Moon.
I think we can all agree, when it comes down to affecting our
families, our children, our grandchildren, our great grandchildren's
lives, that the one thing that really could totally dwarf placing
somebody on the Moon is the ability to end cancer as we know it, to end
heart disease as we know it, to make Alzheimer's a thing of the past,
such as polio has become practically in our society, to take things
like stroke and put it in the category of smallpox.
This is really a chance for us to make that commitment, with all the
resources we have available, not by buying from this group or that
special group or promising this group that we are going to give them
more money. This is a promise to all Americans, the globe, all humans,
that America at this time and this place is making the type of
commitment to public health that was made back in the 1960s for space
exploration.
The fact is this is our chance to be able to make a commitment. Let
us just say this resolution is just a first step at saying we are going
to put forth more effort and, hopefully, achieve more of the successes
we are going to see in districts like mine.
Madam Speaker, San Diego County has one of the most aggressive health
research facilities in the world. We are doing the human mapping
program that not only allows us to understand what causes heart disease
or causes Alzheimer's, but is allowing us to know why the body does
what it does so that we can someday avoid these diseases rather than
just treat them as we are talking today on the Medicare issue.
I want to stand again as not only a San Diegan who has many of these
research facilities in his district but also as somebody who has the
privilege of serving on the Committee on Health and the Environment and
has oversight for many of these operations. I want to thank the
chairman, and I want to stand here today and say, all America should be
looking at this type of commitment. I want to thank the author of the
resolution. Let us move forward and let us rise to the challenge.
Just as America rose to the challenge of John Kennedy, I think the
resolution of the chairman deserves our commitment to rise and fulfill
the promise that our public health strategies can actually provide for
America.
Mr. GEKAS. Madam Speaker, I very much appreciate the commentary of
the gentleman.
I now yield to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Nethercutt) who has
been stalwart in most of the efforts surrounding the problems of
continued funding for medical research.
Mr. NETHERCUTT. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman from
Pennsylvania (Mr. Gekas) very much not only for his leadership on this
issue of increasing medical research funding in the Government but for
his leadership on so many issues.
I am grateful to have a chance to talk for a few minutes to
acknowledge not only his work but to acknowledge the need for
additional medical research through the National Institutes of Health
and other agencies of Government which conduct medical research.
It is not a small matter that is defined and distributed to the
National Institutes of Health for research only. It is a very big issue
for not only the human condition in our country but also for other
agencies that coordinate with the National Institutes of Health and in
doing some very, very important research to try to cure diseases in
this country.
I happen to have a very serious interest in diabetes and recognize
fully the cost of diabetes to society. Twenty-five to twenty-six cents
out of every Medicare dollar goes for paying for the consequences of
diabetes in our society.
So, to the extent that the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Gekas)
and others in this body, both Democrats and Republicans, engaged in
adding preventive care to the Medicare legislation that we set back in
1997 to allow for diabetes education and diabetes test strips, to allow
for mammographies and colorectal exams and prostate exams for people in
the Medicare population, that is a money saver.
So with the preventive care effort that is undertaken by Congress,
combined with the research that is being done at the National
Institutes of Health, not only on diabetes but on many other diseases,
we can reduce this cost to the Medicare system.
So it is in our national best interest, in my judgment, that we
devote more resources to the National Institutes of Health research and
medical research through the National Science Foundation, through the
VA Hospital system, through the Department of Defense, and other
agencies of Government, the Centers for Disease Control, for example,
and others, if we are going to help the human condition.
I want to thank the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Gekas) for his
work, and I am very serious about the hard work he has done to make
increasing medical research funding a reality in our country. It is a
wise expenditure of money, of the taxpayers' dollars, because it helps
all of us.
Diabetes, for example, is indiscriminate in touching not only
minority races but the Caucasian population. It hits all ages and
stages. It hits native American populations disproportionately to the
rest of the populations in our country, and it is a cruel disease that
affects so many people. Sixteen million Americans in our country have
diabetes, and some 7 or 8 million of them do not know they have it. So
not only diabetes but cancer and Alzheimer's and all those diseases
that touch people's lives need to be cured.
I would say to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Gekas) I was out
at the National Institutes of Health just last week and met with the
Director Dr. Varmus and the other directors of the Institutes talking
not only about diabetes but increasing funding. I mentioned to them at
the time that I felt the President's budget, which I think is around
2.3 percent, is just inadequate. I know we did an extraordinary
increase last year in the appropriations process, and I am proud to be
on the Committee on Appropriations and supported it. But we want to do
better than 2.3 percent so that we take advantage of these great
opportunities for research and cure some of these serious diseases that
affect all of us.
Mr. GEKAS. Madam Speaker, the gentleman has touched on an important
aspect of what we are trying to do. The more we are able to prevent
disease or cure the existing diseases, the more beneficial will be our
Treasury as well as the lives of our citizens.
This chart that we have here shows heart disease, cancer,
Alzheimer's, mental disorder, arthritis, depression, stroke,
osteoporosis, etc. Altogether, these cost us $500 billion a year as a
society. That is what it costs us.
Now, insofar as research can settle in and provide a cure for one or
all of these, billions of dollars every year can be saved, not to
mention the lives that will be happier and safer and more fully
destined for fulfillment than under the present conditions.
So we are not only spending money when we invest in the National
Institutes of Health, we are saving money.
Mr. NETHERCUTT. Madam Speaker, if the gentleman would yield for one
moment more, the gentleman is absolutely right.
If we add diabetes into that, that is some $80 billion or $90 billion
more in cost to our country, not to say anything of the issue of lost
productivity.
A person who has Alzheimer's today is most likely an unproductive
part of our society. If we can prevent that Alzheimer's or cure it,
that person, that sufferer and that family that suffers with that
person will be more productive and it will save money long-term.
Just in the diabetes research, I should say the diabetes test strips
and diabetes education money or provisions
[[Page H5147]]
that were set forth for the Medicare program, my memory is that it was
about a $31 million savings the first year of having that preventive
component to health care.
So I thank the gentleman for his good work. I am proud to be his
partner in all of this. We will have to just work hard and persevere
and help humanity by curing some of these diseases through research.
Mr. GEKAS. Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from Maryland
(Mrs. Morella) recognizing that she is the heart and soul of the
National Institutes of Health, because she has never breathed a day's
worth of breath without considering the NIH.
Mrs. MORELLA. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Pennsylvania
(Mr. Gekas) for yielding.
Madam Speaker, I want to commend my very good friend the gentleman
from Pennsylvania (Mr. Gekas) for scheduling this special order and for
charts and for the work that he does prior to and even after this
special order. He has such a tremendous commitment to biomedical
research and to the National Institutes of Health.
I am also pleased to identify myself with the comments made by the
gentleman from Washington (Mr. Nethercutt) too. We do have a good,
solid group of Members of Congress who do believe very strongly in
biomedical research.
I am proud to join with the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Gekas)
in renewing our bipartisan commitment to double the funding for the
National Institutes of Health over a 5-year period.
Madam Speaker, the NIH has been called ``the only crown jewel of the
Federal Government.'' Well, it is indeed a world-renowned institution.
It is located in Montgomery County, Maryland, which happens to be the
district I represent. It is considered the leading force in mankind's
continuing war against disease.
In fact, it is located in Bethesda, Maryland; and I think that
Bethesda was appropriately named for the Biblical Pool of Bethesda,
which had healing qualities. And so does NIH.
The Federal commitment to biomedical, behavioral, and population-
based research is responsible for the continued development of an ever-
expanding base that has contributed to medical advances that have
profoundly improved the length and quality of life for millions of
Americans.
Information gained from NIH research is revolutionizing the practice
of medicine and the future direction of scientific inquiry. With this
research, we have learned that disease is a complex and evolving enemy.
Despite the extraordinary progress that has been made in the fight
against many diseases, there are still serious challenges that remain.
Infectious diseases continue to pose a significant threat as new human
pathogens are discovered and previously known and controlled
microorganisms acquire antibiotic resistance. The risk of bioterrorism
also necessitates new research on diagnostics, vaccines, and
therapeutic agents.
The number of Americans over age 65 will double in the next 30 years
to more than 69 million. So research is needed to help reduce the
enormous economic and social burdens posed by chronic diseases, as were
mentioned, osteoporosis, arthritis, Parkinson's, Alzheimer's disease,
cancer, heart disease, and stroke.
As a matter of fact, one of the figures I saw recently is that, if we
can just hold back the advent of Alzheimer's disease for 5 years, we
can save $40 billion. This is an example of how we save money as well
as enhance the quality of life.
{time} 1700
NIH funded research into many of these diseases is the foundation
underlying the search for answers. Without the essential role that the
NIH is playing in our health care equation, we as a Nation will fail to
achieve the goal of a healthy, more productive Nation. The American
people want increased funding for medical research. There was a Wall
Street Journal/CNN poll that indicated that more than two-thirds of
those who were surveyed support doubling the NIH budget within 5 years.
The clock on this commitment began ticking in 1998 when we
successfully enacted a 15 percent increase in the NIH appropriation to
$15.6 billion in fiscal year 1999. Again this year we are requesting
another 15 percent increase for fiscal year 2000 as the second step in
achieving our goal of doubling the NIH budget by 2003.
Madam Speaker, the 15 percent increase in the current fiscal year has
enabled funding of close to 10,000 new grants. That is an increase of
2,400 over the fiscal year 1998. It is not by chance that the United
States is the undisputed world leader in high tech medical science and
drug development. It is in large part because the Federal Government
has made a commitment to fund basic biomedical research for over 50
years and create a strong partnership with the private sector to bring
new life-saving techniques and treatments to patients throughout the
world.
I want to mention some examples of new preventive strategies against
disease which is changing the lives of millions of Americans:
Breast cancer is the second leading cause of cancer deaths in
American women, claiming the lives of more than 43,000 women each year.
The NIH-sponsored breast cancer prevention trial tested the use of
tamoxifen, a drug that was used for 20 years to treat breast cancer, as
a breast cancer prevention agent. Tamoxifen reduced the incidence of
breast cancer for more than 5 years by 49 percent in women at high risk
for the disease.
Another example is tuberculosis. TB is the most common infectious
disease worldwide. One-third of the world's population is infected with
the bacterium that causes this serious disease. TB causes devastating
lung disease and weight loss in patients and often attacks the nervous
system and the kidneys as well. Moreover, the greatest known risk for
development of TB infection is HIV infection. NIH and CDC, the Centers
for Disease Control, supported scientists collaborated with researchers
in Uganda where a study was conducted to test different drug regimens
for their ability to prevent TB in HIV-infected adults. The researchers
found that a 6-month course of an anti-TB drug reduced the risk of TB
by 67 percent in HIV-infected adults. The findings from this research
led the World Health Organization's global tuberculosis program to
further evaluate whether TB prevention programs for high-risk groups in
developing nations are an effective and economical way to reduce the
risk of TB infection to the individual and the community.
Another example, Madam Speaker, is the recent evidence that kidney
damage from diabetes is reversible. We have just had a discussion with
the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Gekas) and the gentleman from
Washington (Mr. Nethercutt) about diabetes. One of the many serious
complications that patients with diabetes encounter is damage to their
kidneys. Despite improved patient survival and regulation of blood
sugar, this disease continues to be the major factor of kidney failure.
Researchers have known that after many years with the disease, diabetic
patients gradually develop scarring in the kidney that filters the
body's waste produced from the blood. As the scarring progresses, the
kidneys fail, leaving the patient dependent on dialysis. Now
researchers are making progress. By studying patients who had received
a pancreas transplant, researchers found that kidney disease was
actually reversed in some diabetic patients who had maintained
normalized blood sugar levels over a 10-year period. This research will
help not only diabetic patients receiving pancreas transplants but also
will guide treatment strategies for other diabetic patients who are now
at risk for kidney disease. Now, not only can we prevent kidney damage
in patients with diabetes, but in some cases the damage can be
reversed.
Madam Speaker, scientific advances resulting from NIH-supported
research mean improved health and reduced suffering, job creation in
biomedical research and biotechnology, and far-reaching economic
benefits touching every State through major universities, government
laboratories and research institutes. In global competition, biomedical
research and biotechnology are areas of strong American leadership and
commitment. Continued strong support for NIH will ensure that American
scientific excellence continues as we enter the next century. We can
afford to do no less for
[[Page H5148]]
this generation and for generations to come.
Before I yield back to the gentleman from Pennsylvania who has been
so kind about giving me this time, I want to extol the benefits, also,
of the creation of the Office of Research on Women's Health. I and
other Members of Congress were involved in that a number of years ago.
We now have it codified, and so women are included in all clinical
trials and protocols. Thanks to the Members of this Congress with the
gentleman from Pennsylvania at the helm and others, we have now been
able to put far more money into all elements of research, and in the
Office on Research on Women's Health for breast cancer, ovarian cancer,
cervical cancer, osteoporosis, AIDS in women, lupus and all of the
other diseases. We also have made some advances in research for
prostate cancer, kind of the equivalent of breast cancer in terms of
the number of people who are diagnosed with it each year and the number
who die of that disease. This is so important that we do this special
order and that we carry through with our goal of doubling the budget by
2003 of the National Institutes of Health. It has been an honor to be
here with the gentleman from Pennsylvania.
Mr. GEKAS. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman very much.
Before I yield to the gentleman from Texas whom I see has arrived for
participation in this event, Madam Speaker, I include for the Record
several letters from important entities in our country supporting our
effort for doubling the funding for the NIH. I will quickly read off
the titles:
The American Heart Association.
The BIO organization, which is the Biotechnology Industry
Organization.
The Ad Hoc Group for Medical Research Funding. Just to give my
colleagues an idea, to give our audience, the American public, a feel
for how many people, how many organizations are deeply involved in the
health of our country, the Ad Hoc Group for Medical Research Funding,
which is made up of dozens of organizations like the American
Geriatrics Society, the American Society for Investigative Pathology,
American Society of Transplantation, just to get an idea of all the
various things that affect our households; Corporation for the
Advancement of Psychiatry, Friends of the National Library of Medicine,
Massachusetts Institute of Technology. My gosh, they cover every facet
of our lives. National Caucus of Basic Biomedical Science Chairs,
Oakwood Healthcare System, Primary Health Systems, and on and on and
on. This is our fellow Americans joining in certain entities to advance
our health care.
Joint Steering Committee for Public Policy.
American Heart Association,
Washington, DC, June 22, 1999.
Hon. George Gekas,
U.S. House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
Dear Representative Gekas: The American Heart Association
applauds your continuing initiative and leadership in the
bicameral, bipartisan effort to double funding for the
National Institutes of Health by the year 2003. The
historically large funding increase received by the NIH for
FY 1999 represented a significant step toward that goal.
Your ongoing efforts and those of the 56 co-sponsors of H.
Res. 89, expressing the sense of the House that the federal
investment in medical research should be increased by $2
billion in FY 2000, are vital in securing the next
installment to double funding for the NIH. The American Heart
Association strongly supports your hard work in making
funding for the NIH a top priority in the FY 2000
appropriations process.
Recent state-based polls show that an overwhelming majority
of Americans favor doubling federal spending on medical
research by the year 2003. NIH research reduces health care
costs, provides cutting-edge treatment and prevention
efforts, creates jobs and maintains America's status as the
world leader in the biotechnology and pharmaceutical
industries.
In addition, an overwhelming majority of Americans want
Congress to increase funding for heart and stroke research.
According to an April 1999 national public opinion poll, 81
percent of Americans want Congress to increase funding for
heart research and 78 percent support increases for stroke
research. The fight against heart disease--America's No. 1
killer--and stroke--America's No. 3 killer--requires
innovative research and prevention programs. However, these
programs to help advance the battle against heart disease and
stroke are contingent on a significant increase in funding
for the NIH. Now is the time for NIH to capitalize on
progress and pursue promising opportunities that could lead
to novel approaches to diagnose, treat, prevent or cure heart
disease and stroke.
The American Heart Association commends you for your
outstanding leadership and steadfast commitment to double
funding for the NIH by the year 2003. Thank you.
Sincerely,
Valentin Fuster, M.D., Ph.D.
President.
____
Biotechnology Industry Organization,
Washington, DC, June 21, 1999.
Hon. George W. Gekas,
House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
Dear Congressman Gekas: I am writing to indicate BIO's
strong support for your efforts to double the budget of the
national Institutes of Health (NIH) by 2003, as called for in
H. Res. 89. We commend you for organizing speeches on this
subject and ask that you read from our statement and/or
include it in the printed record.
We support these increases in NIH appropriations because of
their importance to the development of tomorrow's cures for
the most deadly and disabling diseases, including AIDS,
Parkinson's, cancer, Alzheimer's, and diabetes. Apart from
helping patients, NIH funding also plays a crucial role in
generating hundreds of thousands of high-wage jobs in our
industry and billions of dollars in economic activity
Many of BIO's 840 members have collaborative agreements and
licenses with NIH and its grantees. The dynamic division of
labor between NIH, focusing on basic research, and our
industry, focusing on applied research, has been a powerful
catalyst for change and progress. These partnerships are the
cornerstone of America's preeminence in biomedical research.
We are witnessing an explosion of new products to treat
patients. In 1998, 22 new products and vaccines were approved
by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) pushing the biotech
industry's total approved drugs and biologic projects to over
80. Furthermore, biotechnology companies currently have over
300 biotech drugs and biologics in the pipeline in second and
third stage human clinical trails at the FDA.
In terms of economic benefits, 2,214 new companies have
been formed since 1980 that were based in part on licenses
from NIH and its grantees. And in FY 1997, $28.7 billion of
U.S. economic activity can be attributed to the results of
academic licensing the (majority of which resulted from NIH-
sponsored research), supporting at 245,930 jobs.
Past investments in NIH has helped make America the
undisputed world leader in the medical sciences and drug
development. The fact that America produced half of the
worlds new medicines over the last ten years clearly
demonstrates America's world leadership. Doubling the NIH's
budget by 2003 will further strengthen America's leadership
in these fields and create new medicines for patients while
generating new high-wage jobs.
Finally, we wish to praise you for your superb leadership
of the Biomedical Research Caucus. We have attended many of
the educational events you have sponsored and believe they
have contributed to the developing consensus in favor of
doubling NIH's research budget.
If I or my staff at BIO can help you in your efforts to
double the NIH budget, please do not hesitate to call.
Sincerely,
Chuck Ludlam,
Vice President for Government Relations.
____
The Ad Hoc Group for
Medical Research Funding,
Washington, DC, June 21, 1999.
Hon. George W. Gekas,
U.S. House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Gekas: On behalf of the over 300 member
organizations of the Ad Hoc Group for Medical Research
Funding, I write to commend you for your leadership in the
effort to double the NIH budget in five years. The Ad Hoc
Group firmly believes that if our nation is to continue to
translate the promise of scientific discovery into a reality
of better health and an improved quality of life for all
Americans, Congress must maintain the commitment begun last
year to double the NIH budget.
Our investment in medical research over the past decades
has produced a revolution in science that has transformed the
practice of medicine and significantly improved the health of
our citizens. The explosion of new scientific knowledge has
led to major strides in our understanding of disease at the
cellular and molecular levels. This in turn has catalyzed the
development of new strategies for the prevention, diagnosis,
and treatment of disease. The following are some recent
examples.
NIH-sponsored research has lead to the approval of
tamoxifen--a drug used for twenty years to treat breast
cancer--as an agent to prevent breast cancer in women at high
risk for the disease. Tamoxifen reduced the incidence of
breast cancer for five years by 49 percent in women at high
risk for the disease. A new prevention study, scheduled to
begin this year, will examine whether raloxifene also is
effective in preventing invasive breast cancer in women who
have not had the disease.
Autoimmune diseases, such as diabetes, rheumatoid
arthritis, and lupus, are conditions where the immune system
attacks the body's own cells and tissues. Basic scientists
have discovered the mechanisms by which common infections can
trigger some autoimmune diseases by producing proteins that
are normally found in the body. Understanding how this
``molecular mimicry''
[[Page H5149]]
works may allow us to prevent the devastating effects of
autoimmune diseases.
One-third of world's population is infected with the
bacterium that causes tuberculosis (TB). Scientists supported
by the NIH and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
collaborated in a study that revealed a new preventive
strategy to reduce the incidence of TB in HIV-infected
patients. They found that a six-month course of the anti-TB
drug isoniazid reduced the risk of TB by 67 percent in HIV-
infected adults.
In addition, new avenues in the development of therapeutics
have opened, including new hope for the treatment and cure of
Hepatitis C and the first evidence that the kidney damage
from diabetes is reversible.
Advances such as these in the diagnosis, treatment, and
prevention of disease depend on the development and testing
of new ideas, which requires resources. Our nation still
faces many health challenges. The more new ideas our
scientists can generate and explore, the quicker we can
conquer these challenges.
Despite the progress that had been made, infectious
diseases still pose a significant threat as new human
pathogens are discovered and previously known and controlled
microorganisms acquire antibiotic resistance.
The baby boom generation is aging with the number of
Americans over 65 years of age expected to double in the next
30 years. Research on chronic diseases as osteoporosis,
arthritis, Parkinson's and Alzheimer's diseases, and heart
disease will help reduce the enormous economic and social
burdens on our nation.
Today, there are still too many infants and children who
suffer needlessly from diseases, such as asthma and cystic
fibrosis, injury, abuse or a host of societal problems. More
research is needed to identify and promote the prerequisites
of optimal physical, mental, and behavioral growth and
development through infancy, childhood and adolescence.
The U.S. population is growing increasingly diverse.
Eliminating or reducing the disproportionate share of disease
and disability among minorities and the socioeconomically
disadvantaged will improve the quality of life for many and
also benefit the U.S. economically.
The Ad Hoc Group firmly supports the effort to double the
NIH budget by FY 2003. As a second step toward the bipartisan
goal of doubling the NIH budget, the Ad Hoc Group endorses an
FY 2000 appropriation of $18 billion, a $2.3 billion (15%)
increase, for the NIH.
Attached is a list of the more than 300 organizations that
have endorsed the Ad Hoc Group proposal for FY 2000. The
patients, families, scientists, health care professionals,
and companies represented by these organizations and
institutions stand ready to work with you and all of the
supporters of medical research on Capitol Hill to realize the
goal of doubling the NIH budget by FY 2003.
Sincerely,
Richard M. Knapp, PH.D.,
Chairman.
Attachment.
Organizations Endorsing the FY 2000 Proposal as of June 21, 1999
Academy of Clinical Laboratory Physicians and Scientists.
Academy of Osseointegration.
Academy of Radiology Research.
Administrators of Internal Medicine.
Advocate Health Care.
Albany Medical College.
Albert Einstein College of Medicine.
Alliance for Aging Research.
Alton Ochsner Medical Foundation.
Alzheimer's Association.
Ambulatory Pediatric Association.
American Academy of Allergy, Asthma and Immunology.
American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry.
American Academy of Dermatology.
American Academy of Neurology.
American Academy of Ophthalmology.
American Academy of Optometry.
American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons.
American Academy of Otolaryngology--Head and Neck Surgery.
American Academy of Pediatrics.
American Academy of Physical Medicine--Rehabilitation.
American Association for Cancer Research.
American Association for Dental Research.
American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases.
American Association for the Surgery of Trauma.
American Association of Anatomists.
American Association of Chairs of Departments of
Psychiatry.
American Association of Colleges of Nursing.
American Association of Colleges of Osteopathic Medicine.
American Association of Colleges of Pharmacy.
American Association of Dental Schools.
American Association of Immunologists.
American Association of Pharmaceutical Scientists.
American Association of Neurological Surgeons.
American Board of Pediatrics.
American Cancer Society.
American Chemical Society.
American College of Allergy, Asthma and Immunology.
American College of Clinical Pharmacology.
American College of Neuropsychopharmacology.
American College of Physicians--American Society of
Internal Medicine.
American College of Preventive Medicine.
American College of Rheumatology.
American Federation for Medical Research.
American Foundation for AIDS Research.
American Gastroenterological Association.
American Geriatrics Society.
American Heart Association.
American Lung Association.
American Medical Association.
American Neurological Association.
American Optometric Association.
American Pediatric Society.
American Physiological Society.
American Podiatric Medical Association.
American Psychiatric Association.
American Psychological Society.
American Psychiatric Nurses Association.
American Red Cross.
American Social Health Association.
American Society for Biochemistry and Molecular Biology.
American Society for Bone and Mineral Research.
American Society for Cell Biology.
American Society for Clinical Nutrition.
American Society for Clinical Pharmacology and
Therapeutics.
American Society for Investigative Pathology.
American Society for Microbiology.
American Society for Nutritional Sciences.
American Society for Pharmacology and Experimental
Therapeutics.
American Society for Reproductive Medicine.
American Society of Addiction Medicine.
American Society of Clinical Oncology.
American Society of Hematology.
American Society of Human Genetics.
American Society of Nephrology.
American Society of Pediatric Nephrology.
American Society of Transplantation.
American Society of Tropical Medicine and Hygiene.
American Thoracic Society.
American Urogynecologic Society.
American Urological Association.
American Veterinary Medical Association.
Americans for Medical Progress.
America's Blood Centers.
Association for Academic Surgery.
Association for Medical School Pharmacology.
Association for Research in Vision and Ophthalmology.
Association of Academic Departments of Otolaryngology--Head
and Neck Surgery.
Association of Academic Health Centers.
Association of Academic Health Sciences Libraries.
Association of Academic Physiatrists.
Association of American Cancer Institutes.
Association of American Medical Colleges.
Association of American Universities.
Association of American Veterinary Medical Colleges.
Association of Chairs of Physiology Departments.
Association of Independent Research Institutes.
Association of Medical and Graduate Departments of
Biochemistry.
Association of Medical School Immunology and Microbiology
Chairs.
Association of Medical School Pediatric Department Chairs.
Association of Medical School Psychologists.
Association of Minority Health Professions Schools.
Association of Ohio Children's Hospitals.
Association of Pathology Chairs.
Association of Population Centers.
Association of Professors of Dermatology.
Association of Professors of Medicine.
Association of Program Directors in Internal Medicine.
Association of Schools of Public Health.
Association of Schools and Colleges of Optometry.
Association of Subspecialty Professors.
Association of Teachers of Preventive Medicine.
Association of University Anesthesiologists.
Association of University Professors of Neurology.
Association of University Professors of Ophthalmology.
Association of University Radiologists.
Barnes Jewish Hospital.
Baylor College of Medicine.
Berkshire Medical Center.
Biotechnology Industry Organization.
Campaign for Medical Research.
Cancer Research Foundation of America.
Carolinas Medical Center.
Case Western Reserve University School of Medicine.
Children's Hospital Medical Center of Cincinnati.
Children's Hospital of Michigan.
Children's Hospital of Wisconsin.
Children's Mercy Hospital.
Children's National Medical Center.
Citizens for Public Action.
CJ Foundation for SIDS.
Clerkship Directors in Internal Medicine.
Coalition for American Trauma Care.
Coalition for Heritable Disorders of Connective Tissue.
Coalition of Patient Advocates for Skin Disease Research.
College on Problems of Drug Dependence.
Columbia University.
Columbia University College of Physicians and Surgeons.
[[Page H5150]]
Conference of Boston Teaching Hospitals.
Congress of Neurological Surgeons.
Consortium of Social Science Associations.
Cooley's Anemia Foundation.
Corporation for the Advancement of Psychiatry.
Council of Emergency Medicine Residency Directors.
Council of Graduate Schools.
Council of University Chairs in Obstetrics and Gynecology.
Creighton University School of Medicine.
Crohn's and Colitis Foundation of America.
Cystic Fibrosis Foundation.
Dartmouth Medical School.
Digestive Disease National Coalition.
Duke University Medical Center.
Dystonia Medical Research Foundation.
Eastern Virginia Medical School.
Emory University School of Medicine.
Emory University, Woodruff Health Sciences Center.
ESA, Inc.
Federation of American Societies for Experimental Biology.
Federation of Animal Science Societies.
Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center.
Friends of the National Institute of Dental and
Craniofacial Research.
Friends of the National Library of Medicine.
Genetics Society of America.
Glaucoma Research Foundation.
H. Lee Moffitt Cancer Center and Research Institute.
Hackensack University Medical Center--Institute for
Biomedical Research.
Huntington Memorial Hospital.
Illinois Neurofibromatosis, Inc.
Immune Deficiency Foundation.
Indiana University School of Medicine.
Inova Institute of Research and Education.
International Psycho-Oncology Society.
Johns Hopkins University.
Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine.
Joint Council of Allergy, Asthma and Immunology.
Juvenile Diabetes Foundation International.
Krasnow Institute for Advanced Studies.
Lehigh Valley Hospital and Health Network.
Louisiana State University Medical Center--Shreveport.
Loyola University--Chicago, Stritch School of Medicine.
Lymphoma Research Foundation of America.
Magee Womens Hospital and Research Institute.
Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
Medical College of Georgia.
Medical College of Ohio.
Medical Library Association.
Medical University of South Carolina.
Michigan State University College of Human Medicine.
Morehouse School of Medicine.
Mount Sini School of Medicine.
National Alliance for Eye and Vision Research.
National Alliance for the Mentally Ill.
National Alopecia Areata Foundation.
National Association for Biomedical Research.
National Association of Children's Hospitals.
National Association of State Universities and Land-Grant
Colleges.
National Caucus of Basic Biomedical Sciences Chairs.
National Coalition for Cancer Research.
National Committee to Preserve Social Security and
Medicare.
National Foundation for Ectodermal Dysplasias.
National Health Council.
National Jewish Medical and Research Center.
National Marfan Foundation.
National Medical Association.
National Multiple Sclerosis Society.
National Organization for Rare Disorders.
National Osteoporosis Foundation.
National Perinatal Association.
National Sleep Foundation.
National Vitiligo Foundation.
Neurofibromatosis Inc., Mass Bay Area.
New York University.
New York University Medical Center.
Northeastern Ohio Universities College of Medicine.
Oakwood Healthcare System.
Oncology Nursing Society.
Orthopaedic Research Society.
Palmetto Health Alliance.
Paralyzed Veterans of America.
Parkinson's Action Network.
Parkland Health and Hospital System.
Pharmaceutical Research Manufacturers of America.
Plastic Surgery Research Council.
Population Association of America.
Primary Health Systems, Inc.
Rehabilitation Institute of Chicago.
ResearchAmerica.
Research Society on Alcoholism.
RESOLVE, the National Infertility Association.
Rush Medical College.
Rush Presbyterian--St. Luke's Medical Center.
Rush University.
Saint Francis Hospital and Medical Center.
Scleroderma Foundation Central New Jersey Chapter.
Scleroderma Research Foundation.
Scott and White Memorial Hospital.
Society for Academic Continuing Medical Education.
Society for Academic Emergency Medicine.
Society for Gynecologic Investigation.
Society for Investigative Dermatology.
Society for Neuroscience.
Society for Pediatric Research.
Society for the Advancement of Women's Health Research.
Society of Academic Anesthesiology Chairs.
Society of Gynecologic Oncologists.
Society of Surgical Chairs.
Society of Toxicology.
Society of University Surgeons.
Society of University Urologists.
Southern Illinois University School of Medicine.
Stanford University of Medicine.
State University of New York at Buffalo, School of Medicine
and Biomedical Sciences.
State University of New York at Stony Brook Health Center
School of Medicine.
State University of New York Health Science Center of
Brooklyn.
State University of New York Health Science Center at
Syracuse.
Stratton VA Medical Center.
Sudden Infant Death Syndrome Alliance.
Texas Tech University Health Sciences Center.
The American Dermatological Association.
The Children's Hospital of Philadelphia.
The Endocrine Society.
The Genome Action Coalition.
The George Washington University Medical Center.
The Jeffrey Modell Foundation.
The Protein Society.
Thomas Jefferson University.
Tourette Syndrome Association, Inc.
Tuffs University School of Medicine.
Tulane University School of Medicine.
United States and Canadian Academy of Pathology.
University of Alabama at Birmingham.
University of Alabama School of Medicine.
University of California, Davis, School of Medicine.
University of California, San Diego, School of Medicine.
University of California, San Francisco, School of
Medicine.
University of Cincinnati College of Medicine.
University of Colorado School of Medicine.
University of Florida Health Science Center and College of
Medicine.
University of Iowa.
University of Kentucky Center--College of Medicine.
University of Louisville.
University of Maryland School of Medicine.
University of Massachusetts Medical School.
University of Massachusetts Memorial Medical Center.
University of Medicine and Dentistry of New Jersey.
University of Medicine and Dentistry of New Jersey--New
Jersey Medical School.
University of Miami School of Medicine.
University of Michigan Medical School.
University of Missouri Hospitals and Clinics.
University of Missouri--Kansas City School of Medicine.
University of Nevada School of Medicine.
University of North Dakota School of Medicine and Health
Sciences.
University of Puerto Rico.
University of Rochester Medical Center.
University of Alabama College of Medicine.
University of South Carolina School of Medicine.
University of South Dakota School of Medicine.
University of Tennessee, Memphis.
University of Texas-Houston Medical School.
University of Utah School of Medicine.
University of Washington Academic Medical Center.
UPMC Health System.
Vanderbilt University Medical Center.
Virginia Commonwealth University.
Wake Forest University School of Medicine.
Wayne State University School of Medicine.
Weill-Cornell Medical College.
Wright State University School of Medicine.
Yale University School of Medicine.
____
Joint Steering Committee
for Public Policy,
Bethesda, MD, June 22, 1999.
Hon. George Gekas,
United House of Representatives,
Washington, DC
Dear Representative Gekas. On behalf of the Joint Steering
Committee for Public Policy, representing 25,000 basic
biomedical researchers, thank you for your leadership in
organizing a Special Order on June 22 to discuss doubling the
NIH budget in five years. We also thank you for introducing
H. Res. 89, which calls for the same.
We wish to recognize your outstanding efforts through the
Congressional Biomedical Research Caucus to educate the
Congress about the National Institutes of Health and its
ability to effectively utilize a 15%, $2 billion increase in
this year's appropriation. We recognize that under current
budget caps it will be difficult to achieve this goal, but we
are confident that through your leadership and that of
Congressman Porter, health research will be accelerated by
this visionary investment.
As you well know, our country leads the world in biological
science, enabled by a farsighted national policy of federal
funding for
[[Page H5151]]
research at our Nation's colleges and universities through
the NIH and other agencies. The NIH is the major source of
funds for critical research in laboratories throughout the
U.S., on Alzheimer's disease, cancer, diabetes, AIDS and many
other devastating diseases. This investment will provide a
significant boost to those important efforts by translating
the promise of scientific discovery into better health.
Through this second down payment towards doubling the NIH
budget, we look forward to enhanced research in some of the
research areas that have been presented at the Congressional
Biomedical Research Caucus briefings this year. For instance,
Dr. Robert Langer discussed ``designer tissues''. It was
clear from his presentation that we are on the threshold of
major discoveries that will enable the development of human
tissue that will benefit those who have been injured or born
with certain disabilities. Similarly, the discussion of
hearing and deafness by Dr. A. James Hudspeth demonstrates
how quickly treatments are moving forward from research to
application in this area. It is our hope that through the
1999 Caucus briefing series, Members will see the great need
for funding this important work.
Thank you for your support of biomedical research and basic
science.
Sincerely yours,
Eric S. Lander, Ph.D.,
Chair, Joint Steering Committee for Public Policy,
Member, The Whitehead Institute for Biomedical
Research, Professor of Biology, The Massachusetts
Institute of Technology, Director, The Whitehead/MIT
Center for Genome Research.
Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Bentsen) who
is one of the cochairs of our Biomedical Research Caucus.
Mr. BENTSEN. I thank my colleague from Pennsylvania for yielding and
also want to commend him for convening this special order.
I want to, Madam Speaker, rise today in strong support of H. Res. 89
which was a sense of the House Resolution that the House of
Representatives should provide an additional $2 billion for the
National Institutes of Health budget for the fiscal year 2000. This $2
billion additional investment would be the second down payment on a 5-
year effort to double the NIH's budget.
As one of the four cochairs of the Congressional Biomedical Caucus, I
have strongly supported providing maximum resources for biomedical
research conducted at the NIH, the National Science Foundation, and the
Department of Defense research budget. This $2 billion investment in
NIH's budget will help save lives and improve our international
competitiveness. Our Nation's biomedical research is the envy of the
world, but we must continue this investment to ensure that we maintain
this preeminence.
This resolution would help to ensure more scientists have the
resources they need to conduct cutting-edge research. Today, only one-
third of NIH peer-reviewed, merit-based grants are funded. This
additional investment would help us increase the number of grants
awarded each year and ensure that young scientists continue to have the
funds they need to discover new treatments for such life-threatening
diseases as heart disease, diabetes, Alzheimer's, cancer and AIDS.
For many Americans, these life-threatening diseases are a very real
challenge they face each day. Last week, I had the opportunity to meet
with a remarkable young woman from Houston, Texas who lives in my
district, Miss Caroline Rowley, who is fighting to control her juvenile
diabetes. Caroline is 9 years old and must monitor and maintain her
blood sugar every day to prevent life-threatening complications. In our
meeting, Caroline told me how often she must prick her fingers every
day in order to monitor the insulin level in her body. If she does not
maintain her insulin, she can go into hypoglycemic shock and must be
rushed to the emergency room to prevent complications. Clearly,
Caroline believes that doubling the NIH's budget would help find a cure
for her juvenile diabetes and result in a better life for her and
millions of other children. I can just say as a father of two young
daughters, the very sight of having to see a young girl, or any young
child, have to go through this on a daily basis is not one that I
cherish, and I think it is every reason why we should work hard to try
and defeat that crippling disease.
I am also convinced that doubling the NIH's budget can be used wisely
and will produce impressive results in biomedical research. The NIH
budget currently supports the work of more than 50,000 scientists
within the United States, yet many of these scientists are struggling
to keep the research funding they currently receive. In this age of
managed care, our Nation's teaching hospitals and academic health
centers are facing challenges in meeting their mission of providing
high quality care in a research-based setting. Conducting cutting-edge
clinical research requires additional resources to help pay for the
clinical trials and protocols conducted at academic health centers. Yet
many managed care health plans are not willing to pay for these added
costs. The NIH is critically important to helping our Nation's premier
research centers to continue to fulfill their missions of high quality
health care in an academic setting.
I also believe that investment in biomedical research is cost-
effective for taxpayers. A recent National Science Foundation study
found that government investments in research and development has
produced big results, totaling about $60 billion a year. 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.
This legislation is also consistent with the recommendations of our
Nation's scientists. The Federation of American Societies of
Experimental Biology recommend an NIH budget of $18 billion, an
increase of 15 percent above this year's budget of $15.6 billion. This
resolution would provide $2 billion more for the NIH, well on our way
to meeting our goal of doubling the NIH budget over the 5-year period.
I also believe that investing in 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 therapies and treatments for cancer, diabetes
and heart disease, to name just a few.
As the representative of the Texas Medical Center, one of our
Nation's premier medical research centers, I have seen firsthand that
this investment is yielding promising new therapies and treatments for
all Americans. Earlier this year, it was announced that Baylor College
of Medicine in my district will be one of three centers around the
Nation that will map the human genome and accelerate the time line for
completion of this project. With this new genetic map, researchers hope
to understand the genetic basis for disease and provide new therapies
by fixing genetic abnormalities.
As a member of the Committee on the Budget, I coauthored an amendment
to add $2 billion to the NIH budget for fiscal year 2000. Although this
amendment was not successful, I believe it is critically important to
continue to remind our colleagues of the potential for successes with
more investment in biomedical research. For many families, maximizing
the NIH budget is an important part of their effort to fight and beat
chronic diseases such as heart disease and diabetes. Recent NIH-
sponsored research has shown that we have identified some of the genes
responsible for diseases such as Huntingdon's disease and cystic
fibrosis. As we learn more about the molecular basis for disease, we
can bring new tools to defeat diseases and save lives.
As part of the Congressional Biomedical Caucus, we have also
sponsored numerous meetings to discuss biomedical topics in Congress.
{time} 1715
These highly successful luncheons have helped to educate Congress and
staff about cutting edge research and being conducted through NIH-
sponsored grants. With this new understanding, Congress can learn
exactly how their investment is being used and where to focus new
resources. I strongly urge the House of Representatives to support and
become a cosponsor of H. Res. 89, legislation that would provide $2
billion more for the NIH budget as part of the Fiscal Year 2000
process. I commend the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Gekas).
Mr. GEKAS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman.
Before I recognize the next one of our colleagues, I want to do some
housekeeping here.
General Leave
Mr. GEKAS. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may
[[Page H5152]]
have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks
on the subject of this special order.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Kuykendall). Is there objection to the
request of the gentleman from Pennsylvania?
There was no objection.
Mr. GEKAS. We have been joined by the gentleman from Florida (Mr.
Stearns) who is in his own way a leader in various fields in health
care and who joins us for this effort for which we are grateful. I
yield to him.
Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Speaker, I thank my distinguished colleague from
Pennsylvania. I am also pleased to participate in this special order
and support of doubling the NIH budget. Last year my colleagues will
remember we were successful in our efforts to increase funding for the
NIH. We all know how valuable the research being conducted by this
institution is to our Nation's future, including its economic well-
being. Advances in medical research to prevent, cure, or at least
minimize the degree of financial devastation caused by such diseases is
reason enough for us to fund this vital research project.
As my colleagues know, I would like to speak from a little parochial
point of view, from Florida's point of view. I know how many of my
constituents know how important NIH is, and in fact in 1998 the Sixth
Congressional District in Florida received $53 million in funding from
NIH. I want to share with my colleagues the results of an unreleased
poll that came through the Research America and Alliance for
Discoveries in Health. This results, I think, which I am going to speak
on are pretty much conclusive and support my colleague from
Pennsylvania and what he is trying to do, and I commend him for his
long term effort on this project to make the public aware how important
NIH is and how important this research is.
When I asked the people in the poll: Do we receive value for Federal
dollars spent on medical research, 65 percent said we do get value for
dollars spent. Fifteen percent responded they do not know, while 20
percent said we do not receive a value for dollars spent. When I asked:
Do you support, and this is a basic thrust here, oppose a proposal to
double total national spending on government sponsored medical research
over 5 years, the results were very positive. In fact, I have a little
graph here. From the spring of 1998 through the spring of 1999 the
people who supported this doubling rose from 60 percent in the spring
of 1998. In the summer of 1998 it went to 63 percent. In the spring of
1999 it went to 68 percent. So it is pretty conclusive when you talk to
people in Florida how they feel about supporting or opposing a proposal
to double national spending on government sponsored medical research.
They overwhelmingly support it with 68 percent. When asked if Florida
is a leader in medical research, the results are not quite so stellar.
Thirty-six percent think Florida is a leader while 36 percent in
Florida leads moderately. Seventeen percent said they do not even know,
and 11 percent responded that they did not believe Florida was a
leader. When I asked how important is it for Florida to be a leader in
medical research, 93 percent responded that it is very, very important,
and that is remarkable.
I agree with my fellow Floridians, and that is why I am here tonight,
and that is why I am a cosponsor and supporter of the resolution to
double NIH funding.
I also want to place in the Record an article by Wayne McCall who is
a neighbor of mine. He is President of the National Alumni Association
in which he talks all about this funding. So I would like to put this
article into the Record:
[From the Alumni Scope]
We Can't Afford To Limit University Research
Some in Florida feel that state university faculty should
focus primarily on their role as teachers. They feel research
is secondary--if not a complete waste of time. They argue
that research, by its very nature, is successful only through
inefficient and exorbitant expenditures of time, energy and
money.
Such a view is short sighted. Research is critical to the
future of our country and the world. The majority of the
world's technological and medical breakthroughs are founded
on university-based research. New ideas link university
scientists and scholars to businesses. Today's scientific
break-through achieved through university research becomes
tomorrow's miracle drug.
Creative activities are an essential link in the
university's mission of teaching, research and service.
And, the University of Florida excels in research. In 1992,
its faculty attracted more than $235 million in research
contracts and grants. The College of Engineering, Institute
of Food and Agricultural Sciences and College of Liberals
Arts and Sciences won major portions, as did medical
researchers in UF's Health Science Center.
The health center's $57-million-per-year research program
is a vital seedbed of discoveries that yields leads for
improved diagnostic tests and treatments for disease.
Research findings during 1992 and 1993, reported in many of
the world's leading scientific journals, include potential
advances for better health care for us all.
For example, UF researchers have successfully restored
limited limb movement in cats with spinal cord damage. A UF
neuroscientist has found evidence that structural
abnormalities in the brain region covering language
comprehension may be linked to dyslexia. Florida scientists
recently discovered a method to deliver hormones that govern
communication between the brain and body cells through the
blood-brain barrier to aid treatment of certain brain
diseases, including Alzheimer's.
Perhaps the most exciting development in the university's
medical research mission is the new UF Brain Institute. An
$18-million federal grant has been awarded and will be
matched with other funds to construct a $58-million facility
in which scientists will work to probe the mysteries of the
brain.
There are countless other examples of economic and consumer
research, agricultural advances, discoveries in chemistry,
psychology and engineering that help keep us more productive,
healthier and safer.
Historically, Florida has gotten more quality from its
universities for less money than any other state in the
country. But this accomplishment is in danger if Florida's
legislative leaders continue their recent trend of failing to
fund higher education adequately. Since 1989, UF alone has
lost more than $50 million in state funding. By the time you
read this, the 1993 legislative session may have ended, and
that toll could be even higher.
In a state with the fourth-largest population and the
fifth-largest economy in the country, Florida's legislative
leaders must protect what previous generations have built.
University research is an important and worthwhile part of
that investment.
Wayne McCall,
President, National
Alumni Association.
This article points out that the many success stories in the State of
Florida in university based research, none is more important nor more
exciting than development in the university's medical research mission
than the Brain Institute that is at the University of Florida in which
scientists will work to search out the entire mysteries of the brain.
So, my colleague from Pennsylvania is doing yeoman service here in
his effort to double the NIH budget, and, as he knows, I and others
have been a long advocate, that the dollars we provide for research
today will reap vast savings in the future, and I think that is a key
to this whole solution. That is why I am also original cosponsor of the
gentleman's biomedical research revitalization resolution of 1999, and
I commend him for his efforts here, and I hope more of my colleagues
will support him this year, in the 106th Congress. We can make an
effort to accomplish this task.
Mr. GEKAS. We thank the gentleman for his contribution to this
special order.
We now recognize the gentleman from New York (Mr. Lazio) who has been
vocally in support of our efforts ever since he has been in the
Congress, so we yield to him.
Mr. LAZIO. I want to thank the gentleman from Pennsylvania for his
leadership, for allowing us to display our commitment to the doubling
of the National Institute of Health budget, including the budget for
the National Cancer Institute. I want to say this is one of the most
exciting times to live in America. We have an explosion of research
that brings great promise. We are seeing that through the efforts of
the National Cancer Institute new efforts in terms of mapping the human
being through the human genome project. Angiogenesis analysis and
inhibitors, the increase of clinical trials and molecular therapy are
all exciting and promising areas of discovery. If we can just reach out
and redouble our efforts, we can bring the promise of a cure and of our
understanding that much closer than would otherwise be the case.
I also want to send acknowledgements to somebody very close to me, my
wife, Patricia, who happens to be a
[[Page H5153]]
breast cancer advocacy unit leader who it is our anniversary today as
well, and she is back in New York, but I want to commend her for her
great work on behalf of cancer victims throughout our region.
Let us focus, if we can right now, on the invaluable benefits that
biomedical research makes to the quality of life and to the promise of
preserving human life. It makes necessary the sustained significant
commitment to research efforts at NIH, our Nation's premier research
institution, and reaffirms the commitment and the professionalism of
the great NCI team headed by Dr. Richard Clauzner. Increasing the
budget of the NCI will enable extraordinary opportunities for research
success and real progress in cancer prevention, detection, treatment
and survivorship. Current Federal funding for cancer research, however,
is inadequate to make the kind of difference in the lives and the one
in two American men and one in three American women who will develop
cancer over his or her lifetime. We must dramatically increase our
Federal investment in cancer research a relatively paultry 2.3 percent
of the total cost of cancer in these United States at a mere $10.75 per
person.
Cancer is quickly becoming the number one killer in America. Five 747
jumbo jets crashing every day for a year equals the 563,000 Americans
who will die this year from cancer. Conservative estimates project that
by 2010 and 11 short years cancer will become the leading cause of
death as incidents increases 29 percent and mortality 25 percent and an
annual cost of over $200 billion. These statistics indicate that much
more aggressive effort is required to combat cancer and to reduce human
suffering and lives lost to cancer, and yet while cancer is a greater
threat than ever, only 31 percent of approved cancer research projects
receive funding today. We must seize this opportunity to quicken the
pace of research by funding the most research initiatives possible, and
we know what that brings:
For example, I have had the pleasure of holding forums as the founder
and chairman of the House Cancer Awareness Working Group, and I want to
thank so many Members for playing a role in this. We know that through
a commitment through NCI for childhood cancer we have increased
mortality rates for one of the most devious and troubling forms of
cancer, and that is cancer for effecting children. But we also know by
getting children into NIH protocol hospitals and by ensuring that they
are in clinical trials we are saving more children. We need to bring
that same promise to adults.
We must do it for Enri Nuss of New York and all those like her who
are fighting lymphoma today. We must do it for the Judy Lewises of the
world who are fighting breast cancer today. We must do it for Jeffrey
Theobold, a young man I am proud to have called a friend who died just
recently from cancer at the young age of 8. We do it for all the family
members who suffer with cancer and are victims on a daily basis.
The costs, both human and economic of cancer in this country are
catastrophic. Our national investment in cancer research is the key to
reduce spiraling health care costs. Research has shown that for every
dollar invested in research, $13 in health care costs is saved; for
every dollar invested in research, $13 saved. But it is more important
to give cancer victims and their families the peace of mind that
everything possible is being done to cure this devastating disease.
I want to thank my colleagues here in Congress who have been
advocating for increased funding, and particularly the gentleman from
Pennsylvania (Mr. Gekas) who has been just a stalwart and a leader on
this issue, and I am so pleased and proud to serve with him over the
last few years. I am glad that we are going to resist the President's
recommended budget on NIH who advocates a mere 2.4 percent increase
this year for the National Cancer Institute and a 2.1 percent for NIH
as a whole. This is no time to withhold resources for medical research,
Mr. President.
I want to concur with the gentleman from Pennsylvania and encourage
all of our colleagues to support doubling of the budgets of NIH and NCI
because it is the right thing to do for America, and it is the right
thing to do for the economy, it is the right thing to do to restrain
health care costs, and certainly the right thing to do for America's
families and the victims of cancer throughout our country.
I want to thank the gentleman for giving me this opportunity to join
you today and to be your partner and to discuss this vitally important
topic.
Mr. GEKAS. We welcome your continued contribution, and we thank you
for your participation today.
We now yield just for a moment before we get to the gentleman from
Florida to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Barton) who wants to make an
introduction.
Mr. BARTON of Texas. I just want to say that I have the Russell
Thomas children with me, Becca, Anna, Rachel and their niece, and they
are learning about democracy firsthand, and thank you for your courtesy
to let me introduce them.
Mr. GEKAS. By all means, and welcome the young people because part of
what we are discussing here today right now has to do with maintaining
healthy lives for the children of our country.
Mr. BARTON of Texas. And you are doing an outstanding job in that.
Mr. GEKAS. We thank you for that.
And now I yield to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Mica) who has been
waiting patiently in the wings and has heard our colleagueswho have
participated in this project proceed. The gentleman from Florida (Mr.
Mica).
Mr. MICA. Thank you for recognizing me for just a few minutes to talk
about the subject that you are involved in here tonight, and that is
adequate funding for research. I think it is very fitting that I be
here tonight representing the State of Florida, and the State of
Florida today is in mourning. We are in mourning for the wife of our
Lieutenant Governor who passed away at 2:20 on Sunday afternoon, Mary
Brogan. Anyone who knew Mary Brogan knew she was a fighter, knew she
was always at her husband's side even when he was the Commissioner of
Education in the State of Florida and through his election as
Lieutenant Governor with our current Governor Jeb Bush. Today they held
a memorial service in our State capital for Mary Brogan. Mary Brogan
fought breast cancer. How important it is that we continue our fight
for research, for adequate funding, for the National Institute of
Health, for cancer research, so that we do not have to have another
memorial service for another beautiful lady like Mary Brogan. She was
only 44 years old, but she left behind many great memories. She even,
when she was diagnosed with breast cancer and even before, became a
strong advocate for research, for work such as you are dedicated here
tonight.
{time} 1730
We miss Mary Brogan. We salute her fine work, her courage right to
the end, and I think it is a fitting memorial to Mary Brogan and others
who have been victims of cancer that we pick up the responsibility of
seeing that there is adequate funding, that there is adequate research,
and that these agencies go forward to find a cure for a horrible
disease.
So I thank the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Gekas) for his work,
for his efforts tonight, and for allowing me to spend just a moment
memorializing a wonderful lady with a wonderful smile who I will always
remember.
I am grateful for the work of the gentleman.
Mr. GEKAS. Mr. Speaker, we thank the gentleman from Florida (Mr.
Mica) for his comments.
The chart that we have here, before I introduce the next speaker on
our list here, is entitled, The Promise of NIH Research for Health.
Every one of our colleagues spoke about a particular subject in which
they were interested or in which they saw progress, and that is what
the NIH does. Every single investigation that the NIH conducts into a
known disease, or an unknown disease for that matter, results in
improvement in our body politic as far as the health of our citizens is
concerned and helps preserve and protect our treasury as well.
Just to give an idea of some of the subject matters that were touched
upon by our colleagues, earlier detection of cancer with new molecular
technologies, that falls right into place with some of the subject
matter; medications for the treatment of alcoholism and drug addiction;
new ways to relieve
[[Page H5154]]
pain; earlier detection of cancer, which we heard so much about
incidents of cancer from our colleagues, with new molecular
technologies, et cetera. Everything that NIH does touches upon every
family.
The next chart, please. In the meantime, I will offer into evidence
the written documentation that backs the charts that we are presenting
here.
History has demonstrated that government initiatives and
support for research and development can reduce the time
required to bring benefits to the American public. The
benefits of this national investment in biomedical and
behavioral research are realized on several levels: reducing
pain and suffering; improving the quality of life; advancing
the diagnosis, treatment, and prevention of disease and
disability; and contributing to a stronger economy through
health care cost savings and increased productivity of our
citizens.
1998 health care costs for the major diseases are estimated
as follows: Heart Disease: $128 billion; Cancer: $104
billion; Alzheimer's Disease: $138 billion; Mental Disorders:
$148 billion; Arthritis: $65 billion; Depression: $44
billion; Stroke: $30 billion; and Osteoporosis: $10 billion.
The National Institutes of Health (NIH) plays a critical
role in facilitating innovations that lead to significant
reductions in health care costs. In a series of case studies
published in 1993, the NIH identified 34 examples of clinical
trials and applied research studies that have resulted in
savings in treatment costs and reductions in lost
productivity due to disease, disability, and premature death.
Together, the examples yield an estimated annual potential
savings ranging from $8.3 billion to $12 billion.
The Promise of NIH Research For Health
Identify genetic predispositions and risk factors for heart
attack and stroke.
New approaches to treating and preventing diabetes and its
complications.
Genomic sequencing of disease-causing organisms to identify
new targets for drug development.
Earlier detection of cancer with new molecular
technologies.
New ways to relieve pain.
Diagnostic imaging for brain tumors, cancers, chronic
illnesses.
Assess drugs for their safety and efficacy in children.
Medications for the treatment of alcoholism and drug
addiction.
Rigorous evaluation of CAM practices (complementary and
alternative medicine).
Clinical trials database--help public gain access to
information about clinical trials.
Understand the role of infections in chronic diseases.
Vaccines for preventing HIV infection, middle ear
infection, typhoid, dysentery, TB, E. coli food contamination
Human genome sequence to assess predisposition to disease,
predict responses to drugs and environmental agents, and
design new drugs
New means of detecting and combating agents of bioterrorism
New ways to repair/replace organs, tissues, and cells
damaged by disease and trauma
Understand and ameliorate health disparities
Improved interventions for lead poisoning in children
New interventions for neonatal hearing loss
Safer, more effective medications for depression and other
mental illnesses
New approaches to preventing rejection of transplanted
organs, tissues, cells
New treatments and preventive strategies for STDs (sexually
transmitted diseases)
New approaches to restoring function after spinal cord
injury
Emergency Funds Needed for the National Institutes of Health
there are serial killers loose!
Killers also known as tuberculosis (TB), malaria and aids.
``These killers took six times as many lives in the past 50
years, as wars over the same period.'' (World Health
Organization June, 1999 Report).
Victims of all infectious diseases: Number 1 killer in the
world; number 3 killer in the U.S.; 11 million killed
globally in 1998; and 180,000 killed in the U.S. in 1998.
``I am confident that a major pandemic will be repeated,
even through the world is better equipped to deal with it.''
(Nobel Laureate Joshua Lederberg--Future Speaker at
Biomedical Research Caucus Briefing on 10/20/99, ``Biological
Warfare.'')
The Congressional Biomedical Research Caucus
We organized a biomedical research caucus ten years ago for
the purpose of informing members and staff about the latest
development in biomedical research and the treatment of
diseases.
We now have nearly 100 members and have had 80 briefings.
First, Dr. Harold Varmus and now Dr. Michael Bishop,
chancellor, University of California at San Francisco have
been our advisors and recommended speakers and subjects to
us.
We have covered a great number of topics, including cancer,
alzheimer's, diabetes, learning disorders, and I want to
include in the Record at this point the eight caucus topics
we have scheduled for this year. And I will note that we will
be hearing about stem cell research, heart failure and
biology warfare.
These caucuses are sponsored by the Joint Steering
Committee for Public Policy which is chaired by Dr. Eric
Lander of the Whitehead Institute at MIT. Four scientific
societies, the American Society for Cell Biology, the
American Society for Biochemistry and Molecular Biology, the
Biophysical Society and the Genetics Society of America make
up the steering committee.
Also, we have been offered the opportunity to bring these
caucus briefings to interested people throughout the country
through knowledge television broadcasts. This will provide
cutting edge research information to our constituents so that
they can understand the hard decisions we must make on NIH
funding.
Congressional Biomedical Research Caucus
1999 Schedule of Events
March 3, 1999--Designer Tissues, Robert Langer, The
Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
March 24, 1999--Hearing & Deafness, A. James Hudspeth, The
Rockefeller University.
April 21, 1999--Learning Disorders, Paula Tallal, Rutgers
University.
May 19, 1999--The Sequence of the Worm Genome: What it
Means for Human Biology, Martin Chalfie, Columbia University.
June 16, 1999--Nitric Oxide: The Serious Side of Laughing
Gas, Solomon Snyder, The Johns Hopkins University.
September 15, 1999--The Potential of Stem Cell Research,
John Gearhart, The Johns Hopkins University.
October 6, 1999--New Approaches to the Study of Heart
Failure, Eric Olson, University of Texas Southwestern Medical
Center.
October 20, 1999--Biological Warfare, Joshua Lederberg, The
Rockefeller University.
Before we go to the next one, we recognize the gentleman from
Michigan (Mr. Ehlers), who himself has been a stalwart defender of the
faith, as it were, in our efforts on behalf of doubling the funding for
NIH.
Mr. EHLERS. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. GEKAS. I yield to the gentleman from Michigan.
Mr. EHLERS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr.
Gekas) for yielding and congratulate him for organizing this particular
discussion.
Everyone knows what a tremendous asset the National Institutes of
Health has been to our Nation. It is truly one of the jewels of the
research effort within this nation. I appreciate the gentleman yielding
time for this particular discussion and for the comments that I have to
make, because I wish to broaden the discussion, not just from the
National Institutes of Health and their dependence upon biological
knowledge but some of the background for that knowledge and where it
comes from and how that relates to our research efforts today.
As we have heard, biological knowledge is in the midst of an
explosion that is generating tremendous advances in our knowledge and
technological capabilities, and particularly in developments for health
care. Specifically, we are making very rapid progress in the tools that
we have at our disposal for the treatment of disease and other medical
afflictions.
The National Institutes of Health has, to a large extent, been our
steward through this astounding growth phase of the life sciences. The
leadership at NIH has been deliberate and patient in its investment in
fundamental research projects which have matured to produce knowledge
we can use to improve diagnostic tests, choose more effective
treatments or even design new drugs to target specific diseases.
With the completion of the Human Genome Project, we may soon move
toward a medical environment where particular forms of disease are
treated with therapies customized to an individual's genetic makeup and
clinical manifestations. However, the NIH has not been the only
supporter of such novel and groundbreaking research. Nor has biomedical
science been the sole source of our medical advances.
In fact, the recent surge in biological research has evolved through
a synergistic relationship between all scientists, and that is the
point I wish to make this evening. As a physicist, for example, I can
point to a number of contributions from my field that have enhanced our
biomedical capabilities in the laboratory and the doctor's office.
Significantly, the medical applications of these projects were not
foreseen at the time they were funded and that illustrates the
importance of supporting and sponsoring basic research, which
eventually does result in such beneficial effects to the human race.
[[Page H5155]]
As an example, the discovery of x-rays, which is a curiosity over 100
years ago when discovered by Rsntgen, as we know x-rays have tremendous
medical applications today. It is hard to find any one of us who has
not had numerous x-rays.
At the same time, what many of us do not know is that x-ray
crystallography, which allows us to examine the details of protein
structure as well as electromicroscopy, which allows us to look inside
the cell and its working components, the organelles, both have been
extremely important in also helping improve health care and diagnosis
and treatment.
I have also described on the floor before another important tool,
that is, Magnetic Resonance Imaging, MRI, which is a fascinating
development because it shows the importance of basic research in very
esoteric fields of physics.
In this particular case, nuclear magnetic resonance developed in the
early 1950s, resulting in Nobel prizes for Ed Purcell and Felix Bloch,
was a completely esoteric field, of interest only to those studying
nuclear structure. It allows us to measure nuclear magnetic moments,
electric quadrupole moments, as well as nuclear spins.
Another esoteric development at that time was developing data
gathering and analysis techniques for discovering elementary particles
in physics, totally unrelated esoteric fields within physics and yet
they combine to result in MRI, which is the most advanced and superb
diagnostic tool we have available today and certainly essential to the
work done at NIH in other areas.
Beyond physics and chemistry, biology is dependent upon seemingly
unrelated fields to support its growth. A prime example today is
computer science. Digital analysis of tissue samples, rapid
dissemination of information, both in the form of raw data between
scientists and education information for public health uses, data bank
compilation and analysis, and biological modeling programs, are all
examples of how progress in biomedical research is sustained by growth
in other scientific disciplines.
As was recommended in the Science Policy Report prepared by the
Committee on Science last fall, adopted by them, and then adopted by
this House as H. Res. 578, the Federal Government has an irreplaceable
role to play in the Nation's basic research endeavors through stable
and substantial funding reports.
I just want to make certain that everyone understands we have a
responsibility to ensure that our cumulative research portfolio is
balanced among the various disciplines, and I support Dr. Harold Varmus
for his fine work in this and his recognition of our dependence upon
many other sciences.
I'd like to thank the gentleman from Pennsylvania for yielding time
to me to participate in this important discussion of the research
priorities facing our nation as we enter the 21st century.
As we have heard, biological knowledge is in the midst of an
explosion that is generating tremendous advances in our knowledge and
technological capabilities. Specifically, we are making rapid progress
in the tools that we have at our disposal for the treatment of disease
and other medical afflictions.
The National Institutes of Health (NIH) has, to a large extent, been
our steward through this astounding growth phase in the life sciences.
The leadership at NIH has been deliberate and patient in its investment
in fundamental research projects which have matured to produce
knowledge we can use to improve diagnostic tests, choose more effective
treatments, or even design new drugs to target specific diseases. With
the completion of the Human Genome Project, we may soon move toward a
medical environment where particular forms of disease are treated with
therapies customized to an individual's genetic make-up and clinical
manifestations.
However, the NIH has not been the only supporter of such novel and
groundbreaking research. Nor has biomedical science been the sole
source of our medical advances. In fact, the recent surge in biological
research has evolved through a synergistic relationship of all the
sciences.
As a physicist, I can point to several contributions from my field
that have enhanced our biomedical capabilities in the laboratory and
the doctor's office. Significantly, the medical applications of these
projects were not foreseen at the time they were funded. I have
described one of these tools to you on this floor before, that of
Magnetic Resonance Imaging--a result of studies in nuclear and particle
physics--crystallography, which allows us to examine the details of
protein structure, and electron microscopy, which allows us to look
inside the cell at its working components, the organelles.
Beyond physics and chemistry, biology is dependent upon other
seemingly unrelated fields to support its growth. A prime example today
is computer science. Digital analysis of tissue samples, rapid
dissemination of information (both in the form of raw data between
scientists and education information for public health nurses), data
bank compilation and analysis, and biological modeling programs are all
examples of how progress in biomedical research is sustained by growth
in other scientific disciplines.
As recommended in the Science Policy Report released by the Committee
on Science last fall, and adopted by this body as H. Res. 578, the
Federal Government has an irreplaceable role to play in the Nation's
basic research endeavors through stable and substantial funding
support. However, we also have a responsibility to ensure that our
cumulative research portfolio is balanced among the disciplines to
sustain the overall health of our research investment.
I would like to close with a quote from Dr. Harold Varmus, the
Director of NIH. Speaking at the Centennial Meeting of the American
Physical Society this past March, Dr. Varmus stated that ``one of [his]
convictions about medical research [was] that the NIH can wage an
effective war on disease only if we--as a nation and a scientific
community, not just a single agency--harness the energies of many
disciplines, not just biology and medicine.''
I agree with Dr. Varmus, and I also agree with the gentleman from
Pennsylvania (Mr. Gekas) and my other colleagues. We should capitalize
on the advances which our past research investments are yielding in the
health-related fields by increasing funding, but we must do so
responsibly. We must not sacrifice today's fundamental research
projects for quick advances in one field. Rather, we should
concurrently nurture today's biomedical success while investing in
tomorrow's unknown promises.
Mr. BACHUS. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. GEKAS. I yield to the gentleman from Alabama.
Mr. BACHUS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr.
Gekas) for yielding, I want to commend him for having this special
order.
Mr. Speaker, I want to say this to the Members: America has always
been up to the challenge, whether it was building the transcontinental
railroad to unite our West Coast with the rest of the Nation after the
civil war; putting a man on the moon; or soldiers coming back from a
war; devising a GI bill; the interstate system.
Now, Mr. Speaker, we are confronted with the biggest challenge of all
and that is the challenge that confronts each of us daily, and that is
the challenge of disease. So I am proud to be a part of this effort in
combatting it.
I did want to mention two people, Dr. Beatrice Hahn of UAB, who has
actually, as a result of an NIH grant, traced over a 20-year period the
origins of AIDS; and also Dr. Robert Castleberry and Dr. Peter
Emmanuel, who have found the origin of a very rare form of childhood
leukemia which only affects children under the age of 5. That is all as
a result of NIH funding.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to mention two teams of University of
Alabama in Birmingham (UAB) researchers both of which have made
progress in conquering or controlling two of our most prolific
diseases, AIDS and Leukemia. The first team, led by Dr. Beatrice Hahn
and her husband Dr. George Shaw, have waged a 20 year quest which
resulted in the discovery of the origin of HIV1.
The Origin of HIV-1: UAB Researchers Lead Discovery Effort
(Synopsis Research News, Feb. 2, 1999)
UAB scientists have discovered the origin of Human-
Immunodeficiency Virus Type 1 (HIV-1), the virus that causes
AIDS in humans. This finding by an international team of
scientists led by Beatrice H. Hahn, MD, of UAB, solves a 20-
year-old puzzle regarding the beginnings of the AIDS
epidemic, which now afflicts some 30 million people
worldwide. Dr. Hahn presented her study on January 31 at the
6th Conference on Retroviruses and Opportunistic Infections
in Chicago. A paper detailing the discovery appears in the
February 4 issue of the journal Nature.
Dr. Hahn, a professor of medicine and microbiology at UAB,
is senior author of the paper. Feng Gao, MD, research
assistant professor of medicine at UAB, is the paper's lead
author.
The researchers identified a subspecies of chimpanzee (Pan
troglodytes troglodytes) native to West-Central Africa as the
natural reservoir for HIV-1. ``We have long suspected a virus
from African primates to be the cause of human AIDS. However,
exactly
[[Page H5156]]
which animal species was responsible was unknown,'' says Dr.
Gao. Viruses related to HIV-1 had previously been found in
chimpanzees and were given the designation SIVcpz (for Simian
Immunodeficiency Virus). However, only three such infected
animals were identified, and one of these harbored a virus so
different from HIV-1 that most scientists questioned a direct
relationship to the human virus.
sophisticated molecular techniques
The recent breakthrough came when Dr. Hahn and her
colleagues identified a fourth SIVcpz infected chimpanzee and
used sophisticated molecular techniques to analyze all four
viruses and the animals from which they were derived. The
researchers found that three of the four SIVcpz strains came
from chimpanzees that belonged to the Pan troglodytes
troglodytes subspecies. The fourth virus strain, which was
genetically divergent from the other three, came from an
animal that belonged to a different chimpanzee subspecies,
termed Pan troglodytes schweinfurthi, native to East Africa.
The scientists then discovered that all known strains of HIV-
1, including the major group M (responsible for the global
AIDS epidemic), as well as groups N and O (found only in
West-Central Africa), were closely related only to SIVcpz
strains infecting Pan troglodytes troglodytes.
The puzzle's final piece was put in place when the
researchers realized that the natural habitat for Pan
troglodytes troglodytes overlaps precisely with the region in
West-Central Africa where all three groups of HIV-1 (M, N,
and O) were first recognized. Based on these findings, Dr.
Hahn and her colleagues concluded that Pan troglodytes
troglodytes is the origin of HIV-1 and has been the source of
at least three independent cross-species transmission events
of SIVcpz.
While the origin of the AIDS epidemic has been clarified,
an explanation for why the epidemic arose in the mid-20th
century, and not before, remains a matter of speculation.
``Chimpanzees are frequently hunted for food, especially in
West-Central Africa, and we believe that HIV-1 was introduced
into the human population through exposure to blood during
hunting and field dressing of these animals,'' says Dr. Hahn.
And she believes that, while incidental transmissions of
chimpanzee viruses to humans may have occurred throughout
history, it was the socio-economic changes in post-World War
II Africa that provided the particular circumstances leading
to the spread of HIV-1 and the development of the AIDS
epidemic. ``Increasing urbanization, breakdown of traditional
lifestyles, population movements, civil unrest, and sexual
promiscuity are all known to increase the rates of sexually
transmitted diseases and thus likely triggered the AIDS
pandemic,'' adds Dr. Hahn.
``The importance of the current findings could be far
reaching,'' says George Shaw, MD, PhD, a Howard Hughes
Medical Institute Investigator at UAB and a principal author
of the paper. ``Chimpanzees are identical to humans in over
98% of their genome, yet they appear to be resistant to the
damaging effects of the AIDS virus on the immune system.
By studying the biological reasons for this difference, we
may be able to obtain important clues concerning the
pathogenic basis of HIV-1 in humans and possibly new
strategies for treating the disease more effectively.'' He
further adds that a better understanding of exactly how
the chimpanzee's immune system responds to SIVcpz
infection compared to that of humans is likely to lead to
the development of more effective strategies for an HIV-1
vaccine.
bush-meat trade
Finally, the authors of the paper note that transmission of
SIVcpz could still be ongoing. ``The bushmeat trade--the
hunting and killing of chimpanzees and other endangered
animals for human consumption--is a common practice in West-
Central Africa and represents an ongoing risk for humans,''
says Dr. Hahn. ``Subsistency hunting has always been a part
of West-Central African culture, but increasing logging
activities in the past decade have provided unprecedented
access to remote forest regions and have led to the
commercialized killing of thousands of chimpanzees, gorillas,
and monkeys. It took us 20 years to find where HIV-1 came
from, only to realize that the very animal species that
harbors it is at the brink of extinction.''
``We cannot afford to lose these animals, either from an
animal conservation or a medical investigative standpoint,''
she says. ``It is quite possible that the chimpanzee, which
has served as the source of HIV-1, also holds the clues to
its successful control.'' Dr. Hahn and her colleagues hope
that, as a consequence of their research, there will be
additional measures taken to discourage chimpanzee poaching
and to preserve this and other endangered primate species.
The team of scientists responsible for the AIDS discovery
include UAB's Ya-Lu Chen, Cynthia Rodenburg, and Scott
Michael, as well as Paul Sharp and Elizabeth Bailes from the
University of Nottingham in England; David Robertson from the
Laboratory of Structural and Genetic Information in
Marseilles, France; Larry Cummins from the Southwest
Foundation for Biomedical Research in Texas; Larry Arthur
from the Frederick Cancer Research and Development Center in
Frederick, Maryland; and Martine Peeters from the Laboratory
of Retroviruses at ORSTOM in Montpellier, France.
The research was funded by the National Institute of
Allergy and Infectious Diseases and the Howard Hughes Medical
Institute.
The second team led by Dr. Peter Emanuel and Dr. Robert Castleberry,
were involved in a 13 year effort to save our youngest citizens. Dr.
Peter Emanuel at UAB is one of the first recipients of the K24 awards.
The K24 award is an individual grant to aid in patient-oriented
research and to allow the individual to mentor younger trainees. Dr.
Emanuel and his colleague, Dr. Robert Castleberry, also at UAB, have
been investigating for over a decade a rare but very deadly form of
childhood leukemia which affects children under the age of five. Over
their thirteen years of research in this disorder they have emerged as
the world's leaders for this childhood leukemia, have led the
investigations revealing the cellular and genetic mechanisms which
cause this leukemia, and have discovered new therapies for this dreaded
leukemia. As a result of this K24 award and other grants from the NIH
and the Leukemia Society of America, Drs. Emanuel and Castleberry are
about to start a new treatment protocol for this childhood leukemia
which will cover all of North America. This treatment protocol will
include chemotherapy, bone marrow transplantation, an experimental
drug, and a vitamin A derivative, the latter two being developed as a
result of discoveries made in the laboratory and taken to the patient
bedside, so-called ``Translational Research.'' This protocol, being
conducted in close conjunction with the National Cancer Institute
(NCI), will begin in the coming months. In addition, a North American
registry and a web site for families and physicians alike are all in
the works.
Mr. GEKAS. Mr. Speaker, we want to acknowledge the presence of the
gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Burton), but we have no time to yield to
him but we thank him for his participation.
Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent for another 3 hours so we can
complete our message but I do not think I will get it. I see some heads
shaking over there, but we thank everyone for the time that has been
accorded us.
Mrs. MINK of Hawaii. Mr. Speaker, I rise to express my support for H.
Res. 89, calling for a $2,000,000,000 increase in the Federal
investment in biomedical research in fiscal year 2000. Such an increase
is vital to ensure that Congress fulfills the commitment it made last
year to double the budget of the National Institutes of Health over
five years.
I support H. Res. 89 with the hope that this increase will enable the
National Institutes of Health to accelerate its research efforts in two
particular areas that I feel have been neglected in the past. The first
area is Ovarian Cancer. Each year more than 14,000 women die of Ovarian
Cancer in the United States. There are no reliable methods for early
detection so most women are diagnosed in the late stages when the five-
year survival rate is only 15-20 percent. Even more tragic is the fact
that a large portion of these women are only in their 20's and 30's
when struck with this disease.
While the general population has grown more and more familiar with
some cancers in recent years, ovarian cancer continues to fall below
the radar of the general public. Until recently, little research was
done exclusively on ovarian cancer, and to date, no early detection
method for ovarian cancer has been developed. As a direct result,
mortality rates for Ovarian Cancer have remained the same for the past
50 years. This is truly disheartening.
Such destruction compelled me to introduce legislation to address
these research inadequacies. Every year since 1991, I have introduced
legislation to promote and advance the ovarian cancer research and
public education effort. In this Congress I have introduced H.R. 961,
the Ovarian Cancer Research and Information Amendments of 1999.
The Ovarian Cancer Research and Information Amendments of 1999 has
three components. First, it authorizes $150 million of ovarian cancer
research, one half to be spent on basic cancer research and one half on
clinical trials and treatment. Of this research, the bill requires that
priority be given to: developing a test for the early detection of
ovarian cancer; research to identify precursor lesions and research to
determine the manner in which benign conditions progress to malignant
status; research to determine the relationship between ovarian cancer
and endometriosis; and appropriate counseling, for women who
participate as subjects in research, including counseling about the
genetic basis of the disease.
Second, the bill provides for a comprehensive information program to
provide the patients and the public information regarding screening
procedures; information on the genetic basis to ovarian cancer; any
known factors which increase risk of getting ovarian cancer; and any
new treatments for ovarian cancer.
Finally, it requires that the National Cancer Advisory Board include
one or more individuals who are at high risk for developing ovarian
cancer.
It is time that we commit to ovarian cancer research the resources it
deserves and give women a fighting chance in the war against ovarian
cancer.
[[Page H5157]]
Doubling the budget for NIH will also strengthen our commitment to
research in eye disease and vision disorders conducted at the National
Eye Institute (NEI).
Given the demographics of the American population, blinding eye and
vision disorders pose a tremendous challenge to our health care system
and income support programs. By the year 2030, the elderly population
in the United States is expected to double and more than 66 million
Americans will be at risk for blinding eye disorders. Cataracts afflict
29 percent of Americans between ages 65 and 74; glaucoma afflicts over
2 million Americans and is the leading cause of blindness in African
Americans; age-related macular degeneration afflicts 1.7 million
Americans; and diabetic retinopathy is the most frequent cause of new
blindness in our working population between the ages of 24 and 74. The
incidence of these diseases promises to increase as the `baby-boomers'
age.
Today, eye and vision disorders cost society $38 billion every year.
This cost will grow exponentially unless existing research
opportunities are vigorously pursued.
For these reasons I urge my colleagues to remain firmly committed to
doubling the NIH budget, and furthermore, to ensure that the National
Eye Institute receives a corresponding increase. Unfortunately, an
analysis of funding trends over time indicates that the increases in
the NEI budget have not kept pace with the increases received by the
NIH. Since 1985, the NIH budget has grown by 60 percent while the NEI
budget has grown by only 24 percent. When the appropriations over the
past five years are averaged, the NEI has received the second smallest
increase of the NIH programs. This is appalling given the serious
diseases afflicting the aging eye. I am concerned about the commitment
to eye and vision research reflected in this trend and have introduced
legislation, H.R. 731, calling for a doubling of the NEI's budget over
a five-year period. I invite all of my colleagues to join me in co-
sponsoring this legislation.
When asked what sense do you fear losing the most, a majority of
Americans respond that it is their vision. We, as representatives, have
an obligation to make our commitment to eye and vision research at the
NEI as strong as our commitment to the biomedical research enterprise
at NIH. I urge my colleagues to support a 15 percent increase for NIH
and NEI in Fiscal Year 2000, which will keep this Congress on track to
doubling the budget of these institutions.
I urge my colleagues to make biomedical research a priority and
support doubling the research efforts at the National Institutes of
Health and to support increasing research efforts at the National Eye
Institute and for Ovarian Cancer at the National Cancer Institute.
Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Pennsylvania, Mr
Gekas, for arranging this Special Order, and I rise in strong support
of Mr. Gekas' House Resolution 89, calling for the doubling of the NIH
budget by Fiscal Year 2003. As a member of the Biomedical Research
Caucus and as someone who has personally benefited from the advances in
biomedical research, I urge my colleagues to support this important
resolution.
Mr. Speaker, there isn't an American today that has not benefited
from the ground-breaking medical advances made by the National
Institutes of Health. Future investments in NIH hold the key to long-
awaited breakthroughs in life-threatening diseases and ailments that
plague our society. Biomedical research is not only responsible for
improving the lives of Americans and savings in health care, but it is
also vital to our economic competitiveness. America is the leader in
medical technology and that is why it is so important that we continue
to invest in research so we do not lose our competitive advantage in
this critical field.
In my district in Boston, several teaching hospitals and academic
research facilities are leaders in producing biomedical research
advances that have improved health care and the quality of life for
patients, not only in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, but throughout
the world. This vital research produces new knowledge and technology,
and it also provides the knowledge necessary for developing earlier,
cost-effective diagnosis, less invasive surgical procedures, more
effective rehabilitation and improved patient care. In 1998,
Massachusetts teaching hospitals received $421 million in funding from
the NIH, which represents 47 percent of total NIH funding to
independent teaching hospitals throughout the country. The NIH funding
to teaching hospitals and universities in Massachusetts makes my home
state the medical Mecca of the world.
Increasing the NIH budget will enable the medical community to
continue its breakthroughs in finding cures for heart disease, AIDS,
cancer, diabetes, cystic fibrosis, Alzheimer and many other life-
threatening diseases. Increased funding is also critical to attracting
our best and brightest students into the medical research field. It is
vital that the government foster an environment in which medical
research can flourish.
With increased investment in the NIH, more grants and research
centers will be funded and NIH will be able to direct funds to
previously underfunded areas of biomedical research. One area that I
hope we will renew our nation's commitment to is eye and vision
research. I am increasingly concerned about the impact of blinding
disorders on our nation as America ages. One out of every four
Americans 75 years of age and older suffers from serious vision loss
which is not correctable with glasses. For example, mascular
degeneration is an irreversible loss of central vision and is the
leading cause of visual impairment among the elderly. Also, diabetic
retinopathy is an inevitable complication in patients with long term
Type 1 and Type 2 diabetes and is the leading cause of blindness among
Americans aged 25-74. Given the demographics in the American
population, eye research is critical. Over the next thirty years, the
number of Americans aged 75 and over will double. Unless we develop
medical cures for these ailments, millions of Americans will lose their
independence because of eye disorders.
In recent years, our nation's investments in eye and vision research
conducted through the National Eye Institute (NEI) has just not
measured up to the strength of our commitment in other areas of
biomedical research at NIH. The NEI has received the second smallest
increase of all NIH programs when you look at the average of
appropriations from the last five years. Since 1985, NIH has grown more
than 60 percent, while NEI has grown by only 24 percent. I fear if this
trend continues, it will result in a disastrous situation when the
demographics of the next millennium are considered.
In order to reverse this trend I have joined my colleagues,
Congresswoman Patsy Mink, as a cosponsor of her legislation, H.R. 731,
which specifically calls for a doubling of the NEI budget over five
years. I urge all of my colleagues to support in these efforts to
increase funding in biomedical research and to continue to make solid
investments in the health and well-being of our citizens.
Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague, Representative George Gekas for
his leadership and commitment to biomedical research.
Mr. CALLAHAN. Mr. Speaker, in American dramatist Tennessee Williams'
play of the 1950's, ``Cat On a Hot Tim Roof'', ``Big Daddy,'' fearing
that a tumor found in his body is cancerous, speaks of ``a man not
having a pig's advantage.'' He refers to the human race's unique
ability to conceive of its own mortality. Truly, the number of men and
women throughout the world daily battling illness and disability is a
constant reminder of the reality that humanity is at war with disease
and death. What Big Daddy did not acknowledge, and also what most of us
often fail to recognize, is that the human ability to conceive of our
mortality does not confine us to the status of the disadvantaged.
Instead, it affords us an advantage in terms of our capacity to treat
and even cure disease should we focus our resources--combining our
intellectual faculties with financial and technological resources in
the biomedical field--toward the common goal of fighting disease.
The National Institutes of Health (NIH) is the organization in the
U.S. where such resources are directed toward the discovery of
treatments and cures for illnesses. Research at the NIH ranges from
various forms of cancer to disorders which are cardiovascular,
psychological, and neurological in nature. It extends also from immune
deficiency disorders to diabetes and cystic fibrosis.
Because the NIH seeks to protect, treat, and preserve what is common
to all humans--life--the benefits of NIH research are not confined to
any specific race, sex, religion, or geographic region. Some of the
major advances of the NIH in the past fifty years which serve the
public include vaccines against polio, hepatitis B, and many other
infectious agents; penicillin and other antibiotics; recommendations
for health-promoting diet and lifestyle, including simple amens to
lower the incidence of heart disease; replacements for many hormone and
vitamin deficiencies; new methods for contraception; tests to protect
the blood supply from hepatitis B and C viruses and HIV; new surgical
methods, including organ transplantation and implantation of pacemakers
and artificial joints; effective therapies for certain leukemias and
cancers; drugs effective against mental illnesses; new therapeutics,
such as blood cell growth factors, from recombinant DNA technologies;
in vitro fertilization methods; and genetic testing for many inherited
diseases. Needless to say, the list could go on forever. As our nation
has historically been a leader in biomedical research, increasing
Congressional funding to support the work of NIH would be a proactive
step to continue our commitment to fight humanity's war against
disease. Increasing the federal investment in biomedical research by
$2,000,000,000 in fiscal year 2000 would provide the scientific and
medical communities
[[Page H5158]]
the resources necessary to continue to improve the quality of life for
Americans and human beings worldwide.
As an original co-sponsor of House Resolution 89 and as co-chair of
the Biomedical Research Caucus, I think the fact that the 106th
Congress has witnessed for the first time in over 20 years an
Administration's request for civilian R&D to exceed that for defense is
just one reflection of the escalated need to prioritize biomedical
research in the next century. We are presently at the close of a
century which the average life expectancy in the United States has
increased by nearly thirty years. As stated by Dr. Harold Varmus,
director of NIH, such statistics make victory over disease and
disability a goal that is realistic. For example, research sponsored by
the NIH will map and sequence the entire human genome by 2005, leading
to a new era of molecular medicine that will provide unprecedented
opportunities for the prevention, diagnosis, treatment, and cure of
diseases that currently plague society.
However, while we commend the medical field for the developments over
the 20th century which have prolonged life for Americans, we must also
recognize that the work is far from complete. With the aging of our
nation's population, neurodegenerative diseases, such as Alzheimer's
and Parkinson's disease, threaten to destroy the lives of millions of
Americans, overwhelm the Nation's health care system, and bankrupt the
medicare and medicaid programs. Incidentally, NIH researchers will
inevitably face new puzzles about the human body, heredity,
environmental insults, and infectious agents.
The bottom line is that the 25 institutes and centers of the NIH,
each focusing on particular diseases or research areas inhuman health,
receive their funding primarily from Congress. Ninety percent of NIH's
budget is already committed to multi-year grant recipients for
research, as well as the infrastructure of the Institutes and Centers.
New scientific opportunities and earmarks compete for the remaining 10
percent, and these scientific inquiries would likely benefit public
health. While overall funding for R&D has been reduced in recent years,
biomedical funding at the NIH has nearly doubled over the last decade.
Still however, about 75% of the research grant proposals submitted to
NIH do not receive funding, leaving many scientists no choice but to
find other careers. New discoveries in biomedical sciences require
individual experimentation, and the prospect of winning the victory
over disease becomes narrower and narrower as more scientists cease
exploring for explanations, treatments, and cures.
In order to fully understand this issue, it is important to keep in
mind the larger repercussions of the work of the National Institutes of
Health. A present commitment to medical research in the U.S. means an
eventual reduction in health care expenditures. Thus, allocating funds
to the NIH is an investment that has the potential to yield favorable
returns not only in terms of the quality of human life, but in economic
terms as well. Furthermore, ``since our country leads the world in
pharmaceuticals and research, in [the] development of technologies and
biomedical advancement'' required to ``hone in on the eradication of
disease, not only will we be steadily moving towards the goal of
preventing'' and curing 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 fight 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,'' even those too often unattended.
A discussion of a budget of billions of dollars for one organization
can make the NIH funding issue seem impersonal, when it is exactly the
personal level which makes the need for increased federal funding for
NIH most clear. The debilitating and devastating effects of RETT
syndrome, a neurological disorder which leaves little girls physically
and mentally handicapped by three years of age, is just one example of
a medical mystery in which the thousands of diagnosed individuals and
their families must place all their hope in the NIH. Girls with the
disorder show normal development until 6-18 months of life, then appear
to arrest in development or regress in previously acquired skills.
Traditional testing methods for the disease are inadequate because the
inflicted child can not speak or gesture. In the early stages of the
disorder, girls may exhibit the autistic features of withdrawal and
isolation. Cognitive functioning appears to be severely impaired, but
true understanding and intelligence are difficult to measure due to
apraxia: the desire to move and respond, but incapability of directing
movements.
The percentage of girls with RETT syndrome (about 50 percent who are
able to walk are lucky. However, they do so in a broad based gait,
which is often accompanied by shakiness of the limbs and torso. Other
symptoms include: spasticity, curvature of the spine, and poor
circulation of the legs causing loss of mobility. Many girls have
abnormal breathing patterns such as hyperventilation and breath
holding.
RETT syndrome has only recently been recognized in the United States.
Several thousand people have been diagnosed with RETT syndrome this
year, and it is estimated that many thousands more have gone
undiagnosed. The prevalence of RETT syndrome is reported to be from one
in ten thousand to one in fifteen thousand live female births.
There is currently no test for RETT syndrome. The girls must meet
certain clinical criteria for diagnosis. Extensive laboratory
investigations have not revealed a cause. But there is a suggestion
that as the syndrome is confined to girls, a genetic basis may be
indicated. More research is needed by many areas of the National
Institutes of Health to give further insight into the disease in hopes
of finding a cause, treatment, prevention, and cure. It is also well-
documented that the research of RETT syndrome has an impact on similar
neurodegenerative diseases and disorders such as Parkinson's disease,
Alzheimer's disease, Huntington's disease, and the obvious autism and
cerebral palsy. Clearly, increasing funding for NIH research and
development would be instrumental in learning more about these diseases
to help the victims, the families who care for and love them, and for
all of us, who inevitably have a genetic predisposition for a disease
or an environmental or lifestyle factor that places us at risk to
develop an illness or disability for which we will one day place all
hope in the NIH.
House Resolution 89 expresses Congressional approval of a federal
expenditure of which every American would be a beneficiary. Whether it
be through the prevention, diagnosis, treatment, or cure of one's own
disease, or that of a family member; whether it be through positive
repercussions for the nation's health care system; whether it be
through the creation of jobs and enterprise through the medical
industry--in some way or another, each and every citizen benefits from
an investment in biomedical research. Should the 106th Congress
increase funding for the NIH, the U.S. will continue to lead the world
in biomedical research.
Mr. FORBES. Mr. Speaker, the United States is the world's leader in
medical research. We spend more each year on research to cure and
prevent disease than any other nation, and we are at the forefront of
developing new and innovative treatments for diseases ranging from
heart disease to breast cancer to AIDS.
Funding for the National Institutes of Health (NIH) is a vital part
of the Federal government's effort to improve the health of all
Americans. Recognizing this fact, both Congress and the Administration
have pledged to work together in a bipartisan way to double NIH's
funding over the next several years.
But, we need to match action with words. While I have strongly
supported efforts in the past to increase NIH's funding, and I will
continue to do so in the future. Yet, there is great uncertainty over
whether Congress can fulfill this commitment and maintain the fiscal
discipline demanded of us by the balanced budget agreement.
The fact is, we must fulfill this commitment. Medical research is not
only economically expedient, it is necessary to bring an end to the
suffering of millions of Americans who have debilitating and terminal
conditions. it is only through continued and expanded biomedical
research that this Nation can hope to understand, prevent and cure the
diseases that threaten our lives and the lives of our children.
We have already accomplished great things, in the field of biomedical
research as I previously mentioned. But what we have accomplished
yesterday will pale in comparison to what we can accomplish tomorrow.
There is no doubt about it, we are on the cusp of a revolution in
biomedical research. We can either embrace the revolution crush it
before it begins.
The choice should be obvious. It is simply common sense that the most
cost-effective way to treat diseases is to either cure them or prevent
them. Prevention, while ideal, is not going to be completely effective.
Experience has taught us that disease will occur no matter what steps
are taken to prevent it.
So, we need to find a cure. Only by performing research into the
nature of disease can we hope to unlock their secrets. Once a cure is
discovered, it becomes a simple matter of administering the medication/
vaccine. The difficult part is finding the cure. Research is the key
and without dollars there can be no research.
I urge all my colleagues to renew and strengthen their commitment to
making biomedical research a top priority as we enter the next
millennium. Our children and their children will thank us as they live
longer, and healthier lives.
Mr. PORTER. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from
Pennsylvania (Mr. Gekas) for organizing this special order and for his
[[Page H5159]]
tireless efforts to educate our colleagues on the importance of
biomedical research.
I stand today as one of what I am pleased to say is a growing number
of members of this body who believe that biomedical research must be
one of Congress' highest priorities in allocating scarce federal
funding.
The role of such research in combating disease is well known.
Federally-supported biomedical research creates high-skill jobs, helps
retain U.S. leadership in biomedical research and development, and
supports an industry which generates a positive balance of trade for
our country. Research provides great hope for effectively treating,
curing and eventually preventing disease and thereby saving our country
billions of dollars in annual health care costs. For example, in terms
of health care savings, the development of the polio vaccine alone--one
of thousands of discoveries supported by NIH funding--has more than
paid for our country's five decades of investment in federal biomedical
research.
I serve as Chairman of the Appropriations Subcommittee which funds
NIH--as well as the departments of Education, Health & Human Services
and Labor--and I have made funding for biomedical research one of my
highest priorities. For fiscal year 1999 (FY99), Congress was able to
provide a 15 percent increase for the NIH. This increase raised the
total appropriation for NIH to $15.65 billion which is $2 billion above
the level provided for fiscal year 1998 and $850 million above the
amount that the President requested. I believe this to be the necessary
appropriation for the NIH to adequately fund their vital and lifesaving
work.
Last year's appropriation was the first installment of what we hope
will be a five year effort to double funding for the NIH through such
annual increases of approximately 15 percent. In my judgment, it is
clear that incredible opportunities presently exist for progress on a
host of diseases and that such a commitment of resources is fully
justified. Unfortunately, the President's fiscal year 2000 budget
request for NIH includes an increase of less than two percent, an
amount that would not even keep place with inflation. And the balanced
budget agreement of 1997 also imposes very tight caps on discretionary
spending that will make it hard for Congress to find the necessary
resources.
Notwithstanding these difficulties, we must all actively work to
build support in Congress for a second 15% increase and to find the
resources necessary to make this funding level a reality in the coming
year. Such priority treatment for the NIH is wise and appropriate. For
quite literally, the health of our economy, of our people and our
future prosperity all ride on the dividends that this research pays.
Mr. CAPUANO. Mr. Speaker, I would like to take a moment to thank my
colleague from Pennsylvania, Mr. Gekas, for arranging tonight's Special
Order. It is essential that Congress moves forward in its commitment to
double the medical research budget at the National Institutes of Health
(NIH). Researchers at the NIH are developing cutting-edge treatments
for hundreds of diseases from cancer to Alzheimer's to diabetes.
Increased funding for NIH research and development will allow millions
of Americans to lead healthier lives. I would like to submit for the
record letters from researchers in my District that have benefited from
NIH-sponsored initiatives.
Harvard Medical School,
Boston, MA, June 21, 1999.
Hon. Michael E. Capuano,
U.S. House of Representatives,
Washington, DC.
Dear Representative Capuano: I am writing to thank you for
the opportunity to meet with you and your staff last week, as
one of a group of young scientists I was pleased to be able
to discuss with you issues concerning biomedical research and
funding in this country. I greatly appreciate both your
interest and concern in these matters and hope that you will
be able to participate in the Special Order, scheduled for
Tuesday, June 22nd, to discuss the need for doubling funding
to the National Institutes of Health (NIH) over the next five
years.
My training in the department of Molecular Medicine at
Cornell University was supported by the Federal Government
through an Institutional Training Grant in Pharmacology
awarded by the NIH. As a Postdoctoral Fellow in the
department of Medicine at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical
Center. I am currently the recipient of a National Research
Service Award. My research regards the regulation of cell
growth although very basic this type of work contributes to
our understanding of cancer and will hopefully lead to more
effective treatments for cancer in the future. it is an
exciting time to be involved in biomedical research, the new
cross discipline nature of the field allows for biologists,
chemists and physicists to come together in multiple areas
and has lead to the development of Programs in Chemical
Biology such as the new Institute of Chemistry and Cell
Biology at Harvard Medical School. These types of
collaborative efforts should lead to new drugs and treatments
in the future.
The past commitment of our country has brought us to the
forefront of biomedical research and medical care in the
world. With our investment leading to new technologies and a
highly trained work force we are now in a position to make
this financial commitment payoff. The federal government's
contribution to biomedical research has brought us to a new
time of molecular approaches to medicine and with the human
genome project well under way it seems feasible that we will
soon be able to prevent, treat, and even cure many diseases
from which our society suffers. As the single largest
contributor to biomedical research the federal governments
continued commitment is critical to realizing these goals and
should allow for an improved quality of life for Americans
and of course lead to a decrease in the expenditures for
national health care in the country. Additionally
expenditures for biomedical research on the governments part
stimulate economic growth in the private sector creating jobs
in the Biotechnology and Pharmaceutical Industries, this is
of particular relevance in the 8th district.
It seems clear that staying to the goal of doubling the NIH
funding in five years (H. Res. 89) we must find a way to
increase the proposed $320 million increase to $2 billion in
fiscal year 2000. Although current budget caps make this
difficult I believe that the peoples interest would be served
by a continued commitment to biomedical research by the
federal government. The bipartisan support that this issue
receives and the support of the public should justify the
requested increased funding to keep us on track.
Please feel free to contact me if I can be of any
assistance to you and your staff on issues requiring
scientific expertise or if you would like to form a
scientific advisory committee to deal with complex scientific
issues I would be happy to participate. Again thank you for
your time and consideration in this important matter.
Sincerely,
Judith A. Glaven, Ph.D.
____
Tufts University,
June 18, 1999.
Hon. Michael E. Capuano,
U.S. House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
Dear Representative Capuano: Thank you for taking the time
to meet with me last Wednesday regarding our efforts towards
doubling the National Institutes of Health (NIH) and National
Science Foundation (NSF) budgets over 5 years. As a
Department of Defense (DOD) Breast Cancer Research
Predoctoral Fellow at Tufts University in Boston, my research
and academic pursuits have benefited greatly from the
appropriations made to funding agencies such as the NIH, NSF
and DOD. While at Tufts, DOD and NIH funding enabled my
doctoral research on the inhibition of breast cancer growth
and metastasis to go forward. Consequently, my coworkers and
I have been able to demonstrate that the introduction of a
soluble form of an important receptor on the breast cancer
cell surface can competitively inhibit the binding of this
receptor to its target, which is located in the matrix
surrounding the cancer cell. By cutting off this interaction,
we have slowed the ability of cancer cells to grow and
migrate through the surrounding milieu, thereby inhibiting
tumor growth and metastasis of breast cancer cells in a mouse
model system.
This work has exciting implications, but without the
continued support of the NIH through grants to the laboratory
of my doctoral mentor, Dr. Bryan Toole at Tufts University,
and the DOD predoctoral grants to the students in his
laboratory, the continued development of this research could
be lost. Furthermore, there is so much remaining to be
understood regarding the growth and movement of the many
different kinds of cancer cells. Since the work of Dr. Toole
and his coworkers has the potential to be generalized to many
different types of cancer, as evidenced by the fact that
several tumor types appear to contain this important receptor
at the surface of their cells, this research could be
important to inhibiting the growth and movement of many types
of cancer cells. Still, a great deal of work remains so that
we may truly understand the mechanism behind this inhibition
in order to manufacture therapeutics that specifically target
tumor cells without damaging surrounding normal tissues.
Therefore, the support of NIH and DOD programs is integral to
the progression of our own cancer research, as well as to the
work in other laboratories across the country. It is through
the continued support of many different federally-funded
laboratories that we will come to a collective understanding
of the communication systems within the tumor cells
themselves, thereby enabling us to find more efficient ways
of attacking and exploiting these pathways in order to
eradicate this fatal disease.
Even though the majority of the funding from federal
agencies goes directly to Tufts laboratories doing basic
science and fundamental biomedical research, there are a
number of notable research and education programs that
benefit from grants to the university from the NIH and the
NSF as well. One exciting educational program, funded by the
National Heart, Lung and Blood Institute (under NIH) and led
by Dr. Claire Moore, is the Summer Research Program for
Undergraduate Minority Students, where minority students from
around the country are brought to Tufts University to do
summer research and participate in enrichment activities,
such as field trips and seminars on basic biomedical and
[[Page H5160]]
translational research. In addition to their one-on-one
interaction with the research faculty at Tufts, minority
students are also exposed to fundamental laboratory
techniques and are given guidance on how to apply for
graduate study in science, as well as to professional schools
for medicine and dentistry. Training grants from the NIH are
also very important to funding the work of graduate students
in the majority of programs at the Sackler School of Graduate
Biomedical Sciences, as well as the M.D/Ph.D. program
(Medical Scientist Training Program) at Tufts University,
since they promote crossover research between several
biomedical and clinical disciplines. Furthermore, Tufts
University offers a unique Pathobiology Course, under the
direction of Dr. Irwin Arias, for basic scientists that
involves patients, pathology, and hospital-based learning.
This course helps bridge the gap between basic research and
clinical diseases and promotes a better understanding of
pathobiology and disease-related processes for Ph.D.
graduates.
As you can see, increased support of the NIH, NSF and other
federally funded programs is essential to ensuring that these
research efforts and educational programs continue to thrive.
In the United States, and internationally, there exists a
highly educated work force dedicated to their research and
the training of others. Doubling the NIH budgets will
safeguard their important investigations and bring us one
step closer to understanding the basis of life and the
diseases that threaten it. Steady and increased levels of
support to these programs will keep research on track by
promoting cross-disciplinary research that brings scientists
together across different fields and towards finding the
answers to the difficult questions we face. I urge you and
all members of Congress to embrace this course of action and
secure an additional 15% increase to the NIH this year. The
students, post-doctoral researchers and principal
investigators in Massachusetts and across the country remain
committed to their scientific pursuits and to ensuring that
others will be appropriately trained to continue the fight
against disease. All that we ask is that you commit the funds
necessary to help us do our jobs and do them well.
Sincerely,
Rebecca Moore Peterson, Ph.D.,
Cell, Molecular and Developmental Biology,
Tufts University.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I want to begin by commending my colleague
from Pennsylvania, Mr. George Gekas, for organizing this important
discussion about increasing funding for the National Institutes of
Health (NIH). NIH is the world's leading biomedical institution. As a
strong supporter of NIH, and of biomedical research as a whole, I rise
to support the effort to increase the NIH budget by $2 billion for
Fiscal Year 2000.
NIH research touches many aspects of our lives. There are twenty-five
separate institutes which make up the NIH, each with a specific
function and mission. Each institute conducts research about a myriad
of diseases and ailments, including diabetes, Alzheimer's disease,
muscular dystrophy, and kidney disease. This research is then used to
develop treatments and cures. New treatments are currently under
development for diseases like AIDS, forms of cancer and muscular
skeletal diseases, to name a few. Without the initial research
conducted and sponsored by NIH, the treatments we have today would not
be available. Our lives are better off today than they would be without
biomedical research and the efforts of NIH scientists.
There is a real need to develop treatments and cures for diseases. I
don't know anyone who would not want to develop a cure for AIDS or
cancer. This movement to increase spending for NIH research is not just
a money dump into another federal agency. Rather, it is an investment
for our future. Congress needs to ensure that we have the best
preventative medicine and treatments available. The best way to move
into the 21st Century is to increase NIH funding and to develop
treatments and cures that will keep our citizens healthy.
The effort to increase the NIH budget by $2 billion next year is just
one piece of our goal to double the NIH budget by 2003. These funds
would provide the means for NIH to take advantage of the boom in
biomedical technology, to continue to recruit the best and brightest
scientists, and to provide the information necessary for medical
professionals to use the treatments developed by NIH scientists
properly.
Mr. Speaker, I urge all of my colleagues to support H. Res. 89, a
bill to express the sense of Congress to increase NIH funding by $2
billion for Fiscal Year 2000. As I, and the rest of my colleagues, have
explained tonight, the future health of Americans depends on it.
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Speaker, I am grateful to the gentleman from
Pennsylvania (Mr. Gekas) for arranging this special order tonight, to
focus on the importance of doubling America's investment in health
research over the next five years.
I am honored to be an original cosponsor of H. Res. 89, to double our
national investment in health research. This research is the gift of
America's hard-working taxpayers to this generation and the next--not
just to Americans, but to the world.
Furthermore, for us to take fullest advantage of this investment, we
must take care to invest it wisely. So in addition to increasing our
work in basic health research at the National Institutes of Health, we
should treat in a similar fashion our investment in the Centers for
Disease Control and Prevention, and in the programs of the Health
Resources Service Administration, which are vital to putting in
practice the things we learn through basic health research. As a strong
fiscal conservative, and as a member of the House Appropriations
Subcommittee on Labor, Health and Human Services and Education, I am
committed to working with my colleagues to achieve these goals within a
limited federal budget.
Rather than to address this issue myself, I have asked several of my
constituents and leaders in the field of health research to address
this issue themselves. With the consent of the gentleman from
Pennsylvania (Mr. Gekas), I would like to insert in the Record at this
point several letters, emails and notes that describe in further detail
the importance of doubling our investment in health research.
San Diego, CA.
Dear Congressman Cunningham: I am writing in support of
your efforts to double the amount of funding to medical
research in the next five years. As a person who has
suffered through the pain of seeing a father slowly and
but surely fade away from the ravages of Alzheimer's
disease and as one who is now in a higher risk category as
a result, I can only hope that there is a cure or
effective treatment by the time I reach my seventies
(which is not that far away). I know that the incidence of
Alzheimer's disease in this country is supposed to double
or triple in the next fifty years. Can we afford to wait
any longer to get a handle on this dread disease? I think
not . . .
Additonally, my son Pete was struck with grand mal epilepsy
four years ago at the age of 24. Needless to say it has
drastically changed his life. His seizures, thus far, have
not been controlled by any of the medications presently on
the market. His wife recently said that when he leaves in the
morning she worries whether this will be the last time she
sees him alive. He has recently told me he doesn't think he
can have children in his uncontrolled state. He said it
wouldn't be fair to his wife or the children. He is losing
hope . . .
Your proposal to double medical research funding is
something that is very personal to me and my family, and I
whole heartedly endorse your efforts. Please let me know if
there is anything I can do to help.
Thank you for caring,
Ron Hendrix.
____
San Diego, CA.
Dear Congressman Cunningham: I was copied on your email and
would like Congressman Cunningham to know how medical
research, and in particular arthritis research has helped
make my life better.
I acquired rheumatoid arthritis when I was 12 years old. By
the time I was 18, the arthritis had damaged my knees so
severely that all of the cartilage was worn, causing a
tremendous amount of pain with every step so that I could
barely walk.
Due to medical research, instead of being relegated to a
wheel chair for the rest of my life, I became a candidate for
total knee replacement surgery. After both knees were
replaced, I could walk pain free for the first time in years.
I was able to complete college, and eventually law school,
and today I have a very satisfying career as an employment
law attorney in a well respected firm.
In addition to being able to support myself, I sit on the
board of the local chapter of the Arthritis Foundation and am
chair of the Public Policy and Advocacy committee.
Since those first surgeries, I have had a number of other
surgeries including total hip replacements and been on a
number of arthritis drugs which have also made a tremendous
difference in my life. Medical research has allowed me to
have a life and to do many things I would not otherwise have
been able to do.
But there is still much work to be accomplished. There
still is no cure for arthritis, a disease that affects more
than 40 million people in the United States and impacts the
economy to the tune of over 65 billion dollars a year in lost
wages and medical expenses. Although arthritis can strike at
any age, the aging of the baby boomers is expected to result
in over 60 million Americans with some form of arthritis by
the year 2020.
We need to stop this disease now and the only way to do it
is to step up our medical research efforts. Thank you for
your efforts.
Sincerely,
Nancy Kawano.
____
San Diego, CA.
Dear Rep. Cunningham: In November 1997, we received the
awful news that our beautiful, active 21-year-old daughter,
Beth, had been diagnosed with acute myelogenous leukemia.
While I had worked with cancer researchers for 10 years,
nothing prepares a parent for the magnitude of such a
diagnosis.
Beth was immediately hospitalized and started on
chemotherapy while her physicians at UCSD Thornton Hospital
raced to put her into remission. This is a devastating
illness and, in her case, carried with it a low probability
for survival. Her best chance for life depended on quickly
locating a suitable donor for bone marrow transplantation,
[[Page H5161]]
treatment that was only possible thanks to research funding
that had been provided to her doctors.
Chances of a parent matching closely enough to be a bone
marrow donor for their child are exceedingly small--only 3
percent. Miraculously I matched, though not perfectly. A
less-than-perfect match meant Beth's body would reject the
life-giving cells. Thanks to new research, however, the
physicians were able to employ advanced techniques to purge
certain rejection-causing cells, called T cells, from my
donated bone marrow before transplanting it into Beth.
After my stem cells were purged and ready for infusion,
Beth underwent total body radiation to remove any possible
cancer from her body. She was again hospitalized, given more
chemotherapy and, several days later, given my stem cells.
It was a difficult journey, but on June 24, 1997, she was
given a second chance at life. Now two years later, thanks to
the technology and the National Institutes of Health-funded
research that preceded her care, she is alive, well and
thriving.
We are forever grateful to the UCSD Bone Marrow Transplant
team for their tireless efforts. And we appreciate the
support of you and your colleagues for increased medical
research funding--so that the children of other parents will
also be cured, and live the fruitful lives that they were
meant to live.
Sincerely,
Beverly Gonsowski.
____
Del Mar, CA, June 21, 1999.
Hon. Randy Cunningham,
U.S. House of Representatives,
Washington, DC.
Dear Representative Cunningham: There is a war raging
within the brain of my twelve year old son, Skyler. His
attacker is epilepsy, an insidious neurological disorder for
which there is currently no cure. Seizures, ranging from
massive convulsions to momentary lapses of attention are the
hallmark of this enemy which afflicts an estimated 2.5
million Americans. Epilepsy doesn't discriminate; it can
affect anyone, of any gender, ethnicity, at any age, at any
time.
My son was a perfectly healthy and normal child until the
fateful day eight years ago when he was gripped by his first
`grand mal' seizure. To this day, diagnostic workups have
failed to uncover a cause. Systematically, anticonvulsant
medications were tried but were unsuccessful in controlling
the seizures which over time have continued to increase in
severity and frequency, stealing away the health and safety
of my child, his capacties to learn and develop; the frequent
assaults damaging his developing brain.
Epilepsy is a major unsolved health problem in our country.
Despite recent advances, 750,000 cases, like Skyler's are
virtually resistant to current drug therapies. For many
patients whose seizures are controlled, the side effects of
the medications can be debilitating, even fatal. A chronic
condition, not only does epilepsy often require a lifetime of
continual medical treatment, it provides a formidable barrier
to normal life, affecting educational attainment, employment
and personal fulfillment. The social and psychological
consequences of epilepsy, forever fraught with stereotypes,
misunderstanding and negative attitudes, are enormous. The
economic burden shouldered by families, local and federal
government agencies is estimated to be $12.5 billion in
direct and indirect costs.
Mr. Cunningham, all treatment options for my son's epilepsy
have been exhausted. Yet he continues to have seizures every
day and night of his life. I would gladly sacrifice my life
to give Skyler a healthy brain. His health, cognitive
functioning, and his life, however, are solely dependent on
future breakthroughs in epilepsy research which can only be
realized through increased funding to the National Institutes
of Health and the National Institute of Neurological
Disorders and Stroke. I applaud your support of the goal of
doubling the federal medical research investment over the
next five years, which I truly believe will bring more
effective weapons for the prevention, eradication, detection
and management of the heinous disorder, epilepsy. My son's
future depends on it.
Sincerely,
Tracey J. Flourie.
____
American Public
Health Association,
Washington, DC
Congressman Cunningham: Prevention research, in contrast
with biomedical or clinical research, takes place after a
scientific discovery is made, and seeks to determine whether
the discovery is working as intended, or if not, why not.
Also, in contrast to biomedical research, which receives more
than $15 billion annually in NIH funding alone, prevention
research received its first congressional appropriation only
this year, at the level of $15 million. The nation's
prevention research program is administered by the Centers
for Disease Control and Prevention, and actual research takes
place at the national level as well as in local research
settings, primarily known as prevention research centers.
Because prevention research is the ``follow-through'' element
of scientific discoveries--ensuring that our new findings are
having the intended results--it is highly deserving of
federal funding. Following are four specific examples of the
integral link prevention research provides with other
research and other pieces of the public health continuum:
Measles Elimination--An outbreak of measles across several
cities in the late 1980s showed with painful clarity that
children were not being effectively vaccinated against this
preventable disease. Although we had invested in the
discovery and testing of the measles vaccine, we were not
achieving the hoped-for result: eradication of the
disease. A prevention research campaign was undertaken to
ascertain why measles had again taken hold. Two factors
were discovered: not enough preschool children were
receiving their measles shot, and a single vaccine against
measles was, in many cases, insufficient to prevent the
disease. Based on this information, CDC adopted a two-dose
vaccination policy for all children, and set a nationwide
vaccination goal of 90 percent immunization for all two-
year-olds. These strategic changes have brought about the
highest measles immunization coverage levels ever achieved
(91 percent), and the interruption of measles transmission
in the United States. In this example, without prevention
research, an extremely effective tool--the measles
vaccine--would have gone underused because we would not
have known the proper dosage for protecting the public
health, nor would we have known that the critical age for
preventing transmission of the disease is age 2.
Preventing Perinatal HIV Transmission--According to CDC's
most recent estimates, each year more than 6,000 HIV-infected
women give birth in the United States. An investment in
biomedical and clinical research resulted in the finding that
zidovudine (ZDV), given during pregnancy, labor and delivery,
and to infants after birth, could reduce the risk of mother-
to-child HIV transmission by 66 percent. Subsequently, the
Public Health Service issued two sets of guidelines: first,
that all pregnant women receive HIV counseling and voluntary
testing, and second, that ZDV therapy be provided to pregnant
infected women. Although these guidelines have had a
significant positive impact, nevertheless, about 500 children
are still born HIV-infected in the United States annually.
Prevention research studies are underway to evaluate the
relative contributions of a number of factors--for example,
the lack of prenatal care, poor provider adherence to the
guidelines, poor patient adherence to the therapy regimen,
and ZDV resistance--to the ongoing problem of perinatal HIV
transmission.
Breast and Cervical Cancer Early Detection Program. When
the need to increase utilization of lifesaving breast and
cervical cancer early detection services for underserved
women became a priority in the 1980s, the barriers to early
detection were believed to be primarily financial, and in
fact many women avoided screening, at lest in part because
they could not pay for the services. But prevention research
has demonstrated that a variety of factors affect women's
screening behaviors. Some of these factors are complex, like
cultural and individual believes about health and health
care. Research also shows that such simple factors as whether
physicians recommend screening to their female patients also
play an important role in whether women are screened for
breast and cervical cancer. CDC now recognizes and
incorporates all these findings in its breast and cervical
cancer early detection program. Without the benefit of these
prevention research discoveries, our investment in the
ability to detect and treat breast and cervical cancers would
go underutilized among a substantial percentage of the
population whom these scientific advances were designed to
benefit.
Using New Tools to Understand Old (and New) Diseases. At
the CDC research station in western Kenya, scientists are
using GPS (global positioning systems) to map 7,500
households, rivers, roads, and medical facilities within a
75-square-mile area. By linking the map to an epidemiologic
database, the GIS program (geographic information systems)
provides information on how many cases of malaria occurred in
each household, whether the malaria strains were drug-
resistant, whether mosquito breeding grounds were present,
and whether children died. Epidemiologists will use this map
to answer questions that couldn't be easily answered before:
Does proximity to mosquito breeding grounds increase child
mortality? Does proximity to a medical facility decrease
child mortality? Is drug resistance spreading in a
predictable pattern? Public health officials can also use the
map to target intensive vector control measures to households
that harbor large numbers of mosquitoes. These same tools can
be used to shed light on newly emerging public health issues,
as well as persistent problems. This research is clearly not
biomedical nor clinical in nature, yet it is as essential to
the prevention of disease as is understanding the pathogen
itself.
Thank you for the opportunity to provide these examples of
prevention research. Please don't hesitate to call if you
have questions or wish additional information about any of
the items listed here.
Sincerely,
Donna Crane,
Director of Congressional Affairs, American Public Health
Association, Washington, D.C.
[[Page H5162]]
____
University of California, San Diego,
La Jolla, CA, June 21, 1999.
Hon. Duke Cunningham,
U.S. House of Representatives,
Washington, DC.
Dear Congressman Cunningham: As the director of the
National Partnership for Advanced Computational
Infrastructure (NPACI), led by the San Diego Supercomputer
Center (SDSC) and the University of California, San Diego
(UCSD), I strongly endorse the increase in the budget for
medical research as proposed in the bill HR-89 you are
cosponsoring. As you no doubt know, the NPACI/SDSC mission is
to advance science and we do this through engaging in
computational science research and supporting the
computational science research community nationwide,
including many involved in medical and related research.
Researchers associated with NPACI/SDSC are working on solving
problems ranging from mining information from large data sets
to unlocking the mysteries surrounding Alzheimer's disease.
Researchers gain access to NPACI/SDSC resources through the
peer review process and requests for access to our computing
resources exceed those available by factors of two to four.
Excellent computational science at the basic research level
is being turned down for lack of available funding and
resources.
We are also participating in cutting edge research in
enabling technologies for computing such as advanced
networking and security, visualization, data-intensive
computing, and scalable parallel computing. These
technologies now more that ever are the cornerstone for
further advances in the applications of medical research.
On a personal note, I have witnessed first hand the results
of medical research having severely fractured my leg in a
skiing accident several years ago. Through advances in
orthopedic medicine and a lengthy physical therapy, I'm now
back close to 100% functionality, which was very much in
doubt initially. We still have a long way to go in this area
however, so I personally reiterate my support for the funding
increase.
I can be of any assistance to you as you contemplate this
and other legislation in scientific or technological fields,
please do not hesitate to contact me at 619-534-5075 or
[email protected].
Sincerely,
Sid Karin.
____
University of California, San Diego,
La Jolla, CA, June 20, 1999.
Hon. Randy ``Duke'' Cunningham,
U.S. House of Representatives,
Washington, DC.
Dear Duke: As we enter the next millennium we must ask two
questions: What do we most want to provide for our children
and grandchildren? What should our most important national
goals be? I believe that our most important National priority
should be to invest in the long-term, and difficult, fight
against disease by doubling the budget for biomedical
research sponsored by the National Institutes of Health
(NIH).
Each year one million or more of our citizens die
prematurely of diseases that could be cured if we simply
understood more about their origins, causes, and progression,
or if we had the knowledge and understanding to construct
desperately needed engineered organs and tissues to repair
damaged ones. Millions more of our citizens are disabled, or
unable to realize their full potential because of the ravages
of disease. For them too, hope lies in better understanding
of the basis and treatment of disease. Only the Federal
government, through its support of the NIH, can win these
battles by illuminating the secrets hidden inside human
cells, understanding the chemistry and biology of living
organisms, and using that information to design cost-
efficient and effective preventative and therapeutic measures
for disease.
In my view, our society has a moral obligation to
aggressively seek the treatments that our desperately ill
citizens need. However, in addition to the moral imperative
to fight disease and promote health, there is also compelling
evidence that solving health problems will be economically
beneficial to our Nation. Restoring lost productivity to
those incapacitated by disease will save billions of dollars
annually, and will also relieve many of the overwhelming
financial burdens on Medicare and other health care programs
that our society has created to help those who are ill. For
example, 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. Finally, two of the most economically promising
long-term industries where our Nation has a substantial
competitive advantage are the biotechnology and
pharmaceutical industries. These industries are driven by the
Federal investment in biomedical research in the public
sector, which in turn leads to discoveries that are developed
and brought to market by the private sector.
I know how passionately you believe that we must not waiver
in our battle against disease. I stand prepared to fight with
you to persuade your colleagues in the House and Senate.
Sincerely,
Lawrence S.B. Goldstein, Ph.D.
____
Molecular Medicine 2020: A Vision for the Future of Medical Research
and Human Health *
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
*Preamble to a Report from a FASEB Conference on Priorities
for an Expanded NIH Budget (http://www.faseb.org/opar/
MolecularMedicine.html), chaired by Dr. Lawrence S.B.
Goldstein, April, 1998.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
What will medical practice and patient care be like in
2020? We believe that ``Molecular Medicine'' can be the basis
for human health in 2020, but only if the U.S. expands its
investment in biomedical research by significantly increasing
funding for the NIH.
The practice of Molecular Medicine will consist of new
prevention, diagnosis, and treatment methods that directly
target the molecular, cellular, or physiological defects
causing disease. These medical methods will be based on
precise, non-invasive imaging and diagnostic techniques. They
will be implemented with directed, rationally designed
molecular and pharmaceutical therapies, and they will be
rooted in a deep understanding of normal human cellular and
molecular physiology and genetics.
While unimaginable only 25 years ago, Molecular Medicine is
now achievable because of recent rapid progress, and an
enormous burst of new scientific opportunities emerging from
years of sustained public investment in NIH-sponsored basic
biomedical research. Thus, we are already beginning to gain
ground in our fight against many dreaded diseases, including
cancer, cardiovascular disease, and stroke. As we look
forward, we can realistically hope to develop increasingly
effective treatments and preventive measures for these
diseases, as well as for the scourges of Alzheimer's disease,
diabetes, obesity, degenerative diseases of aging, and
emerging infectious agents. To realize these goals, and to
capitalize upon past investments and many recent discoveries,
we must renew our National resolve and reinvigorate our
research efforts, so that we can accelerate the arrival of
the new era of Molecular Medicine.
To hasten the earliest possible development of Molecular
Medicine, and to ensure that it becomes a reality by 2020, we
must act now to expand the foundation of biomedical research
and discovery. This foundation can only be built by: a)
Developing new interdisciplinary methods, insights, and
understanding; b) Attracting, training, and sustaining the
most talented and vigorous young research scientists; and c)
Nuturing the vitality of a scientific effort that has never
held more promise. This augmented research base will lead
directly to ever more precise diagnostic, prevention, and
treatment methods based upon research in Biology and Medicine
in collaboration with Chemistry, Physics, Engineering, and
Computation. Most important, increased investment could
launch new and far-reaching initiatives in Functional and
Physiological Genomics. These new projects would have the
goal of understanding the normal functions of the many genes
discovered in the complete genetic blueprints of humans and
diverse model organisms by the Human Genome Project. Such an
effort will lead to a detailed understanding of normal
cellular, molecular, and integrative organismal physiology,
which in turn will allow us to create therapies targeted
directly to the cellular, genetic, and physiologic defects
that cause disease and organ dysfunction. These new efforts
will also allow us to defend our citizens against the ever-
present and increasing danger of emerging pathogens and
viruses by developing the next generations of vaccines and
antibiotic drugs. All of these advances will depend upon new
partnerships in technology development and clinical
translation carried out by outstanding scientists with access
to the most innovative and developing instrumentation.
Our country is poised to take full advantage of the last 50
years of steady investment in biomedical research and the
many resulting opportunities created from recent rapid
progress. Significant new investment now will dramatically
accelerate the rate of discovery and lead to the imminent
creation of a Molecular Medicine to combat our most dreaded
diseases.
____
San Diego County
Prevention Coalition,
San Diego, CA, June 19, 1999.
Rep. Randy ``Duke'' Cunningham,
Rayburn Bldg., Washington, DC.
Dear Duke: The San Diego County Prevention Coalition wishes
to express our support for your goal of doubling our federal
medical research investment over the next five years as
recommended by H. Res. 89. Most of our 230 organization
members who are working with at-risk substance abusers
appreciate the wonderful medical research coming from the
National Institutes of Health, specifically NIDA. Their
research has had a great impact on addicts and many of their
families.
We are an alcohol, tobacco and other drug prevention
organization with a five-year track record of fighting abuse
and the unifying voice of prevention for San Diego County. We
have substantial community support from our 310+ members
representing 230 local organizations and agencies. We have
the support of Senators, Congressmen, the State Deputy
Director for Prevention Services, the San Diego County
Sheriff, Supervising Juvenile Judge, the County Health
Director, the County Board of Supervisors, numerous business
and community leaders, law enforcement officers and
educational officials.
We thank you for your consideration.
Very truly yours,
Alan Sorkin,
Executive Director.
[[Page H5163]]
____
Parents & Adolescents Recovering Together Successfully,
San Diego, June, 19, 1999.
Rep. Randy ``Duke'' Cunningham,
Rayburn Bldg., Washington, DC.
Dear Duke: Parents and Adolescents Recovering Together
Successfully (PARTS) is a non-profit organization dedicated
to reducing the number of child addicts and believes that
proactive prevention and intervention within the family is
the best solution for fighting the devastating long-term
effects of teenage substance abuse. Much of what we teach is
based on federal medical research.
We wish to support your goal of doubling our federal
medical research investment over the next five years as
recommended by H. Res. 89. The National Institutes of Health,
and specifically NIDA provide valuable medical research to us
and impact many of our families.
My Best,
Alan Sorkin,
Executive Director.
____
University of California,
San Diego,
LaJolla, CA, June 21, 1999.
Hon. Duke Cunningham,
U.S. House of Representatives,
Washington, DC
Dear Rep. Cunningham: Thank you for taking the time to
highlight the important benefits to patients of the research
funded through NIH and other agencies. I believe our gene
therapy research outlines the value of that funding.
Recent developments in molecular medicine have made
possible the use of gene therapy as a weapon in the fight
against cancer. Here at UCSD, we have been able to
genetically modify human leukemia cells in a way that induces
a powerful, killing response from the immune system. In
laboratory experiments, we found that the immune response
prompted by the modified cells destroyed active leukemia
cells lurking nearby. When we moved from the laboratory to
Phase I clinical trials, we focused on patients who have
chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL), a currently incurable
condition afflicting more than 50,000 people per year in the
United States.
The Phase I results were very encouraging. Eleven patients
were each treated with a single injection of their own
modified leukemia cells, and all but one had a significant
drop in the number of leukemia cells found in their blood,
and a reduction in the size of their lymph nodes. This was
the first time that a response this dramatic had been seen in
the history of treating this disease with a single treatment.
A San Diego Union-Tribune article describing the first phase
research--and highlighting some of the ways that
breakthroughs in medical research literally shape the lives
and futures of our patients--is attached.
We are now working on the larger, Phase II study that will
involve multiple injections over time. Although this study
has not yet begun, we have already been contacted by about
200 people from around the world seeking to serve as
volunteers.
Thanks again for all the help and support of you and your
Congressional colleagues for supporting increased medical
research funding. These dollars make possible the cutting
edge medical research we hope will some day lead to cures of
terrible diseases like CLL.
Sincerely,
Thomas J. Kipps, M.D., Ph.D.
____________________