[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.

     

                          ____________________