[Congressional Record Volume 145, Number 114 (Thursday, August 5, 1999)]
[Senate]
[Pages S10402-S10403]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

      By Mr. HARKIN (for himself and Mr. Specter):
  S. 1504. A bill to improve health care quality and reduce health care 
costs by establishing a National Fund for Health Research that would 
significantly expand the Nation's investment in medical research; to 
the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions.


                 national fund for health research act

 Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I am pleased to introduce the 
``National Fund for Health Research Act of 1999''. And I am 
particularly pleased to be joined in this effort by my friend and 
colleague, Senator Specter. This bill is similar to legislation I 
introduced with Senator Specter in the 105th Congress, and with Senator 
Hatfield during the 104th Congress. The bill gained broad bipartisan 
support in both the House and Senate.
  Our proposal would establish a National Fund for Health Research to 
provide additional resources for health research over and above those 
provided to the National Institutes of Health in the annual 
appropriations process. The Fund would greatly enhance the quality of 
health care by investing more in finding preventive measures, cures and 
cost-effective treatments for the major illnesses and conditions that 
strike Americans.
  To finance the Fund, health plans would set aside approximately 1 
percent of all health premiums and transfer the funds to the National 
Fund for Health Research.
  Each year under our proposal amounts within the National Fund for 
Health Research would automatically be allocated to each of the NIH 
Institutes and Centers. Each Institute and Center would receive the 
same percentage as they received of the total NIH appropriation for 
that fiscal year. The set aside would result in a significant annual 
budget increase for NIH.
  In 1994 I argued that any health care reform plan should include 
additional funding for health research. Systematic health care reform 
has been taken off the front burner but the need to increase our 
nation's commitment to health research has not diminished.
  While health care spending devours over $1 trillion annually our 
medical research budget is dying of starvation. The United States 
devotes less than 3 percent of its total health care budget to health 
research. The Defense Department spends 15 percent of its budget on 
research. Does this make sense? The cold war is over but the war 
against disease and disability continues.
  Increased investment in health research is key to reducing health 
costs in the long run. For example, the costs of Alzheimer's will more 
than triple in the coming century--adding further strains to Medicare 
as the baby boomers retire. We know that through research there is a 
real hope of a major breakthrough in this area. Simply delaying the 
onset of Alzheimer's by 5 years would save an estimated $50 billion.
  Gene therapy and treatments for cystic fibrosis and Parkinson's could 
eliminate years of chronic care costs, while saving lives and improving 
patients' quality of life.
  Mr. President, Senator Specter and I do everything we can to increase 
funding for NIH through the Labor, Health and Human Services and 
Education Appropriations bill. But the Balanced Budget Act of 1997 has 
put us on track to dramatically decrease discretionary spending, so 
that the nation's investment in health research through the NIH is 
likely to decline in real terms unless corrective legislative action is 
taken.
  The NIH is not able to fund even 30% of competing research projects 
or grant applications deemed worthy of funding. Science and cutting 
edge medical research are being put on hold. We may be giving up 
possible cures for diabetes, cancer, Parkinson's and countless other 
diseases.
  Mr. President, health research is an investment in our future--it is 
an investment in our children and grandchildren. It holds the promise 
of cure of treatment for millions of Americans.
 Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I have sought recognition to join 
Senator Tom Harkin, my colleague and distinguished ranking members of 
the Appropriations Subcommittee on Labor, Health and Human Services and 
Education, which I chair, in introducing the National Fund for Health 
Research Act of 1999. This creative proposal, which would create a 
dedicated health research fund in the U.S. Treasury to supplement the 
current federal research funding mechanisms, was first developed by 
Senator Harkin and our former Senate colleague, Senator Mark Hatfield. 
I think their idea is a sound one and ought to be adopted, and I am 
pleased to join Senator Harkin in introducing this legislation as I did 
during the 105th Congress. I have also included this proposal as a 
provision of my comprehensive health care reform legislation, the 
Health Care Assurance Act of 1999 (S. 24), introduced on January 19, 
1999.
  I have said many times that I firmly believe that the National 
Institutes of Health (NIH) is the crown jewel of the Federal 
government, and substantial investment is crucial to allow the 
continuation of the breakthrough research into the next decade. In 
1981, NIH funding was less than $3.6 billion. For the past three years, 
NIH funding has increased by 6.8 percent in fiscal year 1997, 7.1 
percent in fiscal year 1998, and 15 percent in fiscal year 1999, for a 
total of $15.7 billion. Senator Harkin and I are continuing to fight to 
double the NIH budget, a sentiment which was unanimously supported in 
the United States Senate during the 105th Congress.
  I was dismayed, however, upon examining President Clinton's $15.9 
billion budget request for the NIH for fiscal year 2000--only a little 
over two percent growth, far less than the 15 percent needed to double 
NIH. At the President's requested level, new and competing NIH research 
project grants would drop by 1,554--from 9,171 in fiscal year 1999 to 
7,617 in fiscal year 2000. This outlook on future grant awards is 
wholly inadequate to meet the country's most important challenges to 
improve the health and quality of life for millions of Americans.
  To call the President's plan short-sighted would be an 
understatement. In practical terms, two percent amounts to spending 
less than $24 for every American who suffers from coronary heart 
disease. Two percent means slowing the race to cure breast cancer or 
discover a vaccine to prevent the spread of AIDS. And it means that 
some of the most promising new breakthroughs in science, like stem cell 
research, may be postponed for years. Breaking the code for complex 
problems takes a steady and sustained commitment of people and money.
  The National Fund for Health Research Act which we are introducing 
today would continue Senator Harkin's and my unwavering commitment to 
increasing the nation's investment in biomedical research. The 
legislation would create a special fund for health research to 
supplement funding achieved through the regular appropriations 
process--possibly by as much as $6 billion annually. Our legislation 
would require health insurers to transfer to the U.S. Treasury an 
amount

[[Page S10403]]

equal to 1 percent of all health premiums they receive. To ensure that 
the additional funds generated do not simply replace regularly 
appropriated NIH funds, monies from the health research fund would only 
be released if the total amount appropriated for the NIH in that year 
equaled or exceeded the prior year appropriations.
  We must all recognize that expanding our base of scientific knowledge 
inevitably leads to better health, lower health care costs, and an 
improved quality of life for all Americans. I believe that the creation 
of a fund for health research would bring us closer to those critical 
goals.
  Mr. President, I urge my colleagues to support the National Fund for 
Health Research Act, and urge its swift adoption.
                                 ______