[Congressional Record Volume 145, Number 151 (Monday, November 1, 1999)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Pages E2235-E2236]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]


     FORMER SENATOR PAUL SIMON COMMENTS ON MEDICAL RESEARCH FUNDING

                                 ______
                                 

                          HON. ROSA L. DeLAURO

                             of connecticut

                    in the house of representatives

                        Monday, November 1, 1999

  Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, I submit the following article for the 
Record.


[[Page E2236]]



                 [From Parade Magazine, Sept. 12, 1999]

              ``I Had No Symptoms of Heart Attack . . .''

                            (By Paul Simon)

       As I look back on my 22 years in the House and Senate, I 
     realize I would like to change a few of the votes I cast. 
     Most people--and politicians probably more than most--hate to 
     admit they are wrong. I was wrong though, and that was 
     brought home to me recently in a most dramatic way.
       It started when I happened to read a magazine article on a 
     new device for measuring blockage of the heart arteries. The 
     device takes a type of picture of the heart and coronary 
     arteries (called a ``heart scan,'' something like an X-ray) 
     that can pick up hidden problems. I had no symptoms of heart 
     trouble, such as chest pain or shortness of breath, but the 
     article noted that about 20 percent of those over 60 (I am 
     70) who have a heart attack or stroke have no advance 
     warnings.
       I set up an appointment for a heart scan at Rush-
     Presbyterian-St. Luke's Medical Center in Chicago on Nov. 10 
     last year. The scan took 10 minutes, but the results were 
     startling: I was headed for a heart attack or stroke. As a 
     result, last Jan. 5 I had a six-way heart bypass operation.
       Today, I'm doing fine. It turns out that the heart scan--
     developed as a result of research done by Douglas Boyd at the 
     University of California at San Francisco--probably saved my 
     life. Sadly, I had to admit to myself that supporting funds 
     for medical research was not something I devoted much time or 
     effort to when I served in the Congress. I felt other issues 
     were more important. Now I know how wrong I was. All around 
     me are others--former colleagues and friends--who have 
     benefited from medical research:
       The TV talk-show host Larry King, who has had serious heart 
     problems and undergone bypass surgery, often says, ``Because 
     of research, I'm alive today.''
       Sen. Ted Stevens (R., Alaska) and former Sen. Bob Dole (R., 
     Kan.) had successful surgery for prostate cancer thanks to 
     the benefits of medical discoveries.
       U.S. Rep. Rosa DeLauro (D., Conn.) has been successfully 
     treated for ovarian cancer.
       But I also think of those who lost their battles or still 
     struggle because not enough research has been done:
       Jay Monahan, husband of the Today host Katie Couric, died 
     at age 42 from colon cancer, because we don't yet have enough 
     weapons against that disease.
       Rep. Morris Udall (D., Ariz.) died of Parkinson's disease, 
     another illness for which we're still seeking a cure. I 
     watched Udall--a brilliant legislator with a great sense of 
     humor--gradually decline in health. What a waste of talent 
     that could have been prevented with more research!
       My first memories of Christopher Reeve are of a dynamic, 
     vibrant actor interested in public affairs. He is still 
     vibrant and dynamic but more focused in his public-affairs 
     interest as he presses with an understandable zealotry for 
     research in spinal-cord injuries.
       Rachel Mann, a marvelous young woman and family friend, had 
     cystic fibrosis, the largest genetic killer of children. 
     Because of her, I did push for additional funds for research 
     into this disease when I was in Congress, but she ultimately 
     lost her battle at age 25.


                            We can do better

       A century ago, the average U.S. citizen lived to be 48. Now 
     we live to an average of 76--thanks in large part to medical 
     research. Pharmaceutical companies do an excellent job in 
     research, and they increased their research spending from $2 
     billion in 1980 to $20 billion in 1998. But we can't rely on 
     them for basic research efforts. That's why funding for the 
     National Institutes of Health, which does basic research that 
     can benefit us all, is so important. Its funding has doubled 
     in the last 15 years--to $15 billion. But while $15 billion 
     is a sizable sum, it is inadequate when compared to what we 
     spend on legalized gambling ($638 billion in 1997), alcohol 
     ($95 billion) and cigarettes ($50 billion). Two-thirds of 
     Americans agree that funding for medical research should be 
     doubled, according to a poll taken last year by the nonprofit 
     advocacy group Research! America. Yet, for the fiscal year 
     beginning Oct. 1, President Clinton has asked for just a 2.1 
     percent increase--barely above the inflation rate.
       That's not nearly enough. We must do more. Greater focus on 
     research would be a marvelous gift to future generations of 
     my family and of yours. I know. It already has been a 
     marvelous gift to me.

     

                          ____________________