[Congressional Record Volume 146, Number 99 (Wednesday, July 26, 2000)]
[House]
[Pages H7072-H7085]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
FUNDING FOR NATIONAL INSTITUTES OF HEALTH
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the Speaker's announced policy of
January 6, 1999, the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Gekas) is
recognized for 50 minutes.
Mr. GEKAS. Mr. Speaker, we rise here today to state and restate a
goal that we had set several years ago to attempt to and to succeed in
doubling the funding for NIH, the National Institutes of Health, over a
5-year period. This was 3 years ago.
We began that by introducing a resolution to that effect and
gathering sponsorship. And lo and behold, the first 3 years have
yielded the steady advance toward that doubling of funding that we so
earnestly felt was necessary for the people of our country.
Today, as we stand here, the Congress is poised to do the third leg
of that doubling process down the road by engaging in a conference
report between the House and the Senate in which the top figure, that
contained in the Senate, $2.7 billion, or thereabout, would be exactly
the amount required to keep us on the path towards the doubling of the
funding.
We anticipate that Members of the House and the Senate will
eventually support that final figure that will keep us on this track.
But why is this important? It is important not just for the sake of
the money required to keep an enterprise moving, but the work of that
enterprise will be to relieve pain, to relieve suffering, to prevent
disease, to cure disease. Because that is what the business of the NIH
is, to reach out and, through research and through efforts in the world
of medicine and healthcare, to bring about breakthroughs in the various
maladies that face the people of the Earth.
We have seen evidence over the last 10 years of tremendous
breakthroughs and advances in Parkinson's disease, in women's breast
cancer, in other types of cancer, in Alzheimer's disease, in many of
the things that plague us and for which there is sometimes said to be
no cure. And that is true, but we do not know how soon we could reach a
point where we might develop a cure.
{time} 1815
But the point is that is the purpose of the increased funding for the
NIH. Along the way, then, we in this Congress submitted a similar
resolution, H. Res. 437, which does the very same thing. $2.7 billion
is our target. We are short of that in the House, but as I said the
conference report will probably yield assent by the Congress to this
third leg of the doubling effort about which we speak. We have ample
documentation and evidence from other Members of Congress and people
throughout the Nation that there is gigantic support for this
particular effort.
Mr. Speaker, I want to enter into the Record my own statement in this
regard, a copy of H. Res. 437, various Dear Colleague letters that
speak on the subject, a list of cosponsors of the effort, and also
letters of support, some dozen of them.
H. Res. 437
Whereas past Federal investment in biomedical research has
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 is the single largest
contributor to biomedical research conducted in the United
States;
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 new drugs and medical devices
currently in use is 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 43,300
women this year; ovarian cancer, which will kill 14,500; 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 immunodeficiency
disorders;
Whereas many Americans 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 2.7 million 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 297,000 Americans are now suffering from AIDS, and
hundreds of thousands more are infected with HIV;
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 40,000 men will die
from prostate cancer each year;
Whereas juvenile diabetes and diabetes, both insulin and
non-insulin forms, afflict 16 million Americans and place
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 have 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 2003,
leading to a new era of molecular medicine that will provide
unprecedented opportunities for the prevention, diagnoses,
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, research training
programs, and development of new skills among scientific
investigators; and
Whereas most Americans overwhelmingly support 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 2000''.
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 $2,700,000,000 in fiscal year 2001 and that the
budget resolution should appropriately reflect sufficient
funds to achieve this objective.
[[Page H7073]]
____
Washington, DC,
July 12, 2000.
Take the Third Step Toward Doubling the NIH Budget in Five Years:
Cosponsor the ``Biomedical Revitalization Resolution of 2000''
Dear Colleague: We are writing to invite you to join us in
becoming a cosponsor of the ``Biomedical Research
Revitalization Resolution of 2000,'' a bipartisan resolution
that takes the third step toward doubling the National
Institutes of Health (NIH) budget in five years. This
Resolution expresses the sense of the House of
Representatives that the NIH budget should be increased by
$2.7 billion in Fiscal Year 2001.
The Resolution states that we can accomplish this goal in
five years through budget surpluses, budget offsets, and the
regular appropriations process. The budget resolution must
reflect these potential funding opportunities to make this
goal a reality. NIH funding has doubled over the past ten
years, but with scientific discoveries occurring at a
revolutionary pace, this investment must be accelerated NOW!
The outstanding performance of the American economy is
providing budget surpluses at just the time when NIH needs
this money the most. By 2005, the NIH will complete the
mapping and sequencing of the human genome. This will usher
in a new era of molecular medicine with unprecedented
research potential to prevent, diagnose, treat, and cure
diseases that currently plague our society.
These future breakthroughs, however, depend upon Congress
appropriating sufficient funds to continue and expand on the
research currently being conducted. We are seeking funding
that will ensure the realization of major biomedical
breakthroughs in the next decade. We must demonstrate our
commitment to improving the health and well-being of all
Americans by increasing funding for NIH and keep medical
advancements on the fast track to discovery.
NIH research has spawned the biotechnology revolution,
whose products grew into a $50 billion industry in 1999. NIH
supports over 50,000 scientists at 1,700 universities and
research institutes across the United States. The
biotechnology industry--a direct result of advances in
biomedical research funded by the NIH--employs 118,000 people
in over 12,000 biotechnology companies across the country.
The biotechnology revolution has also spurred advancements in
other industries that have applied the discoveries to their
own fields. In agriculture, biotechnology is producing
greater crop yields while reducing the dependence on
traditional chemical pesticides. Biotechnology research,
while conducted by the public sector, has had substantial
impacts on the economy and society as a whole that affect the
lives of every individual in this country. Continued
advances, however, are directly dependent on the biomedical
research conducted by the NIH.
Whether affecting our family, friends, neighbors, and
colleagues, we have all seen the heartbreaking impact of
cancer, stroke, diabetes, heart disease, AIDS, and other
diseases that cause chronic disability and shortened lives.
We can do something about these diseases by making the
investment to double NIH funding this year. Last year a
similar proposal to double the NIH budget in five years
received the bipartisan support of over sixty five members of
the House of Representatives. We enjoyed some success in the
effort when we added $2.3 billion to the NIH Fiscal Year 2000
budget. Please contact Matt Zonarich in Representative Gekas'
office at 5-4315 to cosponsor the Biomedical Revitalization
Resolution of 2000.
Very truly yours,
George W. Gekas,
Nancy Pelosi,
Ken Bensten,
Sonny Callahan,
Constance Morella,
Members of Congress.
____
h. res. 437 cosponsors
Rep. Baldacci, John Elias
Rep. Bentsen, Ken
Rep. Blagojevich, Rod R.
Rep. Borski, Robert A.
Rep. Brady, Robert
Rep. Callahan, Sonny
Rep. Capuano, Michael E.
Rep. Castle, Michael N.
Rep. Cunningham, Randy (Duke)
Rep. DeFazio, Peter A.
Rep. DeGette, Diana
Rep. Fowler, Tillie
Rep. Frank, Barney
Rep. Gejdenson, Sam
Rep. Gilchrest, Wayne T.
Rep. Gonzalez, Charles A.
Rep. Greenwood, James C.
Rep. King, Peter T.
Rep. LaFalce, John J.
Rep. Lantos, Tom
Rep. McGovern, James P.
Rep. McNulty, Michael R.
Rep. Moakley, John Joseph
Rep. Morella, Constance A.
Rep. Nethercutt, George R., Jr.
Rep. Pelosi, Nancy
Rep. Porter, John Edward
Rep. Price, David E.
Rep. Rivers, Lynn N.
Rep. Schakowsky, Janice D.
Rep. Slaughter, Louise McIntosh
Rep. Stearns, Cliff
Rep. Wolf, Frank R.
____
Joint Steering Committee
for Public Policy,
Bethesda, MD, July 18, 2000.
Hon. George Gekas,
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 to support doubling the NIH budget
from 1999-2003. We also salute your introduction of H. Res.
437, which calls for the same.
Your outstanding efforts to educate the Congress through
the Congressional Biomedical Research Caucus about the
National Institute of Health and its ability to effectively
utilize a 15%, $2.7 billion increase in this year's
appropriation. We recognize the difficulty Congress faces in
achieving this goal, but we are confident that through your
leadership and that of Congressman Porter, this goal will be
achieved and health research will be accelerated by this
visionary investment.
As you well know, our country leads the world in biological
science, enabled by a far-sighted national policy of federal
funding for research at our Nation's colleges and
universities through the NIH and other agencies. The NIH is
the major source of funds for critical basic research in
laboratories throughout the U.S., on Alzheimer's disease,
cancer, diabetes, heart disease and many other devastating
diseases. This investment will provide a significant boost to
these important efforts by translating the promise of
scientific discovery into better health.
The sequencing of the human genome has provided a huge
amount of information highly relevant to human health.
However, the information is encoded in a form that is
currently unreadable by modern methods for deciphering the
biological meaning of genome sequences require extensive
computation, some of it still beyond the limits of existing
computer algorithms, software and hardware. Incremental
investment in the NIH will enable the important search for
the key to the human genome.
Thank you for your support of biomedical research and basic
science.
Sincerely yours,
Eric S. Lander, Ph.D.,
Chair.
____
Federation of American Societies
for Experimental Biology,
May 8, 2000.
Hon. George W. Gekas,
House of Representatives, Rayburn House Office Building,
Washington, DC.
Dear Representative Gekas: On behalf of the more than
60,000 scientists belonging to the Federation of American
Societies for Experimental Biology (FASEB), thank you for
your continued efforts to support biomedical research,
specifically the National Institutes of Health (NIH). By
introducing the Biomedical Revitalization Resolution of 2000
(H. Res. 437) in support of a $2.7 billion dollar increase in
NIH funding in FY 2001, you have made a testament to your
steadfast dedication to this cause.
As stated in the resolution, continued investment in
biomedical research will result in further improvements in
our nation's health, quality of life and economy. We can
expect this investment to lead to decreases in health care
expenditures and stimulation of biotechnology and
pharmaceutical industries. This increase, together with the
momentum from other recent investments, should enable the
biomedical sciences to capitalize on expanding knowledge of
disease processes and their underlying genetic basis in order
to develop new therapies.
We depend on the insight and leadership you have shown once
again. Your strong support enables scientists to seize
current opportunities in biomedical research and bring about
advances in science and health that benefit the American
public.
Sincerely,
David G. Kaufman, M.D., Ph.D.
____
American Heart Association,
Washington, DC, June 14, 2000.
Hon. George Gekas,
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 FY 2003. The historically
large funding increase received by the NIH for FY 2000
represented the second step toward that goal.
Your ongoing efforts and those of the 33 co-sponsors of H.
Res. 437, expressing the sense of the House that the federal
investment in biomedical research should be increased by $2.7
billion in FY 2001, are vital in securing the third
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 2001
appropriations process.
State-based polls show that an overwhelming majority of
Americans favor doubling federal spending on medical research
by FY 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.
Also, an overwhelming majority of Americans want Congress
to increase funding for heart and stroke research. According
to an April 2000 national public opinion poll, 73
[[Page H7074]]
percent of Americans say increased federal funding for heart
research is very important and 66 percent say increased
federal funding for stroke research is very important.
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 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 FY 2003. Thank you.
Sincerely,
Lynn Smaha, M.D., Ph.D.,
President.
Jefferson Medical College,
May 11, 2000.
Representative George W. Gekas,
U.S. House of Representatives, Room 2410, Rayburn HOB,
Washington, DC.
Dear Representative Gekas: I write to urge you to support
the 15%, $2.7 billion increase in the Fiscal Year 2001 Labor,
Health and Human Services and Education Appropriations bill
for the National Institutes of Health. I also call for your
support of a 17% increase for the National Science Foundation
in the Fiscal Year 2001 VA-HUD and Independent Agencies
Appropriations bill.
These increases are essential for biomedical research to
capitalize on the many opportunities that we now have to
benefit the health of the Nation. Strong NIH and NSF funding
is also essential for the scientific discoveries that fuel
the burgeoning biotechnology industry in the United States.
My own work on steroid receptors and cell death, especially
in cells that invade the airway during asthmatic attack, is
supported by the National Institutes of Health.
Thank you for your consideration.
Yours sincerely,
Gerald Litwack, Ph.D.,
Chairman, Department of Biochemistry
and Molecular Pharmacology.
School of Medicine, Center for Gene Therapy,
MCP Hahnemann University,
Philadelphia, PA, April 4, 2000.
Hon. George Gekas,
House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
Dear Representative Gekas: I would like to ask for your
continuing support of a 15% increase in the National
Institutes of Health budget and a 17% increase in the
National Science Foundation budget for FY 2000. As you are
well aware, the tremendous investments that the citizens of
the United States have made in research over the past several
decades are beginning to pay off. We are just at the brink of
tremendous benefits that will include dramatic new cures for
diseases and produce a thriving industry for creating new
jobs for our citizens.
I know you have been a strong supporter of these research
budgets in the past. I thank you for that support.
Sincerely yours,
Darwin J. Prockop, M.D., Ph.D,
Director.
____
American Association for
Cancer Research, Inc.,
Philadelphia, PA, March 23, 2000.
Hon. George W. Gekas,
House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
Dear Representative Gekas: As we enter the 21st Century, we
have an unprecedented opportunity to take the bold steps
required to end the human and economic devastation caused by
cancer. As you consider and deliberate the 2001 budget,
consider that cancer will kill more than half a million of
our citizens this year, more Americans than were lost in all
of the wars we fought in the 20th Century. More than 1.2
million Americans will receive a diagnosis of cancer in 2000.
However, as horrible as these statistics are, we anticipate
that cancer incidence and mortality will increase
significantly in the next 10-20 years due primarily to the
aging and changing demographics of America. Cancer will hit
those hardest who can least afford it, the minority and
medically underserved and aged populations. Addressing the
current and future cancer epidemic must become one of
America's highest health care priorities. If we act now with
a sense of urgency to provide the resources and continuity
needed to cure and prevent cancer, we can and will prevail.
On behalf of the more than 15,500 basic, translational,
clinical researchers and other research professionals who are
the members of American Association of Cancer Research
(AACR), we appreciate your steadfast support for increasing
our commitment to the conquest of cancer. We recognize that
as a member of the House of Representatives you face a range
of priorities and deserving requests each year to provide
increased funds for many of this Nation's healthcare needs.
However, this year we ask that you carefully reflect on the
very real possibility that we can finally turn the tide
against cancer. Our prior investments in cancer research are
paying off in advances in basic research that we could have
only dreamed of 10 years ago. There are now unimagined
opportunities to prevent and cure cancer through the transfer
of these discoveries into new prevention and treatment
technologies. We can accelerate the realization of these new
diagnostic technologies, therapeutic drugs and prevention
programs and continue needed advances in basic cancer
research by deciding as a Nation to mount a multi-year final
assault to defeat cancer at the earliest possible time.
To achieve the first step in this bold goal, the AACR
requests that you support full funding for the Bypass Budget
of the National Cancer Institute (NCI) at the $4.135 billion
requested. This level of funding will provide funding to
support major initiatives such as individual research grants,
clinical trials, training, cancer centers, improving quality
of life for cancer patients, and allow the NCI to pursue
several extraordinary research opportunities in cancer
imaging, new cancer therapeutics, chemoprevention and tobacco
control and tobacco related cancers. We also urge you to
ensure that the National Institutes of Health receives a 15%
increase in funding to continue the current plan of doubling
the NIH budget in five years. Lastly, to provide needed funds
for key programs in early cancer detection and cancer
prevention, so badly needed by minority and medically
underserved populations, the AACR requests that you support
increasing the budget for cancer control programs of the
Centers for Disease Control (CDC).
This is a bold first step, but we urge you to look beyond
2001. Last year Congress received a document, created by more
than 150 of the Nation's leading cancer researchers,
clinicians, survivors, advocates and business leaders,
entitled, ``Report from The March Research Task Force,'' that
outlined in simple fashion a set of cogent recommendations
regarding what it will take to accelerate progress against
cancer. This unprecedented Report stated that if we are
willing to look beyond 2001 and define a multi-year strategy
and plan to address the cancer epidemic now and in the
future, we can conquer cancer. We strongly encourage you to
do just that--take the bold step this year to provide the
needed increases for the NCI, NIH and the CDC, and take the
next bold step, to develop a five-year strategy and funding
plan to finally defeat this tragic killer.
Thank you again for your past support. The AACR looks
forward to working with you in the future as we take the
steps necessary to prevent and cure cancer.
Sincerely yours,
Anna D. Barker,
Chairperson, Public Education Committee.
Margaret Foti, Ph.D.
Chief Executive Officer.
____
The Ad Hoc Group for
Medical Research Funding,
June 13, 2000.
Hon. George Gekas,
House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
Attn: Matt Zonarich
Dear Representative Gekas: the Ad Hoc Group for Medical
Research Funding greatly appreciates your continued
leadership on behalf of doubling the budget for the National
Institutes of Health (NIH), as demonstrated by your special
order on Wednesday, June 14.
Enclosed is the FY 2001 proposal from the Ad Hoc Group for
Medical Research Funding, which calls for a $2.7 billion (15
percent) increase in the NIH appropriation as the third step
in doubling the NIH budget by FY 2003. This report highlights
some of the advances made possible by NIH-supported research
and discusses the continuing health challenges that we
believe justify doubling the NIH budget. Also enclosed is the
list of nearly 200 patient groups, scientific societies, and
research institutions and organizations that have endorsed
the group's proposal.
We hope that you will consider including this material in
the Congressional Record during your special order on June 14
on NIH funding.
Sincerely,
David B. Moore,
Executive Director.
The Ad Hoc Group for Medical Research Funding
Organizations Endorsing the FY 2001 Proposal as of May 24, 2000
Academy of Clinical Laboratory Physicians and Scientists.
Academy of Osseointegration.
Administrators of Internal Medicine.
Allergan.
Alliance for Aging Research.
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 Otolaryngology--Head and Neck Surgery
American Academy of Pediatrics
American Academy of Physical, Medicine & Rehabilitation.
American Association for Cancer Research
American Association of Dental Research.
American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases.
American Association of Anatomists.
American Association of Cancer Research.
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.
[[Page H7075]]
American Association of Plastic Surgeons
American Chemical Society
American College of Clinical Pharmacology.
American College of Preventive Medicine.
American College of Radiology.
American College of Surgeons.
American Federal for Medical Research.
American Foundation for AIDS research
American Gastroenterological Association.
American Heart Association.
American Lung Association.
American Nephrology Nurses' Association.
American Optometric Association.
American Osteopathic Association.
American Pediatric Society.
American Podiatric Medical Association.
American Preventive Medical Association.
American Psychiatric Association.
American Psychiatric Nurses Association.
American Psychological Association.
American Psychological Society.
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 Oncology.
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 Hematology.
American Society of Human Genetics.
American Society of Nephrology.
American Society of Pediatric Nephrology.
American Society of Tropical Medicine and Hygiene.
American Thoracic Society.
Americans for Medical Progress.
American Urogynecologic Society.
American Urological Association.
American Veterinary Medical Association.
Arthritis Foundation.
Association for Research in Vision and Ophthalmology.
Association of Academic Health Centers.
Association of Academic Health Sciences Libraries.
Association of American Cancer Institutes.
Association of American Medical Colleges.
Association of American Universities.
Association of American Veterinary Colleges
Association of Departments of Family Medicine.
Association of Independent Research Institutes.
Association of Medical and Graduate Departments of
Biochemistry.
Association of Medical School Microbiology and Immunology
Chairs.
Association of Medical School Pediatric Department Chairs.
Association of Minority Health Professions Schools.
Association of Pathology Chairs.
Association of Pediatric Oncology Nurses.
Association of Professors of Dermatology.
Association of Professors of Medicine.
Association of Schools and Colleges of Optometry.
Association of Schools of Public Health.
Association of Subspecialty Professors.
Association of Teachers of Preventive Medicine.
Association of University Professors of Ophthalmology.
Association of University Radiologists.
Boys Town National Research Hospital.
Campaign for Medical Research.
Cancer Research Foundation of America.
Candlelighters Childhood Cancer Foundation.
Citizens for Public Action.
Coalition for American Trauma Care.
Coalition for Heritable Disorders of Connective Tissue.
Coalition of National Cancer Cooperative Group
Organization.
College on Problems of Drug Dependence.
Columbia University College of Physicians and Surgeons.
Consortium of Social Science Associations.
Cooley's Anemia Foundation.
Corporation for the Advancement of Psychiatry.
Crohn's and Colitis Foundation of America.
Cystic Fibrosis Foundation.
Digestive Disease National Coalition.
Dystonia Medical Research Foundation.
Emory University.
ESA, Inc.
Eye Bank Association of America.
FDA-NIH Council.
Federation of American Societies for Experimental Biology.
Federation of Behavioral, Psychological and Cognitive
Sciences.
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.
The Genome Action Coalition.
Immune Deficiency Foundation.
International Myeloma Foundation.
Jeffrey Modell Foundation.
Joint Council of Allergy, Asthma and Immunology.
Johns Hopkins University.
Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine.
Juvenile Diabetes Foundation International.
Krasnow Institute for Advanced Study.
Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
Medical Device Manufacturers Association.
Medical Library Association.
MedStar Research Institute.
Mount Sinai School of Medicine.
National Alliance for the Mentally Ill.
National Alliance for Eye and Vision Research.
National Association for Biomedical Research.
National Association of State University and Land-Grant
College.
National Caucus of Basic Biomedical Science Chairs.
National Childhood Cancer Foundation.
National Coalition for Cancer Research.
National Committee to Preserve Social Security and
Medicare.
National Foundation for Ectodermal Dysplasias.
National Health Council.
National Hemophilia Foundation.
National Marfan Foundation.
National Organization for Rare Disorders.
National Osteoporosis Foundation.
National Perinatal Association.
National Vitiligo Foundation.
New York State Cancer Programs Association, Inc.
New York University School of Medicine.
North American Society of Pacing and Electrophysiology.
Ocular Microbiology and Immunology Group.
Oncology Nursing Society.
Oregon Health Sciences University.
Osteoporosis and Related Bone Disorders Coalition.
Pfizer.
The Protein Society.
PXE International, Inc.
Radiation Research Society.
Research America.
Research Society on Alcoholism.
Research to Prevent Blindness.
Resolve, The National Infertility Association.
Society for Academic Emergency Medicine.
Society for Investigative Dermatology.
Society for Maternal-Fetal Medicine.
Society for Neuroscience.
Society for Pediatric Research.
Society for Women's Health Research.
Society of Academic Anesthesiology Chairs.
Society of Gynecologic Oncologists.
Society of Toxicology.
Sudden Infant Death Syndrome Alliance.
Tourette Syndrome Association, Inc.
University of Utah Health Sciences.
University of Washington.
Wake Forest University School of Medicine.
____
Why Double the NIH Budget?
Based on the potential of current scientific opportunities
and the successes of the past, we can confidently predict
that an investment of a doubling over five years will be
easily repaid in discoveries that will benefit the U.S.
public and mankind.
The Human Genome Project will enable doctors to identify
individuals at increased risk for diseases like hypertension
and stroke, glaucoma, osteoporosis, Alzheimer's disease, or
severe depression.
Our ultimate goal will be to find ways to prevent the
development or progression of these diseases and design ways
to intervene to prevent the development of these horrific
diseases.
Cancer therapy will change; physicians will be able to
customize cancer treatment by knowing the molecular
fingerprint of a patient's tumor.
The genetic ``fingerprint'' of a person's cancer cells will
be used to create a drug that will attack only the cancer
cells--and render targeted treatment which is more effective
and safe.
We will have effective vaccines for infectious diseases
such as AIDS, tuberculosis, and malaria.
New science on the brain will lead to treatments for
alcoholism, drug abuse, and mental illness.
How can increased funding be used to help make more progress?
Improvements in the treatment and prevention of disease are
dependent on the generation of new ideas. The speed of
discovery can be accelerated by devoting greater resources to
the NIH and NSF budgets.
The explosion of new knowledge from explorations of the
human genome and the biology of the cell is providing new
opportunities to further understand disease, and new
innovative ways of treating, diagnosing, and preventing
illness.
Unused capacity remains available in this great research
enterprise. The great resources provided the Congress in FY
1999 and FY 2000 have facilitated the nation's research
system to more fully use its potential capacity to respond
more quickly to new ways to cure disease.
The more new ideas explored and the more rapid the effort,
the sooner these findings will be translated into the real
life medical benefits and medical practice.
____
ECONOMIC COSTS OF MAJOR ILLNESSES
[Dollar amounts in billions]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Direct Indirect Total
Illness Year costs costs costs Ratio
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------\1\--
Injury............................................................ 1995 $89.0 $248.0 $337.0 74
[[Page H7076]]
Heart diseaes..................................................... 1999 101.8 81.3 183.1 44
Disability........................................................ 1986 82.1 87.3 169.4 52
Mental disorders.................................................. 1992 66.8 94.0 160.8 58
Cancer............................................................ 1994 41.4 68.7 110.1 62
Alzheimer's disease............................................... 1997 15.0 85.0 100.0 85
Diabetes.......................................................... 1997 44.1 54.1 98.2 55
Chronic pain condition............................................ 1986 45.0 34.0 79.0 43
Arthritis......................................................... 1992 15.2 49.6 64.8 77
Digestive diseases................................................ 1985 41.5 14.7 56.2 26
Stroke............................................................ 1998 28.3 15.0 43.3 35
Kidney and urological diseases.................................... 1985 26.2 14.1 40.3 35
Eye diseases...................................................... 1991 22.3 16.1 38.4 42
Pulmonary diseases................................................ 1998 21.6 16.2 37.3 43
HIV/AIDS.......................................................... 1999 13.4 15.5 28.9 54
Other (10 further illnesses)...................................... (\2\) 53.4 23.9 77.2 31
-------------------------------------
Total: 25 illnesses........................................... ...... 707.1 917.5 1624.0 56
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Ratio of indirect total costs (percent).
\2\ Various.
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 treatment, and preventive strategies for STDs (sexually
transmitted diseases).
New approaches to restoring function after spinal cord
injury.
New effective vaccines for infectious disease such as AIDS,
tuberculosis, and malaria.
____
Who was the first to call for doubling of the NIH and NSF Budgets for
Basic Research?
In 1993, the magazine Science published a call for action
by two Nobel Prize Laureates, and other science leaders Drs.
Michael Bishop, Harold Varmus and Mark Kirschner, who plead
that their Government and their Congress double the amounts
of federal funding for the basic research being undertaken by
the National Institutes of Health over a period of five
years. This was not the enterprise of some creative
lobbyists, but rather born from the thoughtful, rational and
scientific deliberations of some of the foremost minds in
science. When Members of this great Chamber consider their
votes for the consistent and substantial increases in funding
of basic research at the National Institutes of Health and
the National Science Foundation, they can rely with great
confidence on the fact that these scientists placed their
entire reputations on the line in making the recommendation
that this Government and this Congress continue to expand
their investment of federal dollars in basic research.
recommendations
These great scientists stated and I quote in part, ``If the
United States is to realize the promise of science for our
society, the new Administration should take action on several
fronts:
Develop an economic strategy for optimizing investment in
biomedical research, which would take into account the new
opportunities that have been made available by the recent
revolution in biology, the potential for reducing health-care
costs, and the benefits to agriculture and industry. Until a
full evaluation has been completed, Drs. Bishop, Varmus, and
Kirschner recommend increasing the NIH budget by 15% per
year, which would double the budget in current dollars by
1998. This increase would provide funds for approximately 30%
of approved grants, thereby retaining healthy competition and
exploiting the major areas of scientific opportunity.
Generate a comprehensive plan for the best use of federal
funds for biomedical research.
Institute a mechanism for the periodic evaluation of peer-
review procedures, utilizing scientists from inside and
outside the government.
Facilitate the application of fundamental discoveries by
encouraging technology research in the private sector.
Ensure that new departures by the NIH and NSF in education
and technology do not diminish the support of basic research.
Strengthen the position of the presidential advisor on
science and technology.
Create a program for long-term investment in research
laboratories and equipment.
Increase federal attention to science education.''
These were the recommendations of America's best and
brightest scientists in 1993 and we should work to fulfill
and implement these excellent recommendations.
Science and the New Administration
(J. Michael Bishop, Marc Kirschner, Harold Varmus)
With the new presidential Administration now in office, the
scientific community is hopeful that measures will be taken
to enhance research and the contributions it can make to our
society. What little was said of research during the
presidential campaign concerned technological improvement and
economic stimulus. This limited focus probably arose from the
necessities of electoral politics. Now it is important to
broaden the discussion to include aspects of the scientific
enterprise that are essential for its long-term viability.
The opportunities for progress through science are greater
than ever. However, the last decade has witnessed an
accelerating erosion of the infrastructure for fundamental
research in the United States. If that erosion is not
reversed soon the pace of discovery will necessarily decline,
with widespread consequences for industry, health care, and
education.
In hopes that President Clinton and Vice President Gore
will soon address the prospects for basic science in the
United States, we offer our view of how fundamental research
benefits our nation and what should be done to secure those
benefits for the future. We speak here for biomedical
research, our area of expertise, but believe that our remarks
illustrate problems and opportunities found throughout
science.
the promise of biomedical research
Recent progress in biomedical research has brought an
understanding of molecules, cells, and organisms far beyond
anything anticipated a generation ago. The benefits of this
progress include the makings of a revolution in preventive
medicine, novel approaches to the diagnosis and treatment of
cancer, heart attacks, infections, inherited diseases, and
other ailments; the prospect of improving agricultural
productivity in ways never imagined by the Green Revolution;
new tools for environmental protection; and a renewed impetus
to stimulate and inform public interest in science.
The economic benefits of these gains are substantial.
Consider two examples: First, it is often argued that
advances in research increase the costs of health care.
However, biomedical research typically generates simpler and
less costly devices; Inexpensive viral vaccines now save the
United States billions of dollars annually; new tests for
viruses have helped cleanse our blood supply, greatly
reducing the economic losses from diseases that are spread by
transfusion; and growth factors for blood cells are cutting
the costs of caring for patients who receive bone marrow
transplantation or chemotherapy for cancer. Second,
fundamental research spawned the biotechnology industry, of
which our nation is the undisputed leader. Biotechnology is a
growing contributor to our economy, a source of diverse and
gratifying employment, a stimulus to allied industries that
produce the materials required for molecular research and
development (R&D), and a vigorous partner to our academic
institutions in the war against disease.
challenges to biomedical research
Despite the progress, preeminence, and promise of American
biomedical research, the enterprise is threatened by
inadequate funding of research and its infrastructure; flawed
governmental oversight of science, confusion about the goals
of federally supported research, and deficiencies in science
education.
The productivity of biomedical research is limited most
immediately by financial resources. In 1992 the nation spent
about $10 billion on biomedical research, mostly by
congressional appropriations to the National Institutes of
health (NIH). This investment is too small by several
measures: (i) The United States currently devotes between
$600 and $800 billion annually to health care, yet less than
2% is reinvested in the study of disease. In contrast,the
defense industry spends about 15% of its budget on research.
(ii) U.S. expenditures on R&D as a percentage of our gross
national product have been declining steadily and are now
lower than those of Japan and Germany. Moreover, 60% of our
R&D dollars is designated for defense. (iii) The funding of
approved NIH grant applications has fallen below 15% in some
categories and under 25% in many, compared with rates of 30%
or more in the preceding two decades, when progress was so
rapid. Under these conditions, outstanding proposals cannot
be pursued, first-rate investigators have become dispirited,
and even the best students are discouraged from pursuing a
career in science. (iv) Outstanding institutions lack funds
for laboratories and replacement of inadequate instruments;
as a result, the conduct of biomedical research is
constrained and even dangerous.
[[Page H7077]]
Biomedical research is also impeded by outmoded procedures
for the federal administration of science. Agencies that
should be working together to promote research in the life
sciences, instead remain separated in competing departments.
NIH has suffered from a chain of command that requires
approval from secretaries and undersecretaries with little
expertise or interest in science. Some sources of funding for
research in the life sciences lack appropriate mechanisms or
expertise for initiating, judging, and administrating
programs, and others have not adapted their mechanisms
appropriately to the progress that has been made in research.
For example, many of the NIH study sections, traditionally
the pride of the peer-review system, are now organized
according to outmoded or otherwise inappropriate categories.
In addition, the government has not learned how to involve
the scientific community adequately in administrative
decisions to initiate targeted projects. To cope with a
decaying infrastructure, Congress has occasionally
appropriated substantial funds for construction, but they
have done so in a way that circumvents peer review and serves
local needs rather than the advancement of science as a
whole.
The confidence that the scientific community once had in
the federal governance of biomedical research has been
further eroded by the use of inappropriate criteria for
appointments to high-ranking positions, particularly within
the Department of Health and Human Services. In recent
administrations it has become commonplace to consider
political views on issues such as abortion and the use of
fetal tissue in research. This tendency has compromised our
ability to select leaders on the basis of their scientific
accomplishments and their capacity to manage complex programs
and make objective decisions.
These administrative problems have been compounded by
confusion over the goals of federally supported biomedical
research. Economic woes have encouraged call for increased
application of current knowledge to practical problems in all
branches of science. These appeals have special resonance in
biomedical science now that so many opportunities for
practical applications are at hand. In recent months such
calls for applied science have gained further prominence
because they have been championed by National Science
Foundation (NSF) director Walter Massey and Representative
George Brown (D-CA), a long-time friend of science. (1)
Claims that ``society needs to negotiate a new contract
with the scientific community . . . rooted in the pursuit of
explicit, longterm social goals'' (2) are, however, based on
debatable assumptions and threaten the viability of our
greatest asset--basic research. Such claims imply that basis
research has become an entitlement program, although evidence
shows it to be underfunded. They presume that basic and
applied research can be unambiguously distinguished, although
the experimental objective of academic and industrial sectors
of biomedical research are often synonymous. They seem to
deny that science has produced benefits for society, although
its positive effects on health and the economy can be readily
measured. Finally, in asking that federally supported
academic investigators become responsible for practical
applications, they ignore the demonstrated ability of the
biotechnology and pharmaceutical industries to develop the
fruits of basic science.
Enactment of policies that favor practical applications
over basic science or narrowly defined objectives over
scientific excellence is likely to come at the expense of
traditional, broadly conceived explorations of biology. At
this stage in the growth of biomedical science, when major
discoveries are still unpredictable, this sacrifice would
jeopardize the scientific progress required for social
benefits and economic growth in the future. This year, for
example, the NSP budget for basic research declined, despite
an overall increase that benefited more applied areas.
The long-range future of biomedical science is also
jeopardized by the deterioration of our educational programs
in math and science. Academic institutions and the
biotechnology and pharmaceutical industries depend on the
nation's schools to supply a competent work force by
stimulating interest in scientific thought and by training
students in scientific methods. Many indicators show that we
are failing to achieve these goals, especially with students
in their early school years and when our performance is
compared to those of other countries. We are also failing to
produce an informed public that can respond intelligently to
scientific advances.
recommendations
If the United States is to realize the promise of science
for our society, the new Administration should take action on
several fronts.
(1) Develop an economic strategy for optimizing investment
in biomedical research, which would take into account the new
opportunities that have been made available by the recent
revolution in biology, the potential for reducing health-care
costs, and the benefits to agriculture and industry. Until a
full evaluation has been completed, we recommend increasing
the NIH budget by 15% per year, which would double the budget
in current dollars by 1998. This increase would provide funds
for approximately 30% of approved grants, thereby retaining
healthy competition and exploring the major areas of
scientific opportunity.
(2) Generate a comprehensive plan for the best use of
federal funds for biomedical research. Development of new
strategies, programs, and funding mechanisms should include
the active participation of the scientific community and not
originate solely from administrative directives.
(3) Institute a mechanism for the periodic evaluation of
peer-review procedures, utilizing scientists from inside and
outside the government. Efforts should be made to ensure that
the thematic alignments of review panels accurately reflect
contemporary progress and opportunities in biomedical
research.
(4) Facilitate the application of fundamental discoveries
by encouraging technology research in the private sector,
culmulating alliances between industry and academia, and
clarifying the federal areas of conflict of interest.
(5) Ensure that new departures by the NIH and NSF in
education and technology do not diminish the support of basic
research. If the Administration or Congress provides new
mandates or new requirements for the NIH and NSF, it should
also provide the necessary additional funds.
(6) Strengthen the position of the presidential adviser on
science and technology. The adviser should have strong
credentials as a scientist and as an administrator, be alert
to contemporary developments in both the biological and
physical sciences, be encouraged to consult the diverse
representatives of the research community, and have regular
access to the president and vice president.
(7) Establish the NIH as an independent federal agency and
consolidate the authority of the director over the individual
institutes.
(8) Apply appropriate criteria to the choice of science
administrators. Appointments should be based on stature in
the research community and administrative ability rather than
on political and religious considerations.
(9) Implement a uniform and comprehensible policy for
indirect costs that provides incentives to institutions for
cost savings and ensure that the funds will be used only to
support the infrastructure required for research.
(10) Create a program for long-term investment in research
laboratories and equipment based on peer review of merit and
need rather than on political affiliations
(11) Increase federal attention to science education.
Measures could include the development and dissemination of
new curricula and textbooks, enrichment programs for
established teachers, improvements in the training of science
teachers, and scholarships and other incentives for
prospective science teachers.
conclusion
We look to our new president and vice president for
leadership in fulfilling the promise of science for our
nation. We hope that they will not fall prey to the view that
the problems of our society might be solved by a shift in
emphasis from basic science to applied research. Instead, the
U.S. federal government should act decisively and soon to
revitalize the support of fundamental as well as applied
research. President Clinton and Vice President Gore have
spoken clearly on health care, economic policy, and
education. We ask them to do the same on the issues that
confront science (3).
Reference and Notes
1. D. Thompson, * * * 140, 84 (25 November 1992).
2. G. Brown, Los Angeles Times (8 September 1992), P. 12.
3. This policy forum is based in part on a statement
prepared in November 1992 by the Joint Steering Committee for
Public Policy, representing the American Society for Cell
Biology, the American Society for Biochemistry and Molecular
Biology, the Biophysical Society, and the Genetics Society of
America.
____
Statement of Purpose for the Biomedical Research Caucus
To broaden support and knowledge of basic and clinical
biomedical research issues throughout the Congress in a
bipartisan manner.
To support the excellent work of existing Committees and
Members with jurisdiction over National Institutes of Health,
National Science Foundation, science research and health
issues. The caucus seeks to augment their work.
To encourage careers for men and women in biomedical
research among all segments of our society by ensuring
stability and vitality in the programs at the National
Institutes of Health and the National Science Foundation.
To inform and educate the Congress about potential and
actual advances in health care made by our investment in
biomedical research. Also, we will explore future advances
that could be achieved with increase support.
To maintain our economic advantage in world markets in
biomedical research and resulting biotechnology enterprises.
To provide an educational forum for discussion and exchange
of ideas on issues involving biomedical research.
Biomedical Research Caucus Co-Chairs:
Congressman George W. Gekas, Congresswoman Nancy Pelosi,
Congressman Sonny Callahan, and Congressman Ken Bentsen.
[[Page H7078]]
Congressional Biomedical Research Caucus
2000 schedule of events
March 1, 1999, Angiogenesis in Health and Disease,
Napoleone Ferrara, Genentech, Inc.
March 29, 2000, Caucus 10th Anniversary Commemoration,
Harold Varmus, Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center.
April 4, 2000, Using Genomics to Study Human History, Mary-
Claire King, University of Washington.
May 3, 2000, Race and Ethnicity in Human Health and
Disease, Harold Freeman, North General Hospital, New York.
June 7, 2000, Metastasis: How Cancer Cell Invade the Body,
Richard Hynes, Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
July 12, 2000, Bioinformatics and Human Health, David
Bolstein, Stanford University.
September 6, 2000, The Crisis at Academic Health Centers,
Samuel Thier, Partners HealthCare System, Inc.
October 4, 2000, Pharmacogenetics & Genomics: Tailor-Made
Therapies, Elliot Sigal, Bristol-Myers Squibb.
Congress of the United States,
House of Representatives,
Washington, DC, June 7, 2000.
Join Me in Cosponsoring H.R. 2399 the National Commission for the New
National Goal: The Advancement of Global Health
Dear Colleague: The entire world acknowledges that the 20th
century was engaged by our nation's leadership in the removal
of the threat of totalitarianism and of world communism. The
national goals were the safeguarding and expansion of
democracy through the maintenance of military and political
power. With the fall of the Berlin Wall, these goals were
made a reality. As we approach the beginning of the 21st
century, America has a unique opportunity to channel the
genius of its technology, industrial might, scientific
research and dedicated will of our people into a positive
goal equal to the 20th century challenge of defeating
totalitarianism. Today, it is time to rechannel these
tremendous energies to an all-out effort to enhance the
health of Americans and to combat disease worldwide.
America has both humanitarian and enlightened, self-
interested reasons to commit to the global eradication of
disease--such accomplishments would protect our citizens,
improve the quality of life, enhance our economy, and ensure
the continued advancement of American interests worldwide.
While the actual eradication of disease on a global scale may
not be possible, the pursuit of such a goal could lead to new
products in health care, new medicines, and new methods of
treating disease.
On June 30, 1999, I introduced H.R. 2399, the National
Commission for the New National Goal: The Advancement of
Global Health Act. This legislation would create a
Presidential/Congressional commission to investigate how we
as a nation can commit ourselves to the goal of the global
eradication of disease. Specifically, this commission would
recommend to Congress a nationwide strategy of coordination
among governmental health agencies, academia, industry, and
other institutions and organizations that are established for
the purpose of preventing and eradicating diseases.
In order to accomplish these objectives, H.R. 2399 sets two
tangible goals for the Commission. First, the Commission
would assist the Center for Vaccine Development at NIH to
achieve global control of infectious diseases. In addition,
the Commission would use NIH and NSF to expand health
resources and research information globally through Internet
conferencing and data dissemination capabilities. The
Commission would be authorized to spend up to $1 million as
seed money to coordinate and attract private and public
funds, both at home and abroad, to reach these goals.
The knowledge and unbounded imagination of our researchers,
doctors and scientists have ensured the preeminence of
research that has fostered our freedom and economic well
being. Now, we can empower these individuals in a all-out
effort to devise the methods and substances to eradicate
disease worldwide. The concern for human life requires us to
muster all available resources, bolstered by a concerted,
dedicated will to eradicate diseases from the face of the
Earth.
Please join me and Rep. John Porter in co-sponsoring this
important legislation. If you have any questions about this
proposal, or would like to become a cosponsor, please
contract Matt Zonarich at 5-4315.
Very truly yours,
George W. Gekas,
Member of Congress.
H.R. 2399
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the ``National Commission for the
New National Goal: The Advancement of Global Health Act''.
SEC. 2. FINDINGS.
The Congress makes the following findings:
(1) During the 20th century the United States led the world
in defeating totalitarianism and communism.
(2) The United States also led the world in spreading and
establishing democracy in every region.
(3) The end of global conflict and the end of the Cold War,
now guaranteed by the power and leadership of the United
States, allow the Nation to establish new goals for the 21st
century.
(4) The United States, the world leader in the research,
development, and production of technologies, medicines, and
methodologies utilized to prevent and cure disease, has
established a Center for Vaccine Development at the National
Institutes of Health that could assist in the global control
of infectious diseases. Infectious disease is the number one
global health challenge killing 11 million people globally
and 180,000 people in the United States and is the third
leading cause of death in the United States. The United
States has the resources, through the National Institutes of
Health and the National Science Foundation, to expand health
research information globally through the use of Internet
conferencing and dissemination of data.
SEC. 3. ESTABLISHMENT.
There is established a commission to be known as the
``National Commission for the New National Goal: The
Advancement of Global Health'' (in this Act referred to as
the ``Commission'').
SEC. 4. DUTIES OF COMMISSION.
The Commission shall recommend to the Congress a national
strategy for coordinating governmental, academic, and public
and private health care entities for the purpose of the
global eradication of disease. The Commission shall address
how the United States may assist in the global control of
infectious diseases through the development of vaccines and
the sharing of health research information on the Internet.
SEC. 5. MEMBERSHIP.
(a) Membership of the Commission.--The Commission shall
consist of individuals who are of recognized standing and
distinction and who possess the demonstrated capacity to
discharge the duties imposed on the Commission, and shall
include representatives of the public, private, and academic
areas whose capacity is based on a special knowledge, such as
computer sciences or the use of the Internet for medical
conferencing, or expertise in medical research or related
areas.
(b) Number and Appointment.--The Commission shall be
composed of 15 members appointed as follows:
(1) The Secretary of Health and Human Services (or the
Secretary's delegate).
(2) The Chairman of the Federal Trade Commission.
(3) The Director of the National Institutes of Health.
(4) The Director of the National Science Foundation.
(5) 3 Members of the Senate appointed jointly by the
President of the Senate and the President pro tempore. Not
more than 2 members appointed under this paragraph may be of
the same political party.
(6) 3 Members of the House of Representatives appointed by
the Speaker of the House of Representatives. Not more than 2
members appointed under this paragraph may be of the same
political party.
(7) 2 individuals appointed by the President, by and with
the advice and consent of the Senate, from among individuals
who are not officers or employees of any government and who
are specially qualified to serve on the Commission by virtue
of their education, training, or experience.
(8) 3 individuals appointed by the President from among
individuals who will represent the views of recipients of
health services. Not more than 1 member appointed under this
paragraph may be an officer or employee of the Federal
Government.
(c) Continuation of Membership.--If a member was appointed
to the Commission as a Member of Congress and the member
ceases to be a Member of Congress, that member may continue
as a member for not longer than the 30-day period beginning
on the date that member ceases to be a Member of Congress.
(d) Terms.--Each member shall be appointed for the life of
the Commission.
(e) Basic Pay.--Members shall serve without pay.
(f) Quorum.--Nine members of the Commission shall
constitute a quorum but a lesser number may hold hearings.
(g) Chairperson; Vice Chairperson.--The Chairperson and
Vice Chairperson of the Commission shall be designated by the
President at the time of the appointment.
(h) Meetings.--The Commission shall meet monthly or at the
call of a majority of its members.
SEC. 6. POWERS OF COMMISSION.
(a) Hearings and Sessions.--The Commission may, for the
purpose of carrying out this Act, hold hearings, sit and act
at times and places, take testimony, and receive evidence as
the Commission considers appropriate.
(b) Powers of Members and Agents.--Any member or agent of
the Commission may, if authorized by the Commission, take any
action which the Commission is authorized to take by this
section.
(c) Obtaining Official Data.--The Commission may secure
directly from any department or agency of the United States
information necessary to enable it to carry out this Act.
Upon request of the Chairperson or Vice Chairperson of the
Commission, the head of that department or agency shall
furnish that information to the Commission.
(d) Gifts, Bequests, and Devises.-- The Commission may
accept, use, and dispose of gifts, bequests, or devises of
services or property, both real and personal, for the purpose
of aiding or facilitating the work of the Commission. Gifts,
bequests, or devises of money
[[Page H7079]]
and proceeds from sales of other property received as gifts,
bequests, or devises shall be deposited in the Treasury and
shall be available for disbursement upon order of the
Chairperson or Commission. For purposes of Federal income,
estate, and gift taxes, property accepted under this
subsection shall be considered as a gift, bequest, or devise
to the United States.
(e) Mails.--The Commission may use the United States mails
in the same manner and under the same conditions as other
departments and agencies of the United States.
(f) Administrative Support Services.--Upon the request of
the Commission, the Administrator of General Services shall
provide to the Commission, on a reimbursable basis, the
administrative support services necessary for the Commission
to carry out its responsibilities under this Act.
(g) Contract Authority.-- The Commission may contract with
and compensate government and private agencies or persons for
administrative and other services, without regard to section
3709 of the Revised Statutes (41 U.S.C. 5).
SEC. 7. REPORTS.
(a) Interim Reports.--The Commission may submit to the
President and the Congress interim reports as the Commission
considers appropriate.
(b) Final Report.--The Commission shall transmit a final
report to the President and the Congress not later than 12
months after the date of enactment of this Act. The final
report shall contain a detailed statement of the findings and
conclusions of the Commission, together with its
recommendations for legislative, administrative, or other
actions, as the Commission considers appropriate.
SEC. 8. TERMINATION.
The Commission shall terminate 30 days after submitting its
final report pursuant to section 7.
SEC. 9. EFFECTIVE DATE.
This Act shall take effect 60 days after the date of its
enactment.
SEC. 10. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.
There are authorized to be appropriated not to exceed
$1,000,000 for fiscal year 2000 for the National Institutes
of Health to carry out coordination activities under this Act
with the Commission, the National Science Foundation, and
other appropriate groups to transfer health research
information on the Internet and to transfer the benefits of
the infectious disease vaccine development program.
SEC. 11. BUDGET ACT COMPLIANCE.
Any spending authority (as defined in subparagraphs (A) and
(C) of section 401(c)(2) of the Congressional Budget Act of
1974 (2 U.S.C. 651(c)(2)(A) and (C))) authorized by this Act
shall be effective only to such extent and in such amounts as
are provided in appropriation Acts.
Mr. GEKAS. Mr. Speaker, we have here a little poster that tells the
story and tells you the intricate number of steps and areas in which we
are involved on behalf of the American people. That is the important
thing. Are you not interested as an American in the person down the
street who has cancer and might be dying from cancer? Are you not
concerned about him? How about your own child who might need a new
device, a new biotechnical device to sustain life? How about an elderly
person that is beginning to be afflicted by Alzheimer's? Do we not want
to do something about this? That is what we are going to be doing in
the continued work of the National Institutes of Health. And doubling
it will increase the focus and effort on every one of these diseases
that can plague your family or the people down the street.
For instance, the human genome project will enable doctors to
identify individuals at increased risk for diseases like hypertension
and stroke, glaucoma, osteoporosis, Alzheimer's or severe depression.
These are not just labels that we throw out. These are living organisms
of disease that are killing us, that are hurting us as an American
people; and we are trying through this effort to reduce the pain and
suffering and to eliminate the early deaths that so hurt our Nation.
Our ultimate goal will be to find ways to prevent the development of
progression of these diseases and design ways to intervene to prevent
the development of these horrific diseases as we have said. Cancer
therapy will change. Physicians will be able to customize cancer
treatment by knowing a molecular fingerprint of a patient's tumor. That
is important work. The genetic fingerprint of a person's cancer cells
will be used to create a drug that will attack only the cancer cells
and render targeted treatment which is more effective and safe. In
other words, hit the cancer cells and do not allow this other
destruction of tissues that so often this day and age while sometimes
helping to cure the cancer kills the patient because of the reduction
of vital tissues in other parts of the body.
These are living species that we are talking about. We will have
effective vaccines for infectious diseases such as AIDS, tuberculosis
and malaria. New science on the brain will lead to the treatments for
alcoholism, drug abuse and mental illness. What this new funding brings
about is progress in all of these things. Improvements in the treatment
and prevention of disease are dependent on the generation of new ideas.
We all know that.
The speed of discovery can be accelerated by devoting greater
resources to the NIH and the National Science Foundation budgets. We
have been saying that, we will resay it, it is important to restate it
as often as possible, but it is absolutely vital.
One thing I want to mention, that not only do we along the way start
to discover methodologies for preventing disease but there is a side
dividend to the American people for all of this, because as we begin to
treat and, let us say, cure kidney disease, just to give you an
example, we would be saving millions and millions of dollars to the
American taxpayers, to the Federal budget, to the local budgets by
bringing about a closure to this terrible disease.
And when you add that combined with kidney disease are blindness,
hypertension, all other kinds of side maladies, bringing them all into
a cure or preventive methodology means that we will be saving not just
the pain and suffering which are reason enough to try to do this but to
have the added benefit of reduced health care costs which is so much on
the mind of all the Members of the Congress and on the members of the
public, knowing what bills they have for pharmaceuticals, for doctors
bills, for HMOs, for hospital care, all of the various expenses to keep
us healthy.
We will, as we progress towards doubling this effort of funding, come
to a point where we are also saving money. That should be good news
because that is one of our duties as Members of Congress, not just to
bring about an investment in trying to prevent disease but also to do
it as economically and with as much saving of taxpayers' money as
possible.
Just to give you an example, in 1994, the direct costs for cancer, in
billions, $41 billion was spent. Indirect costs, some $68 billion. So
the total cost for cancer in 1994, $110 billion. What happens if we
start to focus on certain cures and bring about a no cost to that kind
of particular tumor or cancer that has taken the life of someone? We
will not only have saved the life and other lives and prevent it, but
the costs of health care go down proportionately.
Look at diabetes. In 1997, $44 billion actually spent, $54 billion of
indirect costs, $98 billion in costs for just that, in one year, 1997.
As we know, diabetes, back to kidney disease and other consequences of
diabetes, the costs and the effects all mount up to the detriment of
the American people. We are out to stem the tide of these adverse
effects on our fellow Americans. And so on and so forth.
Look at pulmonary diseases in 1998, $21 billion. Kidney and
urological diseases in 1985, $26 billion. Stroke, $28 billion. And so
on and so forth. No wonder we have rising health care costs. All the
more reason why we should be devoting our efforts, legislative and
financial, fiscally, fiscal concentration, on defeating some of these
diseases that plague us as they are doing. So we save lives and while
we are doing it, not an inconsequential thing, we save taxpayers'
money.
Now, what I want to do, also, is to mention here that in support of
the NIH and all these efforts, about 10 years ago we developed a very
unique lecture series here in the Capitol. The Biomedical Research
Caucus as we framed it at that time was going to bring and has brought
scientists of the first order to the Capitol to explain the latest
developments and bring us up to date on what is happening in the field
of women's breast cancer or Alzheimer's disease or Parkinson's disease.
Just today, we had a wonderful lecture by astronauts and astronaut
scientists, NASA scientists on microgravity and some of the things that
are being discovered in space that help us here on Earth to early
detection of certain diseases and prevention of other diseases, and the
cure of some diseases.
Why? Because we are engaged in while we are funding space projects,
marrying them to the National Institutes of Health so that the new
science
[[Page H7080]]
of the space age can be adopted and adapted to human endeavors here on
Earth, blending every new advance that we make, in space and on Earth.
Which brings me to something poignant in what we have been trying to
say here. In one of our recent lectures on June 7, 2000, the subject
was, just to give you an example, metastasis, how cancer cells invade
the body. We all know what metastasis is. That is, a discovered tumor,
even though excised from the body, can still result in the destruction
of that individual, the death of that individual through metastasis,
that it spreads to other vital parts of a body and the surgeons and the
medical people are helpless to stem the tide of this metastasis, this
spreading of the tumor.
Ironically, one of the stronger figures in our enterprise, a lady by
the name of Belle Cummins, an attorney who has been helping us for
years in all these projects and was very close to the scientists and to
the legislators and knew the subject matter back and forth, was very
helpful, as I say, on every detail of our massive enterprise here,
herself was struck with cancer, a rare form of cancer, actually. But
the cause of final death was the metastasis, the irreverent spreading
of this cancer to other parts of the body which killed her and robbed
us of a friendly agent in the gigantic enterprise in which we have
found ourselves here.
The other kinds of subject matter we had, just in the year 2000, we
have had some 90 sessions on Capitol Hill since we started this program
and among the people who lectured to us were a handful, six or seven or
eight, Nobel winners. I sometimes jokingly say they won the Nobel
because they came and lectured to us, because we brought them to
Capitol Hill. That is not exactly the case. But the point is that we
have had the latest news that has been developed across the globe on
the various diseases, from cloning and the genome project, the mapping
of the human gene, all of these things are a part of the regular
routine of our Biomedical Research Caucus, keeping all the Members of
Congress aware of the various developments.
I see sitting with us one of the members of the Biomedical Research
Caucus, as a matter of fact one of the cochairs, the gentleman from
Texas (Mr. Bentsen). I wish to yield to him now for the purpose of
adding his commentary to this special order.
Mr. BENTSEN. I thank my colleague from Pennsylvania for yielding. Let
me say, Mr. Speaker, at the outset that the gentleman from Pennsylvania
(Mr. Gekas) is the real driving force behind this particular effort in
doubling the NIH budget as well as in the entire Congressional
Biomedical Caucus.
I think all Members of the House and the American people owe him a
great debt of gratitude for the tireless work that he has put into this
effort. I also want to join with him in his comments regarding Belle
Cummins. It was a tremendous loss to this effort and to many of us
personally for the work that she had done in her tireless effort. She
will be greatly missed. But perhaps in her loss, that should afford us
the ability to redouble our efforts in trying to achieve the goal that
she so much sought to see the Congress achieve.
{time} 1830
I also want to add, before I get to my prepared statement, my
comments regarding the marriage of medical research and scientific
research, because, in fact, in my congressional district that I have
the honor of representing, it includes the Texas Medical Center and it
abuts the Johnson Space Center; and the Texas Medical Center is the
first biomedical research center of NASA.
It is a joint project between NASA and Baylor College of Medicine,
Rice University and several other institutions, including some other
institutions around the country.
This is something that the NASA administrator, Dan Golden, and his
people came up with early on as an idea of how to leverage both the
basic scientific research being done at NASA, with the medical research
being done at our medical institutions with the hope that this type of
leveraging can go on in other areas beyond medical research.
But it would not have happened, it would not have happened had it not
been for the seed capital put in by the Congress through the National
Institutes of Health and through the Medicare program and other
programs that have established these academic medical centers which now
are true laboratories for growth. It is a tremendous effort.
I want to say, I am not going to go through my whole statement, I
will submit most of it for the Record, but I do have the honor of being
one of the cochairs with the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Gekas),
he is the real chair, we just work for him in this process. He is
absolutely correct on H. Res. 437, a sense of the House that the House
should provide an additional $2.7 billion for the National Institutes
of Health budget for fiscal year 2001.
This is one of the best things we could do in the United States in
terms of what it does to continue to try and find cures for diseases
that ail our populace and the populace of the world. People do not
realize that we have a quarter of a million people who come to this
country every year seeking medical treatment, because we have the best
medical treatment in the world in the United States, and that is
because of the leverage done off of the NIH.
This resolution would help to ensure that more scientists and doctors
and researchers have the resources to conduct the cutting edge
research. Today, only one-third of NIH peer-reviewed, merit-based
grants are funded, and this additional investment would allow us to
increase the number awarded each year and ensure, particularly, that
the younger scientists have the resources that they need to find the
cures to save the lives of so many Americans.
I am also convinced that this additional 50 percent investment in NIH
is being wisely used. There are more than 50,000 scientists across the
United States who directly benefit from NIH research funds.
At the Texas Medical Center, which I mentioned is in the district I
represent, there was a total of $289 million funded through the NIH for
clinical research projects in fiscal year 1999 alone. For many of these
scientists, the NIH funding is critically important to funding their
research and without it, they would not be able to test new therapies.
Today with many academic medical centers struggling to maintain their
mission of training our Nation's health care professionals with the
advent of managed care, providing quality health care services and
conducting clinical research, it is critical, it is critical that they
have adequate resources from the NIH.
Mr. Speaker, I also believe that investing in the 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. There are not many government programs we can find that have that
kind of yield on investment.
The government funds the basic research with which biotechnology and
pharmaceutical companies use to create new therapies and treatments for
cancer, diabetes and heart disease and the like.
A lot of our colleagues may say, why should we not just allow the
private sector to fully fund this? The fact remains that there is a lot
of research where the private sector will not go. The risk is far too
great, and there is a large gap there, which only a public entity, in
this case, the Federal Government, can fill that gap.
It can underwrite that risk and, yet, even doing that, we know that
there is a tremendous return, not only in the better well-being and
health of our citizens, which should be our first concern, but there is
an economic return in the long run to the general economy of the United
States, and that is a benefit I think all of us can be proud of.
Let me just finally say that we are all extremely excited with the
announcement just this past month that the scientists who were mapping
the human genome have made significant discoveries and are on the cusp
of finalizing that project.
I was honored that Baylor College of Medicine is one of the three
research organizations that are part of the NIH program. I met with the
officials from the researchers from Baylor on numerous occasions about
this program that they are doing, and I know that at one point it
appeared there was a race between the Federally funded project
[[Page H7081]]
with worldwide assistance and the private project that was being done.
But I think it goes without saying, had NIH not been there at the
beginning, not funded this, we would not have seen a private entity
come in to it.
Furthermore, and I have talked with many of the researchers about
this, had there not been a Federal public domain involvement in
something as critical as the human genome project, I think it is
unlikely that we would have had the early commitment that the data that
has been found will be data that is part of the public domain and not
something that is down at the Patent Office that says that the future
treatment that can be so critical to the future well-being of the
American citizenry is something that we would have to go through a
copyright and pay a premium for as opposed to something that we as
Americans can all enjoy the opportunity of.
So I think it is a testament to the work of the NIH, and I would just
say to my colleague, the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Gekas), that,
once again, on this particular issue, and there are other issues as
well, but on this particular issue, he is very much on the right track,
taking a leadership role in saying that the United States taxpayers
should put its resources behind funding and doubling the budget for the
NIH.
We get a tremendous return for our well-being, and I commend the
gentleman for once again taking the lead on this and this resolution. I
look forward to continuing to working with him on this until we achieve
that goal of doubling it over the 10-year period.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of H. Res. 437, a Sense
of the House of Resolution that the House of Representatives should
provide an additional $2.7 billion for the National Institutes of
Health (NIH's) budget for Fiscal Year 2001. This $2.7 billion
investment would be the third installment on our five-year effort to
double the NIH's budget.
As one of four Co-Chairs of the Congressional Biomedical Caucus, I
have strongly supported providing maximum resources for biomedical
research conducted at the NIH. This $2.7 billion investment in NIH's
budget will help to 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 to increase the number of grants
awarded each year and ensure that young scientists have the resources
they need to save lives and cure diseases.
I am also convinced that this additional 50 percent investment in the
NIH is being used wisely. Today, there are more than 50,000 scientists
who directly benefit from NIH research funds. At the Texas Medical
Center, which I represent, the NIH provides a total of $289 million for
clinical research projects in Fiscal Year 1999. For many of these
scientists, the NIH funding is critically important to funding their
research. Without it, they would not be able to test new therapies.
Today, many academic health centers are struggling to maintain their
mission of training our nation's health care professionals, providing
quality health care services, and conducting clinical research. As
managed care plans reducing reimbursements for health care services,
the NIH funding helps to ensure that this mission is achieved.
I also believe that investing in the 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 new therapies and treatments for cancer,
diabetes, and heart disease.
As the representative for the Texas Medical Center, one of our
nation's premiere research centers, I have seen firsthand that this
investment is yielding promising new therapies and treatments for all
Americans. Just this month, it was announced by Baylor College of
Medicine and 2 other research organizations have reached their goal of
mapping the human genome. With this genetic map, researchers will have
the information they need to develop new treatments to cure diseases
such as cancer, heart disease, AIDS, and Alzheimer's. At Baylor College
of Medicine, the NIH funding is leading to new information about
pediatric AIDS treatments, tuberculosis, and prostate cancer
treatments.
As a member of the House Budget Committee, I coauthored an amendment
to add $2.7 billion to the NIH's budget. Although the NIH amendment was
not successful, I believe it is critically important to continue to
remind my colleagues of the potential for success with more investment
in biomedical research. For many families, maximizing the NIH budget is
an important part of their efforts to fight and beat chronic diseases
such as heart disease and diabetes. 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 luncheons to discuss biomedical topics in Congress. These
well attended luncheons provide an opportunity for Congress and staff
to learn about new research programs which have been funded by the NIH-
sponsored grants. This first-hand information will help to highlight
how well these resources are being used.
I strongly urge the House of Representatives to support and become a
cosponsor of H. Res. 437, legislation that would provide $2.7 billion
more for the NIH's budget as part of the Fiscal Year 2001 budget
process.
In a related matter, a conference is currently meeting to reconcile
the differences between the two versions of Fiscal Year 2001 Labor,
Health and Human Services, and Education appropriations bill. I am
concerned that the House bill includes $18.8 million, a 6 percent
increase above this year's budget. However, I am pleased that the
Senate appropriations bill includes the additional $2.7 billion
investment in the NIH that we need. I strongly urge my colleagues in
this conference committee to adopt the Senate funding level so that the
NIH's budget will be doubled over five years.
Mr. GEKAS. Mr. Speaker, we thank the gentleman from Texas (Mr.
Bentsen) for his very valuable contribution.
There is something I always wanted to put in the Record to how we got
started on this tremendous effort on behalf of the National Institutes
of Health, and after a number of searches of memory as to how this all
began, we concluded that the starting point was an article written by
scientists interested in expanding the avenue towards increased
research.
In 1993, the magazine Science published a call for action by two
Nobel Peace Laureates and other science leaders like Dr. Michael
Bishop, Harold Varmus and Mark Kirschner, who at that time pleaded with
their government and their Congress to double the amounts of Federal
funding for the basic research being undertaken by the National
Institutes of Health over a period of 5 years.
This was not the enterprise of some creative lobbyists, but rather
born from the thoughtful rationale and scientific deliberations of some
of the foremost minds in science.
When Members of this great Chamber consider their votes for the
consistent and substantial increases in funding of basic research at
the National Institutes of Health and the National Science Foundation,
they can rely with great confidence on the fact that these scientists
placed their entire reputations on the line in making recommendation
that the government and the Congress continue to expand their
investment of Federal dollars in basic research. So there we have it.
Dr. Kirschner, Bishop and Varmus preeminent scientists who thought it
would be a great idea if we could double the effort of the NIH to get
scientists to focus on new research and continued expanded research. We
seized upon that, certain Members of Congress, and thought that was a
light bulb for the Congress upon which to become enlightened as to
progress that can be made.
And from that, emerged the effort about which we speak here tonight,
the resolution to double the effort. We picked up adherence and
supporters in the Senate of the United States, and lo and behold,
again, we are here tonight reporting to the American people that we are
intent on moving along on this spiraled staircase towards doubling the
funding of the NIH within 5 years.
The 3rd year is here upon us, next year we will come back to these
Chambers and see how far we have gotten and be able to report to my
colleagues even more progress.
Mr. Speaker, the last item that we wish to record for my colleagues
are some of the recommendations that have come out of the scientific
dialogue on this important question. These great scientists stated, and
I quote, in part, if the United States is to realize the promise of
science for our society, the new administration, this was back in 1993,
should take action on several fronts, and here are bits and pieces of
these several fronts, develop an economic strategy for optimizing
[[Page H7082]]
investment and biomedical research, and what we are saying is, the
doubling of the funding of NIH is one of those strategies.
Number two, generate a comprehensive plan for the best use of Federal
funds for biomedical research; implicit in what we have said.
Institute a mechanism for the periodic evaluation of peer-review
procedures utilizing scientists from inside and outside the government.
That is very important in the world of health care, because if one
scientist says a-ha, I can cure brain cancer overnight, that has to be
evaluated and reviewed and criticized and analyzed, et cetera.
The American people know that we have a system in place that has
checks and balances in everything we do, not the least of which should
be in the discoveries or research breakthroughs that we see now on a
daily basis.
They go on and say facilitate the application of fundamental
discoveries by encouraging technology research in the private sector;
that goes without saying. Strengthen the position of the Presidential
advisor on science and technology, increase Federal attention to
science education.
Do you know what? Without knowing it, it just dawned on me that about
2 years ago I introduced a concept, and it is in legislation and
heading for a hearing in September, on something akin to this, that is,
I believe that in the 20th century, the one which was just engulfed us
in so many conflicts, so many tears, but so much progress at the same
time, this century, our country was faced with one gigantic goal, that
goal was to overturn tyranny and repression and to advance democracy,
to repel tyrannical governments, Communism, Naziism, all of the
tyrannical forms that have hurt us so blatantly across the years. Our
goal as a Nation was to repulse all of that and to establish and
reestablish and ferment democracy throughout the remainder of the
world.
It dawned on me we ought to be stating a goal for the next century,
for the 21st century. What should that goal be for the United States of
America? In my judgment, it should be the eradication of disease from
the face of the Earth.
Mr. Speaker, now the goal of repulsing tyranny and establishing
democracy was worthwhile, we would not be in a position where we could
even talk about eradication of disease as in a new goal, but listen to
what has happened. Our country is the foremost in every endeavor of the
human mind can generate, in everything. We are the superpower. We are
the supersuperpower in everything. We do not want to be just the
superpower in military strength, we have the capacity now to lead the
world in those efforts that can lead to the eradication of disease.
Now, I mentioned this to Dr. Harold Varmus, who later became the
director of the National Institutes of Health, and now most recently
has transferred his talents to Sloan Kettering in New York, a renowned
scientist, a Nobel winner.
{time} 1815
I mentioned this to him while he was director of NIH, that we ought
to try to do something to try to eradicate disease across the face of
the Earth. He said, ``George, I don't think we can actually eradicate
every disease.'' I said, ``I know that, Harold. I know though the
effort has to yield progress in the eradication of disease, even if we
fall short of total eradication of every disease known to mankind.''
But the point is that should be the national goal. And if you look at
it again, in rounder terms, the goal of eradicating disease that the
United States would undertake would be in its own self-interest, its
own enlightened self-interest.
Why? While we are trying to eradicate disease or leading the world in
those efforts, we are producing new pharmaceuticals, new biotechnology
devices, new methodologies for treating disease, for discovering new
anecdotes, et cetera. While we are doing that then, we are creating
economic fervor, economic opportunities and economic expansion,
enterprises of every stripe while marching down the road towards
leading the world, leading mankind, in the eradication of disease.
We are number one in biotechnology now, number one in biomedical
research, number one in every effort leading towards these things. Why
not then move towards this goal about which I speak?
Let me tell you that my bill, the one I have introduced and on which
a hearing will be held, as I said in September, would create a
commission of the greatest experts our country can produce on how we
can begin this worldwide enterprise of eradicating disease from the
face of the Earth. It would employ every sector of our country and all
its citizenry, from teaching children in first grade about washing
their hands before meals and in washing their hands as often as
possible, a simple little gesture, as part of a global strategy to
eradicate disease, not to mention space exploration and all of the
other things about which we have made mention here today.
So from washing one's hands in kindergarten to climbing to Mars in 3
years, all of these things can be a part of the global effort on the
part of the United States to eradicate disease from the face of the
Earth; and these members of these commissions, the commission that I
envision through this legislation, could create the steps necessary to
begin that enterprise.
We have been joined by the gentlewoman from North Carolina, is that
correct?
Mrs. CLAYTON. That is correct.
Mr. GEKAS. I get North and South mixed up once in a while.
Mrs. CLAYTON. South Carolina is good, but North is even better.
Mr. GEKAS. I yield to the gentlewoman.
Mrs. CLAYTON. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for his leadership
on this issue and allowing me to participate. I think this issue that
the gentleman brings before us is exciting and has great potential and
is critical and needed.
Mr. Speaker, I strongly support the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr.
Gekas) and others in their effort to double the funding for the
National Institutes of Health for research in the biomedical field.
Research today will be the basis for the discovery of treatments and
prescription drugs that will provide much needed benefits tomorrow.
Passive investments in biomedical research have resulted in better
health and improved quality of life for all Americans, as well as a
reduction in national health care expenditures. The Federal Government
represents the single largest contributor to biomedical research
conducted in the United States and must continue to play a vital role
in the growth of this national biotechnology industry.
The National Institutes of Health is prepared to lead us into a new
era of molecular medicine that will provide us with unprecedented
opportunities for the prevention, the diagnosis, the treatment, the
cure of all diseases that currently plague our society.
Currently more than 297,000 Americans are suffering from AIDS, and
hundreds of thousands more with HIV infections. These Americans,
although still facing serious and life-threatening health problems, can
benefit from biomedical and biotechnology advances in the treatment of
HIV. Biomedical advances assist in providing assurances of more
effective and accessible and affordable treatment for persons with HIV
and the hope of arresting the disease until a cure is discovered.
Patients with debilitating diseases such as osteoporosis and
diabetes, or life-threatening cervical, breast, and prostate cancer
will benefit from the further understanding of the principles of
biometrics. The development of new hard tissue, such as bone and teeth,
as well as the study of soft tissue development, holds great promise
for the design of new classes of bio-materials and pharmaceuticals, and
the diagnosis and analytical reagents for use in the treatment of
disease and their side effects.
We are on the dawn of a biomedical revolution, and most Americans
show overwhelming support for an increased Federal investment in
biomedical research to improve the quality of their lives and of world
citizens.
Again, I support the request to increase by $2.7 billion the budget
to the National Institutes of Health to fund biomedical research.
American biomedical researchers should not have to wait any longer than
necessary to begin the new generation of discovery that awaits them and
to benefit the
[[Page H7083]]
overall health of our great Nation and the world.
Again, I thank the gentleman for allowing me to participate.
Mr. GEKAS. I thank the gentlewoman.
Mr. Speaker, to bring to a close our special Special Order, I just
want to repeat some of the promises that lie ahead with the continued
development of our research capability: new ways to relieve pain, that
goes without saying; medications for the treatment of alcoholism and
drug addiction; clinical trials database to help the public gain access
to information about all of these trials through the Internet and
through other devices that we have.
I see our colleague, the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Ganske), who is
seated here, ready to take a Special Order on his own. Just today he
and I had a discussion about the Patients' Bill of Rights and the
pharmaceuticals and all of that, which is a part of all of this; and I
maintain if we can pass our bill and establish this commission to look
at all the phases of health care for the eradication of disease, that
the plight of our teaching hospitals, patient care, pharmaceuticals,
everything that worries us on a daily basis, can be placed in a proper
order to take the lead globally in the eradication of disease.
Mr. PACKARD. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support increased
funding for the National Institutes of Health (NIH). The NIH is the
pre-eminent biomedical research enterprise in the world, relied on for
its innovation by countries spanning the developing and industrialized
world. The vast bulk of the NIH funding we appropriate goes to the
large medical research institutions in this country that lead the fight
against disease and illness.
The NIH has always enjoyed strong bipartisan support from Congress.
An increase in NIH funding would accommodate substantial increases in
the grants, training awards, and infrastructure improvements that are
critical to the continued success of medical research. Additional
funding would also give the NIH a greater ability to disseminate
information on new breakthroughs to patients and health care providers.
NIH researchers are on the verge of tremendous new discoveries in
science and medicine.
Mr. Speaker, I again urge my colleagues to continue their support for
the NIH in the best way possible--by increasing funding.
Mr. LaFALCE. Mr. Speaker, the National Institutes of Health benefits
all Americans, and we should all be proud of the research work that
they do. Thanks to the scientists, doctors and other professionals at
NIH, we are closer than ever before to finding cures and improved
treatments for diseases like Alzheimer's, diabetes and cancer. We need
to show our unwavering commitment to the NIH and the important work
that they do. That is why I strongly support doubling the NIH budget.
In addition to the countless health benefits that this will bring to
the American people, it will result in savings as well. Every dollar
that we invest, particularly in preventive medicine, will reduce
hospitalization and the costs of treating a disease that we can cure.
Diabetes is a prime example of this. It is estimated that one out of
every ten health care dollars in the United States and one out of every
four Medicare dollars is spent on diabetes care. If we invest enough
money to follow all the promising leads that the congressionally-
mandated Diabetes Research Working Group has identified, we can cure
this disease. We should do that. Just think what it would mean to the
16 million Americans, and their families, who suffer from this disease.
As Vice-Chair of the House Diabetes Caucus, I urge all of my colleagues
to support this investment in finding a cure. And it truly is a cost-
effective, life-saving investment. In this time of unparalleled
prosperity, there is no reason that we can't do it.
Alzheimer's, arthritis, multiple sclerosis, osteoporosis, diabetes,
cancer, autism, macular degeneration and on and on--we all have family,
friends, constituents who are affected by these diseases in one way or
another. Particularly as our older population continues to grow, we
need to increase our commitment to health care. An appropriate
investment now, when the resources are available, will translate into
immeasurable savings, both in human life and in dollars, down the road.
This is truly an investment in our future. Let's make this commitment
and let science show us how we can all live healthier, happier, longer
lives.
Mr. FILNER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of doubling the
budget of the National Institutes of Health to further life-saving
research.
The world is at the cutting edge of biomedical research breakthroughs
that will alter forever the age-old battle of humans against disease.
The discovery of cures for most life threatening diseases can, and
will, be achieved in our lifetime. But, we can cross that ultimate
frontier of an improved quality of life for all Americans only if this
Nation commits itself to funding biomedical research at a sufficient
level to do the job.
Mr. Speaker, we can demonstrate our collective resolve to accomplish
that result by doubling the funding for the National Institutes of
Health.
Our research is beginning to pay off. Hundreds of new drug
discoveries are rapidly making their way through clinical trials.
Through the concerted genome effort, we will in a very short time have
effectively decoded the enormous amount of DNA sequence information
that forms the blueprint for human ife. The developing field of
proteomics will provide the tools to understand the function of
proteins produced by genes. The quantity and quality of targets for the
development of new drugs will be increased by a factor of previously
unbelievable proportions. In addition, progress is being made in
learning how to stimulate the immune system itself to fight cancer and
other diseases. Immunotherapy, and gene therapy, as demonstrated by the
scientists at the Sidney Kimmel Cancer Center in San Diego, are
beginning to unlock the secrets of how to effectively combat disease in
virtually every cell of the body. Anti-angiogenesis--a process which
prevents the formation of new blood vessels which feed the cancer as it
multiplies--offers great hope. The progress being made in San Diego
research institutes suggest that the accelerating pace of laboratory
discoveries will soon be translated into innovative treatments. In San
Diego, basic science break-throughs are happening at the University of
California, San Diego (UCSD)--one of the largest recipients of NIH
funding in the country--and also at the Salk Institute, the Burnham
Institute, and the Scripps Research Institute. And, the most dramatic
results of these scientific advances may be demonstrated when they work
in combination with chemotherapy, radiation, and surgery.
At the University of California at San Diego, for example, Dr. Mark
Tuszynski has received approval from the FDA to test a form of gene
therapy in humans with the dreaded Alzheimer's disease. Alzheimer's now
afflicts 4 million Americans, a number which is projected to grow to 8
million in this country alone by the year 2020. Dr. Tuszynski will
surgically implant genetically modified cells into the brains of human
volunteers to determine if we can slow the progression of Alzheimer's
disease and enhance the function of some of the remaining brain cells.
Mr. Speaker, charitable contributions and the scholarship of great
universities and research institutes play important roles in the
evolution of our scientific success. It is through the investsment of
significant Federal dollars in the National Institutes of Health that
we can combine all of these positive forces to realize the medical
miracles on our horizon. NIH promotes the research and coordinates the
science. NIH helps to develop new skills of scientific investigators,
and provides the stimulus for the emergence of new technologies.
I am privileged to represent San Diego, the biotech capital of the
world. What we do in San Diego in collaboration with scientists around
the globe will enhance life itself at a time in history when life is
most worth living.
Now is the time to redouble our investment in biomedical research.
America is at peace, our economy is prospering, our citizens are
gainfully employed, our budget is balanced, and our surplus is real,
There is no excuse to ignore what Americans want more than anything
else: the cure of diseases which inflict death, pain, suffering, and
economic distress to almost every family.
Mr. Speaker, let's do it; let's do it now.
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 a cosponsor of his resolution, H. Res. 437,
expressing the sense of Congress on how to accomplish our goal of
doubling 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.
[[Page H7084]]
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, e-mails, and notes that describe in further
detail the importance of doubling our investment in health research.
Mr. Speaker, I submit the following letters for the Record.
Chiron Corporation,
Emeryville, CA, June 14, 2000.
Hon. Randy ``Duke'' Cunningham,
House of Representatives,
Washington, DC.
Dear Representative Cunningham: On behalf of Chiron
Corporation's Blood Testing Division, I appreciate this
opportunity to convey our support for increased funding for
biomedical research.
Chiron Corporation, headquartered in Emeryville,
California, is a leading biotechnology company with
innovative products in three global healthcare markets:
biopharmaceuticals, vaccines and blood testing. Chiron, and
its partner, Gen-Probe Incorporated of San Diego, formed a
strategic alliance in 1998 to develop, manufacture and market
genomic nucleic acid testing (NAT) for detection of blood
transfusion associated viruses such as Human Immunodeficiency
Virus (HIV) and Hepatitis C Virus (HCV).
Genomic NAT is the next technological advance in ensuring
the safety of the nation's blood supply. It detects small
amounts of virus in donated blood before antibodies or viral
proteins are detectable by current blood screening
technologies. Today's blood testing methods depend solely on
the detection of these antibodies or viral proteins, so newly
infected donors may escape detection during the ``window
period'' between infection and appearance of these serologic
markers.
Since April of 1999, the Chiron-Gen-Probe partnership has
been supplying NAT reagents, instrumentation, training, and
technical support to U.S. blood centers performing NAT under
FDA approved clinical protocols. The Chiron Procleix HIV-1/
HCV Assay is currently utilized to screen approximately 75%
of all volunteer blood donations in the U.S. In addition, the
Armed Services Blood Program now routinely screens blood
donations with the Chiron assay.
Genomic NAT testing has already increased the safety of the
U.S. blood supply. In less than one year, testing by Chiron's
system alone has detected 28 infected HCV donors and 4 HIV-1
infected donors. Identification of these infected donors
prevented the potential transfusion of over 100 HCV and/or
HIV-1 infected units of blood components. Scientific studies
estimate that genomic NAT may reduce the window period of
potential HCV infection by 70% and by nearly 50% for HIV.
Recent studies also indicate that genomic NAT, when used on
individual donor samples, may close the Hepatitis B Virus
(HBV) window by 50% (as much as four weeks) compared to
currently available tests.
Implementation of NAT has required the utilization of many
new scientific inventions and innovations. One historic
discovery in this effort was the genomic mapping of the HIV
and HCV viruses by Chiron scientists. Gen-Probe Incorporated
developed new high throughput genomic amplification and
detection technologies known as TMA, that are required to
detect very low levels of viruses in blood donations.
The National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute of the
National Institutes of Health contracted with Chiron's
partner, Gen-Probe Incorporated, to develop genomic NAT
testing assays and automation. All of these factors in
combination have led to the development of genomic NAT as the
new world standard in blood screening technology, and offers
the promise of providing Americans a blood supply that is
safer from risk of HIV, HCV and HBV transmission.
HCV is becoming a significant public health concern, both
here in California and elsewhere. Despite these remarkable
advances in blood testing and safety, our work is not
complete. There are new viral strains that may contaminate
our blood supply. The immensely important genomic
amplification technologies are at the beginning of their
technological life cycle. It is vitally important that the
U.S. Government continues, and increases where possible, its
investment in these areas of biomedical research.
Thank you again for the opportunity to provide Chiron's
comments on this important public policy issue.
Sincerely,
Rajen Dalal,
President,
Chiron Blood Testing Division.
____
Powey, CA,
June 14, 2000.
Dear Congressman Cunningham: I am a 47 year old woman. My
diabetes was discovered 40 years ago. I should be dead! Due
to the advances in health research I am not only alive but a
success despite my physical challenges.
I am a speaker for UCSD transplantation and animal research
program. I should have died at the age of 15, being
unconscious and having extremely high, unexplained blood
sugars. I survived that challenge and then later went on to
college supported by the Rehab. center for the blind in
Connecticut. My kidneys failed as I was receiving my BA in
Psychology and BS in Business. (Double Major). I then moved
to San Diego and received my first kidney transplant. My
right leg was amputated as I was in Graduate school. As I was
finishing Graduate school I received my first Service dog for
Physical assistance.
To make a long story short. I am able to drive with one
good eye--medical research. I can walk, but do use a
wheelchair, to reserve energy. I am now a licensed Marriage
and Family Therapist!!! (long haul and Hall) AND I have
founded and co run with my fiance, Leashes for Living
Assistance/Service Dogs. A unique program enabling the
challenged to train their own Service Dogs.
Without medical and health research I would not be able to
give back so much to the community. I pride myself in the
fact that along with the medical teams, I have worked hard to
stay alive . . . and now am able to help others live happier
and healthier lives despite their challenges.
With my highest regards for your endeavors,
Cynthia Clay.
____
PolyCystic Ovarian
Syndrome Association, Inc.,
Rosemont, IL, June 14, 2000.
Rep. Randy Cunningham,
Rayburn Bldg,
Washington, DC.
Dear Congressman Cunningham, We at the PolyCystic Ovarian
Syndrome Association, Inc., or PCOSA, would like to add our
voices in support of House Resolution 437, sponsored by Rep.
George Gekas from Pennsylvania.
Polycystic Ovary Syndrome (PCOS) is a little understood
endocrine disease that affects as many as 1 in 10 women and
yet continues to be misdiagnosed by doctors. Recent research
strides point only to the need for more research, education
and raised awareness about PCOS, which is the leading cause
of infertility and puts women at risk for type II diabetes,
endometrial cancer, and cardiovascular disease. PCOSA is an
international non-profit organization dedicated to the
education and support of women with PCOS and their healthcare
providers.
Dr. R. Jeffrey Chang, at the University of California at
San Diego is a pioneer in the research and education of women
and doctors about PCOS. Having edited one of the few texts on
the subject for doctors, he remains a strong voice for
women's health care. At our recent membership conference in
San Diego, Dr. Chang spoke to patients and other doctors, and
was even able to explain this complicated syndrome to members
of the San Diego press. He is a tremendous asset to
endocrinology and to California.
It is imperative that Dr. Chang's research, and that of his
colleagues searching for the cause and treatment of PCOS,
continue to be supported by the NIH until we understand the
disease and have an answer for every single woman that
suffers from it.
With Best Regards,
Corrina P. Smith,
Dir. of Media Relations.
____
University of California, San Diego,
La Jolla, CA, June 12, 2000.
Hon. Randy Duke Cunningham,
House of Representatives,
Washington, DC.
Dear Duke, I am writing to urge you and your colleagues to
support an increase in funding for the NIH for FY2001 that
will keep us on track for doubling in five years. In spite of
our continued and spectacular recent progress in the fight
against disease, too many of our friends and loved-ones die
prematurely or suffer needlessly from diseases that we could
defeat if our research efforts could proceed more swiftly.
This year alone, I have already lost one dear friend to a
premature death from cancer, and several other friends are
literally in a fight for their lives. I have also received
many phone calls and letters from people afflicted with
presently incurable diseases, but where research holds hope
for treatment in the not too distant future. Better and
faster biomedical research is clearly the best answer for
these people. It is only by understanding fully the cellular
and molecular basis for disease that we can then develop
effective therapeutic strategies.
As you know, the House and Senate have been working toward
the goal of the doubling of NIH by the year 2003. Congress
has provided the necessity 15% increases over each of the
past two years to meet this important goal. For FY2001,
Congress must provide an increase of $2.7 billion in order to
reach the doubling goal. These funds are critical for our
continued rapid progress in the battle against cancer,
diabetes, ALS, Alzheimer's and other diseases affecting
millions of Americans.
I know that you share my belief that biomedical research
and our fight against disease is one of our most important
national priorities. I look forward to working together with
you in the future on this important battle.
Sincerely,
Lawrence S.B. Goldstein, Ph. D.
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, as well as the distinguished chairman of the Labor-HHS-Education
Appropriations Subcommittee, Mr. Porter, for his work and dedication in
support of biomedical research at the National Institutes of
[[Page H7085]]
Health (NIH). I believe it is essential that Congress move forward in
its commitment to double the research budget at the NIH. Currently,
scientists at the NIH are developing cutting-edge treatments for
hundreds of diseases, including cancer, Alzheimer's, and diabetes.
Increased funding for medical research and development will allow
millions of Americans to lead healthier lives. I, therefore, rise in
support of efforts to provide a 15% increase for NIH in FY2001. This
increase will mark the third installment of the plan to double the NIH
budget over a period of five years.
Each and every day, researchers at the NIH succeed in making
important discoveries about the human body and the diseases that may
effect it. These scientists work tirelessly to develop cutting-edge
technologies that push the envelope of human capacity.
For FY2001, the NIH have developed four critical initiatives. These
include: (1) Genetic Medicine--this involve the mapping of the human
genome and the subsequent gene therapy. Advances in the treatment of
cancer, chronic illness, and infectious disease may be possible through
this work; (2) Clinical Research--this initiatives reinforces the goal
of turning the results of laboratory research into treatment for
patients; (3) Fostering Interdisciplinary Research; and (4) Eliminating
Health Disparities. These four areas of scientific research present
incredible opportunities that have the promise to generate tremendous
benefits in the future. Providing increased funding for biomedical
research today will allow millions of Americans to lead healthier lives
tomorrow.
With this in mind, I urge each of my colleagues to support funding
the full 15% budget increase for the National Institutes of Health.
Mr. BILIRAKIS. Mr. 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, and as a
member of the Congressional Biomedical Research Caucus, 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 world'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 predicted 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 2000 omnibus appropriations law provided $17.8
billion for the NIH--an increase of $2.2 billion or 14 percent over the
previous fiscal year. This increase represents a sizable down payment
toward the goal of doubling its funding over 5 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.
Mr. 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. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to join my colleagues on both
sides of the aisle to talk about the importance of doubling the funding
for the National Institutes of Health over the next 5 years. As we all
know, we have already made two down payments on this goal, first in
1999 and again in 2000. Unfortunately, last month the House approved a
Labor-HHS-Education bill which significantly backtracks from our
commitment. We must insist on a bipartisan basis that this serious
underfunding is corrected in conference.
I support full funding for the NIH on behalf of all of my
constituents who struggle with illnesses that we do not fully
understand. I know, as they do, that the work of NIH-funded scientists
offers their best hope for a cure. At the same time, each year NIH
researchers uncover new information which helps doctors better treat
patients with heart disease, cancer, diabetes, mental illness, and many
other terrible diseases.
The National Institutes of Health fund well over a third of all
biomedical research in the United States. But NIH's role goes well
beyond that, because NIH is the primary funder of all basic research.
Basic research, which is generally focused on discovering new
scientific principles, often cannot be patented and is therefore not
appealing to for-profit companies. But basic research provides the
building blocks on which new treatments and cures are built. Of the 21
most important medications introduced between 1965 and 1992, 15 were
developed using tools from federally funded research. Seven were
directly developed by government-funded researchers.
One of these exciting new drugs, Cisplatin, was developed by
researchers in my home State at Michigan State University. Working with
NIH's National Cancer Institute, biophysicist Barnett Rosenberg
developed Cisplatin, an anti-cancer drug which cures sixty to sixty-
five percent of testicular cancer cases and reduces risk of death by
fifty percent when used to treat cervical cancer. Without NIH's
expertise and resources, Dr. Rosenberg might not have been able to
complete the pharmacology, toxicology, and clinical trials needed to
get this drug to the cancer patients who need it.
Each year that we increase funding for NIH, we make possible more
discoveries like this and we make sure that the public benefits from
those discoveries. Currently, the economic cost of illness in the
United States is estimated at about $3 trillion. An annual
appropriation of $16 billion--less than 1 percent of the Federal
budget--is a small price to pay to maintain NIH's strength in
controlling and curing disease. I hope that all of my colleagues will
join with me and the other members of the Congressional Biomedical
Caucus in supporting full funding for the NIH and medical research.
Mrs. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Speaker, I join my colleagues in
support of doubling the NIH budget for fiscal year 2001.
I thank my colleague George Gekas for organizing this special order.
This is one budget that affects every single American. Whether it is
diabetes, Alzheimer's, cancer, or safe childbirth, the NIH is there as
a shining star to protect our Nation and help us understand and treat
dreaded diseases.
One of the diseases that NIH researchers feel could be cured in a
matter of years is Parkinson's disease. I am proud to be the founder
and co-chair of the Congressional Group on Parkinson's Disease with my
friend and colleague Fred Upton. We are so close to a cure for this
disease.
Leading scientists describe Parkinson's as the most curable
neurological disorder. Breakthrough therapy or--perhaps a cure--is
expected within a decade. When have researchers ever said that they
think they can cure a disease in 10 years?
I would like to focus my remarks tonight on the importance of giving
NIH the largest increase possible. Specifically, I have been advocating
for $71.4 million to implement NIH's Parkinson's Disease Research
Agenda. During last year's appropriations debate, we were successful in
including language to support the development of this research agenda
for Parkinson's disease.
It truly is a roadmap for what needs to be done in the next 5 years
to beg to a cure. I have spearheaded a letter to the conferees asking
for the $71.4 million needed in the first year to enact this research
agenda. I am very hopeful that we will get this money in the budget
this year. But if we don't, I will introduce legislation requiring this
plan be funded in its entirety.
Finally, I just want to mention that I am anxiously awaiting the
release of the final guidelines on stem cell research. We worked hard
in Congress this year to not let stem cell research get politicized. We
stood firm that Parkinson's disease--along with diabetes, ALS, and a
host of other diseases--must not be held hostage to extremists in
Congress. I will continue to work for prompt implementation of this
critical research when the guidelines are finalized. I thank my
colleagues again for organizing this special order.
Mr. GEKAS. Mr. Speaker, reluctantly, because I am having a good time
here, reluctantly, I am looking around, I see no other recourse except
to yield back the balance of my time.
____________________