[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.

                          ____________________