[Congressional Record Volume 159, Number 110 (Monday, July 29, 2013)]
[Senate]
[Pages S5993-S5994]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                 NATIONAL INSTITUTES OF HEALTH FUNDING

  Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Mr. President, I rise today to discuss an issue that 
is vital for the future health and well-being of citizens in our 
country; that is, funding for medical research for the National 
Institutes of Health. Unfortunately, NIH funding, like many other 
important Federal priorities, is being impacted by the across-the-board 
spending cuts. As we all know, we want to see that budget go down, we 
want to see the debt reduced, but we have to do it in a sensible way, 
not with a hammer.
  Sequestration was never intended to be implemented and was supposed 
to bring Democrats and Republicans together to focus on smart solutions 
to reducing our debt.
  I am a supporter of the work of the debt commission. I believe there 
is a way we can bring down our debt in a significant way. But I do not 
think we meant to have sequestration implemented in the way it is being 
implemented and seeing the kind of cuts we are seeing. These cuts are 
creating headwinds against short-term economic growth, reducing access 
to important services, and threatening our Nation's leadership in areas 
such as medical research. Congress needs to take a broader, long-term 
view toward our debt and deficit. That is why I support the Senate 
budget which would replace the sequester with targeted spending cuts 
and additional revenue, reducing the deficit in a balanced way.
  I know Senator Murray, who heads up the Budget Committee, has been 
trying valiantly to get this budget to a conference committee, which is 
supported by the Democrats in the Senate and supported by Republicans 
such as Senator McCain and Senator Collins. We have been stopped every 
step of the way, but this should go through regular order, into a 
conference committee so we can work out these differences with the 
House and replace sequester with something that makes sense.
  Today I want to focus on the impact of sequestration on this 
particular area of the Federal budget; that is, medical research. It 
may not be the first thing you think of when you think about these cuts 
and what they mean, but I hope when you listen to my stories it brings 
out a whole new significance.
  In the last century we have made enormous strides through medical and 
scientific research to understand the world around us. This research 
has led to a greater understanding of the nature and cause of disease 
and spurred a new generation of therapies and intervention to treat 
diseases.
  Our country has been a leader in this era of scientific discovery, 
and we are responsible for developing many of the innovative therapies 
and scientific advances that have changed the face of science and given 
hope to millions of patients across the world. These advancements have 
been made possible by our commitment to funding research through the 
National Institutes of Health.
  Currently, the NIH is the largest source of medical research funding 
in the world. Through its 27 Institutes, NIH funds research to prevent, 
detect, better treat, and even cure fatal and debilitating diseases 
such as cancer, heart disease, stroke, Alzheimer's, arthritis, 
diabetes, and mental health issues. The Institutes also fund basic 
science which provides the foundation for future breakthroughs in all 
fields of scientific discovery.
  Researchers in my State tell me they cannot think of anything they do 
clinically that was not influenced by basic research made possible by 
NIH funding. Think of the advancements we have made. These clinical 
advancements are critical to improving health and saving the lives of 
millions of Americans.
  To truly understand the importance of NIH, I think it is important to 
understand the impact on our own people, so I want to share some of the 
ways NIH funding has had influence in my State on people, on people 
such as Jim from Edina, MN.
  Jim was 36 when he was diagnosed with an inoperable brain tumor in 
1998. He was a professional engineer. He had an MBA from Northwestern 
Kellogg School of Management and worked in the family's 56-year-old 
air-conditioning and heating business, Owens Companies, Inc. He had 
everything to live for. But when Jim was diagnosed, there were almost 
no treatment options beyond radical surgery and radiation, so Jim 
looked for other options.
  Over the course of the next 10 years he participated in multiple 
clinical trials and some seven treatments--all made possible by 
research grant funding. Jim passed away at age 46. But thanks to the 
clinical trials, he lived over 10 years, allowing his young son Max the 
chance to get to know his dad. He also was able to continue his 
lifelong athletic endeavors with a ride across the country with 
Livestrong in 2004 as part of the Tour of Hope, spreading the message 
of hope and survivorship.
  The clinical trials, however, did not just help Jim. This is the key 
part, Mr. President, whether you are from Connecticut or from 
Minnesota. One of the trials in which Jim participated proved so 
effective that it is now the standard treatment regimen for people who 
are diagnosed with the same cancer as Jim. That would not have been 
possible if Jim had not been willing to go through those treatments and 
if they had not been funded by NIH.
  Then there is Karen, a 48-year-old wife, mother of two teenagers, and 
a teacher. She was diagnosed with leukemia in August of 2005. With her 
type of leukemia, the prognosis is relatively good, and using the 
current treatments available she remained in remission until 2009. Then 
in the summer of 2009 she started feeling sick again and received news 
that the cancer had returned. Her only treatment option was a bone 
marrow transplant which had a 25-percent mortality rate. She and her 
husband visited with specialists and discovered that she had a mutation 
that did not respond to the current--at that time--frontline 
medication.
  That is when she learned about clinical trials. In January 2010 she 
began her clinical trial journey and has now been involved in two 
clinical trials. She responded well to the second clinical trial and 
has been in remission for over 2 years. Her kids are now 17 and 13, and 
she and her husband are preparing to send their oldest daughter off to 
college in the fall of 2014.
  NIH funding supports the research centers that make these stories 
like Jim's and Karen's possible. In Minnesota we have the Paul and 
Sheila Wellstone Muscular Dystrophy Center, which is supported by NIH 
funding. This center has 46 faculty members in 7 University of 
Minnesota colleges and schools and receives $6 million in annual 
funding from NIH.
  Together, these scientists are conducting over 10 active clinical 
research studies that are giving hope to parents and patients with 
muscular dystrophy. This facility believes science is more than just 
about the research. The researchers here have volunteered hundreds of 
thousands of hours helping to educate the people they serve and 
ensuring these families have access to support networks. All of this is 
made possible in part because of Federal investment in the NIH.

[[Page S5994]]

  These are inspiring stories, but supporting NIH is important for 
another reason--meeting the skyrocketing cost of treating chronic 
diseases. In total, today more than half of Americans are suffering 
from one or more chronic diseases. According to the Centers for Disease 
Control and Prevention, taken together these chronic diseases cause 7 
in 10 deaths and account for about 75 percent of the $2 trillion we 
spend on medical care. This year it is estimated that almost 1.7 
million people will be diagnosed with cancer, and almost 600,000 are 
projected to die from this devastating disease. That is approximately 
1,600 people a day.
  Everyone in this room knows someone who had cancer or has cancer now, 
and 26 million Americans are living with diabetes, with a new case 
diagnosed every 30 seconds. An estimated 5.2 million Americans are 
living with Alzheimer's disease, and we know this number will escalate 
rapidly in the coming years as the baby boom generation ages.
  The growing prevalence of chronic disease is having an impact not 
just on Americans' physical health but on our economy as well. In 2008 
cancer cost our country over $200 billion. A recent report on diabetes 
costs shows that the money spent on diabetes care has risen 41 percent, 
from $174 billion to $245 billion in the last 5 years, and Alzheimer's 
alone is expected to cost our country over $1 trillion by 2050.
  All of us as taxpayers help pay that bill because public programs 
such as Medicare and Medicaid cover a significant amount of the cost of 
care and treatment.
  If we had earlier interventions and treatments that delayed the onset 
of these diseases, we would be able to reduce spending significantly. 
Take Alzheimer's as an example.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader is recognized.

                          ____________________