[Congressional Record Volume 159, Number 175 (Wednesday, December 11, 2013)]
[House]
[Pages H7675-H7681]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
THE DECLINE IN U.S. RESEARCH
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the Speaker's announced policy of
January 3, 2013, the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Speier) is
recognized for 60 minutes as the designee of the minority leader.
Ms. SPEIER. Mr. Speaker, tonight we are going to discuss the National
Institutes of Health.
In many respects, the National Institutes of Health is the goose that
keeps laying the golden eggs, the golden eggs that help cure many of
the maladies that many Americans suffer from, the goose that lays the
golden eggs that create jobs, the goose that lays the golden eggs that
help us bring down the cost of health care. But we are at the brink, we
are at the tipping point of killing the goose that lays the golden
eggs.
Let's put it in perspective. Not so long ago, then-President George
Bush was part of a bipartisan effort to double the funding for the
National Institutes of Health. It was $21 billion. Doubling of the
resources for the NIH was extraordinary and received with great fanfare
and appreciation because there was so much that the researchers were
ready to do with that money.
What have we done since then? Since then, in 2003 dollars, we have
seen a gross decline in the money to fund the National Institutes of
Health. Now it is down to the equivalent of $17 billion. So for the
next hour, we are going to talk about what that means to every American
who is suffering from a cancer, for every American that is suffering
with a chronic disease like diabetes, for every American who is
suffering from Alzheimer's and whose family is trying to cope with it.
Former Republican Senator and Majority Leader Bill Frist recently
wrote:
When Alzheimer's is cured, when HIV is cured, when MS is
cured, I want it to be America that discovers the
breakthroughs and shares it with the world.
I agree with Dr. Frist. I want to see that happen too. I would like
to think that every Member in this House wants to see that too, but it
is not going to happen if we keep starving the goose that lays the
golden eggs.
Let me read you another quote:
Whenever you hear about a research breakthrough in anything
to do with cancer, diabetes, heart disease, HIV/AIDS,
influenza, whatever, in the United States, it's extremely
likely that NIH supported that effort.
That was Dr. Francis Collins, head of the National Institutes of
Health who made that statement. He also doesn't mince words. Recently,
in response to sequester cuts to the NIH budget, he said:
I think we'll no longer be the world leader in the
production of science, technology, and innovation. You can't
look at the curves and say, Oh, well, it'll be fine, if we
stay on this track. It will not be. China is coming up so
fast, they are so convinced that this is their pathway
towards world leadership; they're not going to slow down.
He recently recounted a trip that he took to China in 2011 where he
was taken on a tour of a former shoe factory. You need to know a little
bit about the history of Dr. Francis Collins. He is called the ``father
of the human genome project.'' He and a number of other scientists are
responsible for absolutely unlocking DNA sequencing. So he was invited
to China to see what they were doing.
He was taken to this old shoe factory, except it is not a shoe
factory anymore. Inside that factory were 3,000 scientists who were
focused on sequencing the human genome and the medical and economic
potential of this technology. In fact, the capacity at that one factory
is more than all of the genome sequencing centers in the United States.
Dr. Collins said to me with great sadness, Within 3 to 5 years, China
will eclipse us.
Mind you, we have invested billions and billions of dollars in
unlocking the human genome with the intent of seeing great strides
made; but we are on the verge, we are at the tipping point of seeing
this all come to a screeching halt if we continue to ignore the fact
that we are starving the NIH.
Here is an interesting chart. This shows how much R&D spending is
going on around the world. China from 2012 to 2013 had an increase of
15 percent.
{time} 1745
Germany, up 5 percent, Japan up 5 percent, South Korea up 5 percent,
Canada down 3 percent, the United States down 5 percent.
This says it all. If we don't want to see the outsourcing of medicine
in this country, the outsourcing of science in this country, we have
got a huge wake-up call that we must listen to.
[[Page H7676]]
I am joined this evening by my good friend from San Diego, Scott
Peters, who I want to engage with him and have him speak a little bit
to this issue as well. I yield to the gentleman from California (Mr.
Peters).
Mr. PETERS of California. Thank you, Ms. Speier. I would like to
thank you, my colleague from California, for organizing this discussion
and for your continued efforts to end the assault on NIH funding.
Mr. Speaker, for decades, our country has been at the forefront of
scientific discovery. We have had the friendliest atmosphere for
scientists to do their work, for innovators to start their new
ventures, and for universities to invest in research laboratories.
We are in danger of losing that competitive advantage, and the
across-the-board sequester cuts, which I adamantly opposed during my
time here, is only amplifying the decline.
Now, instead of supporting and promoting our country's robust backing
for scientific and health research, we are undercutting it through
congressional gridlock and government shutdowns.
This inability to find bipartisan agreement has undoubtedly harmed
our national reputation and limits our ability to bring the best and
brightest here from around the world.
Earlier this year, I toured the National Institutes of Health in
Bethesda to visit some of their labs, to meet with patients and hear
from its director, Dr. Francis Collins, about the work that NIH does
and how the sequester has affected them.
Dr. Collins, as Ms. Speier said, has been a constant voice against
the sequester and has vocalized the impact it has had on the ability of
NIH to invest in necessary research and grants. Just this year, more
than 700 grants were cut and the agency was forced to pare down its
operations by $1.5 billion.
Dr. Collins told Sam Stein of the Huffington Post on the 10-year
outlook, should sequester not end, and I quote, I think we may have
just heard this quote:
I think we will no longer be the world leader in the
production of science, technology, and innovation.
As the largest funder of biomedical research in the world, the NIH is
not only a significant driver of research and innovation, leading to
improvements in quality of life and better patient care, but it also
drives job creation in related fields.
In 2011, more than 400,000 jobs and $62 billion of economic activity
came from NIH research funding. And on a health level, advances from
NIH research can have enormous economic benefit for the global economy.
A 1 percent reduction in cancer deaths has $500 billion in economic
value. Imagine what the power would be of delaying the onset of chronic
diseases or finding cures to various types of cancer.
Importantly, NIH is also a significant funder of research
universities across the country through its competitive grants.
According to NIH documents, more than 80 percent of their budget is
awarded to our country's universities and institutes, including $884
million in grants to San Diego institutions just in 2012.
In the last fiscal year, institutions in my district received more
than 1,300 NIH grants. UC San Diego received almost $400 million
through 802 grants in 2012 alone, supporting thousands of jobs in the
San Diego region, and advancing our local innovation economy.
San Diego, depending on how you calculate it, is either the second or
third largest life science cluster in the country. These companies and
research institutions make up approximately one-third of San Diego's
regional economy, generating more than 200,000 jobs.
Nationwide, life sciences companies support more than 7 million jobs,
adding $69 billion in activity to our national economy.
Locally, Amplyx Pharmaceuticals received more than $1.5 million in
NIH grants to research and develop new drugs to fight functional
infections, and Digital Proteomics received a grant to research
antibodies that target specific antigens, leading to better treatments
for numerous diseases.
Other examples are the La Jolla Institute for Allergy and Immunology,
where they are researching breakthrough vaccines to some of the world's
most damaging immune diseases, including type 1 diabetes and various
types of cancer, and the Veterans Medical Research Foundation, where
studies on PTSD and brain imaging are underway to better understand the
impact of violence and conflict on the body and brain. These
institutions have received numerous grants this year, totaling more
than $30 million.
As the last local example, in 2011, the Sanford-Burnham Medical
Research Institute received more than $70 million in NIH funding as
part of its research in metabolic rates and obesity. And Scripps
Research, also in San Diego, was awarded more than $200 million, part
of which went to their research on determining the structure of H1N1,
also known as the swine flu.
Mr. Speaker, there are countless examples across San Diego and the
country like the ones I just named where researchers are doing
groundbreaking research that has the potential to improve and extend
lives. That is good for our economy, for the American people, and for
the health of people across the world.
Clearly, not all scientific research can or should be funded by the
Federal Government or NIH. I wouldn't advocate that, nor my colleagues,
but I can't stand for continuing down the path of sequester, where we
cut support for the hardworking scientists and researchers who have
brought the United States to the front of the pack.
Later this week, I will be introducing a bill to extend the research
and development tax credit and lower the barrier to collaborative
research by encouraging collaboration and consortia. That is just one
piece of a larger discussion we have to have as we look to reform the
Tax Code so we incentivize innovators, entrepreneurs, and researchers
to start their endeavors here in the United States.
Sam Stein also reported in the Huffington Post in August that nearly
20 percent of scientists were contemplating moving their operations
overseas in part due to the sequester.
Other countries, China, Brazil, Germany, South Korea, Japan, Israel,
they are making investments in science and in research and development
that will threaten to leave us in the dust. Brain drain will be a
reality if we do not act quickly, a phenomena that would affect many
communities across the country in a very negative way, including my
own.
On first read, the budget deal proposed last night by Senator Murray
and Congressman Ryan, if it passes Congress later this week, would
allow the NIH more flexibility. It would potentially bring back some
funding to NIH and NSF over the next 2 years.
But let's be clear. Scientists, universities, and institutions are
still looking at unstable long-term budgets where sequester looms over
their head. And as lawmakers, we can't rest on this foolish sequester
cut until these cuts are fully reversed.
Again, I want to thank Ms. Speier for organizing this Special Order.
NIH funding and our Nation's overall support for basic scientific
research funding and the innovation economy are central to the economic
future of San Diego, of California, and of the entire country.
So I appreciate the opportunity to speak about ending the sequester,
about promoting and increasing funding for basic scientific research,
especially at NIH, and to a continued discussion here in Congress.
Ms. SPEIER. I thank the gentleman from California for his
articulation of what profound impacts it has certainly to the economy
of California, but also to the country. And the point he made about
having some kind of continuity and some certainty is critical to the
future of science in this country.
All we have to do is look back to what then-President George Bush did
when he and a bipartisan group of Members of Congress supported
doubling the budget for the NIH. That was a plan conceived of where it
was going to take place over 5 years. So there was continuity and there
was a sense of certainty that funding would be there for the near and
the long term.
So what does a moderate investment in NIH have as a catalyst, so to
speak, for economic growth?
Well, it is similar to what happened when the government invested in
the Internet and spurred dramatic growth in the previous decades. Where
would we be today if the government had not funded the research that
created the Internet?
[[Page H7677]]
Before ``google'' became a verb and we actually had to write and mail
letters to our friends and families and call the doctor to find out
about medical symptoms, before there was the Internet, there was, in
fact, the U.S. Government standing behind sound science and research.
So let's talk about what the NIH-funded research has meant for our
economy and for our lives.
The U.S. medical innovation sector employs 1 million Americans,
generates $84 billion in salaries annually, and exports $90 billion in
goods and services. The economic value of gains in the U.S. life
expectancy has been estimated at roughly $95 trillion from 1970 to
2000.
Now, that is looking at it from dollars and cents. But think about it
in terms of people's lives, extending their lives. That is what is
truly significant about this.
Now, since 1990, our Nation has gained about 1 year of longevity
every 6 years with the help of NIH research. Medical research, the most
advanced of which is often done here in the U.S., has saved millions of
lives over the last few decades. Death rates for heart disease have
dropped 65 percent over the last 60 years. That is a phenomenal number.
Deaths from heart disease have dropped 65 percent over the last 60
years, in part, in a great part, due to NIH funding.
The stent that we use so commonly now with heart disease, discovered,
created at NIH. Death rates from cancer down 12 percent, and death
rates from strokes down 34 percent, all because of medical research
going on right here in the United States, spurred by the help of NIH
funding.
I yield to my colleague from California, Eric Swalwell, to speak
about issues from his perspective.
Mr. SWALWELL of California. Thank you. And I do wish to thank Ms.
Speier, my neighbor across the San Mateo Bridge, for hosting this
Special Order hour on NIH funding.
This is not the first time I have had the opportunity to work with
Ms. Speier on these issues. In fact, in my short year in Congress, Ms.
Speier has hosted a number of different roundtables, informal and
formal, on the importance of NIH funding, and it is appropriate for her
district, having the birthplace of the United States' biotechnology
research.
But it is also important that we want the biotech research to stay in
the South San Francisco area, to stay in the East Bay area. And the
folks in the district who are making advances that will hopefully bend
the health care cost curves are counting on the United States Congress
to keep NIH funding from being cut. And actually, it is my hope that we
can increase it.
The cuts to the NIH mean that there are fewer opportunities right now
for biomedical research in the United States. It means that the decline
in funding is meaning that there are more promising paths outside the
United States for the promising minds who are putting their careers
into this research.
Faculty at top universities across the country are reporting cutting
labor spending by 7 percent and operating with skeleton staffs,
severely limiting job opportunities for any researcher that would want
to go into this field. Over 50 percent of university scientists
surveyed by the American Society for Biochemistry and Molecular Biology
said that they had a colleague who had lost their job or expects to
soon because of sequester cuts to NIH funding.
Also, in the United States, while we have been cutting funding, even
before the sequester, other countries are increasing and expanding up
their biomedical engineering sectors. A study this year found that
nearly 20 percent of scientists are considering moving their careers
abroad.
I have worked in my first year in Congress to support the NIH,
signing on to a letter circulated by Representative Roybal-Allard from
southern California supporting the NIH behavioral and social science
research.
I also signed on to a letter supported by Representatives Jan
Schakowsky and Bill Young supporting research at NIH, including through
the BRAIN Initiative and, finally, signed on to a letter to the
Appropriations Committee asking for support for funding of NIH.
This afternoon, I distributed a letter to my colleagues in the
bipartisan United Solutions Caucus, a freshman group of 30 Republican
and Democratic freshmen Members, and we are asking them to support this
new compromise budget, not because it does what we want, because I
would like to see NIH funding go up, but because it will roll back some
of the sequester cuts and restore some of the funding at NIH.
{time} 1800
In my district, Ms. Speier's district, and across California,
scientists are counting on us to restore the NIH funding, to actually
increase it with the long-term goal of using NIH funding--the
technology and the research that we can put in to bend the health care
cost curves. If we don't do that, we are going to continue to see the
discretionary spending in the United States continue to contract, and
nondiscretionary spending for Medicare costs and Medicaid costs will
continue to rise and balloon unless we get a hold by putting funding
and research dollars into what can control these diseases and ailments
that people in our districts are suffering from. And that only happens
by putting research dollars into NIH.
So, again, I want to thank the gentlelady across the San Mateo bridge
for her leadership on this issue.
Ms. SPEIER. I thank the gentleman from California. And I thank him
for recognizing so early in his career here in Congress the critical
need we have not only to support NIH but also the biotechnology
companies that are part and parcel of what California has become.
I am now joined by my distinguished colleague from California as
well, from the San Diego area, Susan Davis, who has much more to tell
us from her perspective and from her neck of the woods.
Mrs. DAVIS of California. I thank Congresswoman Speier for having
this Special Order today because the focus on NIH--you know, for so
many families, it actually comes down to care for their loved one. That
is what they know can happen as a result of proper granting at
appropriate levels for the NIH. Simply put, it is really vital to the
Nation's health. Without NIH funding, we will not see the breakthroughs
that we have seen in the past. NIH funding has led to cures. It has led
to treatments and preventions for truly some of the most horrific
diseases of our day afflicting everyone.
You know, diseases don't pick and choose between infants and seniors,
lower, middle and, we might say, upper class. They don't distinguish.
It is kind of equal opportunity for all, and that is why they have to
be targeted.
I have been a consistent coleader of the annual NIH appropriations
letter, requesting that the House appropriate full funding for the NIH,
and the return to full funding is absolutely essential.
NIH is unique in its function. We know that we have an active private
sector in our country. That is wonderful. And we certainly see that in
my community of San Diego, and my colleague Congressman Peters talked
about this earlier.
But the private sector simply does not have the ability to replace
public investment in the NIH. They don't have it. That kind of basic
research in science has to come from the United States Government. That
is where it has always come from. It has come from there when we even
look at the advancements that we have had in technology. And it
certainly makes a difference when we think about what we are doing and
what our friends, our allies around the world, and even some who are
not allies, are doing in this area. So we have got to be competitive.
It doesn't make any sense not to be.
We know that the NIH conducts and funds research that is just too
expensive--too expensive and too risky for private industry to
undertake a loan; and it has led us to major advancements in the
understanding of diseases like Alzheimer's, cancer, and Parkinson's.
The research coming out of and the grants coming from NIH are a huge
driver of our biotechnology industry; and that, in turn, contributes
heavily to our economy. Particularly in San Diego, we see that every
single day because that is where the hundreds of jobs, good-paying jobs
that allow people to really reach their potential and be purposeful
about their work, that is where that comes from.
NIH funding keeps researchers and graduate students employed doing
[[Page H7678]]
what they do best, investigating answers to our most complex medical
mysteries: cancer, premature birth, heart disease, and so on. I have
had these young scientists in my office talking about the fact that
they may not stay with the field, a field that they love, because they
can't get the grants. As we cut back, only the most experienced
scientists get those grants, and they are good. But our young people
may be even better, but we have got to give them a chance. We have got
to give them a chance to move forward and do that.
More than 80 percent of the NIH budget goes to over 300,000 research
personnel at more than 2,500 universities and research institutions
throughout the United States. So that is affecting a lot more than
California. It is affecting our colleagues around the country, and
maybe they don't even realize what an impact that has.
In San Diego, we are fortunate. We have got a lot of researchers, a
lot of scientists working hard; and they received $1.13 billion in NIH
funding in 2012. It has sparked major breakthroughs, brings jobs to the
region, and creates potential breakthroughs for millions around the
country.
So we are doing our part; but, tragically, the sequestration requires
NIH to cut 5 percent, or $1.55 billion, of its fiscal year 2013 budget.
NIH must apply the cut evenly across the board, the way things are
today. That is why we have to change that. I hope we will be able to do
that. NIH must apply the cut evenly across all programs, projects, and
activities which are primarily NIH institutes and centers. This means
that every area of medical research will be affected by that. Every
area. Not just the few that maybe we think don't need the help, but
every area. This is an irrational, backwards-thinking policy that will
harm millions of Americans--current patients and future ones--and cost
us millions in economic output.
As a result of the sequester and the slashing of NIH funding, already
approximately 640 fewer competitive research project grants will be
issued from what we have already done; approximately 750 fewer new
patients admitted to the NIH Clinical Center; no increase in stipends
for National Research Service Award recipients in 2013; and a delay in
medical progress.
You know, these medical breakthroughs that we have that benefit many
of our patients, many of our constituents--and I know I have friends
who have been the beneficiaries of some of those breakthroughs--they
just don't happen overnight. In almost all instances, those discoveries
result from years of incremental research to understand how diseases
start and progress. Even after the cause and the potential drug target
of disease is discovered, it takes an average of 13 years and $1
billion to develop a treatment for that target.
And what is difficult is that we know that a lot of people are
waiting for some of those clinical trials because you have to be
careful how that is done, and that takes time. It takes enough
patience, enough people willing to take that risk so that we can see
what happens over time. That is so important. And when we start
breaking this up, the whole process doesn't work.
Cuts to research are delaying progress in medical breakthroughs,
including development of better cancer drugs that zero in on a tumor
with fewer side effects; research on a universal flu vaccine that could
fight every strain of influenza without even needing a yearly shot; and
the prevention of debilitating chronic conditions that are costly to
society and delay development of more effective treatments for common
and rare diseases affecting millions of Americans.
And, as I mentioned earlier, we lose the promising, accomplished
scientists and researchers who are leaving the industry because of the
loss or inability to get grants.
We see that faculty at top universities across the country are
reporting cutting labor spending by 7 percent and operating with
skeleton staffs, severely limiting job opportunities for new
researchers. Over 50 percent of scientists surveyed by the American
Society for Biochemistry and Molecular Biology said they had a
colleague who has lost his job or expects to soon. Some of the
scientists are not coming back. They are going elsewhere. They are
going to those areas where we are competing because they can take a
more stable position outside of the research sector here in the United
States.
Do we want that? I don't think so. Quite simply, we are inflicting
decades of damage with the sequester policy that we have, and I hope
that that is going to change. It is not rational to do that. It is
cruel. It is backwards. It is insanity.
Let's join together and undo--what we can agree on in a bipartisan
basis--a foolish policy with an untold number of victims from every
State and every city and town in this country. Let us work together to
restore NIH funding immediately.
I thank my colleague.
Ms. SPEIER. Would the gentlelady entertain a question?
You were here when then-President Bush worked in a bipartisan fashion
with the House and the Senate, the Republicans and the Democrats, to
double the funding for NIH; and all we have seen since then is just an
absolute cliff decline in funding.
What happened then that isn't happening now? How can we reinstate
that kind of bipartisan sentiment?
Mrs. DAVIS of California. Well, I think we saw the leadership coming
from President Bush at that time. And because we also had--those of us
here on this side of the aisle, I think, in support, it was a
bipartisan effort. We saw that leadership coming from the top; and that
is what made a difference, because it was written into the budget.
Now, I must say, we weren't able to sustain some of that because of a
number of reasons. And we were fighting two wars and then had a number
of other issues that we needed to look at. But the reality is that that
was maybe unique in some ways because it really came from leadership at
the top. It was here, on our side of the House, and the House was
supportive. The Senate was supportive, and the President was
supportive. So it was really altogether. We don't see that leadership
right now from the other side of the aisle.
Ms. SPEIER. Well, I thank the gentlelady for her passionate and
clear-minded commentary on how critical this is for the entire country
and to all the lives that are at risk, should we not fund NIH at a
level that is going to come up with the next cure, the next blockbuster
drug that is going to save lives and create longevity for so many
Americans.
Mrs. DAVIS of California. I thank my colleague.
Ms. SPEIER. We are joined by the Congressman from northern
California, my colleague for many years, Congressman John Garamendi,
who is no stranger to this floor for Special Orders, I might add.
Mr. GARAMENDI. Representative Speier, thank you so very much. It is
good to be on the floor. I noticed thus far it has been Californians,
but this is far more than California. I see Chicago, Illinois, just
arrived, and we will pick up on that.
This is an issue that touches every single American. It is not a
California issue. I represent northern California, not far from the Bay
Area. The University of California/Davis campus is in my area. There
are major, major programs in research, not just with the National
Institutes of Health and the health issues that we are talking about
here, but agriculture, energy research, and on and on.
It turns out that that powerful engine of research is found in every
part of America. So listen out there, those of you that are watching.
This is not just a California issue. This is an American issue, and it
is an international issue because this particular National Institutes
of Health is dealing with the health of this entire world. Every person
in the world is, in one way or another, affected by the research done
by the National Institutes of Health, the funding that they, then,
provide to the 250 universities all around this Nation to deal with
illnesses, to deal with the human body and beyond.
For example, Davis, which was originally known as an agricultural
research institution and continues to do that, has discovered that,
interestingly enough, with the mad cow issue, there is a virus that can
be identified specifically with that illness so that for the cattle
industry, if some cow goes a little weird, you can find out whether it
has mad cow disease or it is just weird. And the very same thing
applies to the
[[Page H7679]]
human body. So this virus can be identified both in a cow--is it mad or
not? Well, it may just be angry but not crazed--and in a human.
Dealing with a very, very serious human issue and also a serious
economic issue for those of us in the cattle business. This is a big
thing. And what has happened--I love charts.
Ms. SPEIER. As do I.
Mr. GARAMENDI. I noticed, Representative Speier, that you love charts
too. So I borrowed this. I think you used it earlier today. This is
instructive.
You were just talking with the Representative, our friend from San
Diego, about the enormous increase that took place for the National
Institutes of Health during the George W. Bush conservative period of
time. It is right there, $21 billion; and then over the years, it began
to lose a little bit of its, I guess, interest. And then, as we went
into the late years of the George Bush administration, it dropped down
there. And then, of course, the great crash. A little bump here, which
I think is the stimulus bill, pushing more money into research at the
National Institutes of Health. And then we have seen, beginning in
2010, what has got to be one of the stupidest policies this Nation has
engaged in.
{time} 1815
It happened to be in 2011, when the House changed from Democratic
control to Republican control. We have seen a very steep decline--a
$1.5 billion reduction and annual decline in the National Institutes of
Health.
This same decline in the last 3 years is what is the result of the
austerity budgets that have been imposed upon us by the Republicans
trying to solve the national deficit by cutting Federal expenditures.
The entire European community has come to the conclusion that doesn't
work. Austerity budgeting does not increase economic growth. It has
caused stagnation. Certainly, in Europe we are beginning to see, I
think, a large part of the slow growth in the United States caused by
austerity budgets.
But specifically to the health care of Americans--our health, our
well-being--this is really serious. This means people are going to have
additional illnesses. You spoke earlier about some of those, like
diabetes. Diabetic research funding is cut through the National
Institutes of Health.
This one I really find frightening. I find this frightening because
this is very personal. My mother-in-law spent the last 2 years of her
life with a very, very serious case of Alzheimer's disease. She died in
a hospice program in our home. We, I suppose, were a very small part of
this because we took care of her. But right now we are spending $200
billion a year dealing with Alzheimer's.
We know that the population is going to increase and the elderly
population is going to skyrocket as the baby boomers move into their
later years. By 2050, it will be $1.2 trillion for Alzheimer's.
Is there anybody in America, any family in America, that is not
concerned about Alzheimer's? I don't know who they are. I know my
family is concerned about it. Every family that I know--and I know many
because I have been in public life for a long time and met perhaps
thousands, or hundreds of thousands, of people--and every single one of
them is concerned about Alzheimer's.
This is the financial side of it. The human side of it, I can tell
you, is serious. I can tell you the effect it has.
Ms. SPEIER. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. GARAMENDI. I would.
Ms. SPEIER. To your point, this $1.2 trillion in the year 2050 is
coming from all the taxpayers in this country. Because these are
Medicare patients. These are Medicaid patients. What would be really
stunning is to understand that if we were able to delay the onset or
progression of Alzheimer's by 6 years, it could produce an annual
savings of $51 billion in 2015, $126 billion in 2025, and a whopping
$444 billion--almost half a trillion dollars--in the year 2050, when
that cost is going to skyrocket to $1.2 trillion.
Mr. GARAMENDI. I am so glad you interrupted because that is an
extremely important fact.
Let's go back and look at that. In 2015, the savings are how much?
Ms. SPEIER. They are $51 billion.
Mr. GARAMENDI. They are $51 billion. We are going through this budget
exercise where, by the way, the sequestration cut continues, although
the across-the-board is eliminated. Half of the sequestration cut will
continue because of this budget, but we will be able to try to balance
out the prioritization.
But the total savings in 2015 is less than the $50 billion that you
have suggested could be saved if we could extend the onset and the
severity of Alzheimer's. We watched this very closely in my family. The
fact of the matter is that the National Institutes of Health's funding
for Alzheimer's is coming to understand the nature of Alzheimer's and,
therefore, how to deal with it.
Mr. WAXMAN. I thank you for yielding. Both of you are absolutely
right. It is so shortsighted to have us cut back on funding for the
National Institutes of Health and their research agenda. When you make
a cut in this area one year, it isn't like you can make it up the next
year. Researchers go on to other fields.
It is shortsighted to make these kinds of cuts.
I also wanted to comment on the fact that every day members of the
Safe Climate Caucus have come to this House floor and talked about the
shortsightedness of the leadership of the House of Representatives in
ignoring the science on climate change. And so every day we have had
speakers--the gentleman from California has been one of them--to just
use a minute to talk about this pressing issue.
Yesterday, The Wall Street Journal reported that China has released a
national blueprint for adapting to climate change. This follows the
International Energy Agency's recent prediction that China will install
more renewable energy over the next two decades than the U.S. and
Europe combined. And China has recently implemented a series of
regional cap-and-trade programs which are putting a price on carbon in
China.
According to the Chinese Government--and I thank the gentleman for
giving me this opportunity--climate change has already cost its people
tens of billions of dollars and potentially thousands of lives. These
developments in China are important because China is the world's
largest emitter of carbon pollution, and we are the second largest. Our
two countries need to play a leading role in addressing this global
threat.
President Obama is committed to global leadership. His climate action
plan calls for working with China and other nations to bend the post-
2020 emissions trajectory. He is bringing in John Podesta, an
experienced leader with a deep understanding of climate issues, to help
him succeed.
We in the House need to stop being part of the problem and start
being part of the solution. We need to start taking the climate threat
seriously and work to find solutions. If China can take action on
climate change, so can the U.S. If we don't, we will lose the race to
develop the clean energy technologies that will power the future.
Let's not be shortsighted. Let's invest in research--research to
protect our health and research to protect our planet.
I thank the gentleman.
Mr. GARAMENDI. Thank you, Mr. Waxman, for bringing up the leadership
that China has.
I notice that the leader of our hour talked about China's leadership
in another field.
Let me turn back to our leader, Representative Speier.
Ms. SPEIER. I just point out that China is eating our lunch, so to
speak.
This is just the funding from 2012 and 2013. We referenced this
earlier. And Congressman Waxman was talking about what they are doing
relative to climate change. Look what they are doing in R&D spending in
the last 2 years. It is up 15 percent. Germany, Japan, and South Korea
are up 5 percent. Where is the United States, Mr. Garamendi?
Mr. GARAMENDI. In the red, going down.
Ms. SPEIER. That is right: a cut of 5 percent. So another example of
how China is going to eclipse us in more ways than one. And those young
researchers that we have been talking about are going to be going to
China to do their research.
[[Page H7680]]
Mr. GARAMENDI. If I might just add to that, it is my understanding--
and I get this from the University of California-Davis--that they are
losing their new Ph.D.s to other countries, particularly to China and
to India, because those countries are not only increasing their total
research but they are also providing these very bright, innovative,
forward-thinking Ph.D.s with a full laboratory and all of the support
that they might need to continue to conduct their research not only on
the issue of health care but also in all of the sciences and
technologies, from high technology, energy, and so forth.
So we really need to get on it.
My final point is here twofold. First of all, if we are going to
build this economy, there are five things we have to do consistently
through time. And they require public investment.
First of all, education. You have got to have the best educated
workforce in the world.
Secondly, you have to have the best, most advanced research because
that is where the future is. That is where the future economic growth
will come from.
You need to make the things that come from that. You need to have the
infrastructure, and you need to think globally. We are not doing that.
The budgets that have been put forth by our colleagues on the
Republican side go exactly the other direction. They cut educational
funding, beginning with early childhood education. They cut the funding
for research. You see it here.
Tomorrow, we are going to take up the new budget. It continues to cut
research across the board, the National Institutes of Health probably
included. It goes on and on. Transportation, infrastructure--forget it,
there is no money for it.
We have got to turn that around. These are the fundamental
investments of economic growth and, more important, social justice.
Congresswoman Speier, thank you so much. You have been at this,
beating this drum. Don't stop. You stay with this. This is a message
that the American public has to understand. These are the investments
about our own personal health, our children's health, and our future
economic growth, as well as addressing worldwide problems.
Thank you so very much for what you are doing here and for loaning me
your charts.
Ms. SPEIER. I thank the gentleman from California for lending his
support and his articulation of this issue.
To his point about the jobs being lost, this year's sequester cuts
were estimated to result in the loss of more than 20,000 jobs and $3
billion in economic activity.
The three scientists who won the Nobel Prize for medicine this year
for their research on how cells swap proteins all received NIH funding
at some time during their careers. Nobel Prize winner Rothman said he
probably would not have started his research had NIH funding not been
available.
So that, I think, speaks volumes about how important NIH funding is
to young scientists.
I am now joined by my great friend, a great, passionate leader on so
many issues before this House, my colleague from Illinois (Ms.
Schakowsky).
Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Thank you. I want to thank Congresswoman Speier for
leading this really important debate.
We have been talking lately about how we are not going to be able to
compete for the economic development in research and biotechnology and
all the things that we do at the NIH. But I also want to show how
economically--with one of your charts--it really doesn't work for us
here at home as well.
Pretty much all you can see are the red lines, which are the costs
every year in the United States of common diseases.
As my colleague, Congressman Garamendi, pointed out, we have $203
billion a year that Alzheimer's costs our society as a whole. This is
cancer, $158 billion. We have hypertension, $131 billion; diabetes,
$116 billion; obesity, $109 billion; heart disease, $95.6 billion;
stroke, $18.8 billion, Parkinson's disease, $6 billion.
So it is really easy to see these red lines.
Teeny, tiny, and I think maybe the only one you can see here well is
the amount of money that we are spending to address these diseases. NIH
research funding and annual cost of care for major diseases in the U.S.
is what this chart is about.
We spend $5.5 billion on cancer research. On Alzheimer's disease it
has not even been a billion dollars. It is half a billion dollars for a
disease that costs $200 billion to our economy. And on and on.
The teeny, tiny blue lines are barely very visible of how much we are
actually investing in trying to deal with these diseases and diminish
the tremendous costs to families and costs to government through our
public health programs.
And so if we are smart investors, wise investors in how we can save
ourselves money, we would put money into this kind of research.
I just want to give an example from my district of lack of being
penny wise and pound foolish.
Northwestern University is developing one of the first major studies
to look at the impact of contaminants from superfund sites--those are
the most polluted sites in our country--on our reproductive health.
So Northwestern, which is in Evanston, Illinois, and I am proud to
say in my district--a constituent of mine--proposed a study to examine
the reproductive health impacts of exposure to metals, including zinc
and lead, that are present in the DePue superfund site in Illinois--a
very dirty site.
{time} 1830
Initially, in the fall of 2012, the Northwestern University Superfund
Research program, led by Dr. Teresa Woodruff, was awarded a positive
score with a good chance of receiving funding in response to the NIH
research application. Mind you, if we had been able to research this
particular Superfund contaminated site, it would have helped all over
the country where we have these kinds of contaminations.
Due to limited funding--due to the sequestration--in March of 2013,
Dr. Woodruff and her colleague were informally given the option to
receive a reduced amount for a reduced period of time since their
application was deemed, in fact, meritorious. After electing to accept
the reduced funding, the NIH informed the Northwestern University
Superfund Research program that, due to the sequester cuts, their
project would not be funded.
This lack of funding means Dr. Woodruff and her team are unable to
perform this critical research which would be helpful all over the
country to help us gain a better understanding of the reproductive
health risks of Superfund sites and to help us determine the best
practices for the future disposal of those toxic chemicals.
We are absolutely putting hands behind our backs in order to address
critical health issues that are facing our country. We are hamstringing
our ability to compete globally. We are hurting the health of Americans
and of future Americans in not funding the study of reproductive
health. It just makes no sense. It makes absolutely no sense to cut the
funding from the National Institutes of Health. It is hard to figure
out what that argument would be. You certainly can't say this is
frivolous spending, excessive spending.
So I really thank you for calling attention to the one of many ways
that the sequester has hurt our country, but it is a very significant
one. I appreciate your leadership.
Ms. SPEIER. You, too, were here in Congress during the Bush
administration when there was an extraordinary increase in the budget
for the NIH. The Republicans at that time recognized the value of
keeping the NIH robust in the funds that it had in order for it to do
cutting-edge research and move us forward.
What is it going to take? What was it like then that we don't have
today that might be able to enlighten us?
Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. There was some common sense on both sides of the
aisle of things that were essential investments for our country, that
it made sense from every angle at which you looked at this to make
those kinds of investments in the National Institutes of Health.
I think, right now, we are dealing with some of our colleagues across
the aisle who believe that government spending, regardless, is not a
smart investment, that the sequester cuts, which are meat-ax cuts
across the
[[Page H7681]]
board, do not distinguish in any way among the programs and that that
is a smart way to go.
The chairman of the Appropriations Committee, Congressman Rogers,
doesn't agree with that--the sequestration, he agrees, hurts us--but,
unfortunately, we don't have the same kind of bipartisan consensus. I
think Democrats see the wisdom of this and that we need help from our
colleagues. We had it then. We don't now.
Ms. SPEIER. I thank the gentlelady for her support and for her
involvement in this very critical issue.
I am really very grateful for the conversation we have had this hour
on the National Institutes of Health, but I am also anxious for the
millions of Americans across this country who are suffering with some
diabolical disease--some cancer--some disease that has no cure, whether
it is heart disease or glioblastomas or breast cancer. There are
millions of Americans right now who are dealing with stage 4 cancers,
who are holding on by just their fingernails, hoping against hope that
there will be some cure, some breakthrough drug, some clinical trial
they can participate in.
I think, for each and every one of us in this House, we have to think
about those people in our districts, and there are thousands of them in
each of our districts. If they knew that we were tying the hands of the
National Institutes of Health in doing that kind of cutting-edge
research, I think they would be so disappointed--more than
disappointed. They would be so angry that the lives of their loved ones
were in the offing.
I would like to continue with a brief discussion on our academic
health centers in the United States. They are, really, the pulse of so
much of the research that goes on when it comes to advanced medical
research. Many of them are funded through the NIH, as was mentioned
earlier--thousands of them across this country. I am going to tell you
about one such researcher. Her name is Dr. Valerie Weaver. She is a
professor in the UCSF Departments of Surgery, Anatomy and
Bioengineering and Therapeutic Sciences.
She does think outside the box. Her lab is investigating not only
tumors, themselves, found in patients afflicted with breast cancer,
pancreatic cancer, or brain cancer, but the neighborhood of tissues and
cells where those tumors take up residence. Unfortunately, her quest
for cutting-edge solutions to rapidly improve cancer treatments is
threatened by the sequestration of the NIH budget. Because of reduced
funding on her existing grants, Dr. Weaver has had to lay off three
existing personnel and has had to cancel three new hires. ``The only
people I can take are those with their own funding. Each year, you get
less and less, and you are asked to do more and more,'' she said, ``and
you try to get more creative, but wonder what you are supposed to do.''
As a scientist, she finds herself spending less time thinking about
how to battle cancer in the lab and more time struggling against
funding cuts. ``I spend way too much time writing grants. My grant
writing time has doubled,'' Weaver said, but added she still pushes to
move her research forward. ``I have to do some type of science every
day, at least once a day, even if it's only an hour. It should be the
other way around--1 hour of administration and 12 hours of science--but
it's not. That breaks my heart,'' she says.
For those suffering from the forms of cancer that Dr. Weaver hopes to
treat, she points out that time is of the essence. Patients with brain
tumors and pancreatic cancer, in particular, frequently live only a
short time after diagnosis. ``Some of the studies we're doing in the
next 4 to 5 years will have a direct impact on the clinic,'' she said.
``This could have huge implications for saving patients.''
Weaver also worries about the impact that sequestration is having on
the next generation of talented researchers. ``You think: you can't let
these people go under. If they go under, you lose them, because they
don't come back,'' she stated soberly.
In truth, there is so much at stake that we must recognize that the
sequestration of the NIH is killing the goose that lays the golden
egg--that saves American lives, that creates opportunities for great
trade, that provides us with, yet again, more and more and more
research that leads to more and more cures. Alzheimer's alone will
choke us--will choke the Medicare system--if we don't do more research
in that area.
So I want to close by saying that the funding of the NIH is not a
political issue. It is an economic and a medical imperative. Medical
research makes Americans and the rest of the world healthier. It grows
our economy, and it produces valuable jobs here at home. It is time for
us to take the shackles off the NIH, to restore the funding that was
there when George Bush was President and to regain the position that we
have had for so long in terms of fine medical research.
With that, Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
____________________