Congressional Record, Volume 160 Issue 117 (Thursday, July 24, 2014)

[Congressional Record Volume 160, Number 117 (Thursday, July 24, 2014)]
[Senate]
[Pages S4905-S4908]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS

By Mrs. FEINSTEIN (for herself, Mr. Portman, and Mr. Begich):
S. 2653. A bill to amend the definition of ``homeless person'' under
the McKinney-Vento Homeless Assistance Act to include certain homeless
children and youth, and for other purposes; to the Committee on
Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs.
Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce bipartisan
legislation with my colleagues Senator Portman and Senator Begich that
would expand the definition of ``homeless'' used by the U.S. Department
of Housing and Urban Development, HUD, to ensure all homeless children
and families are eligible for existing Federal homeless assistance
programs.
According to the U.S. Department of Education, approximately 1.1
million children were homeless during the 2011-2012 school year; this
is a 24 percent increase from the 939,903 homeless students enrolled in
the 2009-2010 school year.
In California, nearly 250,000 children experienced homelessness last
year, up from 220,000 in 2010 and nearly four times the 65,000 homeless
children in the State in 2003.
Unfortunately, the numbers reported by the HUD ``Point-in-Time
Count'' fail to reflect these increasing numbers.
According to the 2012 HUD ``Point-in-Time Count,'' there were only
247,178 people counted as homeless in households that included
children, a fraction of the true number.
This is important because only those children counted by HUD are
eligible for vital homeless assistance programs. The rest of these
children and families are simply out of luck.
The Homeless Children and Youth Act of 2014 would expand the homeless
definition to allow HUD homeless assistance programs to serve extremely
vulnerable children and families, specifically those staying in motels
or in doubled up situations because they have nowhere else to go.
These families are especially susceptible to abuse and trafficking
because they are often not served by a case manager, and thus remain
hidden from potential social service providers.
As a result of the current narrow HUD definition, communities that
receive federal funding through the competitive application process are
unable to prioritize or direct resources to help these children and
families.
This bill would provide communities with the flexibility to use
federal funds to meet local priorities.
I would note that the bill comes at no cost to taxpayers and does not
impose any new mandates on service providers.
Finally, this legislation improves data collection transparency by
requiring HUD to report data on homeless individuals and families
currently recorded under the existing Homeless Management Information
System survey.
I am pleased that Senators Rob Portman and Mark Begich have joined me
as original cosponsors on this bill.-
Homelessness continues to plague our nation. If we fail to address
the needs of these children and families today, they will remain stuck
in a cycle of poverty and chronic homelessness.
It is our moral obligation to ensure that we do not erect more
barriers for these children and families to access services when they
are experiencing extreme hardship. I believe this bill is a commonsense
solution that will ensure that homeless families and children can
receive the help they need.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be
printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the text of the bill was ordered to be
printed in the Record, as follows:

S. 2653

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 ``Homeless Children and Youth
Act of 2014''.

SEC. 2. AMENDMENTS TO THE MCKINNEY-VENTO HOMELESS ASSISTANCE
ACT.

The McKinney-Vento Homeless Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 11301
et seq.) is amended--
(1) in section 103--
(A) in subsection (a)--
(i) in paragraph (5)(A)--

(I) by striking ``are sharing'' and all that follows
through ``charitable organizations,'';
(II) by striking ``14 days'' each place that term appears
and inserting ``30 days'';
(III) in clause (i), by inserting ``or'' after the
semicolon;
(IV) by striking clause (ii); and
(V) by redesignating clause (iii) as clause (ii); and

(ii) by amending paragraph (6) to read as follows:
``(6) unaccompanied youth and homeless families with
children and youth defined as homeless under other Federal
statutes who--
``(A) are certified as homeless by the director or designee
of a director of a program funded under any other Federal
statute; or
``(B) have been certified by a director or designee of a
director of a program funded under this Act or a director or
designee of a director of a public housing agency as lacking
a fixed, regular, and adequate nighttime residence, which
shall include--
``(i) temporarily sharing the housing of another person due
to loss of housing, economic hardship, or other similar
reason; or
``(ii) living in a room in a motel or hotel.''; and
(B) by adding at the end the following:
``(f) Other Definitions.--In this section--
``(1) the term `other Federal statute' has the meaning
given that term in section 401; and
``(2) the term `public housing agency' means an agency
described in section 3(b)(6) of the United States Housing Act
of 1937 (42 U.S.C. 1437a(b)(6)).'';
(2) in section 401--
(A) in paragraph (1)(C)--
(i) by striking clause (iv); and
(ii) by redesignating clauses (v), (vi), and (vii) as
clauses (iv), (v), and (vi);
(B) in paragraph (7)--
(i) by striking ``Federal statute other than this
subtitle'' and inserting ``other Federal statute''; and
(ii) by inserting ``of'' before ``this Act'';
(C) by redesignating paragraphs (14) through (33) as
paragraphs (15) through (34), respectively; and
(D) by adding after paragraph (13) the following:
``(14) Other federal statute.--The term `other Federal
statute' includes--
``(A) the Runaway and Homeless Youth Act (42 U.S.C. 5701 et
seq.);
``(B) the Head Start Act (42 U.S.C. 9831 et seq.);
``(C) subtitle N of the Violence Against Women Act of 1994
(42 U.S.C. 14043e et seq.);
``(D) section 330(h) of the Public Health Service Act (42
U.S.C. 254b(h));
``(E) section 17 of the Child Nutrition Act of 1966 (42
U.S.C. 1786);
``(F) the Higher Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 1001 et
seq.); and
``(G) subtitle B of title VII of this Act.'';
(3) by inserting after section 408 the following:

``SEC. 409. AVAILABILITY OF HMIS REPORT.

``(a) In General.--The information provided to the
Secretary under section 402(f)(3) shall be made publically
available on the Internet website of the Department of
Housing and Urban Development in aggregate, non-personally
identifying reports.
``(b) Required Data.--Each report made publically available
under subsection (a) shall be updated on at least an annual
basis and shall include--
``(1) a cumulative count of the number of individuals and
families experiencing homelessness;
``(2) a cumulative assessment of the patterns of assistance
provided under subtitles

[[Page S4906]]

B and C for the each geographic area involved; and
``(3) a count of the number of individuals and families
experiencing homelessness that are documented through the
HMIS by each collaborative applicant.'';
(4) in section 422--
(A) in subsection (a)--
(i) by striking ``The Secretary'' and inserting the
following:
``(1) In general.--The Secretary''; and
(ii) by adding at the end the following:
``(2) Restriction.--In awarding grants under paragraph (1),
the Secretary may not consider or prioritize the specific
homeless populations intended to be served by the applicant
if the applicant demonstrates that the project--
``(A) would meet the priorities identified in the plan
submitted under section 427(b)(1)(B); and
``(B) is cost-effective in meeting the overall goals and
objectives identified in that plan.''; and
(B) by striking subsection (j);
(5) in section 424(d), by striking paragraph (5);
(6) in section 427(b)--
(A) in paragraph (1)--
(i) in subparagraph (A)--

(I) in clause (vi), by adding ``and'' at the end;
(II) in clause (vii), by striking ``and'' at the end; and
(III) by striking clause (viii);

(ii) in subparagraph (B)--

(I) in clause (iii), by adding ``and'' at the end;
(II) in clause (iv)(VI), by striking ``and'' at the end;
and
(III) by striking clause (v);

(iii) in subparagraph (E), by adding ``and'' at the end;
(iv) by striking subparagraph (F); and
(v) by redesignating subparagraph (G) as subparagraph (F);
and
(B) by striking paragraph (3); and
(7) by amending section 433 to read as follows:

``SEC. 433. REPORTS TO CONGRESS.

``(a) In General.--The Secretary shall submit to Congress
an annual report, which shall--
``(1) summarize the activities carried out under this
subtitle and set forth the findings, conclusions, and
recommendations of the Secretary as a result of the
activities; and
``(2) include, for the year preceding the date on which the
report is submitted--
``(A) data required to be made publically available in the
report under section 409; and
``(B) data on programs funded under any other Federal
statute, as such term is defined in section 401.
``(b) Timing.--A report under subsection (a) shall be
submitted not later than 4 months after the end of each
fiscal year.''.
______

By Mr. HARKIN:
S. 2658. A bill to prioritize funding for the National Institutes of
Health to discover treatments and cures, to maintain global leadership
in medical innovation, and to restore the purchasing power the NIH had
after the historic doubling campaign that ended in fiscal year 2003; to
the Committee on the Budget.
Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, last year, 2013, marked the 10-year
anniversary of the completion of the historic campaign to double
funding for the National Institutes of Health.
Beginning in fiscal year 1998, I worked with Congressman John Porter
and Senator Arlen Specter in our leadership roles on the Appropriations
Subcommittee on Labor, Health and Human Services, Education, and
Related Agencies. In that year, 1998, funding for the National
Institutes of Health was $13 billion. By fiscal year 2003, we had
increased NIH funding to $27 billion. We doubled funding in 5 years. We
said we were, and we laid out a plan under both Republican and
Democratic administrations and we got it done. That was a historic
milestone for biomedical research in the United States.
Truly, increasing our Nation's investment in NIH was a bold statement
of our Nation's commitment to retaining our standing as the undisputed
world leader in biomedical research, and we have reaped extraordinary
benefits from that investment. We reaped benefits in terms of new
treatments, new diagnostics, and the new jobs and economic growth that
biomedical research brings.
But where does NIH stand today, 10 years after the historic doubling
of funding for biomedical research, which did so much to advance
America's economy and our standing in the world? Where are we today?
Sadly, as this chart illustrates, we have been falling behind.
So here we are. We got back up to where we should be by doubling the
funding. Since that time, it has basically leveled off. We are now
short about $8 billion below where we would be if we had just kept up
with inflation. So NIH has lost about 20 percent of its purchasing
power from that time. Success rates for applicants fell from the
traditional range of 25 to 35 percent to just 16 percent last year,
2013. Promising research was not funded, and many young scientists had
no choice but to find other occupations. This has had profoundly
negative consequences. Our biomedical pipeline is clearly showing the
negative effects.
So today I am introducing a bill that allows us to find common
ground, on a bipartisan basis, to jump-start our reinvestment in the
National Institutes of Health and ensure America's leadership in
biomedical research.
Republicans and Democrats may disagree on what level of revenue is
appropriate. We disagree about the value of investing in education in
order to build a stronger workforce. But I have yet to hear any Senator
who disagrees with my view that Federal investments in biomedical
research are good for the economy and good for our country.
As the chairman of the appropriations subcommittee that funds NIH, I
get letters from Senators every year requesting support for research
programs, so I can speak with authority when I say the majority of
Senators--from both parties--believe we should be investing more
strongly in NIH. That is exactly the aim of the bill I am introducing
today. The Accelerating Biomedical Research Act makes NIH a priority in
our national budget process by creating a budget cap adjustment for the
National Institutes of Health. This bill will put a plan in place for
the Appropriations Committee to reverse the 10-year retrenchment in
biomedical research funding over the remaining years of the Budget
Control Act.
Importantly, the Accelerating Biomedical Research Act is not an
appropriation. It is not a mandatory trust fund. It is not a tax
credit. The bill that I am introducing does not score for CBO purposes
because it does not spend any money now. I am always hearing that we
should have a robust debate on the budget and our spending priorities
as a country. So this bill starts that debate. I invite Senators to
cosponsor this bill if they believe, as I do, that we should change our
budget to allow for biomedical research to grow in the United States.
I ask unanimous consent that a list of the organizations who have
endorsed this bill be entered into the Record at the end of my remarks.
I believe we must do this. I believe we must do this to save lives
and to improve the health of the American people. I also believe we
must do it because we know that investing in biomedical research
creates jobs and spurs the economy.
Some may say that changing the budget allows for more spending so it
should be offset by cuts to other programs. Well, to that I say there
can be little doubt that NIH funding abundantly pays for itself in
expanded economic activity. Respected economists have studied this, and
they have estimated that each dollar of investment in the National
Institutes of Health generates anywhere from $1.80 to $3.20 in economic
output.

Let me take just one vivid example of the payoffs from our Federal
investments in biomedical research.
In 2003 NIH completed the Human Genome Project started about 13 years
earlier. In total, the Federal Government invested $3.4 billion of
taxpayers' money in sequencing the human genome. That project has had a
truly staggering economic impact. As of 2012, it had generated $965
billion in economic activity, personal income exceeding $293 billion,
and more than 4.3 million job-years of employment. For every dollar our
government spent on the Human Genome Project, America has reaped $178
in economic benefits--for every dollar we invest. And this is just the
economic impact. The positive impact in terms of cures discovered and
lives saved is incalculable.
But research doesn't have to launch an entire industry to contribute
significantly to our economy as the Human Genome Project did. I will
give an example from my home State.
Dr. Joseph Walder, a researcher at the University of Iowa, received a
$5.7 million research grant many years ago from the National Heart,
Lung, and Blood Institute. In the course of his research, he developed
synthetic DNA and RNA technology. Realizing that

[[Page S4907]]

this was a valuable research tool, Dr. Walder launched a company called
Integrated DNA Technologies in 1987. Out of a $5.7 million Federal
investment came a company with $100 million in annual sales, employing
650 people.
Now, if the creation of all of these companies and products and jobs
isn't enough of a reason to expect that this bill will boost the
economy and lower the Federal deficit, I have another reason. One of
the principal missions of biomedical research is to reduce and improve
chronic diseases and health conditions that are a major factor in
driving deficit spending. In 2006, economists found that a future 1-
percent reduction in mortality rates from cancer would save $500
billion to current and future Americans. A cure for cancer was
estimated to save $50 trillion to Americans in future expenditures.
Recent estimates indicate the economic cost of Alzheimer's disease is
over $200 billion a year. That is going to rise to over $1 trillion a
year by 2050 unless a prevention or cure is found. The Centers for
Disease Control and Prevention reports that annual costs from
undiagnosed diabetes are about $245 billion a year. And a recent study
projects that, by 2030, nearly 45 percent of the United States
population will face some form of cardiovascular disease, costing a
total of $1.2 trillion between now and 2030.
I could go on and on with examples and studies, but no matter what I
say, some will say we can't afford this bill. But we can't afford not
to do this. The status quo confronts our Nation with what those in the
military call a ``clear and present danger.''
The United States has been the global leader in research, but that
standing is now in jeopardy. While the United States has been
retrenching in biomedical research, other countries, including China,
India, and Singapore, have been redoubling their investments and
surging forward. Of the 10 leading countries in the field of scientific
research, the United States is the only one that has reduced its
investment in scientific research.
Let me repeat that. Of the 10 leading countries in the world in the
field of scientific research, the United States is the only one that
has reduced its investment in scientific research.
According to an NIH study:

Other countries are investing more in biomedical research
relative to the size of their economies. When it comes to
government funding for pharmaceutical industry-performed
research, Korea's government provides seven times more
funding as a share of GDP than does the United States, while
Singapore and Taiwan provide five and three times as much,
respectively. France and the United Kingdom also provide more
than the US, as a share of their economies.

This chart here vividly shows what has been happening in research
investment just since 2011 as a percent of GDP: China, Brazil, South
Korea, India, UK, France, Japan, Germany, and Russia are increasing. In
the United States we are going in the wrong direction.
Dr. Francis Collins, Director of NIH, testified before my
subcommittee about the ambitious investments of America's rivals. He
said this:

China has made policy changes to invest heavily in the life
sciences industry, moving [China] closer to becoming a world
leader in science and technology by the end of the decade.
Over the past decade, Singapore has also pursued a
prominent role as a global leader in the life sciences.
For example, their pharmaceutical industry R&D funding was
five times greater than that of the United States in 2009
as a share of GDP.

I will say one more thing about China's ambitious plans. China has
identified biotechnology as one of seven key ``strategic and emerging
pillar'' industries. They have pledged to invest $308.5 billion in
biotechnology over the next 5 years. By contrast, the U.S. investment
over the same period of time will be roughly $160 billion, just about
half of what China is doing.
It is a shocking and disturbing fact that, if current trends
continue, the U.S. Government's investment in life sciences research as
a share of GDP will soon be about one quarter of what China is doing.
According to the NIH, China already has more gene sequencing capacity
than the entire United States, and they have about one third of global
capacity.
Imagine that. We are the ones that mapped and sequenced the entire
human genome. We are the ones that put the $3.6 billion into that. We
reaped some rewards and benefits--as I just said--but right now China
has more gene sequencing capacity than we do. That, again, illustrates
my point that they are moving ahead and we have sort of slowed down and
stopped, resting on our laurels, so to speak.
The budget caps enacted by Congress are forcing disinvestments in a
whole range of priorities that are the key to our Nation's prosperity.
These disinvestments are having devastating impacts across our
economy--lower growth and fewer jobs.
Again, I appreciate there are honest disagreements about the
appropriate levels of investment in education, job training, and other
domestic priorities. But from countless conversations with Senators
from both parties, there seems to be one area of broad agreement, and
that is that we should invest robustly in the National Institutes of
Health. And that is why I have introduced this bill today. It is time
for us on a bipartisan basis to reverse this erosion of support for
biomedical research to ensure America's standing as a world leader in
this field. This is what we are talking about, a discretionary cap
adjustment. That is what our bill would do to allow NIH to make up for
lost ground.

Here is what is happening. We are about $8 billion behind. By
providing a budget cap adjustment we can close this gap by 2021 and
bring it up to where it should be if we could allow for increases due
to inflation. Quite frankly, I guess I could argue we have to do even
more than that, but this is the minimum we ought to do, a minimum to
close the gap in biomedical research.
We have to do this for the health of our people, our economy, and our
Federal budget. So I urge my colleagues to join in supporting the
Accelerating Biomedical Research Act.
I yield the floor.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:

National Groups Supporting the Bill

AcademyHealth, Ad Hoc Group for Medical Research, Alliance
for Aging Research, Alzheimer's Association, Alzheimers North
Carolina, American Academy of Neurology, American Aging
Association, American Association for Cancer Research,
American Association for Long Term Care Nursing, American
Federation for Aging Research, American Geriatrics Society,
American Lung Association, American Thoracic Society,
American Cancer Society Cancer Action Network, American
College of Cardiology, American Diabetes Association,
American Heart Association, American Society for Pharmacology
& Experimental Therapeutics, American Society of Clinical
Oncology, amfAR, The Foundation for AIDS Research.
Association for Clinical and Translational Science,
Association of American Cancer Institutes, Association of
American Medical Colleges, Association of American
Universities, Association of Independent Research Institutes,
Association of Public and Land-grant Universities,
Association of Schools and Programs of Public Health,
Children's Cardiomyopathy Foundation, The Clinical Research
Forum, Coalition for Clinical and Translational Science,
College on Problems of Drug Dependence, Cure Alliance for
Mental Illness, Cure Alzheimer's Fund, Dystonia Medical
Research Foundation, Epilepsy Foundation, Federation of
American Societies for Experimental Biology (FASEB), Friends
of the National Institute on Drug Abuse, GBS/CIDP Foundation
International, Gerontological Society of America,
Huntington's Disease Society of America.
Inspire, Interstitial Cystitis Association, Juvenile
Diabetes Research Foundation, Keep Memory Alive, LuMind
Foundation (formerly the Down Syndrome Research and Treatment
Foundation), Lupus Research Institute, The Marfan Foundation,
Melanoma Research Foundation, Memory Training Centers of
America, Mended Hearts, National Alliance on Mental Illness,
National Alopecia Areata Foundation, National Brain Tumor
Society, National Coalition for Cancer Research, National
Coalition for Heart and Stroke Research, National Down
Syndrome Society, NHLBI Constituency Group, National Stroke
Association.
National Task Group on Intellectual Disabilities and
Dementia Practices, NephCure Foundation, Neurofibromatosis
Network, in particular: Neurofibromatosis Inc., California;
Neurofibromatosis, Michigan; Neurofibromatosis Midwest;
Neurofibromatosis, Northeast; Texas Neurofibromatosis
Foundation; and Washington State Neurofibromatosis Families,
One Voice Against Cancer, OWL-The Voice of Women 40+,
Parkinson's Action Network, Pediatric Stroke Network,
Pulmonary Hypertension Association, ResearchAmerica!,
Scleroderma Foundation, Sleep Research Society, Society for
Neuroscience, Society of Toxicology, Sudden Arrhythmia Death
Syndromes Foundation, United for Medical Research,
USAgainstAlzheimer's.

Research Institutions Supporting the Bill

Arizona: Banner Alzheimer's Institute, Biodesign Research
Institute of Arizona.

[[Page S4908]]

California: Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, Salk Institute for
Biological Studies, Sanford-Burnham Medical Research
Institute, UC San Diego Moores Cancer Center, UCSF Helen
Diller Family Comprehensive Cancer Center.
Delaware: Yale University and Yale Cancer Center.
District of Columbia: The GW Cancer Institute.
Florida: Moffitt Cancer Center.
Georgia: Emory University Winship Cancer Institute.
Illinois: University of Chicago Medicine Comprehensive
Cancer Center.
Iowa: University of Iowa Health Care.
Kansas: University of Kansas Cancer Center.
Louisiana: Tulane University School of Medicine.
Maryland: Johns Hopkins University and the Sidney Kimmel
Comprehensive Cancer Center.
Massachusetts: Dana Farber Cancer Institute, Northeastern
University, Tufts University.
Michigan: Karmanos Cancer Center, University of Michigan
Comprehensive Cancer Center.
Minnesota: Mayo Clinic, University of Minnesota Masonic
Cancer Center.
Nebraska: Fred & Pamela Buffett Cancer Center.
New Jersey: North Shore-LIJ Health System and its Feinstein
Institute for Medical Research.
New Mexico: Taos Health Systems, Inc., University of New
Mexico Cancer Center.
New York: Associated Medical Schools of New York, Memorial
Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center, New York Academy of Sciences,
The NYU Langone Medical Center, Roswell Park Cancer
Institute, The State University of New York System.
North Carolina: Duke Cancer Institute, UNC Lineberger
Comprehensive Cancer Center.
Ohio: Cleveland Clinic Foundation, The Ohio State
University Comprehensive Cancer Center, James Cancer
Hospital, and the Solove Cancer Institute, The Ohio State
University Wexner Medical Center, University of Cincinnati.
Pennsylvania: University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine,
The Wistar Institute.
South Carolina: Hollings Cancer Center.
Tennessee: Vanderbilt University Medical Center and
Vanderbilt-Ingram Cancer Center.
Virginia: University of Virginia.
Washington: Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center.
Utah: Huntsman Cancer Institute.

____________________