[Congressional Record Volume 160, Number 117 (Thursday, July 24, 2014)]
[Senate]
[Pages S4906-S4908]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

      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.

                          ____________________