[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 145 (1999), Part 18]
[House]
[Pages 25393-25394]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]



                  INCREASING FUNDING FOR ALL DISEASES

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a previous order of the House, the 
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Foley) is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. FOLEY. Madam Speaker, I just wanted to take a moment.
  The other night I was quite alarmed because I saw on ABC News 20 20 a 
piece done by John Stossel regarding the impact of celebrity 
endorsements and the spending on diseases, and one of the things that 
came out of that seemed to be a bit of a negative perception of the 
money we are committing to AIDS funding and how some groups are 
starting to feel cheated by the Federal funding of their various 
programs, and I wanted to kind of address that issue because I am quite 
concerned about it, and I have actually heard about it from some of the 
groups coming before me to lobby for increases in their various 
diseases, and I want to suggest to all of the charities and all of the 
people listening and ask Mr. Stossel to look at his story once again 
and talk about the need to stay together on issues affecting public 
health, stay together on increasing funding at the National Institutes 
for Health for all diseases.
  Madam Speaker, let us not single one out and make one a more 
important disease than the other. Let us not start bemoaning the fact 
that one may, in fact, have increased spending while others may have 
not had as much of an increase. Let us talk about AIDS and HIV for the 
moment because we see an alarming increase in the rate of both 
transmission among heterosexuals and amongst minorities.
  So we clearly know that the AIDS virus and the epidemic is a 
significant problem, and it is the one disease that can be transmitted. 
There are others, of course. It is not the only one, but HIV can be 
transmitted through blood transfusion, through sexual contact, through 
drug use and through needle exchange.
  So we recognize that the public is much more vulnerable to HIV and 
AIDS and the alarming spread and the increased cost to all taxpayers 
will, in fact, be exacerbated if we do not deploy the revenue to put 
forward the research to do what we can to bring a halt or at least to 
minimize the alarming spread of AIDS.
  But I do want to say, as somebody who strongly stands on the floor to 
find funding for lupus, for Alzheimer's, for breast cancer, prostate 
cancer, Parkinson's disease, autism, Lou Gehrig's disease, American 
cancer, American heart and the other things that we all have to fight 
together, I will continue that fight, but I ask those charities to not 
dismiss or diminish others who are working hard to find a cure for 
AIDS.
  The gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Capps) and I are both on a bill 
that deals with trying to limit and minimize, if you will, the waiting 
time on Medicare for those that are stricken by diseases like 
Parkinson's and Lou Gehrig's. We want to increase that opportunity for 
those stricken by disease to be able to maintain a quality of life, to 
be able to get on Medicare earlier, to be able to get access to the 
proven drugs and the things that may enhance their quality of life and 
make them healthy and as productive as we possibly can.
  But I do not want to start down the road as Mr. Stossel did on ABC 
News 20 20 by suggesting somehow we should turn our backs on HIV and 
AIDS and somehow try and re-prioritize.
  First, let me make correction of the assumption that was laid out in 
the piece that somehow we in Congress, Members of Congress, sit here 
and dictate to NIH where they will spend the money. That is not the 
case. NIH does their own screening empaneled, does their own 
determination. It is not influenced by politics.
  That is very important. I am certain some of us would love to call up 
and say I would like some more money for Lou Gehrig's disease, but we 
cannot do that. That is why it is structured the way it is, so it is 
not influenced by those of us that may, in fact, be able to make a 
call.
  So again, in all sincerity to all the charities, please, please, 
please do not come to our offices suggesting somehow that somebody is 
getting a bigger slice of the pie and that is not fair. Come to our 
offices and suggest we should all grow the pie to a larger number so we 
all can pursue meaningful research.
  One of the things I am most happy about, if you will, is the fact 
that we are on the cutting edge of finding the causation of a number of 
diseases, Alzheimer's and others I have mentioned. We are on the 
cutting edge of new drug therapies that may, in fact, bring about a 
healthier quality of life for all Americans, and we are on the cutting 
edge, as we have noticed, protease inhibitors and others, working 
miraculously for people suffering from HIV infection.
  Madam Speaker, these things are taking hold, they are taking place, 
and research is bringing us to a point hopefully in the near term, in 
the very, very short few years away, that we will start seeing some 
progress on these diseases. We will see an enhanced quality of life for 
all Americans, but we cannot do it by climbing on the backs of one 
another.
  Again, let us remember to advocate for all, making certain that 
nobody is left out of the loop, making certain we are looking carefully 
at all the diseases, making certain we are doing all we can to enhance 
AIDS funding, and I

[[Page 25394]]

know a number of my colleagues are joining us in that effort. We have 
all asked the appropriators to increase NIH, to help the Department of 
Defense in their work on breast cancer research, so nobody is being 
left out of the loop.
  So again I urge people to disregard some of the stories they see on 
those issues and continue to work for all Americans who are suffering 
with us today.

                          ____________________