[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 149 (2003), Part 20]
[House]
[Pages 27458-27463]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




MOTION TO INSTRUCT CONFEREES ON H.R. 2660, DEPARTMENTS OF LABOR, HEALTH 
AND HUMAN SERVICES, AND EDUCATION, AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS 
                               ACT, 2004

  Mr. BELL. Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion to instruct.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will report the motion.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Mr. Bell moves that the managers on the part of the House 
     at the conference on the disagreeing votes of the two Houses 
     on the bill, H.R. 2660, be instructed to insist on the 
     highest funding levels possible for the National Institutes 
     of Health.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 7 of rule XXII, the 
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Bell) and the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. 
Regula) each will control 30 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Bell).
  Mr. BELL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise today to address an issue that affects every 
Member in the House as well as every American that we speak for in this 
body. I am talking about the future health of our Nation and our 
commitment as a society to cure disease, end suffering, and improve the 
quality of life for our fellow citizens.
  Disease does not discriminate in America. It is not partisan. It 
takes as its victims men and women of every race and ethnicity, every 
socioeconomic bracket, rich or poor, Republican or Democrat, young or 
old. Disease can strike anyone: cancer, Alzheimer's, Parkinson's, AIDS, 
diabetes, depression, ALS, multiple sclerosis, sickle-cell anemia, 
heart disease. The most talented, the most brilliant, the most loving 
and the most giving people in the world have been and continue to be 
victims of these baffling diseases. These are diseases that have 
affected America's best and brightest.
  Health is the principal building block to our Nation's wealth and 
welfare. Our ability to produce, create, innovate, contribute, and lead 
this great country through the next generations and the true measure of 
greatness of our free society which promises life, liberty and the 
pursuit of happiness are in large part dependent on the commitment we 
in the United States Congress make to the future of health and science 
research and discovery. I am talking about the funding level this body 
determines for the National Institutes of Health, or NIH as it is 
known.
  As all of my colleagues know, what began as a one-room laboratory of 
hygiene in 1887 is now today one of the world's foremost medical 
research centers. The National Institutes of Health is the steward of 
medical and behavioral research for our Nation. The NIH provides 
leadership and direction to programs designed to improve the health of 
the Nation by conducting and supporting research in the causes, 
diagnosis, prevention, and cure of human diseases.
  Because we have invested in the NIH, it is estimated that 62,000 HIV-
related deaths were prevented in the year 2000, 241,000 stroke-related 
deaths were prevented in the year 2000, and 815,000 coronary heart-
related disease deaths were prevented in the year 2000. In cancer 
research alone, in childhood leukemia, the cure rate has reached 80 
percent as a result of a host of new drugs. Testicular cancer now has a 
91 percent cure rate, and for prostate cancer, the annual death rates 
have been reduced by 28 percent. Ovarian cancer can now be diagnosed 
through a simple blood screening. We now have the wonderful new drug 
Tamoxifen to treat breast cancer.
  The proposal for fiscal year 2004 would be the smallest percentage 
increase for NIH in 18 years and a sharp deceleration from the 15 
percent annual increases that NIH received in recent years under the 
bipartisan program to double the medical research budget. The House-
passed version of the fiscal year 2004 Labor-HHS-Education 
Appropriations Act provides an increase of just 2.5 percent, which 
translates into $682 million, an increase that may not even keep up 
with the rate of inflation. The bottom line is, if there is a cure, the 
NIH will most

[[Page 27459]]

likely find it. We must give them the proper resources to do their job.
  This is not a partisan issue. This is our issue, yours and mine. I 
know I am not the only one that feels this way. I know that I am joined 
by my friends on both sides of the aisle. In fact, I am proud to say 
that I was joined by 213 of my colleagues in the House, both Democrats 
and Republicans, in sending a letter to the conferees urging them to 
provide the highest level of funding possible for the NIH. Therefore, 
it is my hope that we can continue to move forward on this issue in a 
bipartisan fashion, which is why I hope the leadership of both parties 
and my fellow colleagues on both sides of the aisle will all join me in 
voting for this motion to instruct on a matter I believe a majority of 
this body already supports. It is just too important to all of us here 
and to all Americans for us to ignore.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. REGULA. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I am pleased today to rise to discuss the funding the 
Committee on Appropriations has provided to the National Institutes of 
Health and respond to the motion to instruct from the gentleman from 
Texas. I think all Members of the House have been touched by a family 
member or constituent with a heart-wrenching medical problem who turned 
to the research supported by NIH as their hope for recovery or relief 
from pain.
  The fiscal year 2004 appropriation bills passed by the House and 
Senate continue the tradition of congressional support. The House bill 
provides almost a $700 million increase for NIH, one of the largest 
program increases in the bill and the largest increase in the 
Department of Health and Human Services. This comes on the heels of 
completing the doubling of funding for NIH over a 5-year period, from 
$13.7 billion to $27 billion in the short span of 5 years.

                              {time}  1700

  I think the chart we have here tells the story very eloquently. We 
can see on the bar graph how much since 1996 NIH funding has increased 
through the doubling mechanism, and it is very substantially more than 
it was when the Republicans took over. It was $13 billion. Now, it is 
$27 billion. And I think it shows the commitment of the majority party 
to NIH. Yes, it is a little bit less than the doubling era, but we 
cannot continue that; we do not have the resources, but it still 
provides an increase in new grants and the highest total level of 
grants in NIH's history. And because NIH had more than a $1 billion of 
one-time costs in fiscal year 2003 that can be converted to research 
funding in fiscal year 2004, the real increase for NIH is more than 6 
percent, that is, for research programs, a level in line with most 
annual increases prior to the doubling.
  I am confident that Dr. Zerhouni, the new director of NIH, will lead 
the agency on a productive new path in the postdoubling era. I am 
enthused about the ``road map'' he has unveiled after extensive 
consultation with the research community. Of course, we would all like 
to provide Dr. Zerhouni with the highest possible funding level in 
conference, and I am confident we will do that. I intend to support the 
gentleman's motion. I think the House has already demonstrated that 
they want to do it with the highest possible funding level in light of 
the resources made available to us as the Committee on Appropriations, 
and I have no quarrel with the gentleman and I know that we will, in 
conference, try to reach the highest funding level that is possible 
because NIH is an extremely important resource of this Nation. They 
have done great work over the years, and we are very supportive of them 
both in our subcommittee and the Committee on Appropriations and in 
conference.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. BELL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute.
  I would like to thank the gentleman from Ohio for his support for the 
motion to instruct. And all I would like to say in response is that I 
hope that he will join me in trying to urge the conferees to look for 
the highest level of funding possible. In that 2.5 percent, while it 
may be a little bit more money, the rate of inflation is predicted to 
be 3.3 percent. So one could make the argument that this will be a net 
decrease and it will have a dramatic impact on the following diseases: 
cancer, Parkinson's, Alzheimer's, heart disease, HIV/AIDS, depression 
and mental illness, diabetes, dental diseases, measles, ALS, kidney 
disease, genome research.
  Everybody knows the incredible need that we face, and I very much 
appreciate the gentleman from Ohio's recognizing that, and, hopefully, 
we can get a much higher level of funding from the conferees.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Rhode Island 
(Mr. Langevin).
  Mr. LANGEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time.
  I want to say that I rise in strong support of the Bell motion to 
instruct conferees on the Labor, Health and Human Services and 
Education Appropriations bill to increase funding for the National 
Institutes of Health to the highest level possible.
  Mr. Speaker, I was proud to be a part of the Congress that worked 
together with Presidents Clinton and Bush to double the budget of the 
NIH between 1998 and 2003. I want to especially commend the gentleman 
from Ohio (Chairman Regula) and the ranking member for their leadership 
on this issue.
  The growth during those years has already yielded amazing results, 
and we are just beginning to see the fruits of that landmark 
achievement. Everyone agrees this investment in the future of medicine 
was the right decision to make for America and, indeed, for the world.
  The outcomes of these cutting-edge projects are opportunities for us 
to understand diseases, improve health, and open the doors to future 
progress through the application of scientific research. We are on the 
road to obtaining the knowledge we need to more fully understand and 
ultimately control or defeat cancer, Parkinson's disease, diabetes, 
paralysis, and many other diseases and conditions. These projects also 
play a key role in preparing the Nation for incidents of bioterrorism.
  Given how far we have come in this remarkable bipartisan effort, I am 
extremely disappointed that the Labor, Health and Human Services and 
Education Appropriations bill by the House this year contained a margin 
of increase that inconsistent with all that we have accomplished in 
recent years. The House-passed increase of 2.5 percent would be the 
smallest percentage increase in 18 years, as aptly pointed out by my 
colleague, and would fail to sustain these projects that have only just 
begun. In fact, 2.5 percent falls far short of what is needed merely to 
keep up with inflation, again, pointed out by my colleague. Experts in 
the research field have made it clear to me that they need an estimated 
8 to 10 percent increase in funding to renew the many ongoing multi-
year research projects, while encouraging new research projects and 
exploring new ideas and avenues of inquiry.
  Mr. Speaker, we must do all we can to encourage younger physicians 
and scientists interested in medical research careers to use their 
talents for the greater good. Millions of Americans now suffering with 
diseases and illnesses deserve our continued commitment to new research 
and ultimately to a cure. To that end, Mr. Speaker, I urge all of my 
colleagues to vote in favor of the Bell motion to instruct. I commend 
my colleague for offering the motion.
  Mr. REGULA. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from 
Florida (Mr. Shaw), a strong booster of the NIH.
  Mr. SHAW. Mr. Speaker, I rise in very strong support for the motion 
to instruct. I think through the years in all the years that I have 
been in Congress, we have seen great bipartisan support when it comes 
to the National Institutes of Health, and it is because we are getting 
so close so many breakthroughs. Cures for cancer, cures for diabetes, 
the list goes on and on and

[[Page 27460]]

on, and we are going to improve the quality of life for so many people 
throughout the world, and we are going to also extend the life of so 
many people.
  When we look at the tremendous breakthroughs that we have had with 
diseases such as cancer, I myself was a victim of cancer, and it was, I 
think, probably the most dangerous cancer one can have, and that is 
cancer of the lungs. We do not spend nearly enough on lung cancer 
research. We need to do a much better job. We need to do more. Lung 
cancer kills more people than the next three combined, and this means 
we need to get moving over into that direction.
  I asked the question once why do we not spend more on lung cancer? 
And one of the answers I got was that there are so few survivors that 
push for this and for more and more research in this area. And we get 
another answer: It is caused by smoking. I had not smoked in 30 years, 
and the type of cancer I had of the lung is the nonsmoking type of 
cancer. But early detection and this research is the key to wiping out 
all of these diseases.
  My prognosis is very good. I get regular checkups, and I will be 
fine. But there are so many out there that are suffering, that the 
clock is ticking and their life is very limited, and I just lost two of 
my good friends in Ft. Lauderdale to lung cancer within the last year. 
And I was giving the eulogy for a very dear friend of mine only 2 
months after my operation; she died of lung cancer. It is a terrible 
disease. We are so close to unlocking all these secrets, and we are so 
close to being able to offer more and more early detection with all the 
wonderful breakthroughs that we have had.
  So I compliment the chairman and the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Bell) 
on the motion to instruct. I am sure that it will get wide bipartisan 
support, and I also want to applaud the tremendous increases in funding 
that we have had over the years. I think that shows that the Congress 
does definitely care. We are concerned about the life and the health of 
all Americans and people throughout the world who all benefit from the 
wonderful research that goes on at NIH.
  Mr. BELL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 15 seconds.
  I just want to thank the gentleman from Florida for his comments and 
evidencing the strong bipartisan support that this motion to instruct 
does enjoy.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. 
Van Hollen).
  Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Speaker, I rise to support the motion of my 
colleague from Texas and thank him for his leadership on this issue.
  If there is anything that we as a Nation ought to be able to agree 
on, it is our common resolve to fight and overcome the scourge of 
disease and disability. This is not a Democratic issue. This is not a 
Republican issue. It is an American issue. It is really a human issue. 
And I want to commend the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Regula) and the 
others who on a bipartisan basis over the years have helped double and 
really make a commitment to this issue.
  There are literally tens of thousands of our fellow citizens and 
their families waiting today, right now as we are talking on this 
floor, for a cure or a treatment or a breakthrough that will mean the 
difference between sickness and health, between hope and despair, 
between independence and suffering, between life and death.
  How disappointing, then, that after following through on our noble 
bipartisan effort to double our NIH budget over 5 years, we should be 
here today talking about an effective freeze on spending, on our 
investment in basic biological and biomedical research. It is as if we 
had our collective foot on the pedal together in a race for a cure on 
all these diseases and then all of a sudden we slam on the brakes. What 
happened? Did we win the race against these diseases? Of course not. Is 
there any less need today? No. Are there fewer promising avenues for 
research? Of course not. In fact, the opposite is true. We are poised, 
because of our investments over the last 5 years, to make breakthroughs 
in many areas if we continue to commit the necessary resources.
  I am very proud of the fact that the National Institutes of Health 
has its home in my congressional district. We also have a flourishing 
biomedical research industry developing the medicines of tomorrow. We 
have just completed mapping the human genome. We are on the threshold 
of many new discoveries, many new cures, and we have the potential for 
breakthroughs in so many areas. Now is not the time to rest.
  The House-passed appropriation calls for just a 2.5 percent increase, 
the smallest in 18 years, and effectively, when we consider the fact 
that biomedical inflation is 3.3 percent, it effectively takes us 
backwards. The Senate came in at 3.5 percent, barely standing still. 
What are we saying? What kind of message are we sending to our 
citizens? What are we telling our families? Sorry, the tax cuts were 
just too important? Sorry, this just is not one of our top priorities 
anymore? Do not worry, we need to take a breather, there is always next 
year? That is the wrong message to send. Diseases do not call it quits. 
Diseases do not say okay, time out for this year, wait until next year. 
And neither should we.
  So I congratulate my colleague from Texas for offering this motion. I 
urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to continue that 
bipartisan support that we have had for the last 5 years in doubling 
the NIH budget. Let us continue it. Let us make a renewed commitment 
not to put the brakes on, which is unfortunately what this budget does. 
Let us take advantage of the investments and the knowledge we have 
gained over the last 5 years to follow through and come up with cures 
to so many diseases that plague our citizens.

                              {time}  1715

  Mr. REGULA. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, let me reiterate that in the last 5 years we have 
doubled the budget of NIH. We have had some wonderful results. They 
testified in our committee not long ago that today, because of advances 
in medical science, every 5 years life expectancy goes up 1 year. That 
is a tremendous breakthrough and achievement, particularly for our 
younger people. I look at my 20-month-old granddaughter and think how 
much more she will have in years, and, hopefully, quality years. That 
is the other challenge of NIH.
  Let me say again that this is a little misleading to talk about a 
freeze, because last year we put a lot of money in construction, which 
is not in this budget. So in real terms of research this budget is up 6 
percent, because of the money that will be available that has not been 
put into construction, as has been the case in other years.
  I also want to commend Dr. Zerhouni, the new director of NIH. I think 
we can look forward to his leadership being very effective on the part 
of this institution. He has developed a new road map, after extensive 
consultation with the research community; and the road map is designed 
to bring the NIH greater successes than they have experienced in the 
past. That is a great credit to his leadership; it is a great credit to 
Secretary Thompson, who named him to this position, and to President 
Bush, who supported this very strongly.
  I think we can look forward to a continued period of great 
accomplishments from NIH. We are very supportive of this effort and 
will put the highest amount possible, as stated in the motion to 
instruct. We will do that.
  But we have limitations. We have the budget. We have the dollars 
available to us. In our subcommittee, it is not just NIH. It is 
education; it is IDEA. There was an extra $1 billion we put in this 
year. There are a whole host of good programs.
  I say our Subcommittee on Labor, Health and Human Services, Education 
and Related Agencies is the love-your-neighbor committee, because all 
280 million Americans in one way or another have their lives touched by 
the education programs, by NIH research,

[[Page 27461]]

by our Labor Department programs to help people get relocated and get 
new jobs in the event of plant closures.
  So we are going to do the best we can. This motion to instruct, we 
are going to support it because it says essentially what the committee 
will try to do in conference.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. BELL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from 
Massachusetts (Mr. Markey).
  Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Texas for 
yielding me time.
  Mr. Speaker, I want to begin by saying that this is a moment in 
American history where we begin to pay the price for the Bush tax cuts. 
For 3 years, we have been told that the $3 trillion worth of tax cuts 
that are now going to be put in place over the next 15 years, that we 
do not have to worry because it will not impact on education, it will 
not impact on Social Security, it will not impact on Medicare, it will 
not impact on Medicaid, it will not impact on NIH. Do not worry.
  Well, the gentleman from Ohio did a wonderful job doubling the NIH 
budget over a 5-year period. He has got a heart of gold. But this issue 
is now out of his control. There is no money left. We have got to 
tighten our belt.
  How about in Iraq? Well, not there. There, we have an ability to send 
$87.5 billion this year, on top of the $75 billion we have already 
spent. For NIH, sorry, no increase. No increase? Fourteen million 
Americans are going to have Alzheimer's by the time all the baby 
boomers have retired, 14 million. Five million are going to have 
Parkinson's disease by the time all the baby boomers have retired; 1\1/
2\ million Americans are going to have ALS by the time all the baby 
boomers have retired.
  For Iraq, $150 billion over a 1-year period. For NIH, for all of the 
health care security for every American family, after inflation, after 
some of the money which is going to have to now be spent on bio-defense 
and antiterrorism at NIH as well and coordination with the 
antiterrorism effort, we are going to see a net decrease in NIH 
spending.
  Now, one of the by-products of all the NIH spending over the years 
has been the lengthening of life expectancy. That is good. But the 
problem is that it has made it clearer that when people age, all of 
these other diseases then manifest themselves, Alzheimer's, ALS, 
Parkinson's and many others for which we do not have a cure. We have 
cured the diseases that people died from in 1900, remarkably because of 
NIH; but we have not cured the diseases of the 21st century yet. That 
only can happen if NIH is fully funded.
  Now, for smart bombs, an unlimited budget; for smart medical 
research, I am sorry, no increase.
  Mr. Speaker, if we are not going to fund and leave the money in for 
the nursing home care for all of these people, and, by the way, half 
the people in nursing homes have Alzheimer's, guess who pays for it? 
Medicaid. When it hits 14 million, it is going to be Medicaid. But this 
tax cut is now going to make it impossible for us to fund that nursing 
home care for those senior citizens across our country.
  So they either have to have it one way or the other in the Bush 
administration: cure these diseases, or leave the money in for the 
nursing home care. You cannot have it both ways.
  Mr. BELL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Colorado (Ms. DeGette).
  Ms. DeGETTE. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from Texas 
(Mr. Bell) and the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Regula) for the great work 
they do for NIH.
  I am here as the cochair for the Diabetes Caucus to encourage Members 
to vote for this motion to instruct. Diabetes is one of the fastest 
growing and deadliest diseases in the United States. Approximately 17 
million Americans, or 6.2 percent of the population, have diabetes. NIH 
funding is essential to preventing, treating, and curing this disease. 
Research done at the NIDDK has been critical for the prevention and 
treatment of diabetes and its complications, which include blindness, 
kidney failure, heart disease, and amputation.
  NIH research has shown that it is possible to stop the progression of 
the disease in newly diagnosed individuals; it has helped pinpoint the 
genes that cause the disease and its complications; and it has proven 
that normalization of blood glucose levels can help many people with 
the disease avoid complications.
  Nothing, however, has shown more progress than the results we have 
seen in clinical trials involving the transplantation of insulin-
producing cells into individuals with Type I diabetes. This 
groundbreaking research has truly brought us within the reach of a 
cure. So far, we are seeing an 80 percent success rate. By actually 
funding this research, we can help the Immune Tolerance Network support 
further clinical trials so that islet transplantation will be available 
for the millions of Americans with diabetes.
  The tiny 2.5 percent NIH funding increase passed by the House means 
that some studies by the NIH will not be continued and that researchers 
with promising ideas will not be funded at all. We are stifling 
research with this anemic increase, and we are limiting the quality of 
health care available to all Americans.
  Diabetes costs $132 billion a year and one in four Medicare dollars 
is attributable to individuals with diabetes. A larger investment now 
in this research will save money in the future.
  Let us keep our promise to the children who visited this year. Let us 
remember them, and vote for the Bell amendment.
  Mr. BELL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas 
(Mr. Green).
  Mr. GREEN of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of my 
neighbor in Houston's motion to instruct conferees to increase funding 
for the National Institutes of Health.
  The NIH is the crown jewel of America's biomedical research system. 
Thanks to incredible work done at NIH, Americans are living longer, 
enjoying a better quality of life, and witnessing cures and treatment 
for diseases that once meant certain death.
  The Congress made a commitment to build on the success of the NIH by 
doubling its budget over the past 5 years, and I congratulate the 
appropriations process. I was a strong supporter of that effort, and I 
am glad that the President signed that fifth and final installment last 
year.
  But, in all honesty, 2.5 percent is an embarrassment. My concern, Mr. 
Speaker, is a saying we have in some rural areas, Don't eat your seed 
corn. That is what we are doing here. The NIH research is the seed corn 
for our biomedical successes. If we do not continue to provide much 
more than 2.5 percent, then we are eating our seed corn in our country. 
That should not happen, because, in the long run, and even in the short 
run, our constituents' health will directly be affected.
  Mr. Speaker, this is the smallest increase in 18 years for the NIH, a 
sharp deceleration from the 15 percent annual increases; and that is 
why I say, let us not eat our seed corn. Let us provide the opportunity 
for us and our children and our parents to continue to benefit from the 
success of NIH.
  This leaves almost no room for any projects. According to NIH, just 
maintaining ongoing research projects will require funding increases 
totaling $652 million in FY 2004. That would eat up the majority of the 
$673 million increase in the bill.
  Mr. Speaker, that is why it is so important that we provide much more 
money to NIH.
  Again, I thank the gentleman from Houston, Texas (Mr. Bell) for 
providing this motion to instruct.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of my Houston colleague's 
motion to instruct conferees to increase funding for the National 
Institutes of Health (NIH).
  The NIH is the crown jewel of America's biomedical research system. 
Thanks to the incredible work done at NIH, Americans are living longer, 
enjoying better quality of life, and witnessing cures and treatment for 
diseases that once meant certain death.
  The Congress made a commitment to build on the success of the NIH by 
doubling its budget over the past five years.
  I was a strong supporter of that endeavor, and was proud that last 
year, the President

[[Page 27462]]

signed the fifth and final installment of that promise.
  But I, like my colleagues, was terribly disappointed that this 
historic increase was followed by an embarrassing increase of only 2.5 
percent.
  lThis is the smallest percentage increase in 18 years and a sharp 
deceleration from the 15 percent annual increases that NIH received in 
recent years under the bipartisan program to double the medical 
research budget.
  This proposed increase doesn't even cover the costs of what it'll 
take to keep up with inflation.
  And it leaves almost no room for any new projects. According to NIH, 
just maintaining ongoing research projects will require funding 
increases totaling $652 million in FY 2004. That would eat up the 
majority of the $673 million increase in the bill.
  If we are really committed to providing the investments necessary to 
maintain our momentum, we must provide at least an 8-10 percent 
increase in NIH funding.
  I urge my colleagues to support Congressman Bell's motion, and urge 
conferees to keep the momentum going by providing a sufficient increase 
for NIH.
  Mr. BELL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished 
gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Capps), who also serves as the Chair 
of the Cancer Caucus, as well as the Heart and Stroke Caucus.
  Mrs. CAPPS. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for yielding me time, 
and I rise in support of the Bell motion to instruct.
  Mr. Speaker, there is not a Member of the House who is not 
terrifically proud of what goes on at the NIH and proud of the role 
that we play in funding this tremendous use of taxpayer dollars. We can 
see the direct connection between that investment and the very best 
health care in the world that is available because of the science that 
goes on there and the connections that are made between what happens 
out in Bethesda and the daily lives of not only American citizens, but 
people around the world who depend upon the research and the difference 
that it makes. These investments have provided us with cures for the 
diseases that once killed so many people.
  Now we are faced with what the completion of the Genome Project has 
brought us, poised as we are on the edge of discovering treatments, 
prevention methods and cures for some of the most debilitating and 
costly diseases that we know in our world today.
  As people are living longer, we find so many who struggle with heart 
disease, with diabetes, with Alzheimer's, with ALS, with a myriad of 
conditions, where the research that is going on there now and the 
studies that are building upon the Genome Project and being developed 
are going to bring us those cures.
  I want to speak just for a minute, following in the sequence of other 
speakers, about cancer and what clinical trials mean. I speak from 
personal experience as well, knowing as I do how lives depend on the 
pipeline that comes from the research right here, that is the hope for 
the future for people who struggle today, who face being cut off, many 
in midlife with promising futures, and the economic value that we place 
on them.
  For this, and many other reasons, I want us to turn what we are 
creating, a deficit in NIH funding, into an increase. I support the 
Bell motion to instruct conferees.

                              {time}  1730

  Mr. BELL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Tennessee (Mr. Cooper).
  Mr. COOPER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Texas for 
yielding me this time. This is a very important topic. I am a cancer 
survivor myself, but I think every family in America has been touched 
by serious illness, and the NIH can help if it is properly funded. We 
are very grateful for the increases in the past. I celebrate the 
leadership of the gentleman from Ohio; he is a great Member of this 
body. But I worry that others in his party who call themselves 
compassionate conservatives have left out the compassionate part.
  To freeze the NIH budget at a time like this does serious damage to 
the research efforts that are going on all across this country, 
literally harming the futures of so many of our citizens. It is not the 
gentleman's fault. He has done the best that he can.
  We all know that in this nonbinding motion that we are all about to 
vote for, it will really amount to very little change in that budget. 
We can and must do more. We must influence the President's budget-
making process right now for his budget for next fiscal year. We need 
to make sure that we have no more freezes like this, no more inadequate 
increases, because the need is too great, whether it is cancer or heart 
or stroke or ALS or cystic fibrosis and a myriad of other diseases. 
People do not have the time to wait.
  So it is very important that we tackle these issues. I would hope 
that the gentleman, as he votes for this nonbinding motion to instruct, 
and his colleagues, will do more than just put that vote up on the 
board and pretend that they are for a big increase, because we all know 
that in the President's budget this last year, there was not a big 
increase. There was not really much more than a freeze, and we have to 
do better than that.
  So this is a time for us to really dig deep, to do the quiet, behind-
the-scenes work that is necessary to make sure that our NIH budget 
genuinely increases to meet the terrific need, not only in our country, 
but around the world, because as the gentleman knows, we are inventing 
the cures for diseases around this world.

                [From the Tennessean.com, Nov. 7, 2003]

Representative Jim Cooper: Don't Let Congressional Budget Cuts Slow the 
                           War Against Cancer

                     (By Representative Jim Cooper)

       Patty Corlew lives on a quiet street in Mt. Juliet. She's a 
     wife and mother. She works part-time. She helps out at Boy 
     Scouts and is someone folks describe as a solid friend and 
     good neighbor. Patty Corlew is not someone you'd likely 
     expect to be a protestor. Fortunately, you'd be wrong about 
     Patty Corlew.
       ``My boys were almost 2 and almost 6 when I was diagnosed 
     with breast cancer. Thanks for these last nine years. I only 
     wish my friend Mary and Elizabeth and others could have 
     shared them with me and watched their children grow and 
     become grandmothers like I hope to become. Please find a 
     cure.''
       Patty Corlew is speaking out. She's added her name and her 
     story to the growing list of Middle Tennessee-area cancer 
     survivors who are concerned about the proposed level of 
     funding for the National Institutes of Health (NIH) currently 
     pending in Congress.
       Those of us fortunate to live in Middle Tennessee don't 
     have to look far to see the potential impact of a slowdown in 
     NIH funding. Nashville is home to two of the leading medical 
     research institutions working in partnership with NIH and its 
     National Cancer Institute (NCI).
       At the Vanderbilt-Ingram Cancer Center, a team led by Dr. 
     Ray DuBois was the first to establish the link between 
     colorectal tumors and an enzyme known as COX-2. Their 
     findings helped explain why people who took large quantities 
     of aspirin or drugs like ibuprofen over long periods of time 
     had a lower incidence of colorectal cancer. Dr. DuBois is now 
     the leader of a national study exploring whether COX-2 
     inhibitors might be used to prevent colorectal cancer as well 
     as a variety of other cancers.
       Meharry Medical College recently launched a long-term study 
     of racial disparities in breast cancer. Women from minorities 
     are more likely to die of breast cancer today even though 
     they are less likely to get the disease. According to Dr. Ana 
     Grau, cancer surgeon and director of The Breast Health Center 
     at Metro General Hospital at Meharry, the center is 
     determined to improve breast cancer survival rates for all 
     women.
       In another study, Vanderbilt-Ingram and Meharry are working 
     together to answer one simple but important question: Why are 
     African Americans, and all people in the South, at greater 
     risk of developing and dying from cancer than other ethnic or 
     regional groups? The NIH-supported study will track more than 
     100,000 participants over five years to determine what 
     lifestyle factors may be related to higher cancer rates for 
     minorities and all residents in our region.
       As these examples indicate, NIH is providing help and hope 
     to millions of Americans today. Without the appropriate 
     funding, however, future discoveries like these may be 
     threatened.
       In each of the past five years, NIH funding has increased 
     by 14-15%. Last year, during congressional hearings, NIH 
     leadership said the current pace of medical breakthroughs 
     could only be maintained if NIH funding continues to grow at 
     a level of 8-10%. Yet the House and Senate Conference 
     Committee is expected to support the Bush Administration's 
     NIH request: an increase of just 2.7%.
       Like Patty Corlew, I am a cancer survivor. I was fortunate 
     to discover my cancer early. And I am blessed to live in a 
     community

[[Page 27463]]

     where cutting-edge cancer research and treatment is something 
     we almost take for granted.
       The examples described here of research being conducted at 
     Vanderbilt-Ingram and Meharry are only three out of many 
     promising studies currently underway at each institution. And 
     Vanderbilt-Ingram and Meharry are not alone in working at the 
     frontier of cancer research. More than 80% of NIH funding now 
     goes to support research conducted at universities around the 
     country.
       In the next few weeks, Congress will be asked to decide the 
     future direction of NIH work, whether the pace of disease 
     exploration should continue at the aggressive level of recent 
     years. In these tough economic times, every budget decision 
     must be evaluated carefully. We must consider not only costs, 
     but potential return on each taxpayer dollar we commit.
       How do you measure the value of good health and quality of 
     life?
       As a member of the House Budget Committee, I am very 
     concerned about the current trend in government spending. I 
     strongly believe we cannot continue to ignore the rising 
     deficit. But I also believe we cannot turn our backs on the 
     progress currently being made in medical research. On the 
     issue of NIH fund, I stand with Patty Corlew.

  Mr. BELL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes and 15 seconds to the 
gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer), the distinguished whip of the 
minority party.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding to the 
distinguished whip of the Democratic Party.
  Mr. Speaker, our Republican colleagues, in my opinion, should review 
the work of Sir Isaac Newton. It was Newton, after all, who wrote 4 
centuries ago: to every action, there is always opposed an equal 
reaction. Today we are seeing that principle play out right before our 
eyes.
  Earlier this year, the majority party enacted its third tax cut in 3 
years, the most recent one giving America's millionaires an average tax 
cut of $93,500. And what do we suppose is the reaction to that action? 
Underfunding the No Child Left Behind Act by $8 billion? Yes. Cutting 
heating assistance for our Nation's poor? Certainly. And the smallest 
percentage increase in funding for the National Institutes of Health in 
18 years? Indeed, Mr. Speaker, it is true.
  The 2.5 percent increase for NIH in the House-passed version of the 
Labor-HHS-Education appropriation bill, which is the same increase 
proposed by the Bush administration, pales in comparison to the 15 
percent annual increases NIH has received in recent years under our 
bipartisan program to double the medical research budget. I would say, 
parenthetically, we actually did not do that. The number got to a 
double, but because we added $1.7 billion in additional 
responsibilities for our biomedical terrorist research, actually we did 
not reach the double. But the proposed 2.5 percent increase for NIH 
fails to keep up with inflation in research costs and will not allow 
for any real increase in research efforts. In other words, this is a 
retreat.
  This appropriation even fails to provide funds to complete the John 
E. Porter Neuroscience Research Center, which is now under construction 
on the NIH campus.
  Mr. Speaker, the 3.5 percent increase for NIH in the Senate is 
certainly preferable to what this body passed. But even that 3.5 
percent increase would fail to cover the cost of renewing ongoing 
grants at committed levels and would barely keep pace with inflation. 
Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this important 
motion that the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Bell) has made to instruct 
offered by our side of the aisle, and the gentleman from Texas (Mr. 
Bell) in particular, to insist on the highest funding levels possible 
for NIH. We should not permit, Mr. Speaker, tax cuts for the most 
affluent Americans to squeeze out funding for research on Alzheimer's, 
cancer, heart disease, multiple sclerosis, and a host of other health 
concerns that affect the American people.
  Isaac Newton was correct. For every action, there is an opposite 
reaction. Cutting NIH is that reaction.
  Mr. BELL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the remaining time.
  Mr. Speaker, what this comes down to is a question of priorities. 
There can be no higher priority in the United States of America than 
our Nation's health. Everybody listening knows the diseases that are 
impacted by NIH funding. It is no secret. And the gentleman from Ohio 
has certainly worked diligently over the course of the last 5 years to 
increase funding for the NIH, but this is not the time to stop. When 
progress is being made, we should not, as the gentleman from Maryland 
(Mr. Van Hollen) pointed out, we should not put on the brakes.
  If anyone doubts what a priority this is with health organizations 
across the country, they should know that over 600 major health 
organizations across the United States are supporting an increase in 
the NIH budget. The list includes the AARP, the National Academy of 
Health, Alzheimer's Association, American Academy of Family Physicians, 
American Academy of Pediatricians, American Association of Blood Banks. 
I could go on and on, and I would not even be out of the As.
  The point is, this motion has wide, wide support in the medical 
research and educational communities, and they are not going to be 
satisfied if the conferees come back and say, 2.5 percent is as high of 
an increase as we can give. They are looking for a much higher degree 
of funding. The Senate has offered 3.5 percent, but that is not enough. 
There is no greater priority right now in the United States of America 
than the health of our fellow citizens.
  Mr. Speaker, I encourage my colleagues to continue the bipartisan 
support for this motion to instruct the conferees to vote in favor of 
it. I would encourage the conferees to do all they can to raise the 
level of funding high above the 3.5 percent level.
  Mrs. BORDALLO. Mr. Speaker, today I join my colleague's motion to 
instruct the conferees on the Labor-Health and Human Services and 
Education appropriations bill to increase funding levels for the 
National Institutes of Health (NIH) to the highest funding levels 
possible.
  NIH is the recognized leader in medical research and the focal point 
for health research in our country. Studies funded by the Institutes, 
have led to advances in the prevention, diagnosis and treatment of many 
diseases. Still thousands of Americans die every day from five major 
diseases: heart disease, cancer, stroke, diabetes, and Alzheimer's. Of 
these, heart disease, diabetes and certain cancers disproportionately 
affect minority populations. Additional research is necessary to 
understand the impact of these and other diseases that affect our 
minority communities and to develop cures and identify behavioral 
interventions that are effective at prevention. We are more aware today 
that research is needed to understand the impact of these diseases on 
our minority communities. We must increase funding to continue current 
research and development and to allow for new projects. In doing so, we 
give hope to all those afflicted with disease.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Kline). Without objection, the previous 
question is ordered on the motion to instruct.
  There was no objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion to instruct 
offered by the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Bell).
  The motion to instruct was agreed to.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

                          ____________________