[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 159 (2013), Part 13]
[House]
[Pages 18444-18450]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                      THE DECLINE IN U.S. RESEARCH

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the Speaker's announced policy of 
January 3, 2013, the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Speier) is 
recognized for 60 minutes as the designee of the minority leader.
  Ms. SPEIER. Mr. Speaker, tonight we are going to discuss the National 
Institutes of Health.
  In many respects, the National Institutes of Health is the goose that 
keeps laying the golden eggs, the golden eggs that help cure many of 
the maladies that many Americans suffer from, the goose that lays the 
golden eggs that create jobs, the goose that lays the golden eggs that 
help us bring down the cost of health care. But we are at the brink, we 
are at the tipping point of killing the goose that lays the golden 
eggs.
  Let's put it in perspective. Not so long ago, then-President George 
Bush was part of a bipartisan effort to double the funding for the 
National Institutes of Health. It was $21 billion. Doubling of the 
resources for the NIH was extraordinary and received with great fanfare 
and appreciation because there was so much that the researchers were 
ready to do with that money.
  What have we done since then? Since then, in 2003 dollars, we have 
seen a gross decline in the money to fund the National Institutes of 
Health. Now it is down to the equivalent of $17 billion. So for the 
next hour, we are going to talk about what that means to every American 
who is suffering from a cancer, for every American that is suffering 
with a chronic disease like diabetes, for every American who is 
suffering from Alzheimer's and whose family is trying to cope with it.
  Former Republican Senator and Majority Leader Bill Frist recently 
wrote:

       When Alzheimer's is cured, when HIV is cured, when MS is 
     cured, I want it to be America that discovers the 
     breakthroughs and shares it with the world.

  I agree with Dr. Frist. I want to see that happen too. I would like 
to think that every Member in this House wants to see that too, but it 
is not going to happen if we keep starving the goose that lays the 
golden eggs.
  Let me read you another quote:

       Whenever you hear about a research breakthrough in anything 
     to do with cancer, diabetes, heart disease, HIV/AIDS, 
     influenza, whatever, in the United States, it's extremely 
     likely that NIH supported that effort.

  That was Dr. Francis Collins, head of the National Institutes of 
Health who made that statement. He also doesn't mince words. Recently, 
in response to sequester cuts to the NIH budget, he said:

       I think we'll no longer be the world leader in the 
     production of science, technology, and innovation. You can't 
     look at the curves and say, Oh, well, it'll be fine, if we 
     stay on this track. It will not be. China is coming up so 
     fast, they are so convinced that this is their pathway 
     towards world leadership; they're not going to slow down.

  He recently recounted a trip that he took to China in 2011 where he 
was taken on a tour of a former shoe factory. You need to know a little 
bit about the history of Dr. Francis Collins. He is called the ``father 
of the human genome project.'' He and a number of other scientists are 
responsible for absolutely unlocking DNA sequencing. So he was invited 
to China to see what they were doing.
  He was taken to this old shoe factory, except it is not a shoe 
factory anymore. Inside that factory were 3,000 scientists who were 
focused on sequencing the human genome and the medical and economic 
potential of this technology. In fact, the capacity at that one factory 
is more than all of the genome sequencing centers in the United States.
  Dr. Collins said to me with great sadness, Within 3 to 5 years, China 
will eclipse us.
  Mind you, we have invested billions and billions of dollars in 
unlocking the human genome with the intent of seeing great strides 
made; but we are on the verge, we are at the tipping point of seeing 
this all come to a screeching halt if we continue to ignore the fact 
that we are starving the NIH.
  Here is an interesting chart. This shows how much R&D spending is 
going on around the world. China from 2012 to 2013 had an increase of 
15 percent.

                              {time}  1745

  Germany, up 5 percent, Japan up 5 percent, South Korea up 5 percent, 
Canada down 3 percent, the United States down 5 percent.
  This says it all. If we don't want to see the outsourcing of medicine 
in this country, the outsourcing of science in this country, we have 
got a huge wake-up call that we must listen to.
  I am joined this evening by my good friend from San Diego, Scott 
Peters, who I want to engage with him and have him speak a little bit 
to this issue as well. I yield to the gentleman from California (Mr. 
Peters).
  Mr. PETERS of California. Thank you, Ms. Speier. I would like to 
thank you, my colleague from California, for organizing this discussion 
and for your continued efforts to end the assault on NIH funding.
  Mr. Speaker, for decades, our country has been at the forefront of 
scientific discovery. We have had the friendliest atmosphere for 
scientists to do their work, for innovators to start their new 
ventures, and for universities to invest in research laboratories.
  We are in danger of losing that competitive advantage, and the 
across-the-board sequester cuts, which I adamantly opposed during my 
time here, is only amplifying the decline.
  Now, instead of supporting and promoting our country's robust backing 
for scientific and health research, we are undercutting it through 
congressional gridlock and government shutdowns.
  This inability to find bipartisan agreement has undoubtedly harmed 
our national reputation and limits our ability to bring the best and 
brightest here from around the world.
  Earlier this year, I toured the National Institutes of Health in 
Bethesda to visit some of their labs, to meet with patients and hear 
from its director, Dr. Francis Collins, about the work that NIH does 
and how the sequester has affected them.
  Dr. Collins, as Ms. Speier said, has been a constant voice against 
the sequester and has vocalized the impact it has had on the ability of 
NIH to invest in necessary research and grants. Just this year, more 
than 700 grants were cut and the agency was forced to pare down its 
operations by $1.5 billion.
  Dr. Collins told Sam Stein of the Huffington Post on the 10-year 
outlook, should sequester not end, and I quote, I think we may have 
just heard this quote:

       I think we will no longer be the world leader in the 
     production of science, technology, and innovation.

  As the largest funder of biomedical research in the world, the NIH is 
not only a significant driver of research and innovation, leading to 
improvements in quality of life and better patient care, but it also 
drives job creation in related fields.

[[Page 18445]]

  In 2011, more than 400,000 jobs and $62 billion of economic activity 
came from NIH research funding. And on a health level, advances from 
NIH research can have enormous economic benefit for the global economy.
  A 1 percent reduction in cancer deaths has $500 billion in economic 
value. Imagine what the power would be of delaying the onset of chronic 
diseases or finding cures to various types of cancer.
  Importantly, NIH is also a significant funder of research 
universities across the country through its competitive grants. 
According to NIH documents, more than 80 percent of their budget is 
awarded to our country's universities and institutes, including $884 
million in grants to San Diego institutions just in 2012.
  In the last fiscal year, institutions in my district received more 
than 1,300 NIH grants. UC San Diego received almost $400 million 
through 802 grants in 2012 alone, supporting thousands of jobs in the 
San Diego region, and advancing our local innovation economy.
  San Diego, depending on how you calculate it, is either the second or 
third largest life science cluster in the country. These companies and 
research institutions make up approximately one-third of San Diego's 
regional economy, generating more than 200,000 jobs.
  Nationwide, life sciences' companies support more than 7 million 
jobs, adding $69 billion in activity to our national economy.
  Locally, Amplyx Pharmaceuticals received more than $1.5 million in 
NIH grants to research and develop new drugs to fight functional 
infections, and Digital Proteomics received a grant to research 
antibodies that target specific antigens, leading to better treatments 
for numerous diseases.
  Other examples are the La Jolla Institute for Allergy and Immunology, 
where they are researching breakthrough vaccines to some of the world's 
most damaging immune diseases, including type 1 diabetes and various 
types of cancer, and the Veterans Medical Research Foundation, where 
studies on PTSD and brain imaging are underway to better understand the 
impact of violence and conflict on the body and brain. These 
institutions have received numerous grants this year, totaling more 
than $30 million.
  As the last local example, in 2011, the Sanford-Burnham Medical 
Research Institute received more than $70 million in NIH funding as 
part of its research in metabolic rates and obesity. And Scripps 
Research, also in San Diego, was awarded more than $200 million, part 
of which went to their research on determining the structure of H1N1, 
also known as the swine flu.
  Mr. Speaker, there are countless examples across San Diego and the 
country like the ones I just named where researchers are doing 
groundbreaking research that has the potential to improve and extend 
lives. That is good for our economy, for the American people, and for 
the health of people across the world.
  Clearly, not all scientific research can or should be funded by the 
Federal Government or NIH. I wouldn't advocate that, nor my colleagues, 
but I can't stand for continuing down the path of sequester, where we 
cut support for the hardworking scientists and researchers who have 
brought the United States to the front of the pack.
  Later this week, I will be introducing a bill to extend the research 
and development tax credit and lower the barrier to collaborative 
research by encouraging collaboration and consortia. That is just one 
piece of a larger discussion we have to have as we look to reform the 
Tax Code so we incentivize innovators, entrepreneurs, and researchers 
to start their endeavors here in the United States.
  Sam Stein also reported in the Huffington Post in August that nearly 
20 percent of scientists were contemplating moving their operations 
overseas in part due to the sequester.
  Other countries, China, Brazil, Germany, South Korea, Japan, Israel, 
they are making investments in science and in research and development 
that will threaten to leave us in the dust. Brain drain will be a 
reality if we do not act quickly, a phenomena that would affect many 
communities across the country in a very negative way, including my 
own.
  On first read, the budget deal proposed last night by Senator Murray 
and Congressman Ryan, if it passes Congress later this week, would 
allow the NIH more flexibility. It would potentially bring back some 
funding to NIH and NSF over the next 2 years.
  But let's be clear. Scientists, universities, and institutions are 
still looking at unstable long-term budgets where sequester looms over 
their head. And as lawmakers, we can't rest on this foolish sequester 
cut until these cuts are fully reversed.
  Again, I want to thank Ms. Speier for organizing this Special Order. 
NIH funding and our Nation's overall support for basic scientific 
research funding and the innovation economy are central to the economic 
future of San Diego, of California, and of the entire country.
  So I appreciate the opportunity to speak about ending the sequester, 
about promoting and increasing funding for basic scientific research, 
especially at NIH, and to a continued discussion here in Congress.
  Ms. SPEIER. I thank the gentleman from California for his 
articulation of what profound impacts it has certainly to the economy 
of California, but also to the country. And the point he made about 
having some kind of continuity and some certainty is critical to the 
future of science in this country.
  All we have to do is look back to what then-President George Bush did 
when he and a bipartisan group of Members of Congress supported 
doubling the budget for the NIH. That was a plan conceived of where it 
was going to take place over 5 years. So there was continuity and there 
was a sense of certainty that funding would be there for the near and 
the long term.
  So what does a moderate investment in NIH have as a catalyst, so to 
speak, for economic growth?
  Well, it is similar to what happened when the government invested in 
the Internet and spurred dramatic growth in the previous decades. Where 
would we be today if the government had not funded the research that 
created the Internet?
  Before ``google'' became a verb and we actually had to write and mail 
letters to our friends and families and call the doctor to find out 
about medical symptoms, before there was the Internet, there was, in 
fact, the U.S. Government standing behind sound science and research. 
So let's talk about what the NIH-funded research has meant for our 
economy and for our lives.
  The U.S. medical innovation sector employs 1 million Americans, 
generates $84 billion in salaries annually, and exports $90 billion in 
goods and services. The economic value of gains in the U.S. life 
expectancy has been estimated at roughly $95 trillion from 1970 to 
2000.
  Now, that is looking at it from dollars and cents. But think about it 
in terms of people's lives, extending their lives. That is what is 
truly significant about this.
  Now, since 1990, our Nation has gained about 1 year of longevity 
every 6 years with the help of NIH research. Medical research, the most 
advanced of which is often done here in the U.S., has saved millions of 
lives over the last few decades. Death rates for heart disease have 
dropped 65 percent over the last 60 years. That is a phenomenal number. 
Deaths from heart disease have dropped 65 percent over the last 60 
years, in part, in a great part, due to NIH funding.
  The stent that we use so commonly now with heart disease, discovered, 
created at NIH. Death rates from cancer down 12 percent, and death 
rates from strokes down 34 percent, all because of medical research 
going on right here in the United States, spurred by the help of NIH 
funding.
  I yield to my colleague from California, Eric Swalwell, to speak 
about issues from his perspective.
  Mr. SWALWELL of California. Thank you. And I do wish to thank Ms. 
Speier, my neighbor across the San Mateo Bridge, for hosting this 
Special Order hour on NIH funding.
  This is not the first time I have had the opportunity to work with 
Ms. Speier on these issues. In fact, in my

[[Page 18446]]

short year in Congress, Ms. Speier has hosted a number of different 
roundtables, informal and formal, on the importance of NIH funding, and 
it is appropriate for her district, having the birthplace of the United 
States' biotechnology research.
  But it is also important that we want the biotech research to stay in 
the South San Francisco area, to stay in the East Bay area. And the 
folks in the district who are making advances that will hopefully bend 
the health care cost curves are counting on the United States Congress 
to keep NIH funding from being cut. And actually, it is my hope that we 
can increase it.
  The cuts to the NIH mean that there are fewer opportunities right now 
for biomedical research in the United States. It means that the decline 
in funding is meaning that there are more promising paths outside the 
United States for the promising minds who are putting their careers 
into this research.
  Faculty at top universities across the country are reporting cutting 
labor spending by 7 percent and operating with skeleton staffs, 
severely limiting job opportunities for any researcher that would want 
to go into this field. Over 50 percent of university scientists 
surveyed by the American Society for Biochemistry and Molecular Biology 
said that they had a colleague who had lost their job or expects to 
soon because of sequester cuts to NIH funding.
  Also, in the United States, while we have been cutting funding, even 
before the sequester, other countries are increasing and expanding up 
their biomedical engineering sectors. A study this year found that 
nearly 20 percent of scientists are considering moving their careers 
abroad.
  I have worked in my first year in Congress to support the NIH, 
signing on to a letter circulated by Representative Roybal-Allard from 
southern California supporting the NIH behavioral and social science 
research.
  I also signed on to a letter supported by Representatives Jan 
Schakowsky and Bill Young supporting research at NIH, including through 
the BRAIN Initiative and, finally, signed on to a letter to the 
Appropriations Committee asking for support for funding of NIH.
  This afternoon, I distributed a letter to my colleagues in the 
bipartisan United Solutions Caucus, a freshman group of 30 Republican 
and Democratic freshmen Members, and we are asking them to support this 
new compromise budget, not because it does what we want, because I 
would like to see NIH funding go up, but because it will roll back some 
of the sequester cuts and restore some of the funding at NIH.

                              {time}  1800

  In my district, Ms. Speier's district, and across California, 
scientists are counting on us to restore the NIH funding, to actually 
increase it with the long-term goal of using NIH funding--the 
technology and the research that we can put in to bend the health care 
cost curves. If we don't do that, we are going to continue to see the 
discretionary spending in the United States continue to contract, and 
nondiscretionary spending for Medicare costs and Medicaid costs will 
continue to rise and balloon unless we get a hold by putting funding 
and research dollars into what can control these diseases and ailments 
that people in our districts are suffering from. And that only happens 
by putting research dollars into NIH.
  So, again, I want to thank the gentlelady across the San Mateo bridge 
for her leadership on this issue.
  Ms. SPEIER. I thank the gentleman from California. And I thank him 
for recognizing so early in his career here in Congress the critical 
need we have not only to support NIH but also the biotechnology 
companies that are part and parcel of what California has become.
  I am now joined by my distinguished colleague from California as 
well, from the San Diego area, Susan Davis, who has much more to tell 
us from her perspective and from her neck of the woods.
  Mrs. DAVIS of California. I thank Congresswoman Speier for having 
this Special Order today because the focus on NIH--you know, for so 
many families, it actually comes down to care for their loved one. That 
is what they know can happen as a result of proper granting at 
appropriate levels for the NIH. Simply put, it is really vital to the 
Nation's health. Without NIH funding, we will not see the breakthroughs 
that we have seen in the past. NIH funding has led to cures. It has led 
to treatments and preventions for truly some of the most horrific 
diseases of our day afflicting everyone.
  You know, diseases don't pick and choose between infants and seniors, 
lower, middle and, we might say, upper class. They don't distinguish. 
It is kind of equal opportunity for all, and that is why they have to 
be targeted.
  I have been a consistent coleader of the annual NIH appropriations 
letter, requesting that the House appropriate full funding for the NIH, 
and the return to full funding is absolutely essential.
  NIH is unique in its function. We know that we have an active private 
sector in our country. That is wonderful. And we certainly see that in 
my community of San Diego, and my colleague Congressman Peters talked 
about this earlier.
  But the private sector simply does not have the ability to replace 
public investment in the NIH. They don't have it. That kind of basic 
research in science has to come from the United States Government. That 
is where it has always come from. It has come from there when we even 
look at the advancements that we have had in technology. And it 
certainly makes a difference when we think about what we are doing and 
what our friends, our allies around the world, and even some who are 
not allies, are doing in this area. So we have got to be competitive. 
It doesn't make any sense not to be.
  We know that the NIH conducts and funds research that is just too 
expensive--too expensive and too risky for private industry to 
undertake a loan; and it has led us to major advancements in the 
understanding of diseases like Alzheimer's, cancer, and Parkinson's.
  The research coming out of and the grants coming from NIH are a huge 
driver of our biotechnology industry; and that, in turn, contributes 
heavily to our economy. Particularly in San Diego, we see that every 
single day because that is where the hundreds of jobs, good-paying jobs 
that allow people to really reach their potential and be purposeful 
about their work, that is where that comes from.
  NIH funding keeps researchers and graduate students employed doing 
what they do best, investigating answers to our most complex medical 
mysteries: cancer, premature birth, heart disease, and so on. I have 
had these young scientists in my office talking about the fact that 
they may not stay with the field, a field that they love, because they 
can't get the grants. As we cut back, only the most experienced 
scientists get those grants, and they are good. But our young people 
may be even better, but we have got to give them a chance. We have got 
to give them a chance to move forward and do that.
  More than 80 percent of the NIH budget goes to over 300,000 research 
personnel at more than 2,500 universities and research institutions 
throughout the United States. So that is affecting a lot more than 
California. It is affecting our colleagues around the country, and 
maybe they don't even realize what an impact that has.
  In San Diego, we are fortunate. We have got a lot of researchers, a 
lot of scientists working hard; and they received $1.13 billion in NIH 
funding in 2012. It has sparked major breakthroughs, brings jobs to the 
region, and creates potential breakthroughs for millions around the 
country.
  So we are doing our part; but, tragically, the sequestration requires 
NIH to cut 5 percent, or $1.55 billion, of its fiscal year 2013 budget. 
NIH must apply the cut evenly across the board, the way things are 
today. That is why we have to change that. I hope we will be able to do 
that. NIH must apply the cut evenly across all programs, projects, and 
activities which are primarily NIH institutes and centers. This means 
that every area of medical research will be affected by that. Every 
area. Not just

[[Page 18447]]

the few that maybe we think don't need the help, but every area. This 
is an irrational, backwards-thinking policy that will harm millions of 
Americans--current patients and future ones--and cost us millions in 
economic output.
  As a result of the sequester and the slashing of NIH funding, already 
approximately 640 fewer competitive research project grants will be 
issued from what we have already done; approximately 750 fewer new 
patients admitted to the NIH Clinical Center; no increase in stipends 
for National Research Service Award recipients in 2013; and a delay in 
medical progress.
  You know, these medical breakthroughs that we have that benefit many 
of our patients, many of our constituents--and I know I have friends 
who have been the beneficiaries of some of those breakthroughs--they 
just don't happen overnight. In almost all instances, those discoveries 
result from years of incremental research to understand how diseases 
start and progress. Even after the cause and the potential drug target 
of disease is discovered, it takes an average of 13 years and $1 
billion to develop a treatment for that target.
  And what is difficult is that we know that a lot of people are 
waiting for some of those clinical trials because you have to be 
careful how that is done, and that takes time. It takes enough 
patience, enough people willing to take that risk so that we can see 
what happens over time. That is so important. And when we start 
breaking this up, the whole process doesn't work.
  Cuts to research are delaying progress in medical breakthroughs, 
including development of better cancer drugs that zero in on a tumor 
with fewer side effects; research on a universal flu vaccine that could 
fight every strain of influenza without even needing a yearly shot; and 
the prevention of debilitating chronic conditions that are costly to 
society and delay development of more effective treatments for common 
and rare diseases affecting millions of Americans.
  And, as I mentioned earlier, we lose the promising, accomplished 
scientists and researchers who are leaving the industry because of the 
loss or inability to get grants.
  We see that faculty at top universities across the country are 
reporting cutting labor spending by 7 percent and operating with 
skeleton staffs, severely limiting job opportunities for new 
researchers. Over 50 percent of scientists surveyed by the American 
Society for Biochemistry and Molecular Biology said they had a 
colleague who has lost his job or expects to soon. Some of the 
scientists are not coming back. They are going elsewhere. They are 
going to those areas where we are competing because they can take a 
more stable position outside of the research sector here in the United 
States.
  Do we want that? I don't think so. Quite simply, we are inflicting 
decades of damage with the sequester policy that we have, and I hope 
that that is going to change. It is not rational to do that. It is 
cruel. It is backwards. It is insanity.
  Let's join together and undo--what we can agree on in a bipartisan 
basis--a foolish policy with an untold number of victims from every 
State and every city and town in this country. Let us work together to 
restore NIH funding immediately.
  I thank my colleague.
  Ms. SPEIER. Would the gentlelady entertain a question?
  You were here when then-President Bush worked in a bipartisan fashion 
with the House and the Senate, the Republicans and the Democrats, to 
double the funding for NIH; and all we have seen since then is just an 
absolute cliff decline in funding.
  What happened then that isn't happening now? How can we reinstate 
that kind of bipartisan sentiment?
  Mrs. DAVIS of California. Well, I think we saw the leadership coming 
from President Bush at that time. And because we also had--those of us 
here on this side of the aisle, I think, in support, it was a 
bipartisan effort. We saw that leadership coming from the top; and that 
is what made a difference, because it was written into the budget.
  Now, I must say, we weren't able to sustain some of that because of a 
number of reasons. And we were fighting two wars and then had a number 
of other issues that we needed to look at. But the reality is that that 
was maybe unique in some ways because it really came from leadership at 
the top. It was here, on our side of the House, and the House was 
supportive. The Senate was supportive, and the President was 
supportive. So it was really altogether. We don't see that leadership 
right now from the other side of the aisle.
  Ms. SPEIER. Well, I thank the gentlelady for her passionate and 
clear-minded commentary on how critical this is for the entire country 
and to all the lives that are at risk, should we not fund NIH at a 
level that is going to come up with the next cure, the next blockbuster 
drug that is going to save lives and create longevity for so many 
Americans.
  Mrs. DAVIS of California. I thank my colleague.
  Ms. SPEIER. We are joined by the Congressman from northern 
California, my colleague for many years, Congressman John Garamendi, 
who is no stranger to this floor for Special Orders, I might add.
  Mr. GARAMENDI. Representative Speier, thank you so very much. It is 
good to be on the floor. I noticed thus far it has been Californians, 
but this is far more than California. I see Chicago, Illinois, just 
arrived, and we will pick up on that.
  This is an issue that touches every single American. It is not a 
California issue. I represent northern California, not far from the Bay 
Area. The University of California/Davis campus is in my area. There 
are major, major programs in research, not just with the National 
Institutes of Health and the health issues that we are talking about 
here, but agriculture, energy research, and on and on.
  It turns out that that powerful engine of research is found in every 
part of America. So listen out there, those of you that are watching. 
This is not just a California issue. This is an American issue, and it 
is an international issue because this particular National Institutes 
of Health is dealing with the health of this entire world. Every person 
in the world is, in one way or another, affected by the research done 
by the National Institutes of Health, the funding that they, then, 
provide to the 250 universities all around this Nation to deal with 
illnesses, to deal with the human body and beyond.
  For example, Davis, which was originally known as an agricultural 
research institution and continues to do that, has discovered that, 
interestingly enough, with the mad cow issue, there is a virus that can 
be identified specifically with that illness so that for the cattle 
industry, if some cow goes a little weird, you can find out whether it 
has mad cow disease or it is just weird. And the very same thing 
applies to the human body. So this virus can be identified both in a 
cow--is it mad or not? Well, it may just be angry but not crazed--and 
in a human.
  Dealing with a very, very serious human issue and also a serious 
economic issue for those of us in the cattle business. This is a big 
thing. And what has happened--I love charts.
  Ms. SPEIER. As do I.
  Mr. GARAMENDI. I noticed, Representative Speier, that you love charts 
too. So I borrowed this. I think you used it earlier today. This is 
instructive.
  You were just talking with the Representative, our friend from San 
Diego, about the enormous increase that took place for the National 
Institutes of Health during the George W. Bush conservative period of 
time. It is right there, $21 billion; and then over the years, it began 
to lose a little bit of its, I guess, interest. And then, as we went 
into the late years of the George Bush administration, it dropped down 
there. And then, of course, the great crash. A little bump here, which 
I think is the stimulus bill, pushing more money into research at the 
National Institutes of Health. And then we have seen, beginning in 
2010, what has got to be one of the stupidest policies this Nation has 
engaged in.

[[Page 18448]]



                              {time}  1815

  It happened to be in 2011, when the House changed from Democratic 
control to Republican control. We have seen a very steep decline--a 
$1.5 billion reduction and annual decline in the National Institutes of 
Health.
  This same decline in the last 3 years is what is the result of the 
austerity budgets that have been imposed upon us by the Republicans 
trying to solve the national deficit by cutting Federal expenditures. 
The entire European community has come to the conclusion that doesn't 
work. Austerity budgeting does not increase economic growth. It has 
caused stagnation. Certainly, in Europe we are beginning to see, I 
think, a large part of the slow growth in the United States caused by 
austerity budgets.
  But specifically to the health care of Americans--our health, our 
well-being--this is really serious. This means people are going to have 
additional illnesses. You spoke earlier about some of those, like 
diabetes. Diabetic research funding is cut through the National 
Institutes of Health.
  This one I really find frightening. I find this frightening because 
this is very personal. My mother-in-law spent the last 2 years of her 
life with a very, very serious case of Alzheimer's disease. She died in 
a hospice program in our home. We, I suppose, were a very small part of 
this because we took care of her. But right now we are spending $200 
billion a year dealing with Alzheimer's.
  We know that the population is going to increase and the elderly 
population is going to skyrocket as the baby boomers move into their 
later years. By 2050, it will be $1.2 trillion for Alzheimer's.
  Is there anybody in America, any family in America, that is not 
concerned about Alzheimer's? I don't know who they are. I know my 
family is concerned about it. Every family that I know--and I know many 
because I have been in public life for a long time and met perhaps 
thousands, or hundreds of thousands, of people--and every single one of 
them is concerned about Alzheimer's.
  This is the financial side of it. The human side of it, I can tell 
you, is serious. I can tell you the effect it has.
  Ms. SPEIER. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. GARAMENDI. I would.
  Ms. SPEIER. To your point, this $1.2 trillion in the year 2050 is 
coming from all the taxpayers in this country. Because these are 
Medicare patients. These are Medicaid patients. What would be really 
stunning is to understand that if we were able to delay the onset or 
progression of Alzheimer's by 6 years, it could produce an annual 
savings of $51 billion in 2015, $126 billion in 2025, and a whopping 
$444 billion--almost half a trillion dollars--in the year 2050, when 
that cost is going to skyrocket to $1.2 trillion.
  Mr. GARAMENDI. I am so glad you interrupted because that is an 
extremely important fact.
  Let's go back and look at that. In 2015, the savings are how much?
  Ms. SPEIER. They are $51 billion.
  Mr. GARAMENDI. They are $51 billion. We are going through this budget 
exercise where, by the way, the sequestration cut continues, although 
the across-the-board is eliminated. Half of the sequestration cut will 
continue because of this budget, but we will be able to try to balance 
out the prioritization.
  But the total savings in 2015 is less than the $50 billion that you 
have suggested could be saved if we could extend the onset and the 
severity of Alzheimer's. We watched this very closely in my family. The 
fact of the matter is that the National Institutes of Health's funding 
for Alzheimer's is coming to understand the nature of Alzheimer's and, 
therefore, how to deal with it.
  Mr. WAXMAN. I thank you for yielding. Both of you are absolutely 
right. It is so shortsighted to have us cut back on funding for the 
National Institutes of Health and their research agenda. When you make 
a cut in this area one year, it isn't like you can make it up the next 
year. Researchers go on to other fields.
  It is shortsighted to make these kinds of cuts.
  I also wanted to comment on the fact that every day members of the 
Safe Climate Caucus have come to this House floor and talked about the 
shortsightedness of the leadership of the House of Representatives in 
ignoring the science on climate change. And so every day we have had 
speakers--the gentleman from California has been one of them--to just 
use a minute to talk about this pressing issue.
  Yesterday, The Wall Street Journal reported that China has released a 
national blueprint for adapting to climate change. This follows the 
International Energy Agency's recent prediction that China will install 
more renewable energy over the next two decades than the U.S. and 
Europe combined. And China has recently implemented a series of 
regional cap-and-trade programs which are putting a price on carbon in 
China.
  According to the Chinese Government--and I thank the gentleman for 
giving me this opportunity--climate change has already cost its people 
tens of billions of dollars and potentially thousands of lives. These 
developments in China are important because China is the world's 
largest emitter of carbon pollution, and we are the second largest. Our 
two countries need to play a leading role in addressing this global 
threat.
  President Obama is committed to global leadership. His climate action 
plan calls for working with China and other nations to bend the post-
2020 emissions trajectory. He is bringing in John Podesta, an 
experienced leader with a deep understanding of climate issues, to help 
him succeed.
  We in the House need to stop being part of the problem and start 
being part of the solution. We need to start taking the climate threat 
seriously and work to find solutions. If China can take action on 
climate change, so can the U.S. If we don't, we will lose the race to 
develop the clean energy technologies that will power the future.
  Let's not be shortsighted. Let's invest in research--research to 
protect our health and research to protect our planet.
  I thank the gentleman.
  Mr. GARAMENDI. Thank you, Mr. Waxman, for bringing up the leadership 
that China has.
  I notice that the leader of our hour talked about China's leadership 
in another field.
  Let me turn back to our leader, Representative Speier.
  Ms. SPEIER. I just point out that China is eating our lunch, so to 
speak.
  This is just the funding from 2012 and 2013. We referenced this 
earlier. And Congressman Waxman was talking about what they are doing 
relative to climate change. Look what they are doing in R&D spending in 
the last 2 years. It is up 15 percent. Germany, Japan, and South Korea 
are up 5 percent. Where is the United States, Mr. Garamendi?
  Mr. GARAMENDI. In the red, going down.
  Ms. SPEIER. That is right: a cut of 5 percent. So another example of 
how China is going to eclipse us in more ways than one. And those young 
researchers that we have been talking about are going to be going to 
China to do their research.
  Mr. GARAMENDI. If I might just add to that, it is my understanding--
and I get this from the University of California-Davis--that they are 
losing their new Ph.D.s to other countries, particularly to China and 
to India, because those countries are not only increasing their total 
research but they are also providing these very bright, innovative, 
forward-thinking Ph.D.s with a full laboratory and all of the support 
that they might need to continue to conduct their research not only on 
the issue of health care but also in all of the sciences and 
technologies, from high technology, energy, and so forth.
  So we really need to get on it.
  My final point is here twofold. First of all, if we are going to 
build this economy, there are five things we have to do consistently 
through time. And they require public investment.
  First of all, education. You have got to have the best educated 
workforce in the world.

[[Page 18449]]

  Secondly, you have to have the best, most advanced research because 
that is where the future is. That is where the future economic growth 
will come from.
  You need to make the things that come from that. You need to have the 
infrastructure, and you need to think globally. We are not doing that.
  The budgets that have been put forth by our colleagues on the 
Republican side go exactly the other direction. They cut educational 
funding, beginning with early childhood education. They cut the funding 
for research. You see it here.
  Tomorrow, we are going to take up the new budget. It continues to cut 
research across the board, the National Institutes of Health probably 
included. It goes on and on. Transportation, infrastructure--forget it, 
there is no money for it.
  We have got to turn that around. These are the fundamental 
investments of economic growth and, more important, social justice.
  Congresswoman Speier, thank you so much. You have been at this, 
beating this drum. Don't stop. You stay with this. This is a message 
that the American public has to understand. These are the investments 
about our own personal health, our children's health, and our future 
economic growth, as well as addressing worldwide problems.
  Thank you so very much for what you are doing here and for loaning me 
your charts.
  Ms. SPEIER. I thank the gentleman from California for lending his 
support and his articulation of this issue.
  To his point about the jobs being lost, this year's sequester cuts 
were estimated to result in the loss of more than 20,000 jobs and $3 
billion in economic activity.
  The three scientists who won the Nobel Prize for medicine this year 
for their research on how cells swap proteins all received NIH funding 
at some time during their careers. Nobel Prize winner Rothman said he 
probably would not have started his research had NIH funding not been 
available.
  So that, I think, speaks volumes about how important NIH funding is 
to young scientists.
  I am now joined by my great friend, a great, passionate leader on so 
many issues before this House, my colleague from Illinois (Ms. 
Schakowsky).
  Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Thank you. I want to thank Congresswoman Speier for 
leading this really important debate.
  We have been talking lately about how we are not going to be able to 
compete for the economic development in research and biotechnology and 
all the things that we do at the NIH. But I also want to show how 
economically--with one of your charts--it really doesn't work for us 
here at home as well.
  Pretty much all you can see are the red lines, which are the costs 
every year in the United States of common diseases.
  As my colleague, Congressman Garamendi, pointed out, we have $203 
billion a year that Alzheimer's costs our society as a whole. This is 
cancer, $158 billion. We have hypertension, $131 billion; diabetes, 
$116 billion; obesity, $109 billion; heart disease, $95.6 billion; 
stroke, $18.8 billion, Parkinson's disease, $6 billion.
  So it is really easy to see these red lines.
  Teeny, tiny, and I think maybe the only one you can see here well is 
the amount of money that we are spending to address these diseases. NIH 
research funding and annual cost of care for major diseases in the U.S. 
is what this chart is about.
  We spend $5.5 billion on cancer research. On Alzheimer's disease it 
has not even been a billion dollars. It is half a billion dollars for a 
disease that costs $200 billion to our economy. And on and on.
  The teeny, tiny blue lines are barely very visible of how much we are 
actually investing in trying to deal with these diseases and diminish 
the tremendous costs to families and costs to government through our 
public health programs.
  And so if we are smart investors, wise investors in how we can save 
ourselves money, we would put money into this kind of research.
  I just want to give an example from my district of lack of being 
penny wise and pound foolish.
  Northwestern University is developing one of the first major studies 
to look at the impact of contaminants from superfund sites--those are 
the most polluted sites in our country--on our reproductive health.
  So Northwestern, which is in Evanston, Illinois, and I am proud to 
say in my district--a constituent of mine--proposed a study to examine 
the reproductive health impacts of exposure to metals, including zinc 
and lead, that are present in the DePue superfund site in Illinois--a 
very dirty site.

                              {time}  1830

  Initially, in the fall of 2012, the Northwestern University Superfund 
Research program, led by Dr. Teresa Woodruff, was awarded a positive 
score with a good chance of receiving funding in response to the NIH 
research application. Mind you, if we had been able to research this 
particular Superfund contaminated site, it would have helped all over 
the country where we have these kinds of contaminations.
  Due to limited funding--due to the sequestration--in March of 2013, 
Dr. Woodruff and her colleague were informally given the option to 
receive a reduced amount for a reduced period of time since their 
application was deemed, in fact, meritorious. After electing to accept 
the reduced funding, the NIH informed the Northwestern University 
Superfund Research program that, due to the sequester cuts, their 
project would not be funded.
  This lack of funding means Dr. Woodruff and her team are unable to 
perform this critical research which would be helpful all over the 
country to help us gain a better understanding of the reproductive 
health risks of Superfund sites and to help us determine the best 
practices for the future disposal of those toxic chemicals.
  We are absolutely putting hands behind our backs in order to address 
critical health issues that are facing our country. We are hamstringing 
our ability to compete globally. We are hurting the health of Americans 
and of future Americans in not funding the study of reproductive 
health. It just makes no sense. It makes absolutely no sense to cut the 
funding from the National Institutes of Health. It is hard to figure 
out what that argument would be. You certainly can't say this is 
frivolous spending, excessive spending.
  So I really thank you for calling attention to the one of many ways 
that the sequester has hurt our country, but it is a very significant 
one. I appreciate your leadership.
  Ms. SPEIER. You, too, were here in Congress during the Bush 
administration when there was an extraordinary increase in the budget 
for the NIH. The Republicans at that time recognized the value of 
keeping the NIH robust in the funds that it had in order for it to do 
cutting-edge research and move us forward.
  What is it going to take? What was it like then that we don't have 
today that might be able to enlighten us?
  Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. There was some common sense on both sides of the 
aisle of things that were essential investments for our country, that 
it made sense from every angle at which you looked at this to make 
those kinds of investments in the National Institutes of Health.
  I think, right now, we are dealing with some of our colleagues across 
the aisle who believe that government spending, regardless, is not a 
smart investment, that the sequester cuts, which are meat-ax cuts 
across the board, do not distinguish in any way among the programs and 
that that is a smart way to go.
  The chairman of the Appropriations Committee, Congressman Rogers, 
doesn't agree with that--the sequestration, he agrees, hurts us--but, 
unfortunately, we don't have the same kind of bipartisan consensus. I 
think Democrats see the wisdom of this and that we need help from our 
colleagues. We had it then. We don't now.
  Ms. SPEIER. I thank the gentlelady for her support and for her 
involvement in this very critical issue.

[[Page 18450]]

  I am really very grateful for the conversation we have had this hour 
on the National Institutes of Health, but I am also anxious for the 
millions of Americans across this country who are suffering with some 
diabolical disease--some cancer--some disease that has no cure, whether 
it is heart disease or glioblastomas or breast cancer. There are 
millions of Americans right now who are dealing with stage 4 cancers, 
who are holding on by just their fingernails, hoping against hope that 
there will be some cure, some breakthrough drug, some clinical trial 
they can participate in.
  I think, for each and every one of us in this House, we have to think 
about those people in our districts, and there are thousands of them in 
each of our districts. If they knew that we were tying the hands of the 
National Institutes of Health in doing that kind of cutting-edge 
research, I think they would be so disappointed--more than 
disappointed. They would be so angry that the lives of their loved ones 
were in the offing.
  I would like to continue with a brief discussion on our academic 
health centers in the United States. They are, really, the pulse of so 
much of the research that goes on when it comes to advanced medical 
research. Many of them are funded through the NIH, as was mentioned 
earlier--thousands of them across this country. I am going to tell you 
about one such researcher. Her name is Dr. Valerie Weaver. She is a 
professor in the UCSF Departments of Surgery, Anatomy and 
Bioengineering and Therapeutic Sciences.
  She does think outside the box. Her lab is investigating not only 
tumors, themselves, found in patients afflicted with breast cancer, 
pancreatic cancer, or brain cancer, but the neighborhood of tissues and 
cells where those tumors take up residence. Unfortunately, her quest 
for cutting-edge solutions to rapidly improve cancer treatments is 
threatened by the sequestration of the NIH budget. Because of reduced 
funding on her existing grants, Dr. Weaver has had to lay off three 
existing personnel and has had to cancel three new hires. ``The only 
people I can take are those with their own funding. Each year, you get 
less and less, and you are asked to do more and more,'' she said, ``and 
you try to get more creative, but wonder what you are supposed to do.''
  As a scientist, she finds herself spending less time thinking about 
how to battle cancer in the lab and more time struggling against 
funding cuts. ``I spend way too much time writing grants. My grant 
writing time has doubled,'' Weaver said, but added she still pushes to 
move her research forward. ``I have to do some type of science every 
day, at least once a day, even if it's only an hour. It should be the 
other way around--1 hour of administration and 12 hours of science--but 
it's not. That breaks my heart,'' she says.
  For those suffering from the forms of cancer that Dr. Weaver hopes to 
treat, she points out that time is of the essence. Patients with brain 
tumors and pancreatic cancer, in particular, frequently live only a 
short time after diagnosis. ``Some of the studies we're doing in the 
next 4 to 5 years will have a direct impact on the clinic,'' she said. 
``This could have huge implications for saving patients.''
  Weaver also worries about the impact that sequestration is having on 
the next generation of talented researchers. ``You think: you can't let 
these people go under. If they go under, you lose them, because they 
don't come back,'' she stated soberly.
  In truth, there is so much at stake that we must recognize that the 
sequestration of the NIH is killing the goose that lays the golden 
egg--that saves American lives, that creates opportunities for great 
trade, that provides us with, yet again, more and more and more 
research that leads to more and more cures. Alzheimer's alone will 
choke us--will choke the Medicare system--if we don't do more research 
in that area.
  So I want to close by saying that the funding of the NIH is not a 
political issue. It is an economic and a medical imperative. Medical 
research makes Americans and the rest of the world healthier. It grows 
our economy, and it produces valuable jobs here at home. It is time for 
us to take the shackles off the NIH, to restore the funding that was 
there when George Bush was President and to regain the position that we 
have had for so long in terms of fine medical research.
  With that, Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

                          ____________________