[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 160 (2014), Part 9]
[Senate]
[Pages 13004-13007]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




          STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS

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

                                S. 2653

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Homeless Children and Youth 
     Act of 2014''.

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

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

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

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

     ``SEC. 409. AVAILABILITY OF HMIS REPORT.

       ``(a) In General.--The information provided to the 
     Secretary under section 402(f)(3) shall be made publically 
     available on the Internet website of the Department of 
     Housing and Urban Development in aggregate, non-personally 
     identifying reports.
       ``(b) Required Data.--Each report made publically available 
     under subsection (a) shall be updated on at least an annual 
     basis and shall include--
       ``(1) a cumulative count of the number of individuals and 
     families experiencing homelessness;
       ``(2) a cumulative assessment of the patterns of assistance 
     provided under subtitles B and C for the each geographic area 
     involved; and
       ``(3) a count of the number of individuals and families 
     experiencing homelessness that are documented through the 
     HMIS by each collaborative applicant.'';
       (4) in section 422--
       (A) in subsection (a)--
       (i) by striking ``The Secretary'' and inserting the 
     following:
       ``(1) In general.--The Secretary''; and
       (ii) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(2) Restriction.--In awarding grants under paragraph (1), 
     the Secretary may not consider or prioritize the specific 
     homeless

[[Page 13005]]

     populations intended to be served by the applicant if the 
     applicant demonstrates that the project--
       ``(A) would meet the priorities identified in the plan 
     submitted under section 427(b)(1)(B); and
       ``(B) is cost-effective in meeting the overall goals and 
     objectives identified in that plan.''; and
       (B) by striking subsection (j);
       (5) in section 424(d), by striking paragraph (5);
       (6) in section 427(b)--
       (A) in paragraph (1)--
       (i) in subparagraph (A)--

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

       (ii) in subparagraph (B)--

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

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

     ``SEC. 433. REPORTS TO CONGRESS.

       ``(a) In General.--The Secretary shall submit to Congress 
     an annual report, which shall--
       ``(1) summarize the activities carried out under this 
     subtitle and set forth the findings, conclusions, and 
     recommendations of the Secretary as a result of the 
     activities; and
       ``(2) include, for the year preceding the date on which the 
     report is submitted--
       ``(A) data required to be made publically available in the 
     report under section 409; and
       ``(B) data on programs funded under any other Federal 
     statute, as such term is defined in section 401.
       ``(b) Timing.--A report under subsection (a) shall be 
     submitted not later than 4 months after the end of each 
     fiscal year.''.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. HARKIN:
  S. 2658. A bill to prioritize funding for the National Institutes of 
Health to discover treatments and cures, to maintain global leadership 
in medical innovation, and to restore the purchasing power the NIH had 
after the historic doubling campaign that ended in fiscal year 2003; to 
the Committee on the Budget.
  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, last year, 2013, marked the 10-year 
anniversary of the completion of the historic campaign to double 
funding for the National Institutes of Health.
  Beginning in fiscal year 1998, I worked with Congressman John Porter 
and Senator Arlen Specter in our leadership roles on the Appropriations 
Subcommittee on Labor, Health and Human Services, Education, and 
Related Agencies. In that year, 1998, funding for the National 
Institutes of Health was $13 billion. By fiscal year 2003, we had 
increased NIH funding to $27 billion. We doubled funding in 5 years. We 
said we were, and we laid out a plan under both Republican and 
Democratic administrations and we got it done. That was a historic 
milestone for biomedical research in the United States.
  Truly, increasing our Nation's investment in NIH was a bold statement 
of our Nation's commitment to retaining our standing as the undisputed 
world leader in biomedical research, and we have reaped extraordinary 
benefits from that investment. We reaped benefits in terms of new 
treatments, new diagnostics, and the new jobs and economic growth that 
biomedical research brings.
  But where does NIH stand today, 10 years after the historic doubling 
of funding for biomedical research, which did so much to advance 
America's economy and our standing in the world? Where are we today? 
Sadly, as this chart illustrates, we have been falling behind.
  So here we are. We got back up to where we should be by doubling the 
funding. Since that time, it has basically leveled off. We are now 
short about $8 billion below where we would be if we had just kept up 
with inflation. So NIH has lost about 20 percent of its purchasing 
power from that time. Success rates for applicants fell from the 
traditional range of 25 to 35 percent to just 16 percent last year, 
2013. Promising research was not funded, and many young scientists had 
no choice but to find other occupations. This has had profoundly 
negative consequences. Our biomedical pipeline is clearly showing the 
negative effects.
  So today I am introducing a bill that allows us to find common 
ground, on a bipartisan basis, to jump-start our reinvestment in the 
National Institutes of Health and ensure America's leadership in 
biomedical research.
  Republicans and Democrats may disagree on what level of revenue is 
appropriate. We disagree about the value of investing in education in 
order to build a stronger workforce. But I have yet to hear any Senator 
who disagrees with my view that Federal investments in biomedical 
research are good for the economy and good for our country.
  As the chairman of the appropriations subcommittee that funds NIH, I 
get letters from Senators every year requesting support for research 
programs, so I can speak with authority when I say the majority of 
Senators--from both parties--believe we should be investing more 
strongly in NIH. That is exactly the aim of the bill I am introducing 
today. The Accelerating Biomedical Research Act makes NIH a priority in 
our national budget process by creating a budget cap adjustment for the 
National Institutes of Health. This bill will put a plan in place for 
the Appropriations Committee to reverse the 10-year retrenchment in 
biomedical research funding over the remaining years of the Budget 
Control Act.
  Importantly, the Accelerating Biomedical Research Act is not an 
appropriation. It is not a mandatory trust fund. It is not a tax 
credit. The bill that I am introducing does not score for CBO purposes 
because it does not spend any money now. I am always hearing that we 
should have a robust debate on the budget and our spending priorities 
as a country. So this bill starts that debate. I invite Senators to 
cosponsor this bill if they believe, as I do, that we should change our 
budget to allow for biomedical research to grow in the United States.
  I ask unanimous consent that a list of the organizations who have 
endorsed this bill be entered into the Record at the end of my remarks.
  I believe we must do this. I believe we must do this to save lives 
and to improve the health of the American people. I also believe we 
must do it because we know that investing in biomedical research 
creates jobs and spurs the economy.
  Some may say that changing the budget allows for more spending so it 
should be offset by cuts to other programs. Well, to that I say there 
can be little doubt that NIH funding abundantly pays for itself in 
expanded economic activity. Respected economists have studied this, and 
they have estimated that each dollar of investment in the National 
Institutes of Health generates anywhere from $1.80 to $3.20 in economic 
output.
  Let me take just one vivid example of the payoffs from our Federal 
investments in biomedical research.
  In 2003 NIH completed the Human Genome Project started about 13 years 
earlier. In total, the Federal Government invested $3.4 billion of 
taxpayers' money in sequencing the human genome. That project has had a 
truly staggering economic impact. As of 2012, it had generated $965 
billion in economic activity, personal income exceeding $293 billion, 
and more than 4.3 million job-years of employment. For every dollar our 
government spent on the Human Genome Project, America has reaped $178 
in economic benefits--for every dollar we invest. And this is just the 
economic impact. The positive impact in terms of cures discovered and 
lives saved is incalculable.
  But research doesn't have to launch an entire industry to contribute 
significantly to our economy as the Human Genome Project did. I will 
give an example from my home State.
  Dr. Joseph Walder, a researcher at the University of Iowa, received a 
$5.7 million research grant many years ago from the National Heart, 
Lung, and Blood Institute. In the course of his research, he developed 
synthetic DNA and RNA technology. Realizing that this was a valuable 
research tool, Dr. Walder launched a company called Integrated DNA 
Technologies in 1987. Out of a $5.7 million Federal investment came a 
company with $100 million in annual sales, employing 650 people.

[[Page 13006]]

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

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

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

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

  I will say one more thing about China's ambitious plans. China has 
identified biotechnology as one of seven key ``strategic and emerging 
pillar'' industries. They have pledged to invest $308.5 billion in 
biotechnology over the next 5 years. By contrast, the U.S. investment 
over the same period of time will be roughly $160 billion, just about 
half of what China is doing.
  It is a shocking and disturbing fact that, if current trends 
continue, the U.S. Government's investment in life sciences research as 
a share of GDP will soon be about one quarter of what China is doing.
  According to the NIH, China already has more gene sequencing capacity 
than the entire United States, and they have about one third of global 
capacity.
  Imagine that. We are the ones that mapped and sequenced the entire 
human genome. We are the ones that put the $3.6 billion into that. We 
reaped some rewards and benefits--as I just said--but right now China 
has more gene sequencing capacity than we do. That, again, illustrates 
my point that they are moving ahead and we have sort of slowed down and 
stopped, resting on our laurels, so to speak.
  The budget caps enacted by Congress are forcing disinvestments in a 
whole range of priorities that are the key to our Nation's prosperity. 
These disinvestments are having devastating impacts across our 
economy--lower growth and fewer jobs.
  Again, I appreciate there are honest disagreements about the 
appropriate levels of investment in education, job training, and other 
domestic priorities. But from countless conversations with Senators 
from both parties, there seems to be one area of broad agreement, and 
that is that we should invest robustly in the National Institutes of 
Health. And that is why I have introduced this bill today. It is time 
for us on a bipartisan basis to reverse this erosion of support for 
biomedical research to ensure America's standing as a world leader in 
this field. This is what we are talking about, a discretionary cap 
adjustment. That is what our bill would do to allow NIH to make up for 
lost ground.
  Here is what is happening. We are about $8 billion behind. By 
providing a budget cap adjustment we can close this gap by 2021 and 
bring it up to where it should be if we could allow for increases due 
to inflation. Quite frankly, I guess I could argue we have to do even 
more than that, but this is the minimum we ought to do, a minimum to 
close the gap in biomedical research.
  We have to do this for the health of our people, our economy, and our 
Federal budget. So I urge my colleagues to join in supporting the 
Accelerating Biomedical Research Act.
  I yield the floor.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:


                  National Groups Supporting the Bill

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

[[Page 13007]]




               Research Institutions Supporting the Bill

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

                          ____________________