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…
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.
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).
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
As do I.
Will the gentleman yield?
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.
They are $51 billion.
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?
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.
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).
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?
I thank the gentlelady for her support and for her involvement in this very critical issue.
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.