Search Bills

Browse Bills

93rd (26222)
94th (23756)
95th (21548)
96th (14332)
97th (20134)
98th (19990)
99th (15984)
100th (15557)
101st (15547)
102nd (16113)
103rd (13166)
104th (11290)
105th (11312)
106th (13919)
113th (9767)
112th (15911)
111th (19293)
110th (7009)
109th (19491)
108th (15530)
107th (16380)

DEPARTMENTS OF LABOR, HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, AND EDUCATION, AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2001


Sponsor:

Summary:

All articles in House section

DEPARTMENTS OF LABOR, HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, AND EDUCATION, AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2001
(House of Representatives - June 13, 2000)

Text of this article available as: TXT PDF [Pages H4231-H4310] DEPARTMENTS OF LABOR, HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, AND EDUCATION, AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2001 The Committee resumed its sitting. The CHAIRMAN. Does the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Porter) rise in opposition? Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition. The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Illinois is recognized for 15 minutes. Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, as I said to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi) in full committee markup of this bill, this amendment, of course, tests my resolve more than any other of your theme amendments. I consider the funding for NIH to be of the highest priority I would very much have liked to put into this bill the full 15 percent increase that I believe is necessary and proper. Such funding is among the best spent money in government to continue on our path of doubling NIH over a 5-year period. Unfortunately, the allocation was not sufficient to do so. We have in the bill a limitation to limit the obligation to the President's budget, which is a $1 billion increase less the cap and comes out to probably 4 percent to 5 percent, rather than the 15 percent that we favor. However, the gentlewoman has just used this amendment to make a number of political points, and I would simply say to the gentlewoman she ought to look at the history of funding for NIH. It indicates that the President of the United States has put this at a very, very low priority in all of his budgets for the last 5 years, while the majority party has put it at a very, very high priority. Congress has provided a total of $7.8 billion in cumulative increases for NIH as opposed to the $4.3 billion requested by the President over the last 5 years. We have put NIH on a funding path to [[Page H4232]] double its level in 5 years, we have made two down payments and are committed, within the fiscal responsibility, to making the third payment this year. We cannot do it within the allocation that we have, but we are committed to making that third payment this year. I would not say that this was done on a partisan basis. It has been a bipartisan effort. It has been supported by both sides of the aisle. I know, and the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi) knows that there are more scientific opportunities today. Increased funding can lead to cures for major diseases like Alzheimer's disease Parkinson's disease, forms of cancer, diabetes and a host of other diseases is closer than it ever has been before. We are doing all that we can to get to achieve the 15% increase, but we are constrained by a budget allocation that is not sufficient to allow us to do it at this point. I know that the gentlewoman herself is committed to reaching that point. What I do not like to see is making political points. This leads us away from the importance of this funding and makes this seem a political clash. I would simply point out that we have made great progress. We are committed to making continued progress. We believe that this funding can lead to scientific discovery that will help people who need help. It will lead to longer and more healthy lives for all the American people and, perhaps, all the people in this world. This is the best spent money, because it leads ultimately to driving down health care costs in our society. If we work together, we can achieve a result that we can all be proud of in doubling funding for NIH over a 5-year period. In the 5 years that I have been chairman, 1995 to now, we have increased funding for NIH by 58 percent. If we can double it this year, we will be at 82 percent over that 6-year period, and I simply believe that this is not the proper context to raise political issues. This is something that all of us are committed to accomplishing. We have made great progress, and we are very hopeful that we will make the kind of progress that all the American people can be proud of in the end. Mr. WICKER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield? Mr. PORTER. I yield to the gentleman from Mississippi. Mr. WICKER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the time. I, too, agree, Mr. Chairman, that it is unfortunate that this debate is being used to make political points. NIH and health research has certainly been something that this committee and this subcommittee has approached on a bipartisan basis. And I must say that the gentleman in the well, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Porter), who is in his last year as subcommittee chairman, is leaving a rich legacy of bipartisanship and also support for real programs for real people, improving their health. Under his leadership, this subcommittee and this committee have shown their support in terms of the dollars indicated there. {time} 1115 I would like to ask the chairman though about the chart there. Do I understand that the red figures are the cumulative amounts of money proposed by President Clinton in his budget; is that correct? Mr. PORTER. That is correct. Mr. WICKER. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will yield further, then the large amounts above and beyond that in blue amount to the actual appropriations that we have been able to get through this subcommittee and through the Congress of the United States for the National Institutes of Health? Mr. PORTER. Yes, the gentleman is correct. Mr. WICKER. As far as the cumulative increases, since the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Porter) has been chairman, the cumulative increases are almost double those requested by the President of the United States? Mr. PORTER. That is correct. Mr. WICKER. Finally, let me ask the gentleman, Mr. Chairman, with regard to this appropriation in this bill, which I agree is regrettably low, how does it compare to the amount requested by President Clinton in his budget this year for NIH and health research? Mr. PORTER. If I understand the gentleman's question correctly, the President requested $1 billion in increased funding for NIH this year. We have placed in the bill numbers indicating a $2.7 billion increase, but, then, because of our budget allocation, we have been forced to limit that amount to the President's request. Mr. WICKER. The amount contained in this bill is precisely what the President requested; is that correct? Mr. PORTER. Yes. Mr. BENTSEN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield for a question regarding his chart? Mr. PORTER. I yield to the gentleman from Texas. Mr. BENTSEN. Mr. Chairman, the question I had, and I can barely read it, but the chart starts with fiscal year 1995; is that correct? Mr. PORTER. That is correct. Mr. BENTSEN. Does that chart reflect what the appropriations are, or does it reflect concurrent budget resolutions? My question is would that reflect what the fiscal 1995 concurrent budget resolution as adopted by the House and Senate did, which would show a dip of 5 percent? Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, budget resolutions do not have any effect. They are only advisory. These are appropriations. Mr. BENTSEN. If the gentleman will further yield, part of the budget allocation we are dealing with today, the fact that the gentleman raised, is the fact that the budget resolution passed by the House does not provide sufficient allocation to meet the doubling of the NIH, and we had a problem with the budget resolution in fiscal year 1995 as passed by the House and the other body that called for a 5 percent reduction in NIH in real terms. Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman should remember that the only jurisdiction the Committee on the Budget has is to set overall spending numbers. The rest is advisory. Mr. Chairman, reserve the balance of my time. Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 1-3/4 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Jackson), a distinguished member of the subcommittee. (Mr. JACKSON of Illinois asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.) Mr. JACKSON of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me time. Mr. Chairman, let me first begin by congratulating the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Porter) for what every member of this subcommittee knows to be the truth, that no one in this Congress has had a greater commitment to expanding and increasing NIH funding than the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Porter). If the entire House were present during this part of the debate, I would ask at this time for all of them to stand and give the gentleman from Illinois (Chairman Porter) an outstanding round of applause for his interest and for his commitment and dedication in this area. I would say to the gentleman from Illinois (Chairman Porter), we have enormous respect for his efforts in this particular area, and I certainly rise to salute the gentleman. Let me also indicate that this is the first time since I have been in Congress for 5 years that I am not going to dispute any of the facts that were offered by the majority in the brief demonstration that we had here from the chairman. But I want to make it very, very clear that the gentleman from Illinois (Chairman Porter), if he had been dealt the appropriate hand in this particular allocation, that we would be looking at increases in NIH consistent with the effort to double resources as consistent with our 5-year objective. Mr. Chairman, this amendment raises our investment in biomedical research at the National Institutes of Health. Fiscal year 2001 is the 3rd year of this ``doubling NIH in 5 years'' initiative. For 2 straight years we have agreed to provide NIH the 15 percent increases needed to double the budget. This year, the House fails to do so. Staying on track to double NIH's budget requires a $2.7 billion increase for fiscal year 2001. The House bill provides the increase, then takes it away in a general provision and reduces that increase to the administration's request. Mr. Chairman, it is one thing in an era of deficits to say we cannot afford to invest additional resources in these [[Page H4233]] programs; but now that we are in an era of surpluses, we no longer have that excuse. All we need to do to pay for this amendment is to scale back the size of the tax cut for the wealthy by 20 percent. We can leave the middle-class tax cuts alone, just scale back the tax cuts for the individuals at the top 1 percent; and we can do just that. Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Capps), a member of the Committee on Commerce, an expert on health issues, and a health professional before she came to the Congress. Mrs. CAPPS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Pelosi amendment, which seeks to increase funding for the National Institutes of Health. I commend the committee and Congress for the commitment that has been made to double the NIH budget in 5 years specifically by providing necessary 15 percent increases in appropriations each year. But this year, we are going off track. Our budget is throwing us off our 5-year track. Mr. Chairman, there is not a family in this country that does not feel the promise and the hope of the research that is done under the auspices of the NIH. A year ago it was the deputy director who told my daughter, recently diagnosed with advanced lung cancer, that if she could hold on for 2 years, there was such promising research coming down the pike through NIH. So many families in this country hold their hope in the research that is done and is spawned by our funding for the NIH. Research in the real life miracle areas of Parkinson's disease, cancer research, Alzheimer's, diabetes, these are situations that people across this country are dealing with on a daily basis. We have established a wonderful track record for funding. We need to keep our resolve now and stick to our promise to double the funding in 5 years. Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler). Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of this amendment to provide a $1.7 billion increase to the NIH in order to keep us on track to double its budget by 2004. Mr. Chairman, the last century will be remembered as the century in which we eradicated polio, developed gene therapy, and discovered some treatments for breast cancer. At the center of this research has been the NIH. NIH funded scientists have learned how to diagnose, treat and prevent diseases that were once great mysteries. The decoding of the human genome, soon to be completed, will lead to yet more opportunities for research that will revolutionize how we look at and treat diseases. Our efforts will shift increasingly to the genetic level, where we will learn to cure diseases now untreatable. We should not abandon our commitment to double the NIH budget in 5 years. Let this new century see humanity vanquish cancer and heart disease and genetic diseases and AIDS. Let us not start reversing that goal now. We are now the most prosperous society in the history of this planet. We have unparalleled budget surpluses. We should not deny medical research the funds it needs because of artificial budget restraints in an artificial and politically motivated budget resolution. In the names of the thousands, perhaps millions of people whose lives will be prolonged and saved by adoption of this amendment, I urge its adoption. Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the very distinguished gentleman from Texas (Mr. Bentsen). (Mr. BENTSEN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.) Mr. BENTSEN. Mr. Chairman, I offered this same amendment when the House Committee on the Budget marked up the budget resolution, and I was told at the time that we had put enough money into NIH, that this year we just could not do it. It is ironic that a few weeks ago we passed the China PNTR bill because we wanted to gain access to more markets where we have a comparative advantage. In the world of medical research, where the United States leads the world and has a comparative advantage, we do not want to provide the resources to do that. I know the gentleman from Illinois (Chairman Porter) wants to do it, but he is constrained by the budget. How can a sophisticated, mature economy like the United States not provide the resources that are necessary? It is all part of this budget fallacy, because the Chairman well knows that the Senate is going to mark up the full amount and we will go to conference and we will do it. But we are living under artificial constraints by a budget resolution that is not going to hold water at the end of the year. We should do the right thing today, adopt the gentlewoman's amendment, and move forward where we do enjoy a comparative advantage and bring these cures to the American people, because we know we can do it. Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro), a distinguished member of the Subcommittee on Labor, Health and Human Services and Education of the Committee on Appropriations, and a person who is an expert on health policy. Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi). I support a strong national investment in biomedical research. The reason being is that I am alive today due to the advancements in biomedical research. I am a 15 year survivor of ovarian cancer. I know how it feels to be the person behind the statistics. We are on the brink of tremendous breakthroughs in cancer and many other areas. We have committed ourselves as a Congress to doubling the funding for the NIH over the next 5 years. Why then would we want to fall short of that goal this year? All the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi) is asking for is the $1.7 billion that will allow us to get to meeting that goal this year, and the trade-off is, the trade-off is, a tax cut that is going to only benefit the most wealthy people in this country. The lives, the health, the safety of American people all over this country is not to be traded away, not to be traded away, because of a tax cut that will only benefit the wealthiest. Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, I am happy to yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Cunningham), a very, very strong supporter of NIH and biomedical research. Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Chairman, the gentlewoman well knows that I am a champion for medical research. I have got a goal. My daughter scored a perfect 1600 on her SATs this year as a senior at Torrey Pines. She is going to intern in cancer research at NIH this summer. I am a cancer survivor. There is nothing worse than a doctor looking you in the eye and saying, ``Duke Cunningham, you have got cancer.'' I am a survivor. And if the gentlewoman would have offsets in this, I would be with her in this amendment. I would hope in conference we can add to this and somehow come up with the additional dollars in this. Unfortunately, the politics in this, that is being shown in all these amendments, is what is discouraging, because the gentlewoman, the ranking minority member, Democrats and Republicans, have come together on NIH funding to support it, and I still hope in some way we can add these particular dollars down the line. In cancer, Dr. Klausner, and you see what he is doing at NIH, I would say I was saved because of a PSA test. Do you know that right now, because of this research, there are markers for ovarian cancer which we have never had before? Women had no markers in this. I met a gentleman at NIH that contacted HIV in 1989. The only thing he ever thought about was dying. And now he has hope. He has bought an apartment. He has even bought stocks. This is what we are talking about when we talk about NIH funding. {time} 1130 If the gentlewoman would offer offsets on this, we would support it. She is right. But I want to tell the Members, fiscal responsibility down the line, where we balance the budget and we pay off the national debt as soon as 2012, we spend $1 billion a day, a day, $1 billion a day on just the interest. Think what we are going to have in the future for the Americans for education, [[Page H4234]] for crimefighting, for NIH, just by keeping our fiscal house in constraint. The death tax that we passed, a little bit out of touch, saying tax break for the rich, passed on a bipartisan vote; the social security tax that my colleagues put in in 1993 we eliminated, a little bit out of touch by saying that is a tax break for the rich; taking a look at the marriage penalty for people who are married, that is sure not a tax break for the rich. My colleagues on the other side wish to politicize this and say, tax break for the rich. I think some people actually believe that, after saying it 10,000 times, someone is going to believe it. It is just not so. Let us come together and support this NIH increase in conference, if there is some way we can do it, and work in a bipartisan way on this particular issue. Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Lowey), another distinguished member of our Subcommittee of Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education. Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding time to me. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Pelosi amendment. Over the last 2 years, with the strong leadership of the gentleman from Illinois (Chairman Porter) and broad bipartisan support, we have made tremendous progress in our goal of doubling the NIH budget. Dr. Kirschstein and the Institute directors have done an outstanding job of describing how they have managed large increases and used them to fund good science. We have to continue our bipartisan effort to increase funding for biomedical research. Whether it is breast cancer, diabetes, autism, or heart disease, we have made real progress towards better understanding and treatment. My good friends are saying this is politics. They are right. What politics is about is making wise decisions. We have that choice. We can have a smaller tax cut and invest in the National Institutes of Health, and invest in the continued extraordinary challenges that are ahead of us. We have the opportunity on our subcommittee in this Congress to face the extraordinary challenges in health care ahead. Let us do it. Let us do it now. Let us support the Pelosi amendment. Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I am very, very pleased to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), the very distinguished ranking member of our subcommittee and the ranking member of the full Committee on Appropriations, who, along with the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Porter), has been a champion for increased funding at the National Institutes of Health. Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding time to me. Mr. Chairman, the issue is not what the Congress and the President did on this issue in the last decade. The issue is what we are going to do in the next decade. This bill appropriates $2.7 billion above last year to the National Institutes of Health. But then it has a provision in the bill which says it can only spend $1 billion of that, so the committee has it both ways. It can say yes, we have provided $1.7 billion when they pull this piece of paper out of their pocket, and then they go to the other pocket and say, oh, no, we did not spend that much money, we held the budget down. The result of this budget is that it cuts $439 million below current services, and that means that it reduces the new and competing grants that go out to scientists to do research on cancer, Alzheimer's, diabetes, and everything else, by about 15 percent. In real terms, this bill is a reduction from last year. A lot of people on that side of the aisle keep saying, well, this is just the second step in the process. Do not worry, down the line we are going to try to fix this. What we are saying is that it makes no sense for them to say, well, at some point somebody else is going to be responsible. We are asking the majority side to be responsible now. They keep talking about fiscal responsibility. Two weeks ago I was at Marshfield Clinic in my district. I had a number of senior citizens talk to me about the miracles that had occurred when they had strokes that disabled them, and they were able to recover from those strokes because of new medical research. My question to them and my question to the Members today is this: What is more important to this country, to have more success stories like that, more success stories, like the gentleman from California (Mr. Cunningham), or instead to continue the path that the majority party has been following in providing huge tax cuts, with over 70 percent of the benefits aimed at the wealthiest 1 percent of people in this society? Members gave away in the minimum wage bill $90 billion in tax cuts to people who make over $300,000 a year. All we are saying is they could finance this amendment on health care, they could finance our amendment on education, on child care, on all the rest if they simply cut back what they are providing in those tax packages by 20 percent. Leave the middle-income tax cuts in place, just take the tax cuts that they are providing for the high rollers, cut them back by 20 percent, and they can meet all of these needs. It is not enough to have budgets at last year's level, or around last year's level. This is a growing country. It is a growing population. We have new medical discoveries. Every time we make a new medical discovery, we ought to build on it, not use it as an excuse to slack off. That is what we are saying. To me it is outrageous that this amendment cannot even get a vote on the floor of the House today. Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of the time. Mr. Chairman, I thank the Chair for presiding over this very respectful, I think, debate. We have acknowledged the leadership of our chairman and our ranking member in supporting the highest possible funding levels for the National Institutes of Health. We have recognized that despite the priority that the gentleman from Illinois (Chairman Porter) gives to the National Institutes of Health, that the budget allocation does not allow him to put the additional $1.7 billion in the bill which keeps us on track of doubling the NIH budget in 5 years. Members have shared their personal stories about themselves and their children, and pointed to the need for us to invest in this research. There is no argument about that. But when Members say that we are politicizing this debate by saying because we have a tax cut because we cannot afford this funding level for NIH, they are being political. The fact is, bad budget numbers necessitate a bad appropriation. If we did not have the tax cut, we could afford the NIH funding. It is that simple. That kind of decision is what people send us to Congress to make. We must recollect the values of the American people, which say that it is a good investment to invest in basic biomedical research. It saves lives. It adds to the productivity and the quality of our lives. This is the most fiscally sound vote a Member can make is to invest further in the National Institutes of Health to save lives, to create jobs in the biomedical industry, and to help us balance our budget by having less money have to be put out because of illness, loss of work days by people who become sick or disabled. I urge my colleagues to think in a fiscally sound way and support the additional appropriation for the National Institutes of Health. Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time. Mr. Chairman, I am very sorry and I think it is very ill-advised that this subject has been raised in this political context. The work to raise NIH funding over the last 5 years has been bipartisan, and I am sorry that it is being used as a point of departure to make a political point. It constrains me to have to make a political point, as well. The minority party was in charge of this House for many, many years. During the previous 5 years the minority was in charge, and President Clinton was also in charge. If we look at the commitment made for increasing funding for biomedical research during that period of time and compare it to the last 5 years when the majority party has been in control of the Congress, I think we can easily see that we have placed this at a far higher priority. [[Page H4235]] To me, however, this is not a political matter and should not be raised in a political context. This is a matter that is of utmost importance to our country and to its people. As I said earlier, this is among the best funding anywhere in government, and we should continue to work together on a bipartisan basis to increase it. However, to propose such increases is easy when you do not have responsibility for any constraints and can spend whatever you want to spend, which is basically what all these amendments do. They say, ``here is what we ought to do.'' We cannot do that. We do not have that luxury. We are the majority party and responsible for the bottom line. We have to live within a budget resolution that was adopted by the majority of the Congress. So we do the best that we can within that context. We have done the best we can. I would much rather we had a 15 percent increase in the bill for NIH. Unfortunately, we simply do not have the funds to do that. We intend, in this process, to achieve that priority and hopefully we will get there, but it is easy simply to say, well, we ought to spend more money in this area. This is an important area. Sure, we would like to provide a 15 percent increase, but in the end, somebody has to be responsible for the overall spending of this government and to live within fiscal restraints. We are taking that responsibility, and we are doing the very best that we can within it. I believe very strongly, and I think the gentlewoman believes very strongly, that in the end we will reach our goal of doubling NIH and providing the third year of a 15 percent increase to get there. Ms. ESHOO. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment by my good friend and colleague from California, Nancy Pelosi. This amendment increases NIH funding by $2.7 billion and would restore the funding level to the amount the Congress agreed to two years ago when it decided to double the NIH budget within five years. Mr. Chairman, this amendment is truth-in-budgeting legislation. In 1998, and again in 1999, this Congress decided it was critical the National Institutes of Health be funded at a level which doubled the NIH budget by Fiscal Year 2003. Now we are in year three and this appropriations bill seeks to back off from that promise. Let me remind my colleagues why we decided to double the NIH budget. According to a Joint Economic Committee report issued just last week, 15 of the 21 most important drugs introduced between 1965 and 1992 were developed using knowledge and techniques from federally funded research. If the Pelosi amendment does not pass, the funding cuts in this bill mean there will be 1,309 fewer federal research grants. Mr. Chairman, my district has the largest concentration of biotechnology companies in the world. The scientific advancements they are working on are moving at revolutionary speed. We cannot afford to cut back on the groundbreaking work they are doing. The need for increased research grants at NIH has never been greater. Infectious diseases pose a significant threat as new human pathogens are discovered and microorganisms acquire antibiotic resistance. In today's Washington Post, the front page story was about a World Health Organization report which said that disease-causing microbes are mutating at an alarming rate into much more dangerous infections that are failing to respond to treatment. Mr. Chairman, in the story the WHO warned . . . that the world could be plunged back into the preantibiotic era when people commonly died of diseases that in modern times have been easily treated with antibiotics. A WHO official said, The world may only have a decade or two to make optimal use of many of the medicines presently available to stop infectious diseases. We are literally in a race against time to bring levels of infectious disease down worldwide, before the disease wears the drugs down first. Mr. Chairman, we need NIH to join in this battle before time runs out. And speaking of time running out, the number of Americans over age 65 will double in the next 30 years. What are we going to do to fight the diseases of the elderly? Also, the threat of bioterrorism--once remote--is now a probability. Mr. Chairman, our purpose for a sustained funding track for NIH was so that the multi-year process for NIH grantmaking was well planned and spent federal funds efficiently. This amendment by my colleague, Nancy Pelosi, achieves that objective. More importantly, the Pelosi amendment keeps a congressional promise. Last March, over 108 Members on both sides of the aisle signed a letter urging a $2.7 billion increase in the NIH budget. The Pelosi amendment would provide that increase. It is the third installment on a bipartisan plan to double the NIH budget by 2003. I thank my colleague, Nancy Pelosi, for offering this amendment, and I compliment her on her leadership and her tireless efforts to improve the health of this country. I urge my colleagues to join her and support this amendment. The CHAIRMAN. All time has expired on this amendment. Point of Order Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order against the amendment because it is in violation of Section 302(f) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974. The Committee on Appropriations filed a suballocation of budget totals for fiscal year 2001 on June 8, 2000, House Report 106-660. This amendment would provide new budget authority in excess of the subcommittee's suballocation made under Section 302(b), and is not permitted under section 302(f) of the Act. I would ask a ruling of the Chair. The CHAIRMAN. Are there other Members who wish to be heard on the point of order? Ms. PELOSI. Yes, Mr. Chairman. The CHAIRMAN. The gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi) is recognized. Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, the distinguished chairman lodged a point of order on the basis that this is outside the budget allocation. On that score, he may be correct. But the fact is that despite the expressions of priority for the funding at the National Institutes of Health, which the chairman has very sincerely made and others have made in this Chamber, we had other choices in this bill. In fact, if this is of the highest priority, why was it not given the same status that other Republican priorities are given in this bill? As we know, there is a $500 million budget adjustment to accommodate $500 million of other spending in this bill. That could have been done for this $1.7 billion and we could have ensured, guaranteed, given peace to the American people that their health and that the research to ensure it to be protected. Instead, the only thing protected in this bill is the tax break for the wealthiest people in America. That is the decision that Members have to make. It is not about this being fiscally responsible. We all want to be that. Indeed, our alternative Democratic budget resolution had this $1.7 increase and it was fiscally responsible. Two things, Mr. Chairman. Because the distinguished chairman has said he is calling a point of order because this is beyond the allocation of the budget, it could be protected just the way this other funding had a lifting of the budget, had an adjustment of the budget figure. {time} 1145 Secondly, I would say that if we are not going to go down that path then it is not the priority we say it is, and we have to answer to the American people for that. Technically, on the point of order, the rule protects the wealthiest 1 percent at the expense of the National Institutes of Health, and I concede the point of order. Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, can I be heard further on the point of order? The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Porter) is recognized. Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, I would simply respond to the gentlewoman that she had every opportunity to make those choices by offering an amendment within the rules that would have taken money from lower priority accounts and put it in this account if that was her desire. She did not take that opportunity to operate within the bounds of fiscal restraint and has simply offered an amendment without any offset, which is clearly out of order. The CHAIRMAN. The Chair is prepared to rule. Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, if I may, since the gentleman characterized my remarks, if I may? The CHAIRMAN. Very briefly the gentlewoman from California may respond. Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, the distinguished gentleman knows that I had [[Page H4236]] no opportunity to have an offset of the $1.7 billion. All I am saying is give this the same treatment as has been given to other Republican priorities by making a budget cap adjustment so that this can be afforded in this bill. The CHAIRMAN. The gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi) has conceded the point of order, but the Chair would say that he is authoritatively guided by an estimate of the Committee on the Budget, pursuant to section 312 of the Budget Act, that an amendment providing any net increase in new discretionary budget authority would cause a breach of the pertinent allocation of such authority. The amendment offered by the gentlewoman from California, by proposing to strike a provision scored as negative budget authority, would increase the level of new discretionary budget authority in the bill. As such, the amendment violates section 302(f) of the Budget Act. The point of order is therefore sustained. The amendment is not in order. Amendment No. 4 Offered by Mr. Andrews Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment. The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment. The text of the amendment is as follows: Amendment No. 4 offered by Mr. Andrews: Page 49, after line 12, insert the following new section: Sec. 214. The amounts otherwise provided by this Act are revised by reducing the amount made available for ``DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES--Office of the Secretary--general departmental management'', and increasing the amount made available for ``Health Resources and Services Administration--health resources and services'' (to be used for a block grant to the Inner City Cardiac Satellite Demonstration Project operated by the State of New Jersey, including creation of a heart clinic in southern New Jersey), by $40,000,000. Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order on the amendment. The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Porter) reserves a point of order on the amendment. Pursuant to the order of the House of Monday, June 12, 2000, the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Andrews) and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Andrews). Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, let me begin by expressing my appreciation to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Porter) and the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) for the fair and even-handed way in which they handled this matter procedurally. Those of us who wish to offer these amendments very much appreciate the expansiveness of the time agreement, the fairness of it, and I wanted to say that for the record this morning. Let me also say the purpose of this amendment is a commendation and a challenge. In the area of commendation, it is to commend the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Porter), the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), and all the members of this subcommittee for the attention they have paid and the commitment they have made to the health care of the people of this country, in particular, the issue of our struggling urban hospitals. I represent the City of Camden, New Jersey, which by just about any measure is one of the poorest cities in the United States of America. We are fortunate to have a number of health care institutions in the City of Camden which remain, despite very difficult economic conditions. One of the consequences of their continued commitment to a poor urban area is that they carry a disproportionate share of the burden of caring for the uninsured or for those whose care is not fully compensated by Medicaid or other public programs. In New Jersey, we have undertaken a rather creative and progressive way to try to address this imbalance. New Jersey has decided to create a special opportunity for urban hospitals to operate heart hospitals or heart clinics, cardiac services, in more affluent suburban areas. The strategy is rather wise and simple. The revenues that would be gained from operating these heart facilities in more affluent areas would recapture dollars which could then be used to help offset and subsidize the cost of providing care for the uninsured and for persons for whom the compensation is not sufficient in the poor urban areas. It is a wise strategy. The challenge that I would offer, however, is what comes to what I believe is New Jersey's incomplete execution of this strategy. The original plan in our State was that there be two of these demonstration projects, one in the northern part of our State and one in the southern part of the State, which I am privileged to represent. For reasons which are not clear to me, and not clear to the health care institutions in southern New Jersey, only one of these pilot programs has gone forward. I believe that this is a mistake. The purpose of this amendment is to provide a Federal opportunity, a Federal subsidy, for this pilot program to go forward both in the southern part of our State and in the northern part of our State. I believe that the problems in our part of New Jersey are at least as acute, at least as difficult, as those of our northern neighbors and the proper position for our State health department is to provide for a second pilot project in the southern part of our State. The purpose of this amendment is to offer an idea for a Federal share or a Federal partnership in making that pilot program succeed. Now having said that, because the committee has been so progressive and wise in promoting the interests of urban hospitals, it is my intention to ask unanimous consent to withdraw this amendment after my colleagues have had a chance to comment on it. Mr. Chairman, with that in mind, after making this statement, I would reserve the balance of my time. Point of Order Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order against the amendment because it provides an appropriation for an unauthorized program and therefore violates clause 2 of rule XXI. Clause 2 of rule XXI states in pertinent part an appropriation may not be in order as an amendment for an expenditure not previously authorized by law. Mr. Chairman, the authorization for this program has not been signed into law. The amendment, therefore, violates clause 2 of rule XXI, and I would ask for a ruling from the Chair. The CHAIRMAN. Does any other Member wish to be heard on the point of order? Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw my amendment. The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from New Jersey? There was no objection. The CHAIRMAN. The amendment is withdrawn. Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. The CHAIRMAN. Is the gentleman offering an amendment? Mr. STEARNS. I am going to offer an amendment. Also, Mr. Chairman, I wanted to have a colloquy with the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Porter). The CHAIRMAN. Does the chairman designate the gentleman to strike the last word? Mr. PORTER. Yes, Mr. Chairman. The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Florida (Mr. Stearns) is recognized for 5 minutes. Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Chairman, I intend to offer an amendment to move $10 million into the Adoption Incentives Program. I decided not to offer that amendment today, but I would like to engage in a colloquy with the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Porter) regarding the importance of funding this program. Mr. Chairman, the Adoption Incentives Program has helped to dramatically increase a number of children adopted out of foster care. I certainly appreciate all the good work he has done in the Labor, Health, and Human Services appropriations bill, including the $2 million increase for the Adoption Incentives Program. I would like to ask the gentleman to continue his hard work in conference and build on this program by further increasing funding for this program. Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield? Mr. STEARNS. I yield to the gentleman from Illinois. Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Florida (Mr. [[Page H4237]] Stearns) for highlighting the importance of the Adoption Incentives Program. I will continue to work with him and with my colleagues in conference to ensure States receive the funding they need to help more kids move from foster care to permanent and loving, caring homes. Mr. STEARNS. I thank the chairman. I appreciate his commitment to providing more money for adoption. I strongly support the positive steps Congress has taken in this area and believe we should do even more. That is why I am here this morning. President Clinton supports increasing funding for this program. Adoption is also a positive alternative to abortion, and I hope the gentleman is successful in finding additional money in funding for the Adoption Incentives Program. Amendment No. 189 Offered by Mr. Stearns Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment. The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment. The text of the amendment is as follows: Amendment No. 189 offered by Mr. Stearns: Page 49, after line 12, insert the following section: Sec. 214. Amounts made available in this title for carrying out the activities of the National Institutes of Health are available for a report under section 403 of the Public Health Service for the following purposes: (1) To identify the amounts expended under section 402(g) of such Act to enhance the competitiveness of entities that are seeking funds from such Institutes to conduct biomedical or behavioral research. (2) To identify the entities for which such amounts have been expended, including a separate statement regarding expenditures under section 402(g)(2) of such Act for individuals who have not previously served as principal researchers of projects supported by such Institutes. (3) To identify the extent to which such entities and individuals receive funds under programs through which such Institutes support projects of biomedical or behavioral research, and to provide the underlying reasons for such funding decisions. Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order on the amendment. The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman reserves a point of order. Pursuant to the order of the House of Monday, June 12, 2000, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Stearns) and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Stearns). Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, this is a sensitive subject. I have a Congressional Research Report here, which I worked with in doing this amendment. My amendment has three components to it. The first identifies and asks NIH to identify amounts that are distributed, given to individuals and corporations seeking funds from the Institute to conduct research. We have had constituents who have applied to NIH and who have been unable to find out, after great frustration, why they did not get the money. They could not find out who the individual was who got the money, or corporations, and they did not know or find out how much it was. So my amendment, first of all, asks NIH to identify the monies that are given to individuals and also then the amendment asks that they identify the individuals so that we see the money expended, the individuals who received it and then we would like to see some justification for why the NIH gave this money. Now I have a report from the Congressional Research Service that sort of confirms what my amendment is talking about. It concludes, and I would just like to read the conclusion from this Congressional Research Report, that there is no question that NIH is an esteemed institution that subsidizes biomedical research and is a value to the people the world over, but that does not remove it from its vast agenda and continuing controversy over how the agency should allocate its ever- increasing appropriations. As a public agency, supported through tax revenues, NIH will, in all likelihood, face even greater scrutiny in the future. That is what my amendment does. It attempts to bring NIH into the next millennium with more transparency. I have been a long-time advocate of NIH. In fact, I have supported the idea of doubling its funding over the next 5 years. A lot of universities in Florida, particularly the University of Florida and Florida State, have benefited from NIH research grant money. So I am a great supporter of NIH, but we are talking about Federal tax dollars here, and I am concerned we are not making public the information from grants that NIH has given the individuals, the amount of money provided, and how they made their decisions on these grants. So I hear in my congressional district in Central Florida from doctors that they have not been able to succeed in getting NIH funding and they do not know why and they have to apply 5, 6, 7 times with no answers. There is just sort of a huge Federal bureaucracy. They say we just need to have much more transparency there. Let me share what I have learned about the research grants and how these decisions are made. In reviewing steps that could or should be taken by NIH, I discovered that NIH is starting, just starting, to move in the right direction with a peer review process. There are several areas that Congress must look at when assessing NIH approaches and decisions that are made by them and how research dollars are to be spent. First of all, how effective is its peer review system and the agency's ability to identify proposals with the greatest potential? Another issue is why the agency has not installed an electronically- based grant application award system. This is pretty basic today. So I urge them to do so. This would be exceedingly beneficial to everybody. Supporters of NIH, and there are many, including myself, would like to see a greater accountability of the NIH director and to make its planning and budgeting reporting process more open. In 1998, Mr. Chairman, a report was issued by the Institute of Medicine and the National Academy of Sciences entitled Scientific Opportunities and Public Needs. This report highlighted several issues that needed to be addressed by NIH, including its peer review process. So we have on the books documentation that shows that NIH needs to be more scrupulous in how they award grants and make the information known. I think NIH's policies and reviews and procedures should be expedited and this amendment simply is saying to NIH, let us have some more transparency and make the number of people, their names available, who the research grants are given to, how much money they were given and in the end what was the process that was used. If this was done, Mr. Chairman, I think this would move this Agency towards this transparency concept I envision. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk. My amendment would require a report to: (1) identify amounts disbursed to enhance competitiveness of entities seeking funds from the Institutes to conduct biomedical and behavioral research; (2) to identify the entities receiving funding, including a separate statement on expenditures for individuals who have not previously served as principal researchers of projects supported by the Institutes; and (3) to provide an explanation for such funding decisions made by the National Institutes of Health to entities seeking funds to conduct biomedical and behavioral research. Money is available under Section 403 (42 U.S.C. 283) of the Public Health Service Act for the purposes of carrying out such a report. First, I want to say that I am a long-time supporter of NIH because I know how valuable the research being conducted by this illustrious body has been to our nation in finding the causes and cures of diseases. The NIH has and will continue to greatly benefit our nation. In fact, I am a cosponsor of the resolution to double the NIH budget over a five year period. We are currently in our third year in that effort. There are many fine universities in the State of Florida that benefit from NIH research grant money, including the University of Florida, which I once had the privilege of representing. That being said, however, I have heard from numerous individuals about the difficulties involved in securing research grants through NIH. These are federal tax dollars we are talking about! I am concerned that we are not making these grants available to new graduates who need this important seed money to continue their biomedical and behavioral research in their chosen fields. We all know that universities and colleges across the country are not having students enter the hard sciences as they once did--we must ensure that those that do are not discouraged from putting their talents to work in [[Page H4238]] research efforts being conducted by the federal government. There is a positive note to all this. Let me share with you what I learned about the research project grants and how these decisions are made. In reviewing steps that could or should be taken by NIH, I discovered that NIH is moving in the right direction in its peer review process. There are several areas that Congress must look at when assessing NIH's approach to decisions that are made by them in how research dollars are to be spent. First, how effective is its peer- review system and the agency's ability to identify proposals with the greatest potential. Another issue is why the agency hasn't installed an electronically-based grant application and award system. This would certainly be beneficial. Supporters of NIH, and there are many, including myself would like to see a greater accountability of the NIH Director, and to make its planning, budgeting and reporting process more open. In 1998 a report was issued by the Institute of Medicine and the National Academy of Sciences entitled, Scientific Opportunities and Public Needs: Improving Priority Setting and Public Input at the National Institutes of Health. This report highlighted several issues that needed to be addressed by NIH, including its peer review process. As a result, the NIH Council of Public Representatives (COPR) was created by former NIH Director Dr. Harold Varmus. The IOM committee recommended steps to make the agency more welcoming to public input, including the establishment of COPR. There were 20 public members selected to COPR and the first meeting was in April 1999. The committee members have participated in the NIH budget retreats, the NIH Government Performance and Results Act (GRPA), hearings on patient protections, health research related to diverse populations, health disparities, performance reviews of Institute Directors in addition to the regular COPR meetings and conference calls. The council has taken a life of its own and taken its role very seriously reviewing NIH's policies and procedures, research priorities, research funding, public input, and input to the public. The Council sets the agenda and directs the discussion items. During these meetings we have learned the difficulties involved in the budget process and with the uncertainty of each year's appropriations bills, and the difficulty in making multi-year research commitments. Most directors have played it conservatively to make sure they will have the funds to continue projects. In addition the need to increase young researchers has been a priority at NIH. The research training program and mentorship program has been increased to meet this important crisis. My amendment would require a report to identify and provide an explanation for funding decisions made by the NIH to entities seeking research grants. I would urge the NIH to continue in its efforts to ensure that our nation's best and brightest receive the dollars necessary to conduct important life saving research. While it is good to know that some steps have been taken, I believe it is incumbent upon Congress to continue to serve as a watch dog since taxpayer dollars are involved. I believe that we have benefited by finding out more about this newly formed Council, but I would remind my colleagues that this did not come about until the IOM and the National Academy of Sciences brought these issues to light. {time} 1200 Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition to the amendment. The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Porter) claims the time in opposition and will be recognized for 5 minutes. Does the gentleman from Illinois continue to reserve a point of order? Mr. PORTER. Mr chairman, I continue to reserve my point of order. The CHAIRMAN. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Porter). Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, I would say to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Stearns) that who receives grants of NIH funding and the amount of those grants and the purpose for which the grants are made is public knowledge. That is readily available and can be provided to the gentleman, or anyone else, at any time he would like to have it. The peer review process is a process that has developed over a long, long period of time. It is set forth in Federal regulation. It is easy to understand the process and to see it at work. Is it perfect? Certainly nothing is perfect. It needs to be reviewed and made more responsive. Ask the scientific community, generally, whether this is a good system that is competitive and separates good science from bad science, I think there is, overwhelmingly, a general consensus that it works quite well to separate good science from bad, to bring the best science to the top and to fund only that which has great potential and is well conceived. With respect to electronic grant applications, NIH is working on that right now. I think it is a very good point that the gentleman makes and ought to be followed up on; but it is already being done, and we expect that the system will be perfected and brought on-line very soon. So I would simply say to the gentleman that he makes good points, but I think that there is great progress being made with respect to each one. Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield? Mr. PORTER. Yes, I yield to the gentleman from Florida. Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Illinois for his comments. Dr. Harold Varmus was the former NIH director, and he sort of confirmed what my amendment intends. He recommended steps to make the agency more welcoming to the public and available and transparent, including what he called a Council of Public Representatives, COPR. There were 20 members that he selected, put this together; and he had a meeting in April 1999. Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, those councils are up and running, yes. Mr. STEARNS. I know, Mr. Chairman, but part of the thinking he had was the council was there to make this agency more transparent. So I urge the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Porter) and the committee to continue this peer review and the process of making this more transparent. Point of Order Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order against the amendment because it proposes to change existing law and constitutes legislation in an appropriation bill and therefore violates clause 2 of rule XXI. The rule states in pertinent part, ``An amendment to a general appropriation bill shall not be in order if it changes existing law by imposing additional duties.'' I ask for a ruling from the Chair. The CHAIRMAN. The point of order is raised by the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Porter) against the Stearns amendment. Does any Member wish to be recognized on the point of order? In pertinent part, the amendment earmarks funds in a manner not supported by existing law. As such, it constitutes legislation in violation of clause 2(c) of rule XXI. The point of order is sustained. The Clerk will read. The Clerk read as follows: This title may be cited as the ``Department of Health and Human Services Appropriations Act, 2001''. TITLE III--DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION education reform For carrying out activities authorized by sections 3122, 3132, 3136, and 3141, parts B and C of title III, and part I of title X of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, $1,505,000,000, of which $119,500,000 shall be for section 3122: Provided, That up to one-half of 1 percent of the amount available under section 3132 shall be set aside for the outlying areas, to be distributed on the basis of their relative need as determined by the Secretary in accordance with the purposes of the program: Provided further, That if any State educational agency does not apply for a grant under section 3132, that State's allotment under section 3131 shall be reserved by the Secretary for grants to local educational agencies in that State that apply directly to the Secretary according to the terms and conditions published by the Secretary in the Federal Register. Amendment No. 14 Offered by Mr. Obey Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment. The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment. The text of the amendment is as follows: Amendment No. 14 offered by Mr. Obey: Page 49, line 20, after the dollar amount, insert the following: ``(increased by $65,000,000)''. Page 49, line 21, after the dollar amount, insert the following: ``(increased by $65,000,000)''. Page 52, line 7, after ``titles'' insert ``II,''. Page 52, line 12, after each of the two dollar amounts, insert the following: ``(increased by $960,000,000)''. Page 52, strike the proviso beginning on line 17 and insert the following: : Provided, That of the amount appropriated, $960,000,000 shall be for title II of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, [[Page H4239]] notwithstanding any other provision of law, for State formula grants and other competitive grants subject to such terms and conditions as the Secretary of Education shall establish to improve the knowledge and skills of such individuals as early childhood educators, teachers, principals, and superintendents, and for teacher recruitment and retention activities: Provided further, That of the amount appropriated, $2,115,750,000 shall be for title VI of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, of which $1,750,000,000 shall be available, notwithstanding any other provision of law, to reduce class size, particularly in the early grades, using fully qualified teachers to improve educational achievement for regular and special needs children in accordance with section 310 of Public Law 106-113 Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order on the gentleman's amendments. The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Porter) reserves a point of order on the amendment. Pursuant to the order of the House on Thursday, June 8, 2000, the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) and the gentleman from Illino

Major Actions:

All articles in House section

DEPARTMENTS OF LABOR, HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, AND EDUCATION, AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2001
(House of Representatives - June 13, 2000)

Text of this article available as: TXT PDF [Pages H4231-H4310] DEPARTMENTS OF LABOR, HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, AND EDUCATION, AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2001 The Committee resumed its sitting. The CHAIRMAN. Does the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Porter) rise in opposition? Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition. The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Illinois is recognized for 15 minutes. Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, as I said to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi) in full committee markup of this bill, this amendment, of course, tests my resolve more than any other of your theme amendments. I consider the funding for NIH to be of the highest priority I would very much have liked to put into this bill the full 15 percent increase that I believe is necessary and proper. Such funding is among the best spent money in government to continue on our path of doubling NIH over a 5-year period. Unfortunately, the allocation was not sufficient to do so. We have in the bill a limitation to limit the obligation to the President's budget, which is a $1 billion increase less the cap and comes out to probably 4 percent to 5 percent, rather than the 15 percent that we favor. However, the gentlewoman has just used this amendment to make a number of political points, and I would simply say to the gentlewoman she ought to look at the history of funding for NIH. It indicates that the President of the United States has put this at a very, very low priority in all of his budgets for the last 5 years, while the majority party has put it at a very, very high priority. Congress has provided a total of $7.8 billion in cumulative increases for NIH as opposed to the $4.3 billion requested by the President over the last 5 years. We have put NIH on a funding path to [[Page H4232]] double its level in 5 years, we have made two down payments and are committed, within the fiscal responsibility, to making the third payment this year. We cannot do it within the allocation that we have, but we are committed to making that third payment this year. I would not say that this was done on a partisan basis. It has been a bipartisan effort. It has been supported by both sides of the aisle. I know, and the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi) knows that there are more scientific opportunities today. Increased funding can lead to cures for major diseases like Alzheimer's disease Parkinson's disease, forms of cancer, diabetes and a host of other diseases is closer than it ever has been before. We are doing all that we can to get to achieve the 15% increase, but we are constrained by a budget allocation that is not sufficient to allow us to do it at this point. I know that the gentlewoman herself is committed to reaching that point. What I do not like to see is making political points. This leads us away from the importance of this funding and makes this seem a political clash. I would simply point out that we have made great progress. We are committed to making continued progress. We believe that this funding can lead to scientific discovery that will help people who need help. It will lead to longer and more healthy lives for all the American people and, perhaps, all the people in this world. This is the best spent money, because it leads ultimately to driving down health care costs in our society. If we work together, we can achieve a result that we can all be proud of in doubling funding for NIH over a 5-year period. In the 5 years that I have been chairman, 1995 to now, we have increased funding for NIH by 58 percent. If we can double it this year, we will be at 82 percent over that 6-year period, and I simply believe that this is not the proper context to raise political issues. This is something that all of us are committed to accomplishing. We have made great progress, and we are very hopeful that we will make the kind of progress that all the American people can be proud of in the end. Mr. WICKER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield? Mr. PORTER. I yield to the gentleman from Mississippi. Mr. WICKER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the time. I, too, agree, Mr. Chairman, that it is unfortunate that this debate is being used to make political points. NIH and health research has certainly been something that this committee and this subcommittee has approached on a bipartisan basis. And I must say that the gentleman in the well, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Porter), who is in his last year as subcommittee chairman, is leaving a rich legacy of bipartisanship and also support for real programs for real people, improving their health. Under his leadership, this subcommittee and this committee have shown their support in terms of the dollars indicated there. {time} 1115 I would like to ask the chairman though about the chart there. Do I understand that the red figures are the cumulative amounts of money proposed by President Clinton in his budget; is that correct? Mr. PORTER. That is correct. Mr. WICKER. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will yield further, then the large amounts above and beyond that in blue amount to the actual appropriations that we have been able to get through this subcommittee and through the Congress of the United States for the National Institutes of Health? Mr. PORTER. Yes, the gentleman is correct. Mr. WICKER. As far as the cumulative increases, since the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Porter) has been chairman, the cumulative increases are almost double those requested by the President of the United States? Mr. PORTER. That is correct. Mr. WICKER. Finally, let me ask the gentleman, Mr. Chairman, with regard to this appropriation in this bill, which I agree is regrettably low, how does it compare to the amount requested by President Clinton in his budget this year for NIH and health research? Mr. PORTER. If I understand the gentleman's question correctly, the President requested $1 billion in increased funding for NIH this year. We have placed in the bill numbers indicating a $2.7 billion increase, but, then, because of our budget allocation, we have been forced to limit that amount to the President's request. Mr. WICKER. The amount contained in this bill is precisely what the President requested; is that correct? Mr. PORTER. Yes. Mr. BENTSEN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield for a question regarding his chart? Mr. PORTER. I yield to the gentleman from Texas. Mr. BENTSEN. Mr. Chairman, the question I had, and I can barely read it, but the chart starts with fiscal year 1995; is that correct? Mr. PORTER. That is correct. Mr. BENTSEN. Does that chart reflect what the appropriations are, or does it reflect concurrent budget resolutions? My question is would that reflect what the fiscal 1995 concurrent budget resolution as adopted by the House and Senate did, which would show a dip of 5 percent? Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, budget resolutions do not have any effect. They are only advisory. These are appropriations. Mr. BENTSEN. If the gentleman will further yield, part of the budget allocation we are dealing with today, the fact that the gentleman raised, is the fact that the budget resolution passed by the House does not provide sufficient allocation to meet the doubling of the NIH, and we had a problem with the budget resolution in fiscal year 1995 as passed by the House and the other body that called for a 5 percent reduction in NIH in real terms. Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman should remember that the only jurisdiction the Committee on the Budget has is to set overall spending numbers. The rest is advisory. Mr. Chairman, reserve the balance of my time. Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 1-3/4 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Jackson), a distinguished member of the subcommittee. (Mr. JACKSON of Illinois asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.) Mr. JACKSON of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me time. Mr. Chairman, let me first begin by congratulating the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Porter) for what every member of this subcommittee knows to be the truth, that no one in this Congress has had a greater commitment to expanding and increasing NIH funding than the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Porter). If the entire House were present during this part of the debate, I would ask at this time for all of them to stand and give the gentleman from Illinois (Chairman Porter) an outstanding round of applause for his interest and for his commitment and dedication in this area. I would say to the gentleman from Illinois (Chairman Porter), we have enormous respect for his efforts in this particular area, and I certainly rise to salute the gentleman. Let me also indicate that this is the first time since I have been in Congress for 5 years that I am not going to dispute any of the facts that were offered by the majority in the brief demonstration that we had here from the chairman. But I want to make it very, very clear that the gentleman from Illinois (Chairman Porter), if he had been dealt the appropriate hand in this particular allocation, that we would be looking at increases in NIH consistent with the effort to double resources as consistent with our 5-year objective. Mr. Chairman, this amendment raises our investment in biomedical research at the National Institutes of Health. Fiscal year 2001 is the 3rd year of this ``doubling NIH in 5 years'' initiative. For 2 straight years we have agreed to provide NIH the 15 percent increases needed to double the budget. This year, the House fails to do so. Staying on track to double NIH's budget requires a $2.7 billion increase for fiscal year 2001. The House bill provides the increase, then takes it away in a general provision and reduces that increase to the administration's request. Mr. Chairman, it is one thing in an era of deficits to say we cannot afford to invest additional resources in these [[Page H4233]] programs; but now that we are in an era of surpluses, we no longer have that excuse. All we need to do to pay for this amendment is to scale back the size of the tax cut for the wealthy by 20 percent. We can leave the middle-class tax cuts alone, just scale back the tax cuts for the individuals at the top 1 percent; and we can do just that. Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Capps), a member of the Committee on Commerce, an expert on health issues, and a health professional before she came to the Congress. Mrs. CAPPS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Pelosi amendment, which seeks to increase funding for the National Institutes of Health. I commend the committee and Congress for the commitment that has been made to double the NIH budget in 5 years specifically by providing necessary 15 percent increases in appropriations each year. But this year, we are going off track. Our budget is throwing us off our 5-year track. Mr. Chairman, there is not a family in this country that does not feel the promise and the hope of the research that is done under the auspices of the NIH. A year ago it was the deputy director who told my daughter, recently diagnosed with advanced lung cancer, that if she could hold on for 2 years, there was such promising research coming down the pike through NIH. So many families in this country hold their hope in the research that is done and is spawned by our funding for the NIH. Research in the real life miracle areas of Parkinson's disease, cancer research, Alzheimer's, diabetes, these are situations that people across this country are dealing with on a daily basis. We have established a wonderful track record for funding. We need to keep our resolve now and stick to our promise to double the funding in 5 years. Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler). Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of this amendment to provide a $1.7 billion increase to the NIH in order to keep us on track to double its budget by 2004. Mr. Chairman, the last century will be remembered as the century in which we eradicated polio, developed gene therapy, and discovered some treatments for breast cancer. At the center of this research has been the NIH. NIH funded scientists have learned how to diagnose, treat and prevent diseases that were once great mysteries. The decoding of the human genome, soon to be completed, will lead to yet more opportunities for research that will revolutionize how we look at and treat diseases. Our efforts will shift increasingly to the genetic level, where we will learn to cure diseases now untreatable. We should not abandon our commitment to double the NIH budget in 5 years. Let this new century see humanity vanquish cancer and heart disease and genetic diseases and AIDS. Let us not start reversing that goal now. We are now the most prosperous society in the history of this planet. We have unparalleled budget surpluses. We should not deny medical research the funds it needs because of artificial budget restraints in an artificial and politically motivated budget resolution. In the names of the thousands, perhaps millions of people whose lives will be prolonged and saved by adoption of this amendment, I urge its adoption. Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the very distinguished gentleman from Texas (Mr. Bentsen). (Mr. BENTSEN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.) Mr. BENTSEN. Mr. Chairman, I offered this same amendment when the House Committee on the Budget marked up the budget resolution, and I was told at the time that we had put enough money into NIH, that this year we just could not do it. It is ironic that a few weeks ago we passed the China PNTR bill because we wanted to gain access to more markets where we have a comparative advantage. In the world of medical research, where the United States leads the world and has a comparative advantage, we do not want to provide the resources to do that. I know the gentleman from Illinois (Chairman Porter) wants to do it, but he is constrained by the budget. How can a sophisticated, mature economy like the United States not provide the resources that are necessary? It is all part of this budget fallacy, because the Chairman well knows that the Senate is going to mark up the full amount and we will go to conference and we will do it. But we are living under artificial constraints by a budget resolution that is not going to hold water at the end of the year. We should do the right thing today, adopt the gentlewoman's amendment, and move forward where we do enjoy a comparative advantage and bring these cures to the American people, because we know we can do it. Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro), a distinguished member of the Subcommittee on Labor, Health and Human Services and Education of the Committee on Appropriations, and a person who is an expert on health policy. Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi). I support a strong national investment in biomedical research. The reason being is that I am alive today due to the advancements in biomedical research. I am a 15 year survivor of ovarian cancer. I know how it feels to be the person behind the statistics. We are on the brink of tremendous breakthroughs in cancer and many other areas. We have committed ourselves as a Congress to doubling the funding for the NIH over the next 5 years. Why then would we want to fall short of that goal this year? All the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi) is asking for is the $1.7 billion that will allow us to get to meeting that goal this year, and the trade-off is, the trade-off is, a tax cut that is going to only benefit the most wealthy people in this country. The lives, the health, the safety of American people all over this country is not to be traded away, not to be traded away, because of a tax cut that will only benefit the wealthiest. Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, I am happy to yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Cunningham), a very, very strong supporter of NIH and biomedical research. Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Chairman, the gentlewoman well knows that I am a champion for medical research. I have got a goal. My daughter scored a perfect 1600 on her SATs this year as a senior at Torrey Pines. She is going to intern in cancer research at NIH this summer. I am a cancer survivor. There is nothing worse than a doctor looking you in the eye and saying, ``Duke Cunningham, you have got cancer.'' I am a survivor. And if the gentlewoman would have offsets in this, I would be with her in this amendment. I would hope in conference we can add to this and somehow come up with the additional dollars in this. Unfortunately, the politics in this, that is being shown in all these amendments, is what is discouraging, because the gentlewoman, the ranking minority member, Democrats and Republicans, have come together on NIH funding to support it, and I still hope in some way we can add these particular dollars down the line. In cancer, Dr. Klausner, and you see what he is doing at NIH, I would say I was saved because of a PSA test. Do you know that right now, because of this research, there are markers for ovarian cancer which we have never had before? Women had no markers in this. I met a gentleman at NIH that contacted HIV in 1989. The only thing he ever thought about was dying. And now he has hope. He has bought an apartment. He has even bought stocks. This is what we are talking about when we talk about NIH funding. {time} 1130 If the gentlewoman would offer offsets on this, we would support it. She is right. But I want to tell the Members, fiscal responsibility down the line, where we balance the budget and we pay off the national debt as soon as 2012, we spend $1 billion a day, a day, $1 billion a day on just the interest. Think what we are going to have in the future for the Americans for education, [[Page H4234]] for crimefighting, for NIH, just by keeping our fiscal house in constraint. The death tax that we passed, a little bit out of touch, saying tax break for the rich, passed on a bipartisan vote; the social security tax that my colleagues put in in 1993 we eliminated, a little bit out of touch by saying that is a tax break for the rich; taking a look at the marriage penalty for people who are married, that is sure not a tax break for the rich. My colleagues on the other side wish to politicize this and say, tax break for the rich. I think some people actually believe that, after saying it 10,000 times, someone is going to believe it. It is just not so. Let us come together and support this NIH increase in conference, if there is some way we can do it, and work in a bipartisan way on this particular issue. Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Lowey), another distinguished member of our Subcommittee of Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education. Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding time to me. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Pelosi amendment. Over the last 2 years, with the strong leadership of the gentleman from Illinois (Chairman Porter) and broad bipartisan support, we have made tremendous progress in our goal of doubling the NIH budget. Dr. Kirschstein and the Institute directors have done an outstanding job of describing how they have managed large increases and used them to fund good science. We have to continue our bipartisan effort to increase funding for biomedical research. Whether it is breast cancer, diabetes, autism, or heart disease, we have made real progress towards better understanding and treatment. My good friends are saying this is politics. They are right. What politics is about is making wise decisions. We have that choice. We can have a smaller tax cut and invest in the National Institutes of Health, and invest in the continued extraordinary challenges that are ahead of us. We have the opportunity on our subcommittee in this Congress to face the extraordinary challenges in health care ahead. Let us do it. Let us do it now. Let us support the Pelosi amendment. Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I am very, very pleased to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), the very distinguished ranking member of our subcommittee and the ranking member of the full Committee on Appropriations, who, along with the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Porter), has been a champion for increased funding at the National Institutes of Health. Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding time to me. Mr. Chairman, the issue is not what the Congress and the President did on this issue in the last decade. The issue is what we are going to do in the next decade. This bill appropriates $2.7 billion above last year to the National Institutes of Health. But then it has a provision in the bill which says it can only spend $1 billion of that, so the committee has it both ways. It can say yes, we have provided $1.7 billion when they pull this piece of paper out of their pocket, and then they go to the other pocket and say, oh, no, we did not spend that much money, we held the budget down. The result of this budget is that it cuts $439 million below current services, and that means that it reduces the new and competing grants that go out to scientists to do research on cancer, Alzheimer's, diabetes, and everything else, by about 15 percent. In real terms, this bill is a reduction from last year. A lot of people on that side of the aisle keep saying, well, this is just the second step in the process. Do not worry, down the line we are going to try to fix this. What we are saying is that it makes no sense for them to say, well, at some point somebody else is going to be responsible. We are asking the majority side to be responsible now. They keep talking about fiscal responsibility. Two weeks ago I was at Marshfield Clinic in my district. I had a number of senior citizens talk to me about the miracles that had occurred when they had strokes that disabled them, and they were able to recover from those strokes because of new medical research. My question to them and my question to the Members today is this: What is more important to this country, to have more success stories like that, more success stories, like the gentleman from California (Mr. Cunningham), or instead to continue the path that the majority party has been following in providing huge tax cuts, with over 70 percent of the benefits aimed at the wealthiest 1 percent of people in this society? Members gave away in the minimum wage bill $90 billion in tax cuts to people who make over $300,000 a year. All we are saying is they could finance this amendment on health care, they could finance our amendment on education, on child care, on all the rest if they simply cut back what they are providing in those tax packages by 20 percent. Leave the middle-income tax cuts in place, just take the tax cuts that they are providing for the high rollers, cut them back by 20 percent, and they can meet all of these needs. It is not enough to have budgets at last year's level, or around last year's level. This is a growing country. It is a growing population. We have new medical discoveries. Every time we make a new medical discovery, we ought to build on it, not use it as an excuse to slack off. That is what we are saying. To me it is outrageous that this amendment cannot even get a vote on the floor of the House today. Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of the time. Mr. Chairman, I thank the Chair for presiding over this very respectful, I think, debate. We have acknowledged the leadership of our chairman and our ranking member in supporting the highest possible funding levels for the National Institutes of Health. We have recognized that despite the priority that the gentleman from Illinois (Chairman Porter) gives to the National Institutes of Health, that the budget allocation does not allow him to put the additional $1.7 billion in the bill which keeps us on track of doubling the NIH budget in 5 years. Members have shared their personal stories about themselves and their children, and pointed to the need for us to invest in this research. There is no argument about that. But when Members say that we are politicizing this debate by saying because we have a tax cut because we cannot afford this funding level for NIH, they are being political. The fact is, bad budget numbers necessitate a bad appropriation. If we did not have the tax cut, we could afford the NIH funding. It is that simple. That kind of decision is what people send us to Congress to make. We must recollect the values of the American people, which say that it is a good investment to invest in basic biomedical research. It saves lives. It adds to the productivity and the quality of our lives. This is the most fiscally sound vote a Member can make is to invest further in the National Institutes of Health to save lives, to create jobs in the biomedical industry, and to help us balance our budget by having less money have to be put out because of illness, loss of work days by people who become sick or disabled. I urge my colleagues to think in a fiscally sound way and support the additional appropriation for the National Institutes of Health. Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time. Mr. Chairman, I am very sorry and I think it is very ill-advised that this subject has been raised in this political context. The work to raise NIH funding over the last 5 years has been bipartisan, and I am sorry that it is being used as a point of departure to make a political point. It constrains me to have to make a political point, as well. The minority party was in charge of this House for many, many years. During the previous 5 years the minority was in charge, and President Clinton was also in charge. If we look at the commitment made for increasing funding for biomedical research during that period of time and compare it to the last 5 years when the majority party has been in control of the Congress, I think we can easily see that we have placed this at a far higher priority. [[Page H4235]] To me, however, this is not a political matter and should not be raised in a political context. This is a matter that is of utmost importance to our country and to its people. As I said earlier, this is among the best funding anywhere in government, and we should continue to work together on a bipartisan basis to increase it. However, to propose such increases is easy when you do not have responsibility for any constraints and can spend whatever you want to spend, which is basically what all these amendments do. They say, ``here is what we ought to do.'' We cannot do that. We do not have that luxury. We are the majority party and responsible for the bottom line. We have to live within a budget resolution that was adopted by the majority of the Congress. So we do the best that we can within that context. We have done the best we can. I would much rather we had a 15 percent increase in the bill for NIH. Unfortunately, we simply do not have the funds to do that. We intend, in this process, to achieve that priority and hopefully we will get there, but it is easy simply to say, well, we ought to spend more money in this area. This is an important area. Sure, we would like to provide a 15 percent increase, but in the end, somebody has to be responsible for the overall spending of this government and to live within fiscal restraints. We are taking that responsibility, and we are doing the very best that we can within it. I believe very strongly, and I think the gentlewoman believes very strongly, that in the end we will reach our goal of doubling NIH and providing the third year of a 15 percent increase to get there. Ms. ESHOO. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment by my good friend and colleague from California, Nancy Pelosi. This amendment increases NIH funding by $2.7 billion and would restore the funding level to the amount the Congress agreed to two years ago when it decided to double the NIH budget within five years. Mr. Chairman, this amendment is truth-in-budgeting legislation. In 1998, and again in 1999, this Congress decided it was critical the National Institutes of Health be funded at a level which doubled the NIH budget by Fiscal Year 2003. Now we are in year three and this appropriations bill seeks to back off from that promise. Let me remind my colleagues why we decided to double the NIH budget. According to a Joint Economic Committee report issued just last week, 15 of the 21 most important drugs introduced between 1965 and 1992 were developed using knowledge and techniques from federally funded research. If the Pelosi amendment does not pass, the funding cuts in this bill mean there will be 1,309 fewer federal research grants. Mr. Chairman, my district has the largest concentration of biotechnology companies in the world. The scientific advancements they are working on are moving at revolutionary speed. We cannot afford to cut back on the groundbreaking work they are doing. The need for increased research grants at NIH has never been greater. Infectious diseases pose a significant threat as new human pathogens are discovered and microorganisms acquire antibiotic resistance. In today's Washington Post, the front page story was about a World Health Organization report which said that disease-causing microbes are mutating at an alarming rate into much more dangerous infections that are failing to respond to treatment. Mr. Chairman, in the story the WHO warned . . . that the world could be plunged back into the preantibiotic era when people commonly died of diseases that in modern times have been easily treated with antibiotics. A WHO official said, The world may only have a decade or two to make optimal use of many of the medicines presently available to stop infectious diseases. We are literally in a race against time to bring levels of infectious disease down worldwide, before the disease wears the drugs down first. Mr. Chairman, we need NIH to join in this battle before time runs out. And speaking of time running out, the number of Americans over age 65 will double in the next 30 years. What are we going to do to fight the diseases of the elderly? Also, the threat of bioterrorism--once remote--is now a probability. Mr. Chairman, our purpose for a sustained funding track for NIH was so that the multi-year process for NIH grantmaking was well planned and spent federal funds efficiently. This amendment by my colleague, Nancy Pelosi, achieves that objective. More importantly, the Pelosi amendment keeps a congressional promise. Last March, over 108 Members on both sides of the aisle signed a letter urging a $2.7 billion increase in the NIH budget. The Pelosi amendment would provide that increase. It is the third installment on a bipartisan plan to double the NIH budget by 2003. I thank my colleague, Nancy Pelosi, for offering this amendment, and I compliment her on her leadership and her tireless efforts to improve the health of this country. I urge my colleagues to join her and support this amendment. The CHAIRMAN. All time has expired on this amendment. Point of Order Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order against the amendment because it is in violation of Section 302(f) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974. The Committee on Appropriations filed a suballocation of budget totals for fiscal year 2001 on June 8, 2000, House Report 106-660. This amendment would provide new budget authority in excess of the subcommittee's suballocation made under Section 302(b), and is not permitted under section 302(f) of the Act. I would ask a ruling of the Chair. The CHAIRMAN. Are there other Members who wish to be heard on the point of order? Ms. PELOSI. Yes, Mr. Chairman. The CHAIRMAN. The gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi) is recognized. Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, the distinguished chairman lodged a point of order on the basis that this is outside the budget allocation. On that score, he may be correct. But the fact is that despite the expressions of priority for the funding at the National Institutes of Health, which the chairman has very sincerely made and others have made in this Chamber, we had other choices in this bill. In fact, if this is of the highest priority, why was it not given the same status that other Republican priorities are given in this bill? As we know, there is a $500 million budget adjustment to accommodate $500 million of other spending in this bill. That could have been done for this $1.7 billion and we could have ensured, guaranteed, given peace to the American people that their health and that the research to ensure it to be protected. Instead, the only thing protected in this bill is the tax break for the wealthiest people in America. That is the decision that Members have to make. It is not about this being fiscally responsible. We all want to be that. Indeed, our alternative Democratic budget resolution had this $1.7 increase and it was fiscally responsible. Two things, Mr. Chairman. Because the distinguished chairman has said he is calling a point of order because this is beyond the allocation of the budget, it could be protected just the way this other funding had a lifting of the budget, had an adjustment of the budget figure. {time} 1145 Secondly, I would say that if we are not going to go down that path then it is not the priority we say it is, and we have to answer to the American people for that. Technically, on the point of order, the rule protects the wealthiest 1 percent at the expense of the National Institutes of Health, and I concede the point of order. Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, can I be heard further on the point of order? The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Porter) is recognized. Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, I would simply respond to the gentlewoman that she had every opportunity to make those choices by offering an amendment within the rules that would have taken money from lower priority accounts and put it in this account if that was her desire. She did not take that opportunity to operate within the bounds of fiscal restraint and has simply offered an amendment without any offset, which is clearly out of order. The CHAIRMAN. The Chair is prepared to rule. Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, if I may, since the gentleman characterized my remarks, if I may? The CHAIRMAN. Very briefly the gentlewoman from California may respond. Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, the distinguished gentleman knows that I had [[Page H4236]] no opportunity to have an offset of the $1.7 billion. All I am saying is give this the same treatment as has been given to other Republican priorities by making a budget cap adjustment so that this can be afforded in this bill. The CHAIRMAN. The gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi) has conceded the point of order, but the Chair would say that he is authoritatively guided by an estimate of the Committee on the Budget, pursuant to section 312 of the Budget Act, that an amendment providing any net increase in new discretionary budget authority would cause a breach of the pertinent allocation of such authority. The amendment offered by the gentlewoman from California, by proposing to strike a provision scored as negative budget authority, would increase the level of new discretionary budget authority in the bill. As such, the amendment violates section 302(f) of the Budget Act. The point of order is therefore sustained. The amendment is not in order. Amendment No. 4 Offered by Mr. Andrews Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment. The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment. The text of the amendment is as follows: Amendment No. 4 offered by Mr. Andrews: Page 49, after line 12, insert the following new section: Sec. 214. The amounts otherwise provided by this Act are revised by reducing the amount made available for ``DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES--Office of the Secretary--general departmental management'', and increasing the amount made available for ``Health Resources and Services Administration--health resources and services'' (to be used for a block grant to the Inner City Cardiac Satellite Demonstration Project operated by the State of New Jersey, including creation of a heart clinic in southern New Jersey), by $40,000,000. Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order on the amendment. The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Porter) reserves a point of order on the amendment. Pursuant to the order of the House of Monday, June 12, 2000, the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Andrews) and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Andrews). Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, let me begin by expressing my appreciation to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Porter) and the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) for the fair and even-handed way in which they handled this matter procedurally. Those of us who wish to offer these amendments very much appreciate the expansiveness of the time agreement, the fairness of it, and I wanted to say that for the record this morning. Let me also say the purpose of this amendment is a commendation and a challenge. In the area of commendation, it is to commend the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Porter), the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), and all the members of this subcommittee for the attention they have paid and the commitment they have made to the health care of the people of this country, in particular, the issue of our struggling urban hospitals. I represent the City of Camden, New Jersey, which by just about any measure is one of the poorest cities in the United States of America. We are fortunate to have a number of health care institutions in the City of Camden which remain, despite very difficult economic conditions. One of the consequences of their continued commitment to a poor urban area is that they carry a disproportionate share of the burden of caring for the uninsured or for those whose care is not fully compensated by Medicaid or other public programs. In New Jersey, we have undertaken a rather creative and progressive way to try to address this imbalance. New Jersey has decided to create a special opportunity for urban hospitals to operate heart hospitals or heart clinics, cardiac services, in more affluent suburban areas. The strategy is rather wise and simple. The revenues that would be gained from operating these heart facilities in more affluent areas would recapture dollars which could then be used to help offset and subsidize the cost of providing care for the uninsured and for persons for whom the compensation is not sufficient in the poor urban areas. It is a wise strategy. The challenge that I would offer, however, is what comes to what I believe is New Jersey's incomplete execution of this strategy. The original plan in our State was that there be two of these demonstration projects, one in the northern part of our State and one in the southern part of the State, which I am privileged to represent. For reasons which are not clear to me, and not clear to the health care institutions in southern New Jersey, only one of these pilot programs has gone forward. I believe that this is a mistake. The purpose of this amendment is to provide a Federal opportunity, a Federal subsidy, for this pilot program to go forward both in the southern part of our State and in the northern part of our State. I believe that the problems in our part of New Jersey are at least as acute, at least as difficult, as those of our northern neighbors and the proper position for our State health department is to provide for a second pilot project in the southern part of our State. The purpose of this amendment is to offer an idea for a Federal share or a Federal partnership in making that pilot program succeed. Now having said that, because the committee has been so progressive and wise in promoting the interests of urban hospitals, it is my intention to ask unanimous consent to withdraw this amendment after my colleagues have had a chance to comment on it. Mr. Chairman, with that in mind, after making this statement, I would reserve the balance of my time. Point of Order Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order against the amendment because it provides an appropriation for an unauthorized program and therefore violates clause 2 of rule XXI. Clause 2 of rule XXI states in pertinent part an appropriation may not be in order as an amendment for an expenditure not previously authorized by law. Mr. Chairman, the authorization for this program has not been signed into law. The amendment, therefore, violates clause 2 of rule XXI, and I would ask for a ruling from the Chair. The CHAIRMAN. Does any other Member wish to be heard on the point of order? Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw my amendment. The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from New Jersey? There was no objection. The CHAIRMAN. The amendment is withdrawn. Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. The CHAIRMAN. Is the gentleman offering an amendment? Mr. STEARNS. I am going to offer an amendment. Also, Mr. Chairman, I wanted to have a colloquy with the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Porter). The CHAIRMAN. Does the chairman designate the gentleman to strike the last word? Mr. PORTER. Yes, Mr. Chairman. The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Florida (Mr. Stearns) is recognized for 5 minutes. Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Chairman, I intend to offer an amendment to move $10 million into the Adoption Incentives Program. I decided not to offer that amendment today, but I would like to engage in a colloquy with the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Porter) regarding the importance of funding this program. Mr. Chairman, the Adoption Incentives Program has helped to dramatically increase a number of children adopted out of foster care. I certainly appreciate all the good work he has done in the Labor, Health, and Human Services appropriations bill, including the $2 million increase for the Adoption Incentives Program. I would like to ask the gentleman to continue his hard work in conference and build on this program by further increasing funding for this program. Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield? Mr. STEARNS. I yield to the gentleman from Illinois. Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Florida (Mr. [[Page H4237]] Stearns) for highlighting the importance of the Adoption Incentives Program. I will continue to work with him and with my colleagues in conference to ensure States receive the funding they need to help more kids move from foster care to permanent and loving, caring homes. Mr. STEARNS. I thank the chairman. I appreciate his commitment to providing more money for adoption. I strongly support the positive steps Congress has taken in this area and believe we should do even more. That is why I am here this morning. President Clinton supports increasing funding for this program. Adoption is also a positive alternative to abortion, and I hope the gentleman is successful in finding additional money in funding for the Adoption Incentives Program. Amendment No. 189 Offered by Mr. Stearns Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment. The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment. The text of the amendment is as follows: Amendment No. 189 offered by Mr. Stearns: Page 49, after line 12, insert the following section: Sec. 214. Amounts made available in this title for carrying out the activities of the National Institutes of Health are available for a report under section 403 of the Public Health Service for the following purposes: (1) To identify the amounts expended under section 402(g) of such Act to enhance the competitiveness of entities that are seeking funds from such Institutes to conduct biomedical or behavioral research. (2) To identify the entities for which such amounts have been expended, including a separate statement regarding expenditures under section 402(g)(2) of such Act for individuals who have not previously served as principal researchers of projects supported by such Institutes. (3) To identify the extent to which such entities and individuals receive funds under programs through which such Institutes support projects of biomedical or behavioral research, and to provide the underlying reasons for such funding decisions. Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order on the amendment. The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman reserves a point of order. Pursuant to the order of the House of Monday, June 12, 2000, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Stearns) and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Stearns). Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, this is a sensitive subject. I have a Congressional Research Report here, which I worked with in doing this amendment. My amendment has three components to it. The first identifies and asks NIH to identify amounts that are distributed, given to individuals and corporations seeking funds from the Institute to conduct research. We have had constituents who have applied to NIH and who have been unable to find out, after great frustration, why they did not get the money. They could not find out who the individual was who got the money, or corporations, and they did not know or find out how much it was. So my amendment, first of all, asks NIH to identify the monies that are given to individuals and also then the amendment asks that they identify the individuals so that we see the money expended, the individuals who received it and then we would like to see some justification for why the NIH gave this money. Now I have a report from the Congressional Research Service that sort of confirms what my amendment is talking about. It concludes, and I would just like to read the conclusion from this Congressional Research Report, that there is no question that NIH is an esteemed institution that subsidizes biomedical research and is a value to the people the world over, but that does not remove it from its vast agenda and continuing controversy over how the agency should allocate its ever- increasing appropriations. As a public agency, supported through tax revenues, NIH will, in all likelihood, face even greater scrutiny in the future. That is what my amendment does. It attempts to bring NIH into the next millennium with more transparency. I have been a long-time advocate of NIH. In fact, I have supported the idea of doubling its funding over the next 5 years. A lot of universities in Florida, particularly the University of Florida and Florida State, have benefited from NIH research grant money. So I am a great supporter of NIH, but we are talking about Federal tax dollars here, and I am concerned we are not making public the information from grants that NIH has given the individuals, the amount of money provided, and how they made their decisions on these grants. So I hear in my congressional district in Central Florida from doctors that they have not been able to succeed in getting NIH funding and they do not know why and they have to apply 5, 6, 7 times with no answers. There is just sort of a huge Federal bureaucracy. They say we just need to have much more transparency there. Let me share what I have learned about the research grants and how these decisions are made. In reviewing steps that could or should be taken by NIH, I discovered that NIH is starting, just starting, to move in the right direction with a peer review process. There are several areas that Congress must look at when assessing NIH approaches and decisions that are made by them and how research dollars are to be spent. First of all, how effective is its peer review system and the agency's ability to identify proposals with the greatest potential? Another issue is why the agency has not installed an electronically- based grant application award system. This is pretty basic today. So I urge them to do so. This would be exceedingly beneficial to everybody. Supporters of NIH, and there are many, including myself, would like to see a greater accountability of the NIH director and to make its planning and budgeting reporting process more open. In 1998, Mr. Chairman, a report was issued by the Institute of Medicine and the National Academy of Sciences entitled Scientific Opportunities and Public Needs. This report highlighted several issues that needed to be addressed by NIH, including its peer review process. So we have on the books documentation that shows that NIH needs to be more scrupulous in how they award grants and make the information known. I think NIH's policies and reviews and procedures should be expedited and this amendment simply is saying to NIH, let us have some more transparency and make the number of people, their names available, who the research grants are given to, how much money they were given and in the end what was the process that was used. If this was done, Mr. Chairman, I think this would move this Agency towards this transparency concept I envision. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk. My amendment would require a report to: (1) identify amounts disbursed to enhance competitiveness of entities seeking funds from the Institutes to conduct biomedical and behavioral research; (2) to identify the entities receiving funding, including a separate statement on expenditures for individuals who have not previously served as principal researchers of projects supported by the Institutes; and (3) to provide an explanation for such funding decisions made by the National Institutes of Health to entities seeking funds to conduct biomedical and behavioral research. Money is available under Section 403 (42 U.S.C. 283) of the Public Health Service Act for the purposes of carrying out such a report. First, I want to say that I am a long-time supporter of NIH because I know how valuable the research being conducted by this illustrious body has been to our nation in finding the causes and cures of diseases. The NIH has and will continue to greatly benefit our nation. In fact, I am a cosponsor of the resolution to double the NIH budget over a five year period. We are currently in our third year in that effort. There are many fine universities in the State of Florida that benefit from NIH research grant money, including the University of Florida, which I once had the privilege of representing. That being said, however, I have heard from numerous individuals about the difficulties involved in securing research grants through NIH. These are federal tax dollars we are talking about! I am concerned that we are not making these grants available to new graduates who need this important seed money to continue their biomedical and behavioral research in their chosen fields. We all know that universities and colleges across the country are not having students enter the hard sciences as they once did--we must ensure that those that do are not discouraged from putting their talents to work in [[Page H4238]] research efforts being conducted by the federal government. There is a positive note to all this. Let me share with you what I learned about the research project grants and how these decisions are made. In reviewing steps that could or should be taken by NIH, I discovered that NIH is moving in the right direction in its peer review process. There are several areas that Congress must look at when assessing NIH's approach to decisions that are made by them in how research dollars are to be spent. First, how effective is its peer- review system and the agency's ability to identify proposals with the greatest potential. Another issue is why the agency hasn't installed an electronically-based grant application and award system. This would certainly be beneficial. Supporters of NIH, and there are many, including myself would like to see a greater accountability of the NIH Director, and to make its planning, budgeting and reporting process more open. In 1998 a report was issued by the Institute of Medicine and the National Academy of Sciences entitled, Scientific Opportunities and Public Needs: Improving Priority Setting and Public Input at the National Institutes of Health. This report highlighted several issues that needed to be addressed by NIH, including its peer review process. As a result, the NIH Council of Public Representatives (COPR) was created by former NIH Director Dr. Harold Varmus. The IOM committee recommended steps to make the agency more welcoming to public input, including the establishment of COPR. There were 20 public members selected to COPR and the first meeting was in April 1999. The committee members have participated in the NIH budget retreats, the NIH Government Performance and Results Act (GRPA), hearings on patient protections, health research related to diverse populations, health disparities, performance reviews of Institute Directors in addition to the regular COPR meetings and conference calls. The council has taken a life of its own and taken its role very seriously reviewing NIH's policies and procedures, research priorities, research funding, public input, and input to the public. The Council sets the agenda and directs the discussion items. During these meetings we have learned the difficulties involved in the budget process and with the uncertainty of each year's appropriations bills, and the difficulty in making multi-year research commitments. Most directors have played it conservatively to make sure they will have the funds to continue projects. In addition the need to increase young researchers has been a priority at NIH. The research training program and mentorship program has been increased to meet this important crisis. My amendment would require a report to identify and provide an explanation for funding decisions made by the NIH to entities seeking research grants. I would urge the NIH to continue in its efforts to ensure that our nation's best and brightest receive the dollars necessary to conduct important life saving research. While it is good to know that some steps have been taken, I believe it is incumbent upon Congress to continue to serve as a watch dog since taxpayer dollars are involved. I believe that we have benefited by finding out more about this newly formed Council, but I would remind my colleagues that this did not come about until the IOM and the National Academy of Sciences brought these issues to light. {time} 1200 Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition to the amendment. The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Porter) claims the time in opposition and will be recognized for 5 minutes. Does the gentleman from Illinois continue to reserve a point of order? Mr. PORTER. Mr chairman, I continue to reserve my point of order. The CHAIRMAN. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Porter). Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, I would say to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Stearns) that who receives grants of NIH funding and the amount of those grants and the purpose for which the grants are made is public knowledge. That is readily available and can be provided to the gentleman, or anyone else, at any time he would like to have it. The peer review process is a process that has developed over a long, long period of time. It is set forth in Federal regulation. It is easy to understand the process and to see it at work. Is it perfect? Certainly nothing is perfect. It needs to be reviewed and made more responsive. Ask the scientific community, generally, whether this is a good system that is competitive and separates good science from bad science, I think there is, overwhelmingly, a general consensus that it works quite well to separate good science from bad, to bring the best science to the top and to fund only that which has great potential and is well conceived. With respect to electronic grant applications, NIH is working on that right now. I think it is a very good point that the gentleman makes and ought to be followed up on; but it is already being done, and we expect that the system will be perfected and brought on-line very soon. So I would simply say to the gentleman that he makes good points, but I think that there is great progress being made with respect to each one. Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield? Mr. PORTER. Yes, I yield to the gentleman from Florida. Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Illinois for his comments. Dr. Harold Varmus was the former NIH director, and he sort of confirmed what my amendment intends. He recommended steps to make the agency more welcoming to the public and available and transparent, including what he called a Council of Public Representatives, COPR. There were 20 members that he selected, put this together; and he had a meeting in April 1999. Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, those councils are up and running, yes. Mr. STEARNS. I know, Mr. Chairman, but part of the thinking he had was the council was there to make this agency more transparent. So I urge the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Porter) and the committee to continue this peer review and the process of making this more transparent. Point of Order Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order against the amendment because it proposes to change existing law and constitutes legislation in an appropriation bill and therefore violates clause 2 of rule XXI. The rule states in pertinent part, ``An amendment to a general appropriation bill shall not be in order if it changes existing law by imposing additional duties.'' I ask for a ruling from the Chair. The CHAIRMAN. The point of order is raised by the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Porter) against the Stearns amendment. Does any Member wish to be recognized on the point of order? In pertinent part, the amendment earmarks funds in a manner not supported by existing law. As such, it constitutes legislation in violation of clause 2(c) of rule XXI. The point of order is sustained. The Clerk will read. The Clerk read as follows: This title may be cited as the ``Department of Health and Human Services Appropriations Act, 2001''. TITLE III--DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION education reform For carrying out activities authorized by sections 3122, 3132, 3136, and 3141, parts B and C of title III, and part I of title X of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, $1,505,000,000, of which $119,500,000 shall be for section 3122: Provided, That up to one-half of 1 percent of the amount available under section 3132 shall be set aside for the outlying areas, to be distributed on the basis of their relative need as determined by the Secretary in accordance with the purposes of the program: Provided further, That if any State educational agency does not apply for a grant under section 3132, that State's allotment under section 3131 shall be reserved by the Secretary for grants to local educational agencies in that State that apply directly to the Secretary according to the terms and conditions published by the Secretary in the Federal Register. Amendment No. 14 Offered by Mr. Obey Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment. The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment. The text of the amendment is as follows: Amendment No. 14 offered by Mr. Obey: Page 49, line 20, after the dollar amount, insert the following: ``(increased by $65,000,000)''. Page 49, line 21, after the dollar amount, insert the following: ``(increased by $65,000,000)''. Page 52, line 7, after ``titles'' insert ``II,''. Page 52, line 12, after each of the two dollar amounts, insert the following: ``(increased by $960,000,000)''. Page 52, strike the proviso beginning on line 17 and insert the following: : Provided, That of the amount appropriated, $960,000,000 shall be for title II of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, [[Page H4239]] notwithstanding any other provision of law, for State formula grants and other competitive grants subject to such terms and conditions as the Secretary of Education shall establish to improve the knowledge and skills of such individuals as early childhood educators, teachers, principals, and superintendents, and for teacher recruitment and retention activities: Provided further, That of the amount appropriated, $2,115,750,000 shall be for title VI of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, of which $1,750,000,000 shall be available, notwithstanding any other provision of law, to reduce class size, particularly in the early grades, using fully qualified teachers to improve educational achievement for regular and special needs children in accordance with section 310 of Public Law 106-113 Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order on the gentleman's amendments. The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Porter) reserves a point of order on the amendment. Pursuant to the order of the House on Thursday, June 8, 2000, the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) and the gentleman f

Amendments:

Cosponsors:

Search Bills

Browse Bills

93rd (26222)
94th (23756)
95th (21548)
96th (14332)
97th (20134)
98th (19990)
99th (15984)
100th (15557)
101st (15547)
102nd (16113)
103rd (13166)
104th (11290)
105th (11312)
106th (13919)
113th (9767)
112th (15911)
111th (19293)
110th (7009)
109th (19491)
108th (15530)
107th (16380)

DEPARTMENTS OF LABOR, HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, AND EDUCATION, AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2001


Sponsor:

Summary:

All articles in House section

DEPARTMENTS OF LABOR, HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, AND EDUCATION, AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2001
(House of Representatives - June 13, 2000)

Text of this article available as: TXT PDF [Pages H4231-H4310] DEPARTMENTS OF LABOR, HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, AND EDUCATION, AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2001 The Committee resumed its sitting. The CHAIRMAN. Does the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Porter) rise in opposition? Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition. The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Illinois is recognized for 15 minutes. Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, as I said to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi) in full committee markup of this bill, this amendment, of course, tests my resolve more than any other of your theme amendments. I consider the funding for NIH to be of the highest priority I would very much have liked to put into this bill the full 15 percent increase that I believe is necessary and proper. Such funding is among the best spent money in government to continue on our path of doubling NIH over a 5-year period. Unfortunately, the allocation was not sufficient to do so. We have in the bill a limitation to limit the obligation to the President's budget, which is a $1 billion increase less the cap and comes out to probably 4 percent to 5 percent, rather than the 15 percent that we favor. However, the gentlewoman has just used this amendment to make a number of political points, and I would simply say to the gentlewoman she ought to look at the history of funding for NIH. It indicates that the President of the United States has put this at a very, very low priority in all of his budgets for the last 5 years, while the majority party has put it at a very, very high priority. Congress has provided a total of $7.8 billion in cumulative increases for NIH as opposed to the $4.3 billion requested by the President over the last 5 years. We have put NIH on a funding path to [[Page H4232]] double its level in 5 years, we have made two down payments and are committed, within the fiscal responsibility, to making the third payment this year. We cannot do it within the allocation that we have, but we are committed to making that third payment this year. I would not say that this was done on a partisan basis. It has been a bipartisan effort. It has been supported by both sides of the aisle. I know, and the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi) knows that there are more scientific opportunities today. Increased funding can lead to cures for major diseases like Alzheimer's disease Parkinson's disease, forms of cancer, diabetes and a host of other diseases is closer than it ever has been before. We are doing all that we can to get to achieve the 15% increase, but we are constrained by a budget allocation that is not sufficient to allow us to do it at this point. I know that the gentlewoman herself is committed to reaching that point. What I do not like to see is making political points. This leads us away from the importance of this funding and makes this seem a political clash. I would simply point out that we have made great progress. We are committed to making continued progress. We believe that this funding can lead to scientific discovery that will help people who need help. It will lead to longer and more healthy lives for all the American people and, perhaps, all the people in this world. This is the best spent money, because it leads ultimately to driving down health care costs in our society. If we work together, we can achieve a result that we can all be proud of in doubling funding for NIH over a 5-year period. In the 5 years that I have been chairman, 1995 to now, we have increased funding for NIH by 58 percent. If we can double it this year, we will be at 82 percent over that 6-year period, and I simply believe that this is not the proper context to raise political issues. This is something that all of us are committed to accomplishing. We have made great progress, and we are very hopeful that we will make the kind of progress that all the American people can be proud of in the end. Mr. WICKER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield? Mr. PORTER. I yield to the gentleman from Mississippi. Mr. WICKER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the time. I, too, agree, Mr. Chairman, that it is unfortunate that this debate is being used to make political points. NIH and health research has certainly been something that this committee and this subcommittee has approached on a bipartisan basis. And I must say that the gentleman in the well, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Porter), who is in his last year as subcommittee chairman, is leaving a rich legacy of bipartisanship and also support for real programs for real people, improving their health. Under his leadership, this subcommittee and this committee have shown their support in terms of the dollars indicated there. {time} 1115 I would like to ask the chairman though about the chart there. Do I understand that the red figures are the cumulative amounts of money proposed by President Clinton in his budget; is that correct? Mr. PORTER. That is correct. Mr. WICKER. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will yield further, then the large amounts above and beyond that in blue amount to the actual appropriations that we have been able to get through this subcommittee and through the Congress of the United States for the National Institutes of Health? Mr. PORTER. Yes, the gentleman is correct. Mr. WICKER. As far as the cumulative increases, since the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Porter) has been chairman, the cumulative increases are almost double those requested by the President of the United States? Mr. PORTER. That is correct. Mr. WICKER. Finally, let me ask the gentleman, Mr. Chairman, with regard to this appropriation in this bill, which I agree is regrettably low, how does it compare to the amount requested by President Clinton in his budget this year for NIH and health research? Mr. PORTER. If I understand the gentleman's question correctly, the President requested $1 billion in increased funding for NIH this year. We have placed in the bill numbers indicating a $2.7 billion increase, but, then, because of our budget allocation, we have been forced to limit that amount to the President's request. Mr. WICKER. The amount contained in this bill is precisely what the President requested; is that correct? Mr. PORTER. Yes. Mr. BENTSEN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield for a question regarding his chart? Mr. PORTER. I yield to the gentleman from Texas. Mr. BENTSEN. Mr. Chairman, the question I had, and I can barely read it, but the chart starts with fiscal year 1995; is that correct? Mr. PORTER. That is correct. Mr. BENTSEN. Does that chart reflect what the appropriations are, or does it reflect concurrent budget resolutions? My question is would that reflect what the fiscal 1995 concurrent budget resolution as adopted by the House and Senate did, which would show a dip of 5 percent? Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, budget resolutions do not have any effect. They are only advisory. These are appropriations. Mr. BENTSEN. If the gentleman will further yield, part of the budget allocation we are dealing with today, the fact that the gentleman raised, is the fact that the budget resolution passed by the House does not provide sufficient allocation to meet the doubling of the NIH, and we had a problem with the budget resolution in fiscal year 1995 as passed by the House and the other body that called for a 5 percent reduction in NIH in real terms. Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman should remember that the only jurisdiction the Committee on the Budget has is to set overall spending numbers. The rest is advisory. Mr. Chairman, reserve the balance of my time. Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 1-3/4 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Jackson), a distinguished member of the subcommittee. (Mr. JACKSON of Illinois asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.) Mr. JACKSON of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me time. Mr. Chairman, let me first begin by congratulating the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Porter) for what every member of this subcommittee knows to be the truth, that no one in this Congress has had a greater commitment to expanding and increasing NIH funding than the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Porter). If the entire House were present during this part of the debate, I would ask at this time for all of them to stand and give the gentleman from Illinois (Chairman Porter) an outstanding round of applause for his interest and for his commitment and dedication in this area. I would say to the gentleman from Illinois (Chairman Porter), we have enormous respect for his efforts in this particular area, and I certainly rise to salute the gentleman. Let me also indicate that this is the first time since I have been in Congress for 5 years that I am not going to dispute any of the facts that were offered by the majority in the brief demonstration that we had here from the chairman. But I want to make it very, very clear that the gentleman from Illinois (Chairman Porter), if he had been dealt the appropriate hand in this particular allocation, that we would be looking at increases in NIH consistent with the effort to double resources as consistent with our 5-year objective. Mr. Chairman, this amendment raises our investment in biomedical research at the National Institutes of Health. Fiscal year 2001 is the 3rd year of this ``doubling NIH in 5 years'' initiative. For 2 straight years we have agreed to provide NIH the 15 percent increases needed to double the budget. This year, the House fails to do so. Staying on track to double NIH's budget requires a $2.7 billion increase for fiscal year 2001. The House bill provides the increase, then takes it away in a general provision and reduces that increase to the administration's request. Mr. Chairman, it is one thing in an era of deficits to say we cannot afford to invest additional resources in these [[Page H4233]] programs; but now that we are in an era of surpluses, we no longer have that excuse. All we need to do to pay for this amendment is to scale back the size of the tax cut for the wealthy by 20 percent. We can leave the middle-class tax cuts alone, just scale back the tax cuts for the individuals at the top 1 percent; and we can do just that. Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Capps), a member of the Committee on Commerce, an expert on health issues, and a health professional before she came to the Congress. Mrs. CAPPS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Pelosi amendment, which seeks to increase funding for the National Institutes of Health. I commend the committee and Congress for the commitment that has been made to double the NIH budget in 5 years specifically by providing necessary 15 percent increases in appropriations each year. But this year, we are going off track. Our budget is throwing us off our 5-year track. Mr. Chairman, there is not a family in this country that does not feel the promise and the hope of the research that is done under the auspices of the NIH. A year ago it was the deputy director who told my daughter, recently diagnosed with advanced lung cancer, that if she could hold on for 2 years, there was such promising research coming down the pike through NIH. So many families in this country hold their hope in the research that is done and is spawned by our funding for the NIH. Research in the real life miracle areas of Parkinson's disease, cancer research, Alzheimer's, diabetes, these are situations that people across this country are dealing with on a daily basis. We have established a wonderful track record for funding. We need to keep our resolve now and stick to our promise to double the funding in 5 years. Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler). Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of this amendment to provide a $1.7 billion increase to the NIH in order to keep us on track to double its budget by 2004. Mr. Chairman, the last century will be remembered as the century in which we eradicated polio, developed gene therapy, and discovered some treatments for breast cancer. At the center of this research has been the NIH. NIH funded scientists have learned how to diagnose, treat and prevent diseases that were once great mysteries. The decoding of the human genome, soon to be completed, will lead to yet more opportunities for research that will revolutionize how we look at and treat diseases. Our efforts will shift increasingly to the genetic level, where we will learn to cure diseases now untreatable. We should not abandon our commitment to double the NIH budget in 5 years. Let this new century see humanity vanquish cancer and heart disease and genetic diseases and AIDS. Let us not start reversing that goal now. We are now the most prosperous society in the history of this planet. We have unparalleled budget surpluses. We should not deny medical research the funds it needs because of artificial budget restraints in an artificial and politically motivated budget resolution. In the names of the thousands, perhaps millions of people whose lives will be prolonged and saved by adoption of this amendment, I urge its adoption. Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the very distinguished gentleman from Texas (Mr. Bentsen). (Mr. BENTSEN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.) Mr. BENTSEN. Mr. Chairman, I offered this same amendment when the House Committee on the Budget marked up the budget resolution, and I was told at the time that we had put enough money into NIH, that this year we just could not do it. It is ironic that a few weeks ago we passed the China PNTR bill because we wanted to gain access to more markets where we have a comparative advantage. In the world of medical research, where the United States leads the world and has a comparative advantage, we do not want to provide the resources to do that. I know the gentleman from Illinois (Chairman Porter) wants to do it, but he is constrained by the budget. How can a sophisticated, mature economy like the United States not provide the resources that are necessary? It is all part of this budget fallacy, because the Chairman well knows that the Senate is going to mark up the full amount and we will go to conference and we will do it. But we are living under artificial constraints by a budget resolution that is not going to hold water at the end of the year. We should do the right thing today, adopt the gentlewoman's amendment, and move forward where we do enjoy a comparative advantage and bring these cures to the American people, because we know we can do it. Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro), a distinguished member of the Subcommittee on Labor, Health and Human Services and Education of the Committee on Appropriations, and a person who is an expert on health policy. Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi). I support a strong national investment in biomedical research. The reason being is that I am alive today due to the advancements in biomedical research. I am a 15 year survivor of ovarian cancer. I know how it feels to be the person behind the statistics. We are on the brink of tremendous breakthroughs in cancer and many other areas. We have committed ourselves as a Congress to doubling the funding for the NIH over the next 5 years. Why then would we want to fall short of that goal this year? All the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi) is asking for is the $1.7 billion that will allow us to get to meeting that goal this year, and the trade-off is, the trade-off is, a tax cut that is going to only benefit the most wealthy people in this country. The lives, the health, the safety of American people all over this country is not to be traded away, not to be traded away, because of a tax cut that will only benefit the wealthiest. Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, I am happy to yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Cunningham), a very, very strong supporter of NIH and biomedical research. Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Chairman, the gentlewoman well knows that I am a champion for medical research. I have got a goal. My daughter scored a perfect 1600 on her SATs this year as a senior at Torrey Pines. She is going to intern in cancer research at NIH this summer. I am a cancer survivor. There is nothing worse than a doctor looking you in the eye and saying, ``Duke Cunningham, you have got cancer.'' I am a survivor. And if the gentlewoman would have offsets in this, I would be with her in this amendment. I would hope in conference we can add to this and somehow come up with the additional dollars in this. Unfortunately, the politics in this, that is being shown in all these amendments, is what is discouraging, because the gentlewoman, the ranking minority member, Democrats and Republicans, have come together on NIH funding to support it, and I still hope in some way we can add these particular dollars down the line. In cancer, Dr. Klausner, and you see what he is doing at NIH, I would say I was saved because of a PSA test. Do you know that right now, because of this research, there are markers for ovarian cancer which we have never had before? Women had no markers in this. I met a gentleman at NIH that contacted HIV in 1989. The only thing he ever thought about was dying. And now he has hope. He has bought an apartment. He has even bought stocks. This is what we are talking about when we talk about NIH funding. {time} 1130 If the gentlewoman would offer offsets on this, we would support it. She is right. But I want to tell the Members, fiscal responsibility down the line, where we balance the budget and we pay off the national debt as soon as 2012, we spend $1 billion a day, a day, $1 billion a day on just the interest. Think what we are going to have in the future for the Americans for education, [[Page H4234]] for crimefighting, for NIH, just by keeping our fiscal house in constraint. The death tax that we passed, a little bit out of touch, saying tax break for the rich, passed on a bipartisan vote; the social security tax that my colleagues put in in 1993 we eliminated, a little bit out of touch by saying that is a tax break for the rich; taking a look at the marriage penalty for people who are married, that is sure not a tax break for the rich. My colleagues on the other side wish to politicize this and say, tax break for the rich. I think some people actually believe that, after saying it 10,000 times, someone is going to believe it. It is just not so. Let us come together and support this NIH increase in conference, if there is some way we can do it, and work in a bipartisan way on this particular issue. Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Lowey), another distinguished member of our Subcommittee of Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education. Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding time to me. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Pelosi amendment. Over the last 2 years, with the strong leadership of the gentleman from Illinois (Chairman Porter) and broad bipartisan support, we have made tremendous progress in our goal of doubling the NIH budget. Dr. Kirschstein and the Institute directors have done an outstanding job of describing how they have managed large increases and used them to fund good science. We have to continue our bipartisan effort to increase funding for biomedical research. Whether it is breast cancer, diabetes, autism, or heart disease, we have made real progress towards better understanding and treatment. My good friends are saying this is politics. They are right. What politics is about is making wise decisions. We have that choice. We can have a smaller tax cut and invest in the National Institutes of Health, and invest in the continued extraordinary challenges that are ahead of us. We have the opportunity on our subcommittee in this Congress to face the extraordinary challenges in health care ahead. Let us do it. Let us do it now. Let us support the Pelosi amendment. Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I am very, very pleased to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), the very distinguished ranking member of our subcommittee and the ranking member of the full Committee on Appropriations, who, along with the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Porter), has been a champion for increased funding at the National Institutes of Health. Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding time to me. Mr. Chairman, the issue is not what the Congress and the President did on this issue in the last decade. The issue is what we are going to do in the next decade. This bill appropriates $2.7 billion above last year to the National Institutes of Health. But then it has a provision in the bill which says it can only spend $1 billion of that, so the committee has it both ways. It can say yes, we have provided $1.7 billion when they pull this piece of paper out of their pocket, and then they go to the other pocket and say, oh, no, we did not spend that much money, we held the budget down. The result of this budget is that it cuts $439 million below current services, and that means that it reduces the new and competing grants that go out to scientists to do research on cancer, Alzheimer's, diabetes, and everything else, by about 15 percent. In real terms, this bill is a reduction from last year. A lot of people on that side of the aisle keep saying, well, this is just the second step in the process. Do not worry, down the line we are going to try to fix this. What we are saying is that it makes no sense for them to say, well, at some point somebody else is going to be responsible. We are asking the majority side to be responsible now. They keep talking about fiscal responsibility. Two weeks ago I was at Marshfield Clinic in my district. I had a number of senior citizens talk to me about the miracles that had occurred when they had strokes that disabled them, and they were able to recover from those strokes because of new medical research. My question to them and my question to the Members today is this: What is more important to this country, to have more success stories like that, more success stories, like the gentleman from California (Mr. Cunningham), or instead to continue the path that the majority party has been following in providing huge tax cuts, with over 70 percent of the benefits aimed at the wealthiest 1 percent of people in this society? Members gave away in the minimum wage bill $90 billion in tax cuts to people who make over $300,000 a year. All we are saying is they could finance this amendment on health care, they could finance our amendment on education, on child care, on all the rest if they simply cut back what they are providing in those tax packages by 20 percent. Leave the middle-income tax cuts in place, just take the tax cuts that they are providing for the high rollers, cut them back by 20 percent, and they can meet all of these needs. It is not enough to have budgets at last year's level, or around last year's level. This is a growing country. It is a growing population. We have new medical discoveries. Every time we make a new medical discovery, we ought to build on it, not use it as an excuse to slack off. That is what we are saying. To me it is outrageous that this amendment cannot even get a vote on the floor of the House today. Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of the time. Mr. Chairman, I thank the Chair for presiding over this very respectful, I think, debate. We have acknowledged the leadership of our chairman and our ranking member in supporting the highest possible funding levels for the National Institutes of Health. We have recognized that despite the priority that the gentleman from Illinois (Chairman Porter) gives to the National Institutes of Health, that the budget allocation does not allow him to put the additional $1.7 billion in the bill which keeps us on track of doubling the NIH budget in 5 years. Members have shared their personal stories about themselves and their children, and pointed to the need for us to invest in this research. There is no argument about that. But when Members say that we are politicizing this debate by saying because we have a tax cut because we cannot afford this funding level for NIH, they are being political. The fact is, bad budget numbers necessitate a bad appropriation. If we did not have the tax cut, we could afford the NIH funding. It is that simple. That kind of decision is what people send us to Congress to make. We must recollect the values of the American people, which say that it is a good investment to invest in basic biomedical research. It saves lives. It adds to the productivity and the quality of our lives. This is the most fiscally sound vote a Member can make is to invest further in the National Institutes of Health to save lives, to create jobs in the biomedical industry, and to help us balance our budget by having less money have to be put out because of illness, loss of work days by people who become sick or disabled. I urge my colleagues to think in a fiscally sound way and support the additional appropriation for the National Institutes of Health. Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time. Mr. Chairman, I am very sorry and I think it is very ill-advised that this subject has been raised in this political context. The work to raise NIH funding over the last 5 years has been bipartisan, and I am sorry that it is being used as a point of departure to make a political point. It constrains me to have to make a political point, as well. The minority party was in charge of this House for many, many years. During the previous 5 years the minority was in charge, and President Clinton was also in charge. If we look at the commitment made for increasing funding for biomedical research during that period of time and compare it to the last 5 years when the majority party has been in control of the Congress, I think we can easily see that we have placed this at a far higher priority. [[Page H4235]] To me, however, this is not a political matter and should not be raised in a political context. This is a matter that is of utmost importance to our country and to its people. As I said earlier, this is among the best funding anywhere in government, and we should continue to work together on a bipartisan basis to increase it. However, to propose such increases is easy when you do not have responsibility for any constraints and can spend whatever you want to spend, which is basically what all these amendments do. They say, ``here is what we ought to do.'' We cannot do that. We do not have that luxury. We are the majority party and responsible for the bottom line. We have to live within a budget resolution that was adopted by the majority of the Congress. So we do the best that we can within that context. We have done the best we can. I would much rather we had a 15 percent increase in the bill for NIH. Unfortunately, we simply do not have the funds to do that. We intend, in this process, to achieve that priority and hopefully we will get there, but it is easy simply to say, well, we ought to spend more money in this area. This is an important area. Sure, we would like to provide a 15 percent increase, but in the end, somebody has to be responsible for the overall spending of this government and to live within fiscal restraints. We are taking that responsibility, and we are doing the very best that we can within it. I believe very strongly, and I think the gentlewoman believes very strongly, that in the end we will reach our goal of doubling NIH and providing the third year of a 15 percent increase to get there. Ms. ESHOO. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment by my good friend and colleague from California, Nancy Pelosi. This amendment increases NIH funding by $2.7 billion and would restore the funding level to the amount the Congress agreed to two years ago when it decided to double the NIH budget within five years. Mr. Chairman, this amendment is truth-in-budgeting legislation. In 1998, and again in 1999, this Congress decided it was critical the National Institutes of Health be funded at a level which doubled the NIH budget by Fiscal Year 2003. Now we are in year three and this appropriations bill seeks to back off from that promise. Let me remind my colleagues why we decided to double the NIH budget. According to a Joint Economic Committee report issued just last week, 15 of the 21 most important drugs introduced between 1965 and 1992 were developed using knowledge and techniques from federally funded research. If the Pelosi amendment does not pass, the funding cuts in this bill mean there will be 1,309 fewer federal research grants. Mr. Chairman, my district has the largest concentration of biotechnology companies in the world. The scientific advancements they are working on are moving at revolutionary speed. We cannot afford to cut back on the groundbreaking work they are doing. The need for increased research grants at NIH has never been greater. Infectious diseases pose a significant threat as new human pathogens are discovered and microorganisms acquire antibiotic resistance. In today's Washington Post, the front page story was about a World Health Organization report which said that disease-causing microbes are mutating at an alarming rate into much more dangerous infections that are failing to respond to treatment. Mr. Chairman, in the story the WHO warned . . . that the world could be plunged back into the preantibiotic era when people commonly died of diseases that in modern times have been easily treated with antibiotics. A WHO official said, The world may only have a decade or two to make optimal use of many of the medicines presently available to stop infectious diseases. We are literally in a race against time to bring levels of infectious disease down worldwide, before the disease wears the drugs down first. Mr. Chairman, we need NIH to join in this battle before time runs out. And speaking of time running out, the number of Americans over age 65 will double in the next 30 years. What are we going to do to fight the diseases of the elderly? Also, the threat of bioterrorism--once remote--is now a probability. Mr. Chairman, our purpose for a sustained funding track for NIH was so that the multi-year process for NIH grantmaking was well planned and spent federal funds efficiently. This amendment by my colleague, Nancy Pelosi, achieves that objective. More importantly, the Pelosi amendment keeps a congressional promise. Last March, over 108 Members on both sides of the aisle signed a letter urging a $2.7 billion increase in the NIH budget. The Pelosi amendment would provide that increase. It is the third installment on a bipartisan plan to double the NIH budget by 2003. I thank my colleague, Nancy Pelosi, for offering this amendment, and I compliment her on her leadership and her tireless efforts to improve the health of this country. I urge my colleagues to join her and support this amendment. The CHAIRMAN. All time has expired on this amendment. Point of Order Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order against the amendment because it is in violation of Section 302(f) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974. The Committee on Appropriations filed a suballocation of budget totals for fiscal year 2001 on June 8, 2000, House Report 106-660. This amendment would provide new budget authority in excess of the subcommittee's suballocation made under Section 302(b), and is not permitted under section 302(f) of the Act. I would ask a ruling of the Chair. The CHAIRMAN. Are there other Members who wish to be heard on the point of order? Ms. PELOSI. Yes, Mr. Chairman. The CHAIRMAN. The gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi) is recognized. Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, the distinguished chairman lodged a point of order on the basis that this is outside the budget allocation. On that score, he may be correct. But the fact is that despite the expressions of priority for the funding at the National Institutes of Health, which the chairman has very sincerely made and others have made in this Chamber, we had other choices in this bill. In fact, if this is of the highest priority, why was it not given the same status that other Republican priorities are given in this bill? As we know, there is a $500 million budget adjustment to accommodate $500 million of other spending in this bill. That could have been done for this $1.7 billion and we could have ensured, guaranteed, given peace to the American people that their health and that the research to ensure it to be protected. Instead, the only thing protected in this bill is the tax break for the wealthiest people in America. That is the decision that Members have to make. It is not about this being fiscally responsible. We all want to be that. Indeed, our alternative Democratic budget resolution had this $1.7 increase and it was fiscally responsible. Two things, Mr. Chairman. Because the distinguished chairman has said he is calling a point of order because this is beyond the allocation of the budget, it could be protected just the way this other funding had a lifting of the budget, had an adjustment of the budget figure. {time} 1145 Secondly, I would say that if we are not going to go down that path then it is not the priority we say it is, and we have to answer to the American people for that. Technically, on the point of order, the rule protects the wealthiest 1 percent at the expense of the National Institutes of Health, and I concede the point of order. Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, can I be heard further on the point of order? The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Porter) is recognized. Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, I would simply respond to the gentlewoman that she had every opportunity to make those choices by offering an amendment within the rules that would have taken money from lower priority accounts and put it in this account if that was her desire. She did not take that opportunity to operate within the bounds of fiscal restraint and has simply offered an amendment without any offset, which is clearly out of order. The CHAIRMAN. The Chair is prepared to rule. Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, if I may, since the gentleman characterized my remarks, if I may? The CHAIRMAN. Very briefly the gentlewoman from California may respond. Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, the distinguished gentleman knows that I had [[Page H4236]] no opportunity to have an offset of the $1.7 billion. All I am saying is give this the same treatment as has been given to other Republican priorities by making a budget cap adjustment so that this can be afforded in this bill. The CHAIRMAN. The gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi) has conceded the point of order, but the Chair would say that he is authoritatively guided by an estimate of the Committee on the Budget, pursuant to section 312 of the Budget Act, that an amendment providing any net increase in new discretionary budget authority would cause a breach of the pertinent allocation of such authority. The amendment offered by the gentlewoman from California, by proposing to strike a provision scored as negative budget authority, would increase the level of new discretionary budget authority in the bill. As such, the amendment violates section 302(f) of the Budget Act. The point of order is therefore sustained. The amendment is not in order. Amendment No. 4 Offered by Mr. Andrews Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment. The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment. The text of the amendment is as follows: Amendment No. 4 offered by Mr. Andrews: Page 49, after line 12, insert the following new section: Sec. 214. The amounts otherwise provided by this Act are revised by reducing the amount made available for ``DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES--Office of the Secretary--general departmental management'', and increasing the amount made available for ``Health Resources and Services Administration--health resources and services'' (to be used for a block grant to the Inner City Cardiac Satellite Demonstration Project operated by the State of New Jersey, including creation of a heart clinic in southern New Jersey), by $40,000,000. Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order on the amendment. The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Porter) reserves a point of order on the amendment. Pursuant to the order of the House of Monday, June 12, 2000, the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Andrews) and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Andrews). Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, let me begin by expressing my appreciation to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Porter) and the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) for the fair and even-handed way in which they handled this matter procedurally. Those of us who wish to offer these amendments very much appreciate the expansiveness of the time agreement, the fairness of it, and I wanted to say that for the record this morning. Let me also say the purpose of this amendment is a commendation and a challenge. In the area of commendation, it is to commend the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Porter), the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), and all the members of this subcommittee for the attention they have paid and the commitment they have made to the health care of the people of this country, in particular, the issue of our struggling urban hospitals. I represent the City of Camden, New Jersey, which by just about any measure is one of the poorest cities in the United States of America. We are fortunate to have a number of health care institutions in the City of Camden which remain, despite very difficult economic conditions. One of the consequences of their continued commitment to a poor urban area is that they carry a disproportionate share of the burden of caring for the uninsured or for those whose care is not fully compensated by Medicaid or other public programs. In New Jersey, we have undertaken a rather creative and progressive way to try to address this imbalance. New Jersey has decided to create a special opportunity for urban hospitals to operate heart hospitals or heart clinics, cardiac services, in more affluent suburban areas. The strategy is rather wise and simple. The revenues that would be gained from operating these heart facilities in more affluent areas would recapture dollars which could then be used to help offset and subsidize the cost of providing care for the uninsured and for persons for whom the compensation is not sufficient in the poor urban areas. It is a wise strategy. The challenge that I would offer, however, is what comes to what I believe is New Jersey's incomplete execution of this strategy. The original plan in our State was that there be two of these demonstration projects, one in the northern part of our State and one in the southern part of the State, which I am privileged to represent. For reasons which are not clear to me, and not clear to the health care institutions in southern New Jersey, only one of these pilot programs has gone forward. I believe that this is a mistake. The purpose of this amendment is to provide a Federal opportunity, a Federal subsidy, for this pilot program to go forward both in the southern part of our State and in the northern part of our State. I believe that the problems in our part of New Jersey are at least as acute, at least as difficult, as those of our northern neighbors and the proper position for our State health department is to provide for a second pilot project in the southern part of our State. The purpose of this amendment is to offer an idea for a Federal share or a Federal partnership in making that pilot program succeed. Now having said that, because the committee has been so progressive and wise in promoting the interests of urban hospitals, it is my intention to ask unanimous consent to withdraw this amendment after my colleagues have had a chance to comment on it. Mr. Chairman, with that in mind, after making this statement, I would reserve the balance of my time. Point of Order Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order against the amendment because it provides an appropriation for an unauthorized program and therefore violates clause 2 of rule XXI. Clause 2 of rule XXI states in pertinent part an appropriation may not be in order as an amendment for an expenditure not previously authorized by law. Mr. Chairman, the authorization for this program has not been signed into law. The amendment, therefore, violates clause 2 of rule XXI, and I would ask for a ruling from the Chair. The CHAIRMAN. Does any other Member wish to be heard on the point of order? Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw my amendment. The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from New Jersey? There was no objection. The CHAIRMAN. The amendment is withdrawn. Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. The CHAIRMAN. Is the gentleman offering an amendment? Mr. STEARNS. I am going to offer an amendment. Also, Mr. Chairman, I wanted to have a colloquy with the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Porter). The CHAIRMAN. Does the chairman designate the gentleman to strike the last word? Mr. PORTER. Yes, Mr. Chairman. The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Florida (Mr. Stearns) is recognized for 5 minutes. Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Chairman, I intend to offer an amendment to move $10 million into the Adoption Incentives Program. I decided not to offer that amendment today, but I would like to engage in a colloquy with the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Porter) regarding the importance of funding this program. Mr. Chairman, the Adoption Incentives Program has helped to dramatically increase a number of children adopted out of foster care. I certainly appreciate all the good work he has done in the Labor, Health, and Human Services appropriations bill, including the $2 million increase for the Adoption Incentives Program. I would like to ask the gentleman to continue his hard work in conference and build on this program by further increasing funding for this program. Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield? Mr. STEARNS. I yield to the gentleman from Illinois. Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Florida (Mr. [[Page H4237]] Stearns) for highlighting the importance of the Adoption Incentives Program. I will continue to work with him and with my colleagues in conference to ensure States receive the funding they need to help more kids move from foster care to permanent and loving, caring homes. Mr. STEARNS. I thank the chairman. I appreciate his commitment to providing more money for adoption. I strongly support the positive steps Congress has taken in this area and believe we should do even more. That is why I am here this morning. President Clinton supports increasing funding for this program. Adoption is also a positive alternative to abortion, and I hope the gentleman is successful in finding additional money in funding for the Adoption Incentives Program. Amendment No. 189 Offered by Mr. Stearns Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment. The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment. The text of the amendment is as follows: Amendment No. 189 offered by Mr. Stearns: Page 49, after line 12, insert the following section: Sec. 214. Amounts made available in this title for carrying out the activities of the National Institutes of Health are available for a report under section 403 of the Public Health Service for the following purposes: (1) To identify the amounts expended under section 402(g) of such Act to enhance the competitiveness of entities that are seeking funds from such Institutes to conduct biomedical or behavioral research. (2) To identify the entities for which such amounts have been expended, including a separate statement regarding expenditures under section 402(g)(2) of such Act for individuals who have not previously served as principal researchers of projects supported by such Institutes. (3) To identify the extent to which such entities and individuals receive funds under programs through which such Institutes support projects of biomedical or behavioral research, and to provide the underlying reasons for such funding decisions. Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order on the amendment. The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman reserves a point of order. Pursuant to the order of the House of Monday, June 12, 2000, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Stearns) and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Stearns). Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, this is a sensitive subject. I have a Congressional Research Report here, which I worked with in doing this amendment. My amendment has three components to it. The first identifies and asks NIH to identify amounts that are distributed, given to individuals and corporations seeking funds from the Institute to conduct research. We have had constituents who have applied to NIH and who have been unable to find out, after great frustration, why they did not get the money. They could not find out who the individual was who got the money, or corporations, and they did not know or find out how much it was. So my amendment, first of all, asks NIH to identify the monies that are given to individuals and also then the amendment asks that they identify the individuals so that we see the money expended, the individuals who received it and then we would like to see some justification for why the NIH gave this money. Now I have a report from the Congressional Research Service that sort of confirms what my amendment is talking about. It concludes, and I would just like to read the conclusion from this Congressional Research Report, that there is no question that NIH is an esteemed institution that subsidizes biomedical research and is a value to the people the world over, but that does not remove it from its vast agenda and continuing controversy over how the agency should allocate its ever- increasing appropriations. As a public agency, supported through tax revenues, NIH will, in all likelihood, face even greater scrutiny in the future. That is what my amendment does. It attempts to bring NIH into the next millennium with more transparency. I have been a long-time advocate of NIH. In fact, I have supported the idea of doubling its funding over the next 5 years. A lot of universities in Florida, particularly the University of Florida and Florida State, have benefited from NIH research grant money. So I am a great supporter of NIH, but we are talking about Federal tax dollars here, and I am concerned we are not making public the information from grants that NIH has given the individuals, the amount of money provided, and how they made their decisions on these grants. So I hear in my congressional district in Central Florida from doctors that they have not been able to succeed in getting NIH funding and they do not know why and they have to apply 5, 6, 7 times with no answers. There is just sort of a huge Federal bureaucracy. They say we just need to have much more transparency there. Let me share what I have learned about the research grants and how these decisions are made. In reviewing steps that could or should be taken by NIH, I discovered that NIH is starting, just starting, to move in the right direction with a peer review process. There are several areas that Congress must look at when assessing NIH approaches and decisions that are made by them and how research dollars are to be spent. First of all, how effective is its peer review system and the agency's ability to identify proposals with the greatest potential? Another issue is why the agency has not installed an electronically- based grant application award system. This is pretty basic today. So I urge them to do so. This would be exceedingly beneficial to everybody. Supporters of NIH, and there are many, including myself, would like to see a greater accountability of the NIH director and to make its planning and budgeting reporting process more open. In 1998, Mr. Chairman, a report was issued by the Institute of Medicine and the National Academy of Sciences entitled Scientific Opportunities and Public Needs. This report highlighted several issues that needed to be addressed by NIH, including its peer review process. So we have on the books documentation that shows that NIH needs to be more scrupulous in how they award grants and make the information known. I think NIH's policies and reviews and procedures should be expedited and this amendment simply is saying to NIH, let us have some more transparency and make the number of people, their names available, who the research grants are given to, how much money they were given and in the end what was the process that was used. If this was done, Mr. Chairman, I think this would move this Agency towards this transparency concept I envision. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk. My amendment would require a report to: (1) identify amounts disbursed to enhance competitiveness of entities seeking funds from the Institutes to conduct biomedical and behavioral research; (2) to identify the entities receiving funding, including a separate statement on expenditures for individuals who have not previously served as principal researchers of projects supported by the Institutes; and (3) to provide an explanation for such funding decisions made by the National Institutes of Health to entities seeking funds to conduct biomedical and behavioral research. Money is available under Section 403 (42 U.S.C. 283) of the Public Health Service Act for the purposes of carrying out such a report. First, I want to say that I am a long-time supporter of NIH because I know how valuable the research being conducted by this illustrious body has been to our nation in finding the causes and cures of diseases. The NIH has and will continue to greatly benefit our nation. In fact, I am a cosponsor of the resolution to double the NIH budget over a five year period. We are currently in our third year in that effort. There are many fine universities in the State of Florida that benefit from NIH research grant money, including the University of Florida, which I once had the privilege of representing. That being said, however, I have heard from numerous individuals about the difficulties involved in securing research grants through NIH. These are federal tax dollars we are talking about! I am concerned that we are not making these grants available to new graduates who need this important seed money to continue their biomedical and behavioral research in their chosen fields. We all know that universities and colleges across the country are not having students enter the hard sciences as they once did--we must ensure that those that do are not discouraged from putting their talents to work in [[Page H4238]] research efforts being conducted by the federal government. There is a positive note to all this. Let me share with you what I learned about the research project grants and how these decisions are made. In reviewing steps that could or should be taken by NIH, I discovered that NIH is moving in the right direction in its peer review process. There are several areas that Congress must look at when assessing NIH's approach to decisions that are made by them in how research dollars are to be spent. First, how effective is its peer- review system and the agency's ability to identify proposals with the greatest potential. Another issue is why the agency hasn't installed an electronically-based grant application and award system. This would certainly be beneficial. Supporters of NIH, and there are many, including myself would like to see a greater accountability of the NIH Director, and to make its planning, budgeting and reporting process more open. In 1998 a report was issued by the Institute of Medicine and the National Academy of Sciences entitled, Scientific Opportunities and Public Needs: Improving Priority Setting and Public Input at the National Institutes of Health. This report highlighted several issues that needed to be addressed by NIH, including its peer review process. As a result, the NIH Council of Public Representatives (COPR) was created by former NIH Director Dr. Harold Varmus. The IOM committee recommended steps to make the agency more welcoming to public input, including the establishment of COPR. There were 20 public members selected to COPR and the first meeting was in April 1999. The committee members have participated in the NIH budget retreats, the NIH Government Performance and Results Act (GRPA), hearings on patient protections, health research related to diverse populations, health disparities, performance reviews of Institute Directors in addition to the regular COPR meetings and conference calls. The council has taken a life of its own and taken its role very seriously reviewing NIH's policies and procedures, research priorities, research funding, public input, and input to the public. The Council sets the agenda and directs the discussion items. During these meetings we have learned the difficulties involved in the budget process and with the uncertainty of each year's appropriations bills, and the difficulty in making multi-year research commitments. Most directors have played it conservatively to make sure they will have the funds to continue projects. In addition the need to increase young researchers has been a priority at NIH. The research training program and mentorship program has been increased to meet this important crisis. My amendment would require a report to identify and provide an explanation for funding decisions made by the NIH to entities seeking research grants. I would urge the NIH to continue in its efforts to ensure that our nation's best and brightest receive the dollars necessary to conduct important life saving research. While it is good to know that some steps have been taken, I believe it is incumbent upon Congress to continue to serve as a watch dog since taxpayer dollars are involved. I believe that we have benefited by finding out more about this newly formed Council, but I would remind my colleagues that this did not come about until the IOM and the National Academy of Sciences brought these issues to light. {time} 1200 Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition to the amendment. The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Porter) claims the time in opposition and will be recognized for 5 minutes. Does the gentleman from Illinois continue to reserve a point of order? Mr. PORTER. Mr chairman, I continue to reserve my point of order. The CHAIRMAN. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Porter). Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, I would say to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Stearns) that who receives grants of NIH funding and the amount of those grants and the purpose for which the grants are made is public knowledge. That is readily available and can be provided to the gentleman, or anyone else, at any time he would like to have it. The peer review process is a process that has developed over a long, long period of time. It is set forth in Federal regulation. It is easy to understand the process and to see it at work. Is it perfect? Certainly nothing is perfect. It needs to be reviewed and made more responsive. Ask the scientific community, generally, whether this is a good system that is competitive and separates good science from bad science, I think there is, overwhelmingly, a general consensus that it works quite well to separate good science from bad, to bring the best science to the top and to fund only that which has great potential and is well conceived. With respect to electronic grant applications, NIH is working on that right now. I think it is a very good point that the gentleman makes and ought to be followed up on; but it is already being done, and we expect that the system will be perfected and brought on-line very soon. So I would simply say to the gentleman that he makes good points, but I think that there is great progress being made with respect to each one. Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield? Mr. PORTER. Yes, I yield to the gentleman from Florida. Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Illinois for his comments. Dr. Harold Varmus was the former NIH director, and he sort of confirmed what my amendment intends. He recommended steps to make the agency more welcoming to the public and available and transparent, including what he called a Council of Public Representatives, COPR. There were 20 members that he selected, put this together; and he had a meeting in April 1999. Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, those councils are up and running, yes. Mr. STEARNS. I know, Mr. Chairman, but part of the thinking he had was the council was there to make this agency more transparent. So I urge the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Porter) and the committee to continue this peer review and the process of making this more transparent. Point of Order Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order against the amendment because it proposes to change existing law and constitutes legislation in an appropriation bill and therefore violates clause 2 of rule XXI. The rule states in pertinent part, ``An amendment to a general appropriation bill shall not be in order if it changes existing law by imposing additional duties.'' I ask for a ruling from the Chair. The CHAIRMAN. The point of order is raised by the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Porter) against the Stearns amendment. Does any Member wish to be recognized on the point of order? In pertinent part, the amendment earmarks funds in a manner not supported by existing law. As such, it constitutes legislation in violation of clause 2(c) of rule XXI. The point of order is sustained. The Clerk will read. The Clerk read as follows: This title may be cited as the ``Department of Health and Human Services Appropriations Act, 2001''. TITLE III--DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION education reform For carrying out activities authorized by sections 3122, 3132, 3136, and 3141, parts B and C of title III, and part I of title X of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, $1,505,000,000, of which $119,500,000 shall be for section 3122: Provided, That up to one-half of 1 percent of the amount available under section 3132 shall be set aside for the outlying areas, to be distributed on the basis of their relative need as determined by the Secretary in accordance with the purposes of the program: Provided further, That if any State educational agency does not apply for a grant under section 3132, that State's allotment under section 3131 shall be reserved by the Secretary for grants to local educational agencies in that State that apply directly to the Secretary according to the terms and conditions published by the Secretary in the Federal Register. Amendment No. 14 Offered by Mr. Obey Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment. The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment. The text of the amendment is as follows: Amendment No. 14 offered by Mr. Obey: Page 49, line 20, after the dollar amount, insert the following: ``(increased by $65,000,000)''. Page 49, line 21, after the dollar amount, insert the following: ``(increased by $65,000,000)''. Page 52, line 7, after ``titles'' insert ``II,''. Page 52, line 12, after each of the two dollar amounts, insert the following: ``(increased by $960,000,000)''. Page 52, strike the proviso beginning on line 17 and insert the following: : Provided, That of the amount appropriated, $960,000,000 shall be for title II of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, [[Page H4239]] notwithstanding any other provision of law, for State formula grants and other competitive grants subject to such terms and conditions as the Secretary of Education shall establish to improve the knowledge and skills of such individuals as early childhood educators, teachers, principals, and superintendents, and for teacher recruitment and retention activities: Provided further, That of the amount appropriated, $2,115,750,000 shall be for title VI of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, of which $1,750,000,000 shall be available, notwithstanding any other provision of law, to reduce class size, particularly in the early grades, using fully qualified teachers to improve educational achievement for regular and special needs children in accordance with section 310 of Public Law 106-113 Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order on the gentleman's amendments. The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Porter) reserves a point of order on the amendment. Pursuant to the order of the House on Thursday, June 8, 2000, the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) and the gentleman from Illino

Major Actions:

All articles in House section

DEPARTMENTS OF LABOR, HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, AND EDUCATION, AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2001
(House of Representatives - June 13, 2000)

Text of this article available as: TXT PDF [Pages H4231-H4310] DEPARTMENTS OF LABOR, HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, AND EDUCATION, AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2001 The Committee resumed its sitting. The CHAIRMAN. Does the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Porter) rise in opposition? Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition. The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Illinois is recognized for 15 minutes. Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, as I said to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi) in full committee markup of this bill, this amendment, of course, tests my resolve more than any other of your theme amendments. I consider the funding for NIH to be of the highest priority I would very much have liked to put into this bill the full 15 percent increase that I believe is necessary and proper. Such funding is among the best spent money in government to continue on our path of doubling NIH over a 5-year period. Unfortunately, the allocation was not sufficient to do so. We have in the bill a limitation to limit the obligation to the President's budget, which is a $1 billion increase less the cap and comes out to probably 4 percent to 5 percent, rather than the 15 percent that we favor. However, the gentlewoman has just used this amendment to make a number of political points, and I would simply say to the gentlewoman she ought to look at the history of funding for NIH. It indicates that the President of the United States has put this at a very, very low priority in all of his budgets for the last 5 years, while the majority party has put it at a very, very high priority. Congress has provided a total of $7.8 billion in cumulative increases for NIH as opposed to the $4.3 billion requested by the President over the last 5 years. We have put NIH on a funding path to [[Page H4232]] double its level in 5 years, we have made two down payments and are committed, within the fiscal responsibility, to making the third payment this year. We cannot do it within the allocation that we have, but we are committed to making that third payment this year. I would not say that this was done on a partisan basis. It has been a bipartisan effort. It has been supported by both sides of the aisle. I know, and the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi) knows that there are more scientific opportunities today. Increased funding can lead to cures for major diseases like Alzheimer's disease Parkinson's disease, forms of cancer, diabetes and a host of other diseases is closer than it ever has been before. We are doing all that we can to get to achieve the 15% increase, but we are constrained by a budget allocation that is not sufficient to allow us to do it at this point. I know that the gentlewoman herself is committed to reaching that point. What I do not like to see is making political points. This leads us away from the importance of this funding and makes this seem a political clash. I would simply point out that we have made great progress. We are committed to making continued progress. We believe that this funding can lead to scientific discovery that will help people who need help. It will lead to longer and more healthy lives for all the American people and, perhaps, all the people in this world. This is the best spent money, because it leads ultimately to driving down health care costs in our society. If we work together, we can achieve a result that we can all be proud of in doubling funding for NIH over a 5-year period. In the 5 years that I have been chairman, 1995 to now, we have increased funding for NIH by 58 percent. If we can double it this year, we will be at 82 percent over that 6-year period, and I simply believe that this is not the proper context to raise political issues. This is something that all of us are committed to accomplishing. We have made great progress, and we are very hopeful that we will make the kind of progress that all the American people can be proud of in the end. Mr. WICKER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield? Mr. PORTER. I yield to the gentleman from Mississippi. Mr. WICKER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the time. I, too, agree, Mr. Chairman, that it is unfortunate that this debate is being used to make political points. NIH and health research has certainly been something that this committee and this subcommittee has approached on a bipartisan basis. And I must say that the gentleman in the well, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Porter), who is in his last year as subcommittee chairman, is leaving a rich legacy of bipartisanship and also support for real programs for real people, improving their health. Under his leadership, this subcommittee and this committee have shown their support in terms of the dollars indicated there. {time} 1115 I would like to ask the chairman though about the chart there. Do I understand that the red figures are the cumulative amounts of money proposed by President Clinton in his budget; is that correct? Mr. PORTER. That is correct. Mr. WICKER. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will yield further, then the large amounts above and beyond that in blue amount to the actual appropriations that we have been able to get through this subcommittee and through the Congress of the United States for the National Institutes of Health? Mr. PORTER. Yes, the gentleman is correct. Mr. WICKER. As far as the cumulative increases, since the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Porter) has been chairman, the cumulative increases are almost double those requested by the President of the United States? Mr. PORTER. That is correct. Mr. WICKER. Finally, let me ask the gentleman, Mr. Chairman, with regard to this appropriation in this bill, which I agree is regrettably low, how does it compare to the amount requested by President Clinton in his budget this year for NIH and health research? Mr. PORTER. If I understand the gentleman's question correctly, the President requested $1 billion in increased funding for NIH this year. We have placed in the bill numbers indicating a $2.7 billion increase, but, then, because of our budget allocation, we have been forced to limit that amount to the President's request. Mr. WICKER. The amount contained in this bill is precisely what the President requested; is that correct? Mr. PORTER. Yes. Mr. BENTSEN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield for a question regarding his chart? Mr. PORTER. I yield to the gentleman from Texas. Mr. BENTSEN. Mr. Chairman, the question I had, and I can barely read it, but the chart starts with fiscal year 1995; is that correct? Mr. PORTER. That is correct. Mr. BENTSEN. Does that chart reflect what the appropriations are, or does it reflect concurrent budget resolutions? My question is would that reflect what the fiscal 1995 concurrent budget resolution as adopted by the House and Senate did, which would show a dip of 5 percent? Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, budget resolutions do not have any effect. They are only advisory. These are appropriations. Mr. BENTSEN. If the gentleman will further yield, part of the budget allocation we are dealing with today, the fact that the gentleman raised, is the fact that the budget resolution passed by the House does not provide sufficient allocation to meet the doubling of the NIH, and we had a problem with the budget resolution in fiscal year 1995 as passed by the House and the other body that called for a 5 percent reduction in NIH in real terms. Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman should remember that the only jurisdiction the Committee on the Budget has is to set overall spending numbers. The rest is advisory. Mr. Chairman, reserve the balance of my time. Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 1-3/4 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Jackson), a distinguished member of the subcommittee. (Mr. JACKSON of Illinois asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.) Mr. JACKSON of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me time. Mr. Chairman, let me first begin by congratulating the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Porter) for what every member of this subcommittee knows to be the truth, that no one in this Congress has had a greater commitment to expanding and increasing NIH funding than the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Porter). If the entire House were present during this part of the debate, I would ask at this time for all of them to stand and give the gentleman from Illinois (Chairman Porter) an outstanding round of applause for his interest and for his commitment and dedication in this area. I would say to the gentleman from Illinois (Chairman Porter), we have enormous respect for his efforts in this particular area, and I certainly rise to salute the gentleman. Let me also indicate that this is the first time since I have been in Congress for 5 years that I am not going to dispute any of the facts that were offered by the majority in the brief demonstration that we had here from the chairman. But I want to make it very, very clear that the gentleman from Illinois (Chairman Porter), if he had been dealt the appropriate hand in this particular allocation, that we would be looking at increases in NIH consistent with the effort to double resources as consistent with our 5-year objective. Mr. Chairman, this amendment raises our investment in biomedical research at the National Institutes of Health. Fiscal year 2001 is the 3rd year of this ``doubling NIH in 5 years'' initiative. For 2 straight years we have agreed to provide NIH the 15 percent increases needed to double the budget. This year, the House fails to do so. Staying on track to double NIH's budget requires a $2.7 billion increase for fiscal year 2001. The House bill provides the increase, then takes it away in a general provision and reduces that increase to the administration's request. Mr. Chairman, it is one thing in an era of deficits to say we cannot afford to invest additional resources in these [[Page H4233]] programs; but now that we are in an era of surpluses, we no longer have that excuse. All we need to do to pay for this amendment is to scale back the size of the tax cut for the wealthy by 20 percent. We can leave the middle-class tax cuts alone, just scale back the tax cuts for the individuals at the top 1 percent; and we can do just that. Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Capps), a member of the Committee on Commerce, an expert on health issues, and a health professional before she came to the Congress. Mrs. CAPPS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Pelosi amendment, which seeks to increase funding for the National Institutes of Health. I commend the committee and Congress for the commitment that has been made to double the NIH budget in 5 years specifically by providing necessary 15 percent increases in appropriations each year. But this year, we are going off track. Our budget is throwing us off our 5-year track. Mr. Chairman, there is not a family in this country that does not feel the promise and the hope of the research that is done under the auspices of the NIH. A year ago it was the deputy director who told my daughter, recently diagnosed with advanced lung cancer, that if she could hold on for 2 years, there was such promising research coming down the pike through NIH. So many families in this country hold their hope in the research that is done and is spawned by our funding for the NIH. Research in the real life miracle areas of Parkinson's disease, cancer research, Alzheimer's, diabetes, these are situations that people across this country are dealing with on a daily basis. We have established a wonderful track record for funding. We need to keep our resolve now and stick to our promise to double the funding in 5 years. Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler). Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of this amendment to provide a $1.7 billion increase to the NIH in order to keep us on track to double its budget by 2004. Mr. Chairman, the last century will be remembered as the century in which we eradicated polio, developed gene therapy, and discovered some treatments for breast cancer. At the center of this research has been the NIH. NIH funded scientists have learned how to diagnose, treat and prevent diseases that were once great mysteries. The decoding of the human genome, soon to be completed, will lead to yet more opportunities for research that will revolutionize how we look at and treat diseases. Our efforts will shift increasingly to the genetic level, where we will learn to cure diseases now untreatable. We should not abandon our commitment to double the NIH budget in 5 years. Let this new century see humanity vanquish cancer and heart disease and genetic diseases and AIDS. Let us not start reversing that goal now. We are now the most prosperous society in the history of this planet. We have unparalleled budget surpluses. We should not deny medical research the funds it needs because of artificial budget restraints in an artificial and politically motivated budget resolution. In the names of the thousands, perhaps millions of people whose lives will be prolonged and saved by adoption of this amendment, I urge its adoption. Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the very distinguished gentleman from Texas (Mr. Bentsen). (Mr. BENTSEN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.) Mr. BENTSEN. Mr. Chairman, I offered this same amendment when the House Committee on the Budget marked up the budget resolution, and I was told at the time that we had put enough money into NIH, that this year we just could not do it. It is ironic that a few weeks ago we passed the China PNTR bill because we wanted to gain access to more markets where we have a comparative advantage. In the world of medical research, where the United States leads the world and has a comparative advantage, we do not want to provide the resources to do that. I know the gentleman from Illinois (Chairman Porter) wants to do it, but he is constrained by the budget. How can a sophisticated, mature economy like the United States not provide the resources that are necessary? It is all part of this budget fallacy, because the Chairman well knows that the Senate is going to mark up the full amount and we will go to conference and we will do it. But we are living under artificial constraints by a budget resolution that is not going to hold water at the end of the year. We should do the right thing today, adopt the gentlewoman's amendment, and move forward where we do enjoy a comparative advantage and bring these cures to the American people, because we know we can do it. Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro), a distinguished member of the Subcommittee on Labor, Health and Human Services and Education of the Committee on Appropriations, and a person who is an expert on health policy. Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi). I support a strong national investment in biomedical research. The reason being is that I am alive today due to the advancements in biomedical research. I am a 15 year survivor of ovarian cancer. I know how it feels to be the person behind the statistics. We are on the brink of tremendous breakthroughs in cancer and many other areas. We have committed ourselves as a Congress to doubling the funding for the NIH over the next 5 years. Why then would we want to fall short of that goal this year? All the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi) is asking for is the $1.7 billion that will allow us to get to meeting that goal this year, and the trade-off is, the trade-off is, a tax cut that is going to only benefit the most wealthy people in this country. The lives, the health, the safety of American people all over this country is not to be traded away, not to be traded away, because of a tax cut that will only benefit the wealthiest. Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, I am happy to yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Cunningham), a very, very strong supporter of NIH and biomedical research. Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Chairman, the gentlewoman well knows that I am a champion for medical research. I have got a goal. My daughter scored a perfect 1600 on her SATs this year as a senior at Torrey Pines. She is going to intern in cancer research at NIH this summer. I am a cancer survivor. There is nothing worse than a doctor looking you in the eye and saying, ``Duke Cunningham, you have got cancer.'' I am a survivor. And if the gentlewoman would have offsets in this, I would be with her in this amendment. I would hope in conference we can add to this and somehow come up with the additional dollars in this. Unfortunately, the politics in this, that is being shown in all these amendments, is what is discouraging, because the gentlewoman, the ranking minority member, Democrats and Republicans, have come together on NIH funding to support it, and I still hope in some way we can add these particular dollars down the line. In cancer, Dr. Klausner, and you see what he is doing at NIH, I would say I was saved because of a PSA test. Do you know that right now, because of this research, there are markers for ovarian cancer which we have never had before? Women had no markers in this. I met a gentleman at NIH that contacted HIV in 1989. The only thing he ever thought about was dying. And now he has hope. He has bought an apartment. He has even bought stocks. This is what we are talking about when we talk about NIH funding. {time} 1130 If the gentlewoman would offer offsets on this, we would support it. She is right. But I want to tell the Members, fiscal responsibility down the line, where we balance the budget and we pay off the national debt as soon as 2012, we spend $1 billion a day, a day, $1 billion a day on just the interest. Think what we are going to have in the future for the Americans for education, [[Page H4234]] for crimefighting, for NIH, just by keeping our fiscal house in constraint. The death tax that we passed, a little bit out of touch, saying tax break for the rich, passed on a bipartisan vote; the social security tax that my colleagues put in in 1993 we eliminated, a little bit out of touch by saying that is a tax break for the rich; taking a look at the marriage penalty for people who are married, that is sure not a tax break for the rich. My colleagues on the other side wish to politicize this and say, tax break for the rich. I think some people actually believe that, after saying it 10,000 times, someone is going to believe it. It is just not so. Let us come together and support this NIH increase in conference, if there is some way we can do it, and work in a bipartisan way on this particular issue. Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Lowey), another distinguished member of our Subcommittee of Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education. Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding time to me. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Pelosi amendment. Over the last 2 years, with the strong leadership of the gentleman from Illinois (Chairman Porter) and broad bipartisan support, we have made tremendous progress in our goal of doubling the NIH budget. Dr. Kirschstein and the Institute directors have done an outstanding job of describing how they have managed large increases and used them to fund good science. We have to continue our bipartisan effort to increase funding for biomedical research. Whether it is breast cancer, diabetes, autism, or heart disease, we have made real progress towards better understanding and treatment. My good friends are saying this is politics. They are right. What politics is about is making wise decisions. We have that choice. We can have a smaller tax cut and invest in the National Institutes of Health, and invest in the continued extraordinary challenges that are ahead of us. We have the opportunity on our subcommittee in this Congress to face the extraordinary challenges in health care ahead. Let us do it. Let us do it now. Let us support the Pelosi amendment. Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I am very, very pleased to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), the very distinguished ranking member of our subcommittee and the ranking member of the full Committee on Appropriations, who, along with the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Porter), has been a champion for increased funding at the National Institutes of Health. Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding time to me. Mr. Chairman, the issue is not what the Congress and the President did on this issue in the last decade. The issue is what we are going to do in the next decade. This bill appropriates $2.7 billion above last year to the National Institutes of Health. But then it has a provision in the bill which says it can only spend $1 billion of that, so the committee has it both ways. It can say yes, we have provided $1.7 billion when they pull this piece of paper out of their pocket, and then they go to the other pocket and say, oh, no, we did not spend that much money, we held the budget down. The result of this budget is that it cuts $439 million below current services, and that means that it reduces the new and competing grants that go out to scientists to do research on cancer, Alzheimer's, diabetes, and everything else, by about 15 percent. In real terms, this bill is a reduction from last year. A lot of people on that side of the aisle keep saying, well, this is just the second step in the process. Do not worry, down the line we are going to try to fix this. What we are saying is that it makes no sense for them to say, well, at some point somebody else is going to be responsible. We are asking the majority side to be responsible now. They keep talking about fiscal responsibility. Two weeks ago I was at Marshfield Clinic in my district. I had a number of senior citizens talk to me about the miracles that had occurred when they had strokes that disabled them, and they were able to recover from those strokes because of new medical research. My question to them and my question to the Members today is this: What is more important to this country, to have more success stories like that, more success stories, like the gentleman from California (Mr. Cunningham), or instead to continue the path that the majority party has been following in providing huge tax cuts, with over 70 percent of the benefits aimed at the wealthiest 1 percent of people in this society? Members gave away in the minimum wage bill $90 billion in tax cuts to people who make over $300,000 a year. All we are saying is they could finance this amendment on health care, they could finance our amendment on education, on child care, on all the rest if they simply cut back what they are providing in those tax packages by 20 percent. Leave the middle-income tax cuts in place, just take the tax cuts that they are providing for the high rollers, cut them back by 20 percent, and they can meet all of these needs. It is not enough to have budgets at last year's level, or around last year's level. This is a growing country. It is a growing population. We have new medical discoveries. Every time we make a new medical discovery, we ought to build on it, not use it as an excuse to slack off. That is what we are saying. To me it is outrageous that this amendment cannot even get a vote on the floor of the House today. Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of the time. Mr. Chairman, I thank the Chair for presiding over this very respectful, I think, debate. We have acknowledged the leadership of our chairman and our ranking member in supporting the highest possible funding levels for the National Institutes of Health. We have recognized that despite the priority that the gentleman from Illinois (Chairman Porter) gives to the National Institutes of Health, that the budget allocation does not allow him to put the additional $1.7 billion in the bill which keeps us on track of doubling the NIH budget in 5 years. Members have shared their personal stories about themselves and their children, and pointed to the need for us to invest in this research. There is no argument about that. But when Members say that we are politicizing this debate by saying because we have a tax cut because we cannot afford this funding level for NIH, they are being political. The fact is, bad budget numbers necessitate a bad appropriation. If we did not have the tax cut, we could afford the NIH funding. It is that simple. That kind of decision is what people send us to Congress to make. We must recollect the values of the American people, which say that it is a good investment to invest in basic biomedical research. It saves lives. It adds to the productivity and the quality of our lives. This is the most fiscally sound vote a Member can make is to invest further in the National Institutes of Health to save lives, to create jobs in the biomedical industry, and to help us balance our budget by having less money have to be put out because of illness, loss of work days by people who become sick or disabled. I urge my colleagues to think in a fiscally sound way and support the additional appropriation for the National Institutes of Health. Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time. Mr. Chairman, I am very sorry and I think it is very ill-advised that this subject has been raised in this political context. The work to raise NIH funding over the last 5 years has been bipartisan, and I am sorry that it is being used as a point of departure to make a political point. It constrains me to have to make a political point, as well. The minority party was in charge of this House for many, many years. During the previous 5 years the minority was in charge, and President Clinton was also in charge. If we look at the commitment made for increasing funding for biomedical research during that period of time and compare it to the last 5 years when the majority party has been in control of the Congress, I think we can easily see that we have placed this at a far higher priority. [[Page H4235]] To me, however, this is not a political matter and should not be raised in a political context. This is a matter that is of utmost importance to our country and to its people. As I said earlier, this is among the best funding anywhere in government, and we should continue to work together on a bipartisan basis to increase it. However, to propose such increases is easy when you do not have responsibility for any constraints and can spend whatever you want to spend, which is basically what all these amendments do. They say, ``here is what we ought to do.'' We cannot do that. We do not have that luxury. We are the majority party and responsible for the bottom line. We have to live within a budget resolution that was adopted by the majority of the Congress. So we do the best that we can within that context. We have done the best we can. I would much rather we had a 15 percent increase in the bill for NIH. Unfortunately, we simply do not have the funds to do that. We intend, in this process, to achieve that priority and hopefully we will get there, but it is easy simply to say, well, we ought to spend more money in this area. This is an important area. Sure, we would like to provide a 15 percent increase, but in the end, somebody has to be responsible for the overall spending of this government and to live within fiscal restraints. We are taking that responsibility, and we are doing the very best that we can within it. I believe very strongly, and I think the gentlewoman believes very strongly, that in the end we will reach our goal of doubling NIH and providing the third year of a 15 percent increase to get there. Ms. ESHOO. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment by my good friend and colleague from California, Nancy Pelosi. This amendment increases NIH funding by $2.7 billion and would restore the funding level to the amount the Congress agreed to two years ago when it decided to double the NIH budget within five years. Mr. Chairman, this amendment is truth-in-budgeting legislation. In 1998, and again in 1999, this Congress decided it was critical the National Institutes of Health be funded at a level which doubled the NIH budget by Fiscal Year 2003. Now we are in year three and this appropriations bill seeks to back off from that promise. Let me remind my colleagues why we decided to double the NIH budget. According to a Joint Economic Committee report issued just last week, 15 of the 21 most important drugs introduced between 1965 and 1992 were developed using knowledge and techniques from federally funded research. If the Pelosi amendment does not pass, the funding cuts in this bill mean there will be 1,309 fewer federal research grants. Mr. Chairman, my district has the largest concentration of biotechnology companies in the world. The scientific advancements they are working on are moving at revolutionary speed. We cannot afford to cut back on the groundbreaking work they are doing. The need for increased research grants at NIH has never been greater. Infectious diseases pose a significant threat as new human pathogens are discovered and microorganisms acquire antibiotic resistance. In today's Washington Post, the front page story was about a World Health Organization report which said that disease-causing microbes are mutating at an alarming rate into much more dangerous infections that are failing to respond to treatment. Mr. Chairman, in the story the WHO warned . . . that the world could be plunged back into the preantibiotic era when people commonly died of diseases that in modern times have been easily treated with antibiotics. A WHO official said, The world may only have a decade or two to make optimal use of many of the medicines presently available to stop infectious diseases. We are literally in a race against time to bring levels of infectious disease down worldwide, before the disease wears the drugs down first. Mr. Chairman, we need NIH to join in this battle before time runs out. And speaking of time running out, the number of Americans over age 65 will double in the next 30 years. What are we going to do to fight the diseases of the elderly? Also, the threat of bioterrorism--once remote--is now a probability. Mr. Chairman, our purpose for a sustained funding track for NIH was so that the multi-year process for NIH grantmaking was well planned and spent federal funds efficiently. This amendment by my colleague, Nancy Pelosi, achieves that objective. More importantly, the Pelosi amendment keeps a congressional promise. Last March, over 108 Members on both sides of the aisle signed a letter urging a $2.7 billion increase in the NIH budget. The Pelosi amendment would provide that increase. It is the third installment on a bipartisan plan to double the NIH budget by 2003. I thank my colleague, Nancy Pelosi, for offering this amendment, and I compliment her on her leadership and her tireless efforts to improve the health of this country. I urge my colleagues to join her and support this amendment. The CHAIRMAN. All time has expired on this amendment. Point of Order Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order against the amendment because it is in violation of Section 302(f) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974. The Committee on Appropriations filed a suballocation of budget totals for fiscal year 2001 on June 8, 2000, House Report 106-660. This amendment would provide new budget authority in excess of the subcommittee's suballocation made under Section 302(b), and is not permitted under section 302(f) of the Act. I would ask a ruling of the Chair. The CHAIRMAN. Are there other Members who wish to be heard on the point of order? Ms. PELOSI. Yes, Mr. Chairman. The CHAIRMAN. The gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi) is recognized. Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, the distinguished chairman lodged a point of order on the basis that this is outside the budget allocation. On that score, he may be correct. But the fact is that despite the expressions of priority for the funding at the National Institutes of Health, which the chairman has very sincerely made and others have made in this Chamber, we had other choices in this bill. In fact, if this is of the highest priority, why was it not given the same status that other Republican priorities are given in this bill? As we know, there is a $500 million budget adjustment to accommodate $500 million of other spending in this bill. That could have been done for this $1.7 billion and we could have ensured, guaranteed, given peace to the American people that their health and that the research to ensure it to be protected. Instead, the only thing protected in this bill is the tax break for the wealthiest people in America. That is the decision that Members have to make. It is not about this being fiscally responsible. We all want to be that. Indeed, our alternative Democratic budget resolution had this $1.7 increase and it was fiscally responsible. Two things, Mr. Chairman. Because the distinguished chairman has said he is calling a point of order because this is beyond the allocation of the budget, it could be protected just the way this other funding had a lifting of the budget, had an adjustment of the budget figure. {time} 1145 Secondly, I would say that if we are not going to go down that path then it is not the priority we say it is, and we have to answer to the American people for that. Technically, on the point of order, the rule protects the wealthiest 1 percent at the expense of the National Institutes of Health, and I concede the point of order. Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, can I be heard further on the point of order? The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Porter) is recognized. Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, I would simply respond to the gentlewoman that she had every opportunity to make those choices by offering an amendment within the rules that would have taken money from lower priority accounts and put it in this account if that was her desire. She did not take that opportunity to operate within the bounds of fiscal restraint and has simply offered an amendment without any offset, which is clearly out of order. The CHAIRMAN. The Chair is prepared to rule. Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, if I may, since the gentleman characterized my remarks, if I may? The CHAIRMAN. Very briefly the gentlewoman from California may respond. Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, the distinguished gentleman knows that I had [[Page H4236]] no opportunity to have an offset of the $1.7 billion. All I am saying is give this the same treatment as has been given to other Republican priorities by making a budget cap adjustment so that this can be afforded in this bill. The CHAIRMAN. The gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi) has conceded the point of order, but the Chair would say that he is authoritatively guided by an estimate of the Committee on the Budget, pursuant to section 312 of the Budget Act, that an amendment providing any net increase in new discretionary budget authority would cause a breach of the pertinent allocation of such authority. The amendment offered by the gentlewoman from California, by proposing to strike a provision scored as negative budget authority, would increase the level of new discretionary budget authority in the bill. As such, the amendment violates section 302(f) of the Budget Act. The point of order is therefore sustained. The amendment is not in order. Amendment No. 4 Offered by Mr. Andrews Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment. The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment. The text of the amendment is as follows: Amendment No. 4 offered by Mr. Andrews: Page 49, after line 12, insert the following new section: Sec. 214. The amounts otherwise provided by this Act are revised by reducing the amount made available for ``DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES--Office of the Secretary--general departmental management'', and increasing the amount made available for ``Health Resources and Services Administration--health resources and services'' (to be used for a block grant to the Inner City Cardiac Satellite Demonstration Project operated by the State of New Jersey, including creation of a heart clinic in southern New Jersey), by $40,000,000. Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order on the amendment. The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Porter) reserves a point of order on the amendment. Pursuant to the order of the House of Monday, June 12, 2000, the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Andrews) and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Andrews). Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, let me begin by expressing my appreciation to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Porter) and the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) for the fair and even-handed way in which they handled this matter procedurally. Those of us who wish to offer these amendments very much appreciate the expansiveness of the time agreement, the fairness of it, and I wanted to say that for the record this morning. Let me also say the purpose of this amendment is a commendation and a challenge. In the area of commendation, it is to commend the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Porter), the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), and all the members of this subcommittee for the attention they have paid and the commitment they have made to the health care of the people of this country, in particular, the issue of our struggling urban hospitals. I represent the City of Camden, New Jersey, which by just about any measure is one of the poorest cities in the United States of America. We are fortunate to have a number of health care institutions in the City of Camden which remain, despite very difficult economic conditions. One of the consequences of their continued commitment to a poor urban area is that they carry a disproportionate share of the burden of caring for the uninsured or for those whose care is not fully compensated by Medicaid or other public programs. In New Jersey, we have undertaken a rather creative and progressive way to try to address this imbalance. New Jersey has decided to create a special opportunity for urban hospitals to operate heart hospitals or heart clinics, cardiac services, in more affluent suburban areas. The strategy is rather wise and simple. The revenues that would be gained from operating these heart facilities in more affluent areas would recapture dollars which could then be used to help offset and subsidize the cost of providing care for the uninsured and for persons for whom the compensation is not sufficient in the poor urban areas. It is a wise strategy. The challenge that I would offer, however, is what comes to what I believe is New Jersey's incomplete execution of this strategy. The original plan in our State was that there be two of these demonstration projects, one in the northern part of our State and one in the southern part of the State, which I am privileged to represent. For reasons which are not clear to me, and not clear to the health care institutions in southern New Jersey, only one of these pilot programs has gone forward. I believe that this is a mistake. The purpose of this amendment is to provide a Federal opportunity, a Federal subsidy, for this pilot program to go forward both in the southern part of our State and in the northern part of our State. I believe that the problems in our part of New Jersey are at least as acute, at least as difficult, as those of our northern neighbors and the proper position for our State health department is to provide for a second pilot project in the southern part of our State. The purpose of this amendment is to offer an idea for a Federal share or a Federal partnership in making that pilot program succeed. Now having said that, because the committee has been so progressive and wise in promoting the interests of urban hospitals, it is my intention to ask unanimous consent to withdraw this amendment after my colleagues have had a chance to comment on it. Mr. Chairman, with that in mind, after making this statement, I would reserve the balance of my time. Point of Order Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order against the amendment because it provides an appropriation for an unauthorized program and therefore violates clause 2 of rule XXI. Clause 2 of rule XXI states in pertinent part an appropriation may not be in order as an amendment for an expenditure not previously authorized by law. Mr. Chairman, the authorization for this program has not been signed into law. The amendment, therefore, violates clause 2 of rule XXI, and I would ask for a ruling from the Chair. The CHAIRMAN. Does any other Member wish to be heard on the point of order? Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw my amendment. The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from New Jersey? There was no objection. The CHAIRMAN. The amendment is withdrawn. Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. The CHAIRMAN. Is the gentleman offering an amendment? Mr. STEARNS. I am going to offer an amendment. Also, Mr. Chairman, I wanted to have a colloquy with the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Porter). The CHAIRMAN. Does the chairman designate the gentleman to strike the last word? Mr. PORTER. Yes, Mr. Chairman. The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Florida (Mr. Stearns) is recognized for 5 minutes. Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Chairman, I intend to offer an amendment to move $10 million into the Adoption Incentives Program. I decided not to offer that amendment today, but I would like to engage in a colloquy with the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Porter) regarding the importance of funding this program. Mr. Chairman, the Adoption Incentives Program has helped to dramatically increase a number of children adopted out of foster care. I certainly appreciate all the good work he has done in the Labor, Health, and Human Services appropriations bill, including the $2 million increase for the Adoption Incentives Program. I would like to ask the gentleman to continue his hard work in conference and build on this program by further increasing funding for this program. Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield? Mr. STEARNS. I yield to the gentleman from Illinois. Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Florida (Mr. [[Page H4237]] Stearns) for highlighting the importance of the Adoption Incentives Program. I will continue to work with him and with my colleagues in conference to ensure States receive the funding they need to help more kids move from foster care to permanent and loving, caring homes. Mr. STEARNS. I thank the chairman. I appreciate his commitment to providing more money for adoption. I strongly support the positive steps Congress has taken in this area and believe we should do even more. That is why I am here this morning. President Clinton supports increasing funding for this program. Adoption is also a positive alternative to abortion, and I hope the gentleman is successful in finding additional money in funding for the Adoption Incentives Program. Amendment No. 189 Offered by Mr. Stearns Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment. The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment. The text of the amendment is as follows: Amendment No. 189 offered by Mr. Stearns: Page 49, after line 12, insert the following section: Sec. 214. Amounts made available in this title for carrying out the activities of the National Institutes of Health are available for a report under section 403 of the Public Health Service for the following purposes: (1) To identify the amounts expended under section 402(g) of such Act to enhance the competitiveness of entities that are seeking funds from such Institutes to conduct biomedical or behavioral research. (2) To identify the entities for which such amounts have been expended, including a separate statement regarding expenditures under section 402(g)(2) of such Act for individuals who have not previously served as principal researchers of projects supported by such Institutes. (3) To identify the extent to which such entities and individuals receive funds under programs through which such Institutes support projects of biomedical or behavioral research, and to provide the underlying reasons for such funding decisions. Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order on the amendment. The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman reserves a point of order. Pursuant to the order of the House of Monday, June 12, 2000, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Stearns) and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Stearns). Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, this is a sensitive subject. I have a Congressional Research Report here, which I worked with in doing this amendment. My amendment has three components to it. The first identifies and asks NIH to identify amounts that are distributed, given to individuals and corporations seeking funds from the Institute to conduct research. We have had constituents who have applied to NIH and who have been unable to find out, after great frustration, why they did not get the money. They could not find out who the individual was who got the money, or corporations, and they did not know or find out how much it was. So my amendment, first of all, asks NIH to identify the monies that are given to individuals and also then the amendment asks that they identify the individuals so that we see the money expended, the individuals who received it and then we would like to see some justification for why the NIH gave this money. Now I have a report from the Congressional Research Service that sort of confirms what my amendment is talking about. It concludes, and I would just like to read the conclusion from this Congressional Research Report, that there is no question that NIH is an esteemed institution that subsidizes biomedical research and is a value to the people the world over, but that does not remove it from its vast agenda and continuing controversy over how the agency should allocate its ever- increasing appropriations. As a public agency, supported through tax revenues, NIH will, in all likelihood, face even greater scrutiny in the future. That is what my amendment does. It attempts to bring NIH into the next millennium with more transparency. I have been a long-time advocate of NIH. In fact, I have supported the idea of doubling its funding over the next 5 years. A lot of universities in Florida, particularly the University of Florida and Florida State, have benefited from NIH research grant money. So I am a great supporter of NIH, but we are talking about Federal tax dollars here, and I am concerned we are not making public the information from grants that NIH has given the individuals, the amount of money provided, and how they made their decisions on these grants. So I hear in my congressional district in Central Florida from doctors that they have not been able to succeed in getting NIH funding and they do not know why and they have to apply 5, 6, 7 times with no answers. There is just sort of a huge Federal bureaucracy. They say we just need to have much more transparency there. Let me share what I have learned about the research grants and how these decisions are made. In reviewing steps that could or should be taken by NIH, I discovered that NIH is starting, just starting, to move in the right direction with a peer review process. There are several areas that Congress must look at when assessing NIH approaches and decisions that are made by them and how research dollars are to be spent. First of all, how effective is its peer review system and the agency's ability to identify proposals with the greatest potential? Another issue is why the agency has not installed an electronically- based grant application award system. This is pretty basic today. So I urge them to do so. This would be exceedingly beneficial to everybody. Supporters of NIH, and there are many, including myself, would like to see a greater accountability of the NIH director and to make its planning and budgeting reporting process more open. In 1998, Mr. Chairman, a report was issued by the Institute of Medicine and the National Academy of Sciences entitled Scientific Opportunities and Public Needs. This report highlighted several issues that needed to be addressed by NIH, including its peer review process. So we have on the books documentation that shows that NIH needs to be more scrupulous in how they award grants and make the information known. I think NIH's policies and reviews and procedures should be expedited and this amendment simply is saying to NIH, let us have some more transparency and make the number of people, their names available, who the research grants are given to, how much money they were given and in the end what was the process that was used. If this was done, Mr. Chairman, I think this would move this Agency towards this transparency concept I envision. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk. My amendment would require a report to: (1) identify amounts disbursed to enhance competitiveness of entities seeking funds from the Institutes to conduct biomedical and behavioral research; (2) to identify the entities receiving funding, including a separate statement on expenditures for individuals who have not previously served as principal researchers of projects supported by the Institutes; and (3) to provide an explanation for such funding decisions made by the National Institutes of Health to entities seeking funds to conduct biomedical and behavioral research. Money is available under Section 403 (42 U.S.C. 283) of the Public Health Service Act for the purposes of carrying out such a report. First, I want to say that I am a long-time supporter of NIH because I know how valuable the research being conducted by this illustrious body has been to our nation in finding the causes and cures of diseases. The NIH has and will continue to greatly benefit our nation. In fact, I am a cosponsor of the resolution to double the NIH budget over a five year period. We are currently in our third year in that effort. There are many fine universities in the State of Florida that benefit from NIH research grant money, including the University of Florida, which I once had the privilege of representing. That being said, however, I have heard from numerous individuals about the difficulties involved in securing research grants through NIH. These are federal tax dollars we are talking about! I am concerned that we are not making these grants available to new graduates who need this important seed money to continue their biomedical and behavioral research in their chosen fields. We all know that universities and colleges across the country are not having students enter the hard sciences as they once did--we must ensure that those that do are not discouraged from putting their talents to work in [[Page H4238]] research efforts being conducted by the federal government. There is a positive note to all this. Let me share with you what I learned about the research project grants and how these decisions are made. In reviewing steps that could or should be taken by NIH, I discovered that NIH is moving in the right direction in its peer review process. There are several areas that Congress must look at when assessing NIH's approach to decisions that are made by them in how research dollars are to be spent. First, how effective is its peer- review system and the agency's ability to identify proposals with the greatest potential. Another issue is why the agency hasn't installed an electronically-based grant application and award system. This would certainly be beneficial. Supporters of NIH, and there are many, including myself would like to see a greater accountability of the NIH Director, and to make its planning, budgeting and reporting process more open. In 1998 a report was issued by the Institute of Medicine and the National Academy of Sciences entitled, Scientific Opportunities and Public Needs: Improving Priority Setting and Public Input at the National Institutes of Health. This report highlighted several issues that needed to be addressed by NIH, including its peer review process. As a result, the NIH Council of Public Representatives (COPR) was created by former NIH Director Dr. Harold Varmus. The IOM committee recommended steps to make the agency more welcoming to public input, including the establishment of COPR. There were 20 public members selected to COPR and the first meeting was in April 1999. The committee members have participated in the NIH budget retreats, the NIH Government Performance and Results Act (GRPA), hearings on patient protections, health research related to diverse populations, health disparities, performance reviews of Institute Directors in addition to the regular COPR meetings and conference calls. The council has taken a life of its own and taken its role very seriously reviewing NIH's policies and procedures, research priorities, research funding, public input, and input to the public. The Council sets the agenda and directs the discussion items. During these meetings we have learned the difficulties involved in the budget process and with the uncertainty of each year's appropriations bills, and the difficulty in making multi-year research commitments. Most directors have played it conservatively to make sure they will have the funds to continue projects. In addition the need to increase young researchers has been a priority at NIH. The research training program and mentorship program has been increased to meet this important crisis. My amendment would require a report to identify and provide an explanation for funding decisions made by the NIH to entities seeking research grants. I would urge the NIH to continue in its efforts to ensure that our nation's best and brightest receive the dollars necessary to conduct important life saving research. While it is good to know that some steps have been taken, I believe it is incumbent upon Congress to continue to serve as a watch dog since taxpayer dollars are involved. I believe that we have benefited by finding out more about this newly formed Council, but I would remind my colleagues that this did not come about until the IOM and the National Academy of Sciences brought these issues to light. {time} 1200 Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition to the amendment. The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Porter) claims the time in opposition and will be recognized for 5 minutes. Does the gentleman from Illinois continue to reserve a point of order? Mr. PORTER. Mr chairman, I continue to reserve my point of order. The CHAIRMAN. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Porter). Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, I would say to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Stearns) that who receives grants of NIH funding and the amount of those grants and the purpose for which the grants are made is public knowledge. That is readily available and can be provided to the gentleman, or anyone else, at any time he would like to have it. The peer review process is a process that has developed over a long, long period of time. It is set forth in Federal regulation. It is easy to understand the process and to see it at work. Is it perfect? Certainly nothing is perfect. It needs to be reviewed and made more responsive. Ask the scientific community, generally, whether this is a good system that is competitive and separates good science from bad science, I think there is, overwhelmingly, a general consensus that it works quite well to separate good science from bad, to bring the best science to the top and to fund only that which has great potential and is well conceived. With respect to electronic grant applications, NIH is working on that right now. I think it is a very good point that the gentleman makes and ought to be followed up on; but it is already being done, and we expect that the system will be perfected and brought on-line very soon. So I would simply say to the gentleman that he makes good points, but I think that there is great progress being made with respect to each one. Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield? Mr. PORTER. Yes, I yield to the gentleman from Florida. Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Illinois for his comments. Dr. Harold Varmus was the former NIH director, and he sort of confirmed what my amendment intends. He recommended steps to make the agency more welcoming to the public and available and transparent, including what he called a Council of Public Representatives, COPR. There were 20 members that he selected, put this together; and he had a meeting in April 1999. Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, those councils are up and running, yes. Mr. STEARNS. I know, Mr. Chairman, but part of the thinking he had was the council was there to make this agency more transparent. So I urge the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Porter) and the committee to continue this peer review and the process of making this more transparent. Point of Order Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order against the amendment because it proposes to change existing law and constitutes legislation in an appropriation bill and therefore violates clause 2 of rule XXI. The rule states in pertinent part, ``An amendment to a general appropriation bill shall not be in order if it changes existing law by imposing additional duties.'' I ask for a ruling from the Chair. The CHAIRMAN. The point of order is raised by the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Porter) against the Stearns amendment. Does any Member wish to be recognized on the point of order? In pertinent part, the amendment earmarks funds in a manner not supported by existing law. As such, it constitutes legislation in violation of clause 2(c) of rule XXI. The point of order is sustained. The Clerk will read. The Clerk read as follows: This title may be cited as the ``Department of Health and Human Services Appropriations Act, 2001''. TITLE III--DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION education reform For carrying out activities authorized by sections 3122, 3132, 3136, and 3141, parts B and C of title III, and part I of title X of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, $1,505,000,000, of which $119,500,000 shall be for section 3122: Provided, That up to one-half of 1 percent of the amount available under section 3132 shall be set aside for the outlying areas, to be distributed on the basis of their relative need as determined by the Secretary in accordance with the purposes of the program: Provided further, That if any State educational agency does not apply for a grant under section 3132, that State's allotment under section 3131 shall be reserved by the Secretary for grants to local educational agencies in that State that apply directly to the Secretary according to the terms and conditions published by the Secretary in the Federal Register. Amendment No. 14 Offered by Mr. Obey Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment. The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment. The text of the amendment is as follows: Amendment No. 14 offered by Mr. Obey: Page 49, line 20, after the dollar amount, insert the following: ``(increased by $65,000,000)''. Page 49, line 21, after the dollar amount, insert the following: ``(increased by $65,000,000)''. Page 52, line 7, after ``titles'' insert ``II,''. Page 52, line 12, after each of the two dollar amounts, insert the following: ``(increased by $960,000,000)''. Page 52, strike the proviso beginning on line 17 and insert the following: : Provided, That of the amount appropriated, $960,000,000 shall be for title II of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, [[Page H4239]] notwithstanding any other provision of law, for State formula grants and other competitive grants subject to such terms and conditions as the Secretary of Education shall establish to improve the knowledge and skills of such individuals as early childhood educators, teachers, principals, and superintendents, and for teacher recruitment and retention activities: Provided further, That of the amount appropriated, $2,115,750,000 shall be for title VI of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, of which $1,750,000,000 shall be available, notwithstanding any other provision of law, to reduce class size, particularly in the early grades, using fully qualified teachers to improve educational achievement for regular and special needs children in accordance with section 310 of Public Law 106-113 Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order on the gentleman's amendments. The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Porter) reserves a point of order on the amendment. Pursuant to the order of the House on Thursday, June 8, 2000, the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) and the gentleman f

Amendments:

Cosponsors:


bill

Search Bills

DEPARTMENTS OF LABOR, HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, AND EDUCATION, AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2001


Sponsor:

Summary:

All articles in House section

DEPARTMENTS OF LABOR, HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, AND EDUCATION, AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2001
(House of Representatives - June 13, 2000)

Text of this article available as: TXT PDF [Pages H4231-H4310] DEPARTMENTS OF LABOR, HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, AND EDUCATION, AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2001 The Committee resumed its sitting. The CHAIRMAN. Does the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Porter) rise in opposition? Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition. The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Illinois is recognized for 15 minutes. Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, as I said to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi) in full committee markup of this bill, this amendment, of course, tests my resolve more than any other of your theme amendments. I consider the funding for NIH to be of the highest priority I would very much have liked to put into this bill the full 15 percent increase that I believe is necessary and proper. Such funding is among the best spent money in government to continue on our path of doubling NIH over a 5-year period. Unfortunately, the allocation was not sufficient to do so. We have in the bill a limitation to limit the obligation to the President's budget, which is a $1 billion increase less the cap and comes out to probably 4 percent to 5 percent, rather than the 15 percent that we favor. However, the gentlewoman has just used this amendment to make a number of political points, and I would simply say to the gentlewoman she ought to look at the history of funding for NIH. It indicates that the President of the United States has put this at a very, very low priority in all of his budgets for the last 5 years, while the majority party has put it at a very, very high priority. Congress has provided a total of $7.8 billion in cumulative increases for NIH as opposed to the $4.3 billion requested by the President over the last 5 years. We have put NIH on a funding path to [[Page H4232]] double its level in 5 years, we have made two down payments and are committed, within the fiscal responsibility, to making the third payment this year. We cannot do it within the allocation that we have, but we are committed to making that third payment this year. I would not say that this was done on a partisan basis. It has been a bipartisan effort. It has been supported by both sides of the aisle. I know, and the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi) knows that there are more scientific opportunities today. Increased funding can lead to cures for major diseases like Alzheimer's disease Parkinson's disease, forms of cancer, diabetes and a host of other diseases is closer than it ever has been before. We are doing all that we can to get to achieve the 15% increase, but we are constrained by a budget allocation that is not sufficient to allow us to do it at this point. I know that the gentlewoman herself is committed to reaching that point. What I do not like to see is making political points. This leads us away from the importance of this funding and makes this seem a political clash. I would simply point out that we have made great progress. We are committed to making continued progress. We believe that this funding can lead to scientific discovery that will help people who need help. It will lead to longer and more healthy lives for all the American people and, perhaps, all the people in this world. This is the best spent money, because it leads ultimately to driving down health care costs in our society. If we work together, we can achieve a result that we can all be proud of in doubling funding for NIH over a 5-year period. In the 5 years that I have been chairman, 1995 to now, we have increased funding for NIH by 58 percent. If we can double it this year, we will be at 82 percent over that 6-year period, and I simply believe that this is not the proper context to raise political issues. This is something that all of us are committed to accomplishing. We have made great progress, and we are very hopeful that we will make the kind of progress that all the American people can be proud of in the end. Mr. WICKER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield? Mr. PORTER. I yield to the gentleman from Mississippi. Mr. WICKER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the time. I, too, agree, Mr. Chairman, that it is unfortunate that this debate is being used to make political points. NIH and health research has certainly been something that this committee and this subcommittee has approached on a bipartisan basis. And I must say that the gentleman in the well, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Porter), who is in his last year as subcommittee chairman, is leaving a rich legacy of bipartisanship and also support for real programs for real people, improving their health. Under his leadership, this subcommittee and this committee have shown their support in terms of the dollars indicated there. {time} 1115 I would like to ask the chairman though about the chart there. Do I understand that the red figures are the cumulative amounts of money proposed by President Clinton in his budget; is that correct? Mr. PORTER. That is correct. Mr. WICKER. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will yield further, then the large amounts above and beyond that in blue amount to the actual appropriations that we have been able to get through this subcommittee and through the Congress of the United States for the National Institutes of Health? Mr. PORTER. Yes, the gentleman is correct. Mr. WICKER. As far as the cumulative increases, since the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Porter) has been chairman, the cumulative increases are almost double those requested by the President of the United States? Mr. PORTER. That is correct. Mr. WICKER. Finally, let me ask the gentleman, Mr. Chairman, with regard to this appropriation in this bill, which I agree is regrettably low, how does it compare to the amount requested by President Clinton in his budget this year for NIH and health research? Mr. PORTER. If I understand the gentleman's question correctly, the President requested $1 billion in increased funding for NIH this year. We have placed in the bill numbers indicating a $2.7 billion increase, but, then, because of our budget allocation, we have been forced to limit that amount to the President's request. Mr. WICKER. The amount contained in this bill is precisely what the President requested; is that correct? Mr. PORTER. Yes. Mr. BENTSEN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield for a question regarding his chart? Mr. PORTER. I yield to the gentleman from Texas. Mr. BENTSEN. Mr. Chairman, the question I had, and I can barely read it, but the chart starts with fiscal year 1995; is that correct? Mr. PORTER. That is correct. Mr. BENTSEN. Does that chart reflect what the appropriations are, or does it reflect concurrent budget resolutions? My question is would that reflect what the fiscal 1995 concurrent budget resolution as adopted by the House and Senate did, which would show a dip of 5 percent? Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, budget resolutions do not have any effect. They are only advisory. These are appropriations. Mr. BENTSEN. If the gentleman will further yield, part of the budget allocation we are dealing with today, the fact that the gentleman raised, is the fact that the budget resolution passed by the House does not provide sufficient allocation to meet the doubling of the NIH, and we had a problem with the budget resolution in fiscal year 1995 as passed by the House and the other body that called for a 5 percent reduction in NIH in real terms. Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman should remember that the only jurisdiction the Committee on the Budget has is to set overall spending numbers. The rest is advisory. Mr. Chairman, reserve the balance of my time. Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 1-3/4 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Jackson), a distinguished member of the subcommittee. (Mr. JACKSON of Illinois asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.) Mr. JACKSON of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me time. Mr. Chairman, let me first begin by congratulating the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Porter) for what every member of this subcommittee knows to be the truth, that no one in this Congress has had a greater commitment to expanding and increasing NIH funding than the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Porter). If the entire House were present during this part of the debate, I would ask at this time for all of them to stand and give the gentleman from Illinois (Chairman Porter) an outstanding round of applause for his interest and for his commitment and dedication in this area. I would say to the gentleman from Illinois (Chairman Porter), we have enormous respect for his efforts in this particular area, and I certainly rise to salute the gentleman. Let me also indicate that this is the first time since I have been in Congress for 5 years that I am not going to dispute any of the facts that were offered by the majority in the brief demonstration that we had here from the chairman. But I want to make it very, very clear that the gentleman from Illinois (Chairman Porter), if he had been dealt the appropriate hand in this particular allocation, that we would be looking at increases in NIH consistent with the effort to double resources as consistent with our 5-year objective. Mr. Chairman, this amendment raises our investment in biomedical research at the National Institutes of Health. Fiscal year 2001 is the 3rd year of this ``doubling NIH in 5 years'' initiative. For 2 straight years we have agreed to provide NIH the 15 percent increases needed to double the budget. This year, the House fails to do so. Staying on track to double NIH's budget requires a $2.7 billion increase for fiscal year 2001. The House bill provides the increase, then takes it away in a general provision and reduces that increase to the administration's request. Mr. Chairman, it is one thing in an era of deficits to say we cannot afford to invest additional resources in these [[Page H4233]] programs; but now that we are in an era of surpluses, we no longer have that excuse. All we need to do to pay for this amendment is to scale back the size of the tax cut for the wealthy by 20 percent. We can leave the middle-class tax cuts alone, just scale back the tax cuts for the individuals at the top 1 percent; and we can do just that. Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Capps), a member of the Committee on Commerce, an expert on health issues, and a health professional before she came to the Congress. Mrs. CAPPS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Pelosi amendment, which seeks to increase funding for the National Institutes of Health. I commend the committee and Congress for the commitment that has been made to double the NIH budget in 5 years specifically by providing necessary 15 percent increases in appropriations each year. But this year, we are going off track. Our budget is throwing us off our 5-year track. Mr. Chairman, there is not a family in this country that does not feel the promise and the hope of the research that is done under the auspices of the NIH. A year ago it was the deputy director who told my daughter, recently diagnosed with advanced lung cancer, that if she could hold on for 2 years, there was such promising research coming down the pike through NIH. So many families in this country hold their hope in the research that is done and is spawned by our funding for the NIH. Research in the real life miracle areas of Parkinson's disease, cancer research, Alzheimer's, diabetes, these are situations that people across this country are dealing with on a daily basis. We have established a wonderful track record for funding. We need to keep our resolve now and stick to our promise to double the funding in 5 years. Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler). Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of this amendment to provide a $1.7 billion increase to the NIH in order to keep us on track to double its budget by 2004. Mr. Chairman, the last century will be remembered as the century in which we eradicated polio, developed gene therapy, and discovered some treatments for breast cancer. At the center of this research has been the NIH. NIH funded scientists have learned how to diagnose, treat and prevent diseases that were once great mysteries. The decoding of the human genome, soon to be completed, will lead to yet more opportunities for research that will revolutionize how we look at and treat diseases. Our efforts will shift increasingly to the genetic level, where we will learn to cure diseases now untreatable. We should not abandon our commitment to double the NIH budget in 5 years. Let this new century see humanity vanquish cancer and heart disease and genetic diseases and AIDS. Let us not start reversing that goal now. We are now the most prosperous society in the history of this planet. We have unparalleled budget surpluses. We should not deny medical research the funds it needs because of artificial budget restraints in an artificial and politically motivated budget resolution. In the names of the thousands, perhaps millions of people whose lives will be prolonged and saved by adoption of this amendment, I urge its adoption. Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the very distinguished gentleman from Texas (Mr. Bentsen). (Mr. BENTSEN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.) Mr. BENTSEN. Mr. Chairman, I offered this same amendment when the House Committee on the Budget marked up the budget resolution, and I was told at the time that we had put enough money into NIH, that this year we just could not do it. It is ironic that a few weeks ago we passed the China PNTR bill because we wanted to gain access to more markets where we have a comparative advantage. In the world of medical research, where the United States leads the world and has a comparative advantage, we do not want to provide the resources to do that. I know the gentleman from Illinois (Chairman Porter) wants to do it, but he is constrained by the budget. How can a sophisticated, mature economy like the United States not provide the resources that are necessary? It is all part of this budget fallacy, because the Chairman well knows that the Senate is going to mark up the full amount and we will go to conference and we will do it. But we are living under artificial constraints by a budget resolution that is not going to hold water at the end of the year. We should do the right thing today, adopt the gentlewoman's amendment, and move forward where we do enjoy a comparative advantage and bring these cures to the American people, because we know we can do it. Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro), a distinguished member of the Subcommittee on Labor, Health and Human Services and Education of the Committee on Appropriations, and a person who is an expert on health policy. Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi). I support a strong national investment in biomedical research. The reason being is that I am alive today due to the advancements in biomedical research. I am a 15 year survivor of ovarian cancer. I know how it feels to be the person behind the statistics. We are on the brink of tremendous breakthroughs in cancer and many other areas. We have committed ourselves as a Congress to doubling the funding for the NIH over the next 5 years. Why then would we want to fall short of that goal this year? All the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi) is asking for is the $1.7 billion that will allow us to get to meeting that goal this year, and the trade-off is, the trade-off is, a tax cut that is going to only benefit the most wealthy people in this country. The lives, the health, the safety of American people all over this country is not to be traded away, not to be traded away, because of a tax cut that will only benefit the wealthiest. Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, I am happy to yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Cunningham), a very, very strong supporter of NIH and biomedical research. Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Chairman, the gentlewoman well knows that I am a champion for medical research. I have got a goal. My daughter scored a perfect 1600 on her SATs this year as a senior at Torrey Pines. She is going to intern in cancer research at NIH this summer. I am a cancer survivor. There is nothing worse than a doctor looking you in the eye and saying, ``Duke Cunningham, you have got cancer.'' I am a survivor. And if the gentlewoman would have offsets in this, I would be with her in this amendment. I would hope in conference we can add to this and somehow come up with the additional dollars in this. Unfortunately, the politics in this, that is being shown in all these amendments, is what is discouraging, because the gentlewoman, the ranking minority member, Democrats and Republicans, have come together on NIH funding to support it, and I still hope in some way we can add these particular dollars down the line. In cancer, Dr. Klausner, and you see what he is doing at NIH, I would say I was saved because of a PSA test. Do you know that right now, because of this research, there are markers for ovarian cancer which we have never had before? Women had no markers in this. I met a gentleman at NIH that contacted HIV in 1989. The only thing he ever thought about was dying. And now he has hope. He has bought an apartment. He has even bought stocks. This is what we are talking about when we talk about NIH funding. {time} 1130 If the gentlewoman would offer offsets on this, we would support it. She is right. But I want to tell the Members, fiscal responsibility down the line, where we balance the budget and we pay off the national debt as soon as 2012, we spend $1 billion a day, a day, $1 billion a day on just the interest. Think what we are going to have in the future for the Americans for education, [[Page H4234]] for crimefighting, for NIH, just by keeping our fiscal house in constraint. The death tax that we passed, a little bit out of touch, saying tax break for the rich, passed on a bipartisan vote; the social security tax that my colleagues put in in 1993 we eliminated, a little bit out of touch by saying that is a tax break for the rich; taking a look at the marriage penalty for people who are married, that is sure not a tax break for the rich. My colleagues on the other side wish to politicize this and say, tax break for the rich. I think some people actually believe that, after saying it 10,000 times, someone is going to believe it. It is just not so. Let us come together and support this NIH increase in conference, if there is some way we can do it, and work in a bipartisan way on this particular issue. Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Lowey), another distinguished member of our Subcommittee of Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education. Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding time to me. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Pelosi amendment. Over the last 2 years, with the strong leadership of the gentleman from Illinois (Chairman Porter) and broad bipartisan support, we have made tremendous progress in our goal of doubling the NIH budget. Dr. Kirschstein and the Institute directors have done an outstanding job of describing how they have managed large increases and used them to fund good science. We have to continue our bipartisan effort to increase funding for biomedical research. Whether it is breast cancer, diabetes, autism, or heart disease, we have made real progress towards better understanding and treatment. My good friends are saying this is politics. They are right. What politics is about is making wise decisions. We have that choice. We can have a smaller tax cut and invest in the National Institutes of Health, and invest in the continued extraordinary challenges that are ahead of us. We have the opportunity on our subcommittee in this Congress to face the extraordinary challenges in health care ahead. Let us do it. Let us do it now. Let us support the Pelosi amendment. Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I am very, very pleased to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), the very distinguished ranking member of our subcommittee and the ranking member of the full Committee on Appropriations, who, along with the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Porter), has been a champion for increased funding at the National Institutes of Health. Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding time to me. Mr. Chairman, the issue is not what the Congress and the President did on this issue in the last decade. The issue is what we are going to do in the next decade. This bill appropriates $2.7 billion above last year to the National Institutes of Health. But then it has a provision in the bill which says it can only spend $1 billion of that, so the committee has it both ways. It can say yes, we have provided $1.7 billion when they pull this piece of paper out of their pocket, and then they go to the other pocket and say, oh, no, we did not spend that much money, we held the budget down. The result of this budget is that it cuts $439 million below current services, and that means that it reduces the new and competing grants that go out to scientists to do research on cancer, Alzheimer's, diabetes, and everything else, by about 15 percent. In real terms, this bill is a reduction from last year. A lot of people on that side of the aisle keep saying, well, this is just the second step in the process. Do not worry, down the line we are going to try to fix this. What we are saying is that it makes no sense for them to say, well, at some point somebody else is going to be responsible. We are asking the majority side to be responsible now. They keep talking about fiscal responsibility. Two weeks ago I was at Marshfield Clinic in my district. I had a number of senior citizens talk to me about the miracles that had occurred when they had strokes that disabled them, and they were able to recover from those strokes because of new medical research. My question to them and my question to the Members today is this: What is more important to this country, to have more success stories like that, more success stories, like the gentleman from California (Mr. Cunningham), or instead to continue the path that the majority party has been following in providing huge tax cuts, with over 70 percent of the benefits aimed at the wealthiest 1 percent of people in this society? Members gave away in the minimum wage bill $90 billion in tax cuts to people who make over $300,000 a year. All we are saying is they could finance this amendment on health care, they could finance our amendment on education, on child care, on all the rest if they simply cut back what they are providing in those tax packages by 20 percent. Leave the middle-income tax cuts in place, just take the tax cuts that they are providing for the high rollers, cut them back by 20 percent, and they can meet all of these needs. It is not enough to have budgets at last year's level, or around last year's level. This is a growing country. It is a growing population. We have new medical discoveries. Every time we make a new medical discovery, we ought to build on it, not use it as an excuse to slack off. That is what we are saying. To me it is outrageous that this amendment cannot even get a vote on the floor of the House today. Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of the time. Mr. Chairman, I thank the Chair for presiding over this very respectful, I think, debate. We have acknowledged the leadership of our chairman and our ranking member in supporting the highest possible funding levels for the National Institutes of Health. We have recognized that despite the priority that the gentleman from Illinois (Chairman Porter) gives to the National Institutes of Health, that the budget allocation does not allow him to put the additional $1.7 billion in the bill which keeps us on track of doubling the NIH budget in 5 years. Members have shared their personal stories about themselves and their children, and pointed to the need for us to invest in this research. There is no argument about that. But when Members say that we are politicizing this debate by saying because we have a tax cut because we cannot afford this funding level for NIH, they are being political. The fact is, bad budget numbers necessitate a bad appropriation. If we did not have the tax cut, we could afford the NIH funding. It is that simple. That kind of decision is what people send us to Congress to make. We must recollect the values of the American people, which say that it is a good investment to invest in basic biomedical research. It saves lives. It adds to the productivity and the quality of our lives. This is the most fiscally sound vote a Member can make is to invest further in the National Institutes of Health to save lives, to create jobs in the biomedical industry, and to help us balance our budget by having less money have to be put out because of illness, loss of work days by people who become sick or disabled. I urge my colleagues to think in a fiscally sound way and support the additional appropriation for the National Institutes of Health. Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time. Mr. Chairman, I am very sorry and I think it is very ill-advised that this subject has been raised in this political context. The work to raise NIH funding over the last 5 years has been bipartisan, and I am sorry that it is being used as a point of departure to make a political point. It constrains me to have to make a political point, as well. The minority party was in charge of this House for many, many years. During the previous 5 years the minority was in charge, and President Clinton was also in charge. If we look at the commitment made for increasing funding for biomedical research during that period of time and compare it to the last 5 years when the majority party has been in control of the Congress, I think we can easily see that we have placed this at a far higher priority. [[Page H4235]] To me, however, this is not a political matter and should not be raised in a political context. This is a matter that is of utmost importance to our country and to its people. As I said earlier, this is among the best funding anywhere in government, and we should continue to work together on a bipartisan basis to increase it. However, to propose such increases is easy when you do not have responsibility for any constraints and can spend whatever you want to spend, which is basically what all these amendments do. They say, ``here is what we ought to do.'' We cannot do that. We do not have that luxury. We are the majority party and responsible for the bottom line. We have to live within a budget resolution that was adopted by the majority of the Congress. So we do the best that we can within that context. We have done the best we can. I would much rather we had a 15 percent increase in the bill for NIH. Unfortunately, we simply do not have the funds to do that. We intend, in this process, to achieve that priority and hopefully we will get there, but it is easy simply to say, well, we ought to spend more money in this area. This is an important area. Sure, we would like to provide a 15 percent increase, but in the end, somebody has to be responsible for the overall spending of this government and to live within fiscal restraints. We are taking that responsibility, and we are doing the very best that we can within it. I believe very strongly, and I think the gentlewoman believes very strongly, that in the end we will reach our goal of doubling NIH and providing the third year of a 15 percent increase to get there. Ms. ESHOO. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment by my good friend and colleague from California, Nancy Pelosi. This amendment increases NIH funding by $2.7 billion and would restore the funding level to the amount the Congress agreed to two years ago when it decided to double the NIH budget within five years. Mr. Chairman, this amendment is truth-in-budgeting legislation. In 1998, and again in 1999, this Congress decided it was critical the National Institutes of Health be funded at a level which doubled the NIH budget by Fiscal Year 2003. Now we are in year three and this appropriations bill seeks to back off from that promise. Let me remind my colleagues why we decided to double the NIH budget. According to a Joint Economic Committee report issued just last week, 15 of the 21 most important drugs introduced between 1965 and 1992 were developed using knowledge and techniques from federally funded research. If the Pelosi amendment does not pass, the funding cuts in this bill mean there will be 1,309 fewer federal research grants. Mr. Chairman, my district has the largest concentration of biotechnology companies in the world. The scientific advancements they are working on are moving at revolutionary speed. We cannot afford to cut back on the groundbreaking work they are doing. The need for increased research grants at NIH has never been greater. Infectious diseases pose a significant threat as new human pathogens are discovered and microorganisms acquire antibiotic resistance. In today's Washington Post, the front page story was about a World Health Organization report which said that disease-causing microbes are mutating at an alarming rate into much more dangerous infections that are failing to respond to treatment. Mr. Chairman, in the story the WHO warned . . . that the world could be plunged back into the preantibiotic era when people commonly died of diseases that in modern times have been easily treated with antibiotics. A WHO official said, The world may only have a decade or two to make optimal use of many of the medicines presently available to stop infectious diseases. We are literally in a race against time to bring levels of infectious disease down worldwide, before the disease wears the drugs down first. Mr. Chairman, we need NIH to join in this battle before time runs out. And speaking of time running out, the number of Americans over age 65 will double in the next 30 years. What are we going to do to fight the diseases of the elderly? Also, the threat of bioterrorism--once remote--is now a probability. Mr. Chairman, our purpose for a sustained funding track for NIH was so that the multi-year process for NIH grantmaking was well planned and spent federal funds efficiently. This amendment by my colleague, Nancy Pelosi, achieves that objective. More importantly, the Pelosi amendment keeps a congressional promise. Last March, over 108 Members on both sides of the aisle signed a letter urging a $2.7 billion increase in the NIH budget. The Pelosi amendment would provide that increase. It is the third installment on a bipartisan plan to double the NIH budget by 2003. I thank my colleague, Nancy Pelosi, for offering this amendment, and I compliment her on her leadership and her tireless efforts to improve the health of this country. I urge my colleagues to join her and support this amendment. The CHAIRMAN. All time has expired on this amendment. Point of Order Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order against the amendment because it is in violation of Section 302(f) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974. The Committee on Appropriations filed a suballocation of budget totals for fiscal year 2001 on June 8, 2000, House Report 106-660. This amendment would provide new budget authority in excess of the subcommittee's suballocation made under Section 302(b), and is not permitted under section 302(f) of the Act. I would ask a ruling of the Chair. The CHAIRMAN. Are there other Members who wish to be heard on the point of order? Ms. PELOSI. Yes, Mr. Chairman. The CHAIRMAN. The gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi) is recognized. Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, the distinguished chairman lodged a point of order on the basis that this is outside the budget allocation. On that score, he may be correct. But the fact is that despite the expressions of priority for the funding at the National Institutes of Health, which the chairman has very sincerely made and others have made in this Chamber, we had other choices in this bill. In fact, if this is of the highest priority, why was it not given the same status that other Republican priorities are given in this bill? As we know, there is a $500 million budget adjustment to accommodate $500 million of other spending in this bill. That could have been done for this $1.7 billion and we could have ensured, guaranteed, given peace to the American people that their health and that the research to ensure it to be protected. Instead, the only thing protected in this bill is the tax break for the wealthiest people in America. That is the decision that Members have to make. It is not about this being fiscally responsible. We all want to be that. Indeed, our alternative Democratic budget resolution had this $1.7 increase and it was fiscally responsible. Two things, Mr. Chairman. Because the distinguished chairman has said he is calling a point of order because this is beyond the allocation of the budget, it could be protected just the way this other funding had a lifting of the budget, had an adjustment of the budget figure. {time} 1145 Secondly, I would say that if we are not going to go down that path then it is not the priority we say it is, and we have to answer to the American people for that. Technically, on the point of order, the rule protects the wealthiest 1 percent at the expense of the National Institutes of Health, and I concede the point of order. Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, can I be heard further on the point of order? The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Porter) is recognized. Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, I would simply respond to the gentlewoman that she had every opportunity to make those choices by offering an amendment within the rules that would have taken money from lower priority accounts and put it in this account if that was her desire. She did not take that opportunity to operate within the bounds of fiscal restraint and has simply offered an amendment without any offset, which is clearly out of order. The CHAIRMAN. The Chair is prepared to rule. Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, if I may, since the gentleman characterized my remarks, if I may? The CHAIRMAN. Very briefly the gentlewoman from California may respond. Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, the distinguished gentleman knows that I had [[Page H4236]] no opportunity to have an offset of the $1.7 billion. All I am saying is give this the same treatment as has been given to other Republican priorities by making a budget cap adjustment so that this can be afforded in this bill. The CHAIRMAN. The gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi) has conceded the point of order, but the Chair would say that he is authoritatively guided by an estimate of the Committee on the Budget, pursuant to section 312 of the Budget Act, that an amendment providing any net increase in new discretionary budget authority would cause a breach of the pertinent allocation of such authority. The amendment offered by the gentlewoman from California, by proposing to strike a provision scored as negative budget authority, would increase the level of new discretionary budget authority in the bill. As such, the amendment violates section 302(f) of the Budget Act. The point of order is therefore sustained. The amendment is not in order. Amendment No. 4 Offered by Mr. Andrews Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment. The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment. The text of the amendment is as follows: Amendment No. 4 offered by Mr. Andrews: Page 49, after line 12, insert the following new section: Sec. 214. The amounts otherwise provided by this Act are revised by reducing the amount made available for ``DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES--Office of the Secretary--general departmental management'', and increasing the amount made available for ``Health Resources and Services Administration--health resources and services'' (to be used for a block grant to the Inner City Cardiac Satellite Demonstration Project operated by the State of New Jersey, including creation of a heart clinic in southern New Jersey), by $40,000,000. Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order on the amendment. The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Porter) reserves a point of order on the amendment. Pursuant to the order of the House of Monday, June 12, 2000, the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Andrews) and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Andrews). Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, let me begin by expressing my appreciation to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Porter) and the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) for the fair and even-handed way in which they handled this matter procedurally. Those of us who wish to offer these amendments very much appreciate the expansiveness of the time agreement, the fairness of it, and I wanted to say that for the record this morning. Let me also say the purpose of this amendment is a commendation and a challenge. In the area of commendation, it is to commend the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Porter), the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), and all the members of this subcommittee for the attention they have paid and the commitment they have made to the health care of the people of this country, in particular, the issue of our struggling urban hospitals. I represent the City of Camden, New Jersey, which by just about any measure is one of the poorest cities in the United States of America. We are fortunate to have a number of health care institutions in the City of Camden which remain, despite very difficult economic conditions. One of the consequences of their continued commitment to a poor urban area is that they carry a disproportionate share of the burden of caring for the uninsured or for those whose care is not fully compensated by Medicaid or other public programs. In New Jersey, we have undertaken a rather creative and progressive way to try to address this imbalance. New Jersey has decided to create a special opportunity for urban hospitals to operate heart hospitals or heart clinics, cardiac services, in more affluent suburban areas. The strategy is rather wise and simple. The revenues that would be gained from operating these heart facilities in more affluent areas would recapture dollars which could then be used to help offset and subsidize the cost of providing care for the uninsured and for persons for whom the compensation is not sufficient in the poor urban areas. It is a wise strategy. The challenge that I would offer, however, is what comes to what I believe is New Jersey's incomplete execution of this strategy. The original plan in our State was that there be two of these demonstration projects, one in the northern part of our State and one in the southern part of the State, which I am privileged to represent. For reasons which are not clear to me, and not clear to the health care institutions in southern New Jersey, only one of these pilot programs has gone forward. I believe that this is a mistake. The purpose of this amendment is to provide a Federal opportunity, a Federal subsidy, for this pilot program to go forward both in the southern part of our State and in the northern part of our State. I believe that the problems in our part of New Jersey are at least as acute, at least as difficult, as those of our northern neighbors and the proper position for our State health department is to provide for a second pilot project in the southern part of our State. The purpose of this amendment is to offer an idea for a Federal share or a Federal partnership in making that pilot program succeed. Now having said that, because the committee has been so progressive and wise in promoting the interests of urban hospitals, it is my intention to ask unanimous consent to withdraw this amendment after my colleagues have had a chance to comment on it. Mr. Chairman, with that in mind, after making this statement, I would reserve the balance of my time. Point of Order Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order against the amendment because it provides an appropriation for an unauthorized program and therefore violates clause 2 of rule XXI. Clause 2 of rule XXI states in pertinent part an appropriation may not be in order as an amendment for an expenditure not previously authorized by law. Mr. Chairman, the authorization for this program has not been signed into law. The amendment, therefore, violates clause 2 of rule XXI, and I would ask for a ruling from the Chair. The CHAIRMAN. Does any other Member wish to be heard on the point of order? Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw my amendment. The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from New Jersey? There was no objection. The CHAIRMAN. The amendment is withdrawn. Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. The CHAIRMAN. Is the gentleman offering an amendment? Mr. STEARNS. I am going to offer an amendment. Also, Mr. Chairman, I wanted to have a colloquy with the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Porter). The CHAIRMAN. Does the chairman designate the gentleman to strike the last word? Mr. PORTER. Yes, Mr. Chairman. The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Florida (Mr. Stearns) is recognized for 5 minutes. Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Chairman, I intend to offer an amendment to move $10 million into the Adoption Incentives Program. I decided not to offer that amendment today, but I would like to engage in a colloquy with the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Porter) regarding the importance of funding this program. Mr. Chairman, the Adoption Incentives Program has helped to dramatically increase a number of children adopted out of foster care. I certainly appreciate all the good work he has done in the Labor, Health, and Human Services appropriations bill, including the $2 million increase for the Adoption Incentives Program. I would like to ask the gentleman to continue his hard work in conference and build on this program by further increasing funding for this program. Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield? Mr. STEARNS. I yield to the gentleman from Illinois. Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Florida (Mr. [[Page H4237]] Stearns) for highlighting the importance of the Adoption Incentives Program. I will continue to work with him and with my colleagues in conference to ensure States receive the funding they need to help more kids move from foster care to permanent and loving, caring homes. Mr. STEARNS. I thank the chairman. I appreciate his commitment to providing more money for adoption. I strongly support the positive steps Congress has taken in this area and believe we should do even more. That is why I am here this morning. President Clinton supports increasing funding for this program. Adoption is also a positive alternative to abortion, and I hope the gentleman is successful in finding additional money in funding for the Adoption Incentives Program. Amendment No. 189 Offered by Mr. Stearns Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment. The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment. The text of the amendment is as follows: Amendment No. 189 offered by Mr. Stearns: Page 49, after line 12, insert the following section: Sec. 214. Amounts made available in this title for carrying out the activities of the National Institutes of Health are available for a report under section 403 of the Public Health Service for the following purposes: (1) To identify the amounts expended under section 402(g) of such Act to enhance the competitiveness of entities that are seeking funds from such Institutes to conduct biomedical or behavioral research. (2) To identify the entities for which such amounts have been expended, including a separate statement regarding expenditures under section 402(g)(2) of such Act for individuals who have not previously served as principal researchers of projects supported by such Institutes. (3) To identify the extent to which such entities and individuals receive funds under programs through which such Institutes support projects of biomedical or behavioral research, and to provide the underlying reasons for such funding decisions. Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order on the amendment. The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman reserves a point of order. Pursuant to the order of the House of Monday, June 12, 2000, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Stearns) and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Stearns). Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, this is a sensitive subject. I have a Congressional Research Report here, which I worked with in doing this amendment. My amendment has three components to it. The first identifies and asks NIH to identify amounts that are distributed, given to individuals and corporations seeking funds from the Institute to conduct research. We have had constituents who have applied to NIH and who have been unable to find out, after great frustration, why they did not get the money. They could not find out who the individual was who got the money, or corporations, and they did not know or find out how much it was. So my amendment, first of all, asks NIH to identify the monies that are given to individuals and also then the amendment asks that they identify the individuals so that we see the money expended, the individuals who received it and then we would like to see some justification for why the NIH gave this money. Now I have a report from the Congressional Research Service that sort of confirms what my amendment is talking about. It concludes, and I would just like to read the conclusion from this Congressional Research Report, that there is no question that NIH is an esteemed institution that subsidizes biomedical research and is a value to the people the world over, but that does not remove it from its vast agenda and continuing controversy over how the agency should allocate its ever- increasing appropriations. As a public agency, supported through tax revenues, NIH will, in all likelihood, face even greater scrutiny in the future. That is what my amendment does. It attempts to bring NIH into the next millennium with more transparency. I have been a long-time advocate of NIH. In fact, I have supported the idea of doubling its funding over the next 5 years. A lot of universities in Florida, particularly the University of Florida and Florida State, have benefited from NIH research grant money. So I am a great supporter of NIH, but we are talking about Federal tax dollars here, and I am concerned we are not making public the information from grants that NIH has given the individuals, the amount of money provided, and how they made their decisions on these grants. So I hear in my congressional district in Central Florida from doctors that they have not been able to succeed in getting NIH funding and they do not know why and they have to apply 5, 6, 7 times with no answers. There is just sort of a huge Federal bureaucracy. They say we just need to have much more transparency there. Let me share what I have learned about the research grants and how these decisions are made. In reviewing steps that could or should be taken by NIH, I discovered that NIH is starting, just starting, to move in the right direction with a peer review process. There are several areas that Congress must look at when assessing NIH approaches and decisions that are made by them and how research dollars are to be spent. First of all, how effective is its peer review system and the agency's ability to identify proposals with the greatest potential? Another issue is why the agency has not installed an electronically- based grant application award system. This is pretty basic today. So I urge them to do so. This would be exceedingly beneficial to everybody. Supporters of NIH, and there are many, including myself, would like to see a greater accountability of the NIH director and to make its planning and budgeting reporting process more open. In 1998, Mr. Chairman, a report was issued by the Institute of Medicine and the National Academy of Sciences entitled Scientific Opportunities and Public Needs. This report highlighted several issues that needed to be addressed by NIH, including its peer review process. So we have on the books documentation that shows that NIH needs to be more scrupulous in how they award grants and make the information known. I think NIH's policies and reviews and procedures should be expedited and this amendment simply is saying to NIH, let us have some more transparency and make the number of people, their names available, who the research grants are given to, how much money they were given and in the end what was the process that was used. If this was done, Mr. Chairman, I think this would move this Agency towards this transparency concept I envision. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk. My amendment would require a report to: (1) identify amounts disbursed to enhance competitiveness of entities seeking funds from the Institutes to conduct biomedical and behavioral research; (2) to identify the entities receiving funding, including a separate statement on expenditures for individuals who have not previously served as principal researchers of projects supported by the Institutes; and (3) to provide an explanation for such funding decisions made by the National Institutes of Health to entities seeking funds to conduct biomedical and behavioral research. Money is available under Section 403 (42 U.S.C. 283) of the Public Health Service Act for the purposes of carrying out such a report. First, I want to say that I am a long-time supporter of NIH because I know how valuable the research being conducted by this illustrious body has been to our nation in finding the causes and cures of diseases. The NIH has and will continue to greatly benefit our nation. In fact, I am a cosponsor of the resolution to double the NIH budget over a five year period. We are currently in our third year in that effort. There are many fine universities in the State of Florida that benefit from NIH research grant money, including the University of Florida, which I once had the privilege of representing. That being said, however, I have heard from numerous individuals about the difficulties involved in securing research grants through NIH. These are federal tax dollars we are talking about! I am concerned that we are not making these grants available to new graduates who need this important seed money to continue their biomedical and behavioral research in their chosen fields. We all know that universities and colleges across the country are not having students enter the hard sciences as they once did--we must ensure that those that do are not discouraged from putting their talents to work in [[Page H4238]] research efforts being conducted by the federal government. There is a positive note to all this. Let me share with you what I learned about the research project grants and how these decisions are made. In reviewing steps that could or should be taken by NIH, I discovered that NIH is moving in the right direction in its peer review process. There are several areas that Congress must look at when assessing NIH's approach to decisions that are made by them in how research dollars are to be spent. First, how effective is its peer- review system and the agency's ability to identify proposals with the greatest potential. Another issue is why the agency hasn't installed an electronically-based grant application and award system. This would certainly be beneficial. Supporters of NIH, and there are many, including myself would like to see a greater accountability of the NIH Director, and to make its planning, budgeting and reporting process more open. In 1998 a report was issued by the Institute of Medicine and the National Academy of Sciences entitled, Scientific Opportunities and Public Needs: Improving Priority Setting and Public Input at the National Institutes of Health. This report highlighted several issues that needed to be addressed by NIH, including its peer review process. As a result, the NIH Council of Public Representatives (COPR) was created by former NIH Director Dr. Harold Varmus. The IOM committee recommended steps to make the agency more welcoming to public input, including the establishment of COPR. There were 20 public members selected to COPR and the first meeting was in April 1999. The committee members have participated in the NIH budget retreats, the NIH Government Performance and Results Act (GRPA), hearings on patient protections, health research related to diverse populations, health disparities, performance reviews of Institute Directors in addition to the regular COPR meetings and conference calls. The council has taken a life of its own and taken its role very seriously reviewing NIH's policies and procedures, research priorities, research funding, public input, and input to the public. The Council sets the agenda and directs the discussion items. During these meetings we have learned the difficulties involved in the budget process and with the uncertainty of each year's appropriations bills, and the difficulty in making multi-year research commitments. Most directors have played it conservatively to make sure they will have the funds to continue projects. In addition the need to increase young researchers has been a priority at NIH. The research training program and mentorship program has been increased to meet this important crisis. My amendment would require a report to identify and provide an explanation for funding decisions made by the NIH to entities seeking research grants. I would urge the NIH to continue in its efforts to ensure that our nation's best and brightest receive the dollars necessary to conduct important life saving research. While it is good to know that some steps have been taken, I believe it is incumbent upon Congress to continue to serve as a watch dog since taxpayer dollars are involved. I believe that we have benefited by finding out more about this newly formed Council, but I would remind my colleagues that this did not come about until the IOM and the National Academy of Sciences brought these issues to light. {time} 1200 Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition to the amendment. The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Porter) claims the time in opposition and will be recognized for 5 minutes. Does the gentleman from Illinois continue to reserve a point of order? Mr. PORTER. Mr chairman, I continue to reserve my point of order. The CHAIRMAN. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Porter). Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, I would say to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Stearns) that who receives grants of NIH funding and the amount of those grants and the purpose for which the grants are made is public knowledge. That is readily available and can be provided to the gentleman, or anyone else, at any time he would like to have it. The peer review process is a process that has developed over a long, long period of time. It is set forth in Federal regulation. It is easy to understand the process and to see it at work. Is it perfect? Certainly nothing is perfect. It needs to be reviewed and made more responsive. Ask the scientific community, generally, whether this is a good system that is competitive and separates good science from bad science, I think there is, overwhelmingly, a general consensus that it works quite well to separate good science from bad, to bring the best science to the top and to fund only that which has great potential and is well conceived. With respect to electronic grant applications, NIH is working on that right now. I think it is a very good point that the gentleman makes and ought to be followed up on; but it is already being done, and we expect that the system will be perfected and brought on-line very soon. So I would simply say to the gentleman that he makes good points, but I think that there is great progress being made with respect to each one. Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield? Mr. PORTER. Yes, I yield to the gentleman from Florida. Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Illinois for his comments. Dr. Harold Varmus was the former NIH director, and he sort of confirmed what my amendment intends. He recommended steps to make the agency more welcoming to the public and available and transparent, including what he called a Council of Public Representatives, COPR. There were 20 members that he selected, put this together; and he had a meeting in April 1999. Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, those councils are up and running, yes. Mr. STEARNS. I know, Mr. Chairman, but part of the thinking he had was the council was there to make this agency more transparent. So I urge the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Porter) and the committee to continue this peer review and the process of making this more transparent. Point of Order Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order against the amendment because it proposes to change existing law and constitutes legislation in an appropriation bill and therefore violates clause 2 of rule XXI. The rule states in pertinent part, ``An amendment to a general appropriation bill shall not be in order if it changes existing law by imposing additional duties.'' I ask for a ruling from the Chair. The CHAIRMAN. The point of order is raised by the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Porter) against the Stearns amendment. Does any Member wish to be recognized on the point of order? In pertinent part, the amendment earmarks funds in a manner not supported by existing law. As such, it constitutes legislation in violation of clause 2(c) of rule XXI. The point of order is sustained. The Clerk will read. The Clerk read as follows: This title may be cited as the ``Department of Health and Human Services Appropriations Act, 2001''. TITLE III--DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION education reform For carrying out activities authorized by sections 3122, 3132, 3136, and 3141, parts B and C of title III, and part I of title X of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, $1,505,000,000, of which $119,500,000 shall be for section 3122: Provided, That up to one-half of 1 percent of the amount available under section 3132 shall be set aside for the outlying areas, to be distributed on the basis of their relative need as determined by the Secretary in accordance with the purposes of the program: Provided further, That if any State educational agency does not apply for a grant under section 3132, that State's allotment under section 3131 shall be reserved by the Secretary for grants to local educational agencies in that State that apply directly to the Secretary according to the terms and conditions published by the Secretary in the Federal Register. Amendment No. 14 Offered by Mr. Obey Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment. The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment. The text of the amendment is as follows: Amendment No. 14 offered by Mr. Obey: Page 49, line 20, after the dollar amount, insert the following: ``(increased by $65,000,000)''. Page 49, line 21, after the dollar amount, insert the following: ``(increased by $65,000,000)''. Page 52, line 7, after ``titles'' insert ``II,''. Page 52, line 12, after each of the two dollar amounts, insert the following: ``(increased by $960,000,000)''. Page 52, strike the proviso beginning on line 17 and insert the following: : Provided, That of the amount appropriated, $960,000,000 shall be for title II of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, [[Page H4239]] notwithstanding any other provision of law, for State formula grants and other competitive grants subject to such terms and conditions as the Secretary of Education shall establish to improve the knowledge and skills of such individuals as early childhood educators, teachers, principals, and superintendents, and for teacher recruitment and retention activities: Provided further, That of the amount appropriated, $2,115,750,000 shall be for title VI of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, of which $1,750,000,000 shall be available, notwithstanding any other provision of law, to reduce class size, particularly in the early grades, using fully qualified teachers to improve educational achievement for regular and special needs children in accordance with section 310 of Public Law 106-113 Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order on the gentleman's amendments. The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Porter) reserves a point of order on the amendment. Pursuant to the order of the House on Thursday, June 8, 2000, the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) and the gentleman from Illino

Major Actions:

All articles in House section

DEPARTMENTS OF LABOR, HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, AND EDUCATION, AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2001
(House of Representatives - June 13, 2000)

Text of this article available as: TXT PDF [Pages H4231-H4310] DEPARTMENTS OF LABOR, HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, AND EDUCATION, AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2001 The Committee resumed its sitting. The CHAIRMAN. Does the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Porter) rise in opposition? Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition. The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Illinois is recognized for 15 minutes. Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, as I said to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi) in full committee markup of this bill, this amendment, of course, tests my resolve more than any other of your theme amendments. I consider the funding for NIH to be of the highest priority I would very much have liked to put into this bill the full 15 percent increase that I believe is necessary and proper. Such funding is among the best spent money in government to continue on our path of doubling NIH over a 5-year period. Unfortunately, the allocation was not sufficient to do so. We have in the bill a limitation to limit the obligation to the President's budget, which is a $1 billion increase less the cap and comes out to probably 4 percent to 5 percent, rather than the 15 percent that we favor. However, the gentlewoman has just used this amendment to make a number of political points, and I would simply say to the gentlewoman she ought to look at the history of funding for NIH. It indicates that the President of the United States has put this at a very, very low priority in all of his budgets for the last 5 years, while the majority party has put it at a very, very high priority. Congress has provided a total of $7.8 billion in cumulative increases for NIH as opposed to the $4.3 billion requested by the President over the last 5 years. We have put NIH on a funding path to [[Page H4232]] double its level in 5 years, we have made two down payments and are committed, within the fiscal responsibility, to making the third payment this year. We cannot do it within the allocation that we have, but we are committed to making that third payment this year. I would not say that this was done on a partisan basis. It has been a bipartisan effort. It has been supported by both sides of the aisle. I know, and the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi) knows that there are more scientific opportunities today. Increased funding can lead to cures for major diseases like Alzheimer's disease Parkinson's disease, forms of cancer, diabetes and a host of other diseases is closer than it ever has been before. We are doing all that we can to get to achieve the 15% increase, but we are constrained by a budget allocation that is not sufficient to allow us to do it at this point. I know that the gentlewoman herself is committed to reaching that point. What I do not like to see is making political points. This leads us away from the importance of this funding and makes this seem a political clash. I would simply point out that we have made great progress. We are committed to making continued progress. We believe that this funding can lead to scientific discovery that will help people who need help. It will lead to longer and more healthy lives for all the American people and, perhaps, all the people in this world. This is the best spent money, because it leads ultimately to driving down health care costs in our society. If we work together, we can achieve a result that we can all be proud of in doubling funding for NIH over a 5-year period. In the 5 years that I have been chairman, 1995 to now, we have increased funding for NIH by 58 percent. If we can double it this year, we will be at 82 percent over that 6-year period, and I simply believe that this is not the proper context to raise political issues. This is something that all of us are committed to accomplishing. We have made great progress, and we are very hopeful that we will make the kind of progress that all the American people can be proud of in the end. Mr. WICKER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield? Mr. PORTER. I yield to the gentleman from Mississippi. Mr. WICKER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the time. I, too, agree, Mr. Chairman, that it is unfortunate that this debate is being used to make political points. NIH and health research has certainly been something that this committee and this subcommittee has approached on a bipartisan basis. And I must say that the gentleman in the well, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Porter), who is in his last year as subcommittee chairman, is leaving a rich legacy of bipartisanship and also support for real programs for real people, improving their health. Under his leadership, this subcommittee and this committee have shown their support in terms of the dollars indicated there. {time} 1115 I would like to ask the chairman though about the chart there. Do I understand that the red figures are the cumulative amounts of money proposed by President Clinton in his budget; is that correct? Mr. PORTER. That is correct. Mr. WICKER. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will yield further, then the large amounts above and beyond that in blue amount to the actual appropriations that we have been able to get through this subcommittee and through the Congress of the United States for the National Institutes of Health? Mr. PORTER. Yes, the gentleman is correct. Mr. WICKER. As far as the cumulative increases, since the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Porter) has been chairman, the cumulative increases are almost double those requested by the President of the United States? Mr. PORTER. That is correct. Mr. WICKER. Finally, let me ask the gentleman, Mr. Chairman, with regard to this appropriation in this bill, which I agree is regrettably low, how does it compare to the amount requested by President Clinton in his budget this year for NIH and health research? Mr. PORTER. If I understand the gentleman's question correctly, the President requested $1 billion in increased funding for NIH this year. We have placed in the bill numbers indicating a $2.7 billion increase, but, then, because of our budget allocation, we have been forced to limit that amount to the President's request. Mr. WICKER. The amount contained in this bill is precisely what the President requested; is that correct? Mr. PORTER. Yes. Mr. BENTSEN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield for a question regarding his chart? Mr. PORTER. I yield to the gentleman from Texas. Mr. BENTSEN. Mr. Chairman, the question I had, and I can barely read it, but the chart starts with fiscal year 1995; is that correct? Mr. PORTER. That is correct. Mr. BENTSEN. Does that chart reflect what the appropriations are, or does it reflect concurrent budget resolutions? My question is would that reflect what the fiscal 1995 concurrent budget resolution as adopted by the House and Senate did, which would show a dip of 5 percent? Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, budget resolutions do not have any effect. They are only advisory. These are appropriations. Mr. BENTSEN. If the gentleman will further yield, part of the budget allocation we are dealing with today, the fact that the gentleman raised, is the fact that the budget resolution passed by the House does not provide sufficient allocation to meet the doubling of the NIH, and we had a problem with the budget resolution in fiscal year 1995 as passed by the House and the other body that called for a 5 percent reduction in NIH in real terms. Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman should remember that the only jurisdiction the Committee on the Budget has is to set overall spending numbers. The rest is advisory. Mr. Chairman, reserve the balance of my time. Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 1-3/4 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Jackson), a distinguished member of the subcommittee. (Mr. JACKSON of Illinois asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.) Mr. JACKSON of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me time. Mr. Chairman, let me first begin by congratulating the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Porter) for what every member of this subcommittee knows to be the truth, that no one in this Congress has had a greater commitment to expanding and increasing NIH funding than the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Porter). If the entire House were present during this part of the debate, I would ask at this time for all of them to stand and give the gentleman from Illinois (Chairman Porter) an outstanding round of applause for his interest and for his commitment and dedication in this area. I would say to the gentleman from Illinois (Chairman Porter), we have enormous respect for his efforts in this particular area, and I certainly rise to salute the gentleman. Let me also indicate that this is the first time since I have been in Congress for 5 years that I am not going to dispute any of the facts that were offered by the majority in the brief demonstration that we had here from the chairman. But I want to make it very, very clear that the gentleman from Illinois (Chairman Porter), if he had been dealt the appropriate hand in this particular allocation, that we would be looking at increases in NIH consistent with the effort to double resources as consistent with our 5-year objective. Mr. Chairman, this amendment raises our investment in biomedical research at the National Institutes of Health. Fiscal year 2001 is the 3rd year of this ``doubling NIH in 5 years'' initiative. For 2 straight years we have agreed to provide NIH the 15 percent increases needed to double the budget. This year, the House fails to do so. Staying on track to double NIH's budget requires a $2.7 billion increase for fiscal year 2001. The House bill provides the increase, then takes it away in a general provision and reduces that increase to the administration's request. Mr. Chairman, it is one thing in an era of deficits to say we cannot afford to invest additional resources in these [[Page H4233]] programs; but now that we are in an era of surpluses, we no longer have that excuse. All we need to do to pay for this amendment is to scale back the size of the tax cut for the wealthy by 20 percent. We can leave the middle-class tax cuts alone, just scale back the tax cuts for the individuals at the top 1 percent; and we can do just that. Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Capps), a member of the Committee on Commerce, an expert on health issues, and a health professional before she came to the Congress. Mrs. CAPPS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Pelosi amendment, which seeks to increase funding for the National Institutes of Health. I commend the committee and Congress for the commitment that has been made to double the NIH budget in 5 years specifically by providing necessary 15 percent increases in appropriations each year. But this year, we are going off track. Our budget is throwing us off our 5-year track. Mr. Chairman, there is not a family in this country that does not feel the promise and the hope of the research that is done under the auspices of the NIH. A year ago it was the deputy director who told my daughter, recently diagnosed with advanced lung cancer, that if she could hold on for 2 years, there was such promising research coming down the pike through NIH. So many families in this country hold their hope in the research that is done and is spawned by our funding for the NIH. Research in the real life miracle areas of Parkinson's disease, cancer research, Alzheimer's, diabetes, these are situations that people across this country are dealing with on a daily basis. We have established a wonderful track record for funding. We need to keep our resolve now and stick to our promise to double the funding in 5 years. Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler). Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of this amendment to provide a $1.7 billion increase to the NIH in order to keep us on track to double its budget by 2004. Mr. Chairman, the last century will be remembered as the century in which we eradicated polio, developed gene therapy, and discovered some treatments for breast cancer. At the center of this research has been the NIH. NIH funded scientists have learned how to diagnose, treat and prevent diseases that were once great mysteries. The decoding of the human genome, soon to be completed, will lead to yet more opportunities for research that will revolutionize how we look at and treat diseases. Our efforts will shift increasingly to the genetic level, where we will learn to cure diseases now untreatable. We should not abandon our commitment to double the NIH budget in 5 years. Let this new century see humanity vanquish cancer and heart disease and genetic diseases and AIDS. Let us not start reversing that goal now. We are now the most prosperous society in the history of this planet. We have unparalleled budget surpluses. We should not deny medical research the funds it needs because of artificial budget restraints in an artificial and politically motivated budget resolution. In the names of the thousands, perhaps millions of people whose lives will be prolonged and saved by adoption of this amendment, I urge its adoption. Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the very distinguished gentleman from Texas (Mr. Bentsen). (Mr. BENTSEN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.) Mr. BENTSEN. Mr. Chairman, I offered this same amendment when the House Committee on the Budget marked up the budget resolution, and I was told at the time that we had put enough money into NIH, that this year we just could not do it. It is ironic that a few weeks ago we passed the China PNTR bill because we wanted to gain access to more markets where we have a comparative advantage. In the world of medical research, where the United States leads the world and has a comparative advantage, we do not want to provide the resources to do that. I know the gentleman from Illinois (Chairman Porter) wants to do it, but he is constrained by the budget. How can a sophisticated, mature economy like the United States not provide the resources that are necessary? It is all part of this budget fallacy, because the Chairman well knows that the Senate is going to mark up the full amount and we will go to conference and we will do it. But we are living under artificial constraints by a budget resolution that is not going to hold water at the end of the year. We should do the right thing today, adopt the gentlewoman's amendment, and move forward where we do enjoy a comparative advantage and bring these cures to the American people, because we know we can do it. Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro), a distinguished member of the Subcommittee on Labor, Health and Human Services and Education of the Committee on Appropriations, and a person who is an expert on health policy. Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi). I support a strong national investment in biomedical research. The reason being is that I am alive today due to the advancements in biomedical research. I am a 15 year survivor of ovarian cancer. I know how it feels to be the person behind the statistics. We are on the brink of tremendous breakthroughs in cancer and many other areas. We have committed ourselves as a Congress to doubling the funding for the NIH over the next 5 years. Why then would we want to fall short of that goal this year? All the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi) is asking for is the $1.7 billion that will allow us to get to meeting that goal this year, and the trade-off is, the trade-off is, a tax cut that is going to only benefit the most wealthy people in this country. The lives, the health, the safety of American people all over this country is not to be traded away, not to be traded away, because of a tax cut that will only benefit the wealthiest. Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, I am happy to yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Cunningham), a very, very strong supporter of NIH and biomedical research. Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Chairman, the gentlewoman well knows that I am a champion for medical research. I have got a goal. My daughter scored a perfect 1600 on her SATs this year as a senior at Torrey Pines. She is going to intern in cancer research at NIH this summer. I am a cancer survivor. There is nothing worse than a doctor looking you in the eye and saying, ``Duke Cunningham, you have got cancer.'' I am a survivor. And if the gentlewoman would have offsets in this, I would be with her in this amendment. I would hope in conference we can add to this and somehow come up with the additional dollars in this. Unfortunately, the politics in this, that is being shown in all these amendments, is what is discouraging, because the gentlewoman, the ranking minority member, Democrats and Republicans, have come together on NIH funding to support it, and I still hope in some way we can add these particular dollars down the line. In cancer, Dr. Klausner, and you see what he is doing at NIH, I would say I was saved because of a PSA test. Do you know that right now, because of this research, there are markers for ovarian cancer which we have never had before? Women had no markers in this. I met a gentleman at NIH that contacted HIV in 1989. The only thing he ever thought about was dying. And now he has hope. He has bought an apartment. He has even bought stocks. This is what we are talking about when we talk about NIH funding. {time} 1130 If the gentlewoman would offer offsets on this, we would support it. She is right. But I want to tell the Members, fiscal responsibility down the line, where we balance the budget and we pay off the national debt as soon as 2012, we spend $1 billion a day, a day, $1 billion a day on just the interest. Think what we are going to have in the future for the Americans for education, [[Page H4234]] for crimefighting, for NIH, just by keeping our fiscal house in constraint. The death tax that we passed, a little bit out of touch, saying tax break for the rich, passed on a bipartisan vote; the social security tax that my colleagues put in in 1993 we eliminated, a little bit out of touch by saying that is a tax break for the rich; taking a look at the marriage penalty for people who are married, that is sure not a tax break for the rich. My colleagues on the other side wish to politicize this and say, tax break for the rich. I think some people actually believe that, after saying it 10,000 times, someone is going to believe it. It is just not so. Let us come together and support this NIH increase in conference, if there is some way we can do it, and work in a bipartisan way on this particular issue. Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Lowey), another distinguished member of our Subcommittee of Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education. Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding time to me. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Pelosi amendment. Over the last 2 years, with the strong leadership of the gentleman from Illinois (Chairman Porter) and broad bipartisan support, we have made tremendous progress in our goal of doubling the NIH budget. Dr. Kirschstein and the Institute directors have done an outstanding job of describing how they have managed large increases and used them to fund good science. We have to continue our bipartisan effort to increase funding for biomedical research. Whether it is breast cancer, diabetes, autism, or heart disease, we have made real progress towards better understanding and treatment. My good friends are saying this is politics. They are right. What politics is about is making wise decisions. We have that choice. We can have a smaller tax cut and invest in the National Institutes of Health, and invest in the continued extraordinary challenges that are ahead of us. We have the opportunity on our subcommittee in this Congress to face the extraordinary challenges in health care ahead. Let us do it. Let us do it now. Let us support the Pelosi amendment. Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I am very, very pleased to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), the very distinguished ranking member of our subcommittee and the ranking member of the full Committee on Appropriations, who, along with the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Porter), has been a champion for increased funding at the National Institutes of Health. Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding time to me. Mr. Chairman, the issue is not what the Congress and the President did on this issue in the last decade. The issue is what we are going to do in the next decade. This bill appropriates $2.7 billion above last year to the National Institutes of Health. But then it has a provision in the bill which says it can only spend $1 billion of that, so the committee has it both ways. It can say yes, we have provided $1.7 billion when they pull this piece of paper out of their pocket, and then they go to the other pocket and say, oh, no, we did not spend that much money, we held the budget down. The result of this budget is that it cuts $439 million below current services, and that means that it reduces the new and competing grants that go out to scientists to do research on cancer, Alzheimer's, diabetes, and everything else, by about 15 percent. In real terms, this bill is a reduction from last year. A lot of people on that side of the aisle keep saying, well, this is just the second step in the process. Do not worry, down the line we are going to try to fix this. What we are saying is that it makes no sense for them to say, well, at some point somebody else is going to be responsible. We are asking the majority side to be responsible now. They keep talking about fiscal responsibility. Two weeks ago I was at Marshfield Clinic in my district. I had a number of senior citizens talk to me about the miracles that had occurred when they had strokes that disabled them, and they were able to recover from those strokes because of new medical research. My question to them and my question to the Members today is this: What is more important to this country, to have more success stories like that, more success stories, like the gentleman from California (Mr. Cunningham), or instead to continue the path that the majority party has been following in providing huge tax cuts, with over 70 percent of the benefits aimed at the wealthiest 1 percent of people in this society? Members gave away in the minimum wage bill $90 billion in tax cuts to people who make over $300,000 a year. All we are saying is they could finance this amendment on health care, they could finance our amendment on education, on child care, on all the rest if they simply cut back what they are providing in those tax packages by 20 percent. Leave the middle-income tax cuts in place, just take the tax cuts that they are providing for the high rollers, cut them back by 20 percent, and they can meet all of these needs. It is not enough to have budgets at last year's level, or around last year's level. This is a growing country. It is a growing population. We have new medical discoveries. Every time we make a new medical discovery, we ought to build on it, not use it as an excuse to slack off. That is what we are saying. To me it is outrageous that this amendment cannot even get a vote on the floor of the House today. Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of the time. Mr. Chairman, I thank the Chair for presiding over this very respectful, I think, debate. We have acknowledged the leadership of our chairman and our ranking member in supporting the highest possible funding levels for the National Institutes of Health. We have recognized that despite the priority that the gentleman from Illinois (Chairman Porter) gives to the National Institutes of Health, that the budget allocation does not allow him to put the additional $1.7 billion in the bill which keeps us on track of doubling the NIH budget in 5 years. Members have shared their personal stories about themselves and their children, and pointed to the need for us to invest in this research. There is no argument about that. But when Members say that we are politicizing this debate by saying because we have a tax cut because we cannot afford this funding level for NIH, they are being political. The fact is, bad budget numbers necessitate a bad appropriation. If we did not have the tax cut, we could afford the NIH funding. It is that simple. That kind of decision is what people send us to Congress to make. We must recollect the values of the American people, which say that it is a good investment to invest in basic biomedical research. It saves lives. It adds to the productivity and the quality of our lives. This is the most fiscally sound vote a Member can make is to invest further in the National Institutes of Health to save lives, to create jobs in the biomedical industry, and to help us balance our budget by having less money have to be put out because of illness, loss of work days by people who become sick or disabled. I urge my colleagues to think in a fiscally sound way and support the additional appropriation for the National Institutes of Health. Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time. Mr. Chairman, I am very sorry and I think it is very ill-advised that this subject has been raised in this political context. The work to raise NIH funding over the last 5 years has been bipartisan, and I am sorry that it is being used as a point of departure to make a political point. It constrains me to have to make a political point, as well. The minority party was in charge of this House for many, many years. During the previous 5 years the minority was in charge, and President Clinton was also in charge. If we look at the commitment made for increasing funding for biomedical research during that period of time and compare it to the last 5 years when the majority party has been in control of the Congress, I think we can easily see that we have placed this at a far higher priority. [[Page H4235]] To me, however, this is not a political matter and should not be raised in a political context. This is a matter that is of utmost importance to our country and to its people. As I said earlier, this is among the best funding anywhere in government, and we should continue to work together on a bipartisan basis to increase it. However, to propose such increases is easy when you do not have responsibility for any constraints and can spend whatever you want to spend, which is basically what all these amendments do. They say, ``here is what we ought to do.'' We cannot do that. We do not have that luxury. We are the majority party and responsible for the bottom line. We have to live within a budget resolution that was adopted by the majority of the Congress. So we do the best that we can within that context. We have done the best we can. I would much rather we had a 15 percent increase in the bill for NIH. Unfortunately, we simply do not have the funds to do that. We intend, in this process, to achieve that priority and hopefully we will get there, but it is easy simply to say, well, we ought to spend more money in this area. This is an important area. Sure, we would like to provide a 15 percent increase, but in the end, somebody has to be responsible for the overall spending of this government and to live within fiscal restraints. We are taking that responsibility, and we are doing the very best that we can within it. I believe very strongly, and I think the gentlewoman believes very strongly, that in the end we will reach our goal of doubling NIH and providing the third year of a 15 percent increase to get there. Ms. ESHOO. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment by my good friend and colleague from California, Nancy Pelosi. This amendment increases NIH funding by $2.7 billion and would restore the funding level to the amount the Congress agreed to two years ago when it decided to double the NIH budget within five years. Mr. Chairman, this amendment is truth-in-budgeting legislation. In 1998, and again in 1999, this Congress decided it was critical the National Institutes of Health be funded at a level which doubled the NIH budget by Fiscal Year 2003. Now we are in year three and this appropriations bill seeks to back off from that promise. Let me remind my colleagues why we decided to double the NIH budget. According to a Joint Economic Committee report issued just last week, 15 of the 21 most important drugs introduced between 1965 and 1992 were developed using knowledge and techniques from federally funded research. If the Pelosi amendment does not pass, the funding cuts in this bill mean there will be 1,309 fewer federal research grants. Mr. Chairman, my district has the largest concentration of biotechnology companies in the world. The scientific advancements they are working on are moving at revolutionary speed. We cannot afford to cut back on the groundbreaking work they are doing. The need for increased research grants at NIH has never been greater. Infectious diseases pose a significant threat as new human pathogens are discovered and microorganisms acquire antibiotic resistance. In today's Washington Post, the front page story was about a World Health Organization report which said that disease-causing microbes are mutating at an alarming rate into much more dangerous infections that are failing to respond to treatment. Mr. Chairman, in the story the WHO warned . . . that the world could be plunged back into the preantibiotic era when people commonly died of diseases that in modern times have been easily treated with antibiotics. A WHO official said, The world may only have a decade or two to make optimal use of many of the medicines presently available to stop infectious diseases. We are literally in a race against time to bring levels of infectious disease down worldwide, before the disease wears the drugs down first. Mr. Chairman, we need NIH to join in this battle before time runs out. And speaking of time running out, the number of Americans over age 65 will double in the next 30 years. What are we going to do to fight the diseases of the elderly? Also, the threat of bioterrorism--once remote--is now a probability. Mr. Chairman, our purpose for a sustained funding track for NIH was so that the multi-year process for NIH grantmaking was well planned and spent federal funds efficiently. This amendment by my colleague, Nancy Pelosi, achieves that objective. More importantly, the Pelosi amendment keeps a congressional promise. Last March, over 108 Members on both sides of the aisle signed a letter urging a $2.7 billion increase in the NIH budget. The Pelosi amendment would provide that increase. It is the third installment on a bipartisan plan to double the NIH budget by 2003. I thank my colleague, Nancy Pelosi, for offering this amendment, and I compliment her on her leadership and her tireless efforts to improve the health of this country. I urge my colleagues to join her and support this amendment. The CHAIRMAN. All time has expired on this amendment. Point of Order Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order against the amendment because it is in violation of Section 302(f) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974. The Committee on Appropriations filed a suballocation of budget totals for fiscal year 2001 on June 8, 2000, House Report 106-660. This amendment would provide new budget authority in excess of the subcommittee's suballocation made under Section 302(b), and is not permitted under section 302(f) of the Act. I would ask a ruling of the Chair. The CHAIRMAN. Are there other Members who wish to be heard on the point of order? Ms. PELOSI. Yes, Mr. Chairman. The CHAIRMAN. The gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi) is recognized. Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, the distinguished chairman lodged a point of order on the basis that this is outside the budget allocation. On that score, he may be correct. But the fact is that despite the expressions of priority for the funding at the National Institutes of Health, which the chairman has very sincerely made and others have made in this Chamber, we had other choices in this bill. In fact, if this is of the highest priority, why was it not given the same status that other Republican priorities are given in this bill? As we know, there is a $500 million budget adjustment to accommodate $500 million of other spending in this bill. That could have been done for this $1.7 billion and we could have ensured, guaranteed, given peace to the American people that their health and that the research to ensure it to be protected. Instead, the only thing protected in this bill is the tax break for the wealthiest people in America. That is the decision that Members have to make. It is not about this being fiscally responsible. We all want to be that. Indeed, our alternative Democratic budget resolution had this $1.7 increase and it was fiscally responsible. Two things, Mr. Chairman. Because the distinguished chairman has said he is calling a point of order because this is beyond the allocation of the budget, it could be protected just the way this other funding had a lifting of the budget, had an adjustment of the budget figure. {time} 1145 Secondly, I would say that if we are not going to go down that path then it is not the priority we say it is, and we have to answer to the American people for that. Technically, on the point of order, the rule protects the wealthiest 1 percent at the expense of the National Institutes of Health, and I concede the point of order. Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, can I be heard further on the point of order? The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Porter) is recognized. Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, I would simply respond to the gentlewoman that she had every opportunity to make those choices by offering an amendment within the rules that would have taken money from lower priority accounts and put it in this account if that was her desire. She did not take that opportunity to operate within the bounds of fiscal restraint and has simply offered an amendment without any offset, which is clearly out of order. The CHAIRMAN. The Chair is prepared to rule. Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, if I may, since the gentleman characterized my remarks, if I may? The CHAIRMAN. Very briefly the gentlewoman from California may respond. Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, the distinguished gentleman knows that I had [[Page H4236]] no opportunity to have an offset of the $1.7 billion. All I am saying is give this the same treatment as has been given to other Republican priorities by making a budget cap adjustment so that this can be afforded in this bill. The CHAIRMAN. The gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi) has conceded the point of order, but the Chair would say that he is authoritatively guided by an estimate of the Committee on the Budget, pursuant to section 312 of the Budget Act, that an amendment providing any net increase in new discretionary budget authority would cause a breach of the pertinent allocation of such authority. The amendment offered by the gentlewoman from California, by proposing to strike a provision scored as negative budget authority, would increase the level of new discretionary budget authority in the bill. As such, the amendment violates section 302(f) of the Budget Act. The point of order is therefore sustained. The amendment is not in order. Amendment No. 4 Offered by Mr. Andrews Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment. The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment. The text of the amendment is as follows: Amendment No. 4 offered by Mr. Andrews: Page 49, after line 12, insert the following new section: Sec. 214. The amounts otherwise provided by this Act are revised by reducing the amount made available for ``DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES--Office of the Secretary--general departmental management'', and increasing the amount made available for ``Health Resources and Services Administration--health resources and services'' (to be used for a block grant to the Inner City Cardiac Satellite Demonstration Project operated by the State of New Jersey, including creation of a heart clinic in southern New Jersey), by $40,000,000. Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order on the amendment. The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Porter) reserves a point of order on the amendment. Pursuant to the order of the House of Monday, June 12, 2000, the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Andrews) and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Andrews). Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, let me begin by expressing my appreciation to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Porter) and the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) for the fair and even-handed way in which they handled this matter procedurally. Those of us who wish to offer these amendments very much appreciate the expansiveness of the time agreement, the fairness of it, and I wanted to say that for the record this morning. Let me also say the purpose of this amendment is a commendation and a challenge. In the area of commendation, it is to commend the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Porter), the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), and all the members of this subcommittee for the attention they have paid and the commitment they have made to the health care of the people of this country, in particular, the issue of our struggling urban hospitals. I represent the City of Camden, New Jersey, which by just about any measure is one of the poorest cities in the United States of America. We are fortunate to have a number of health care institutions in the City of Camden which remain, despite very difficult economic conditions. One of the consequences of their continued commitment to a poor urban area is that they carry a disproportionate share of the burden of caring for the uninsured or for those whose care is not fully compensated by Medicaid or other public programs. In New Jersey, we have undertaken a rather creative and progressive way to try to address this imbalance. New Jersey has decided to create a special opportunity for urban hospitals to operate heart hospitals or heart clinics, cardiac services, in more affluent suburban areas. The strategy is rather wise and simple. The revenues that would be gained from operating these heart facilities in more affluent areas would recapture dollars which could then be used to help offset and subsidize the cost of providing care for the uninsured and for persons for whom the compensation is not sufficient in the poor urban areas. It is a wise strategy. The challenge that I would offer, however, is what comes to what I believe is New Jersey's incomplete execution of this strategy. The original plan in our State was that there be two of these demonstration projects, one in the northern part of our State and one in the southern part of the State, which I am privileged to represent. For reasons which are not clear to me, and not clear to the health care institutions in southern New Jersey, only one of these pilot programs has gone forward. I believe that this is a mistake. The purpose of this amendment is to provide a Federal opportunity, a Federal subsidy, for this pilot program to go forward both in the southern part of our State and in the northern part of our State. I believe that the problems in our part of New Jersey are at least as acute, at least as difficult, as those of our northern neighbors and the proper position for our State health department is to provide for a second pilot project in the southern part of our State. The purpose of this amendment is to offer an idea for a Federal share or a Federal partnership in making that pilot program succeed. Now having said that, because the committee has been so progressive and wise in promoting the interests of urban hospitals, it is my intention to ask unanimous consent to withdraw this amendment after my colleagues have had a chance to comment on it. Mr. Chairman, with that in mind, after making this statement, I would reserve the balance of my time. Point of Order Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order against the amendment because it provides an appropriation for an unauthorized program and therefore violates clause 2 of rule XXI. Clause 2 of rule XXI states in pertinent part an appropriation may not be in order as an amendment for an expenditure not previously authorized by law. Mr. Chairman, the authorization for this program has not been signed into law. The amendment, therefore, violates clause 2 of rule XXI, and I would ask for a ruling from the Chair. The CHAIRMAN. Does any other Member wish to be heard on the point of order? Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw my amendment. The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from New Jersey? There was no objection. The CHAIRMAN. The amendment is withdrawn. Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. The CHAIRMAN. Is the gentleman offering an amendment? Mr. STEARNS. I am going to offer an amendment. Also, Mr. Chairman, I wanted to have a colloquy with the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Porter). The CHAIRMAN. Does the chairman designate the gentleman to strike the last word? Mr. PORTER. Yes, Mr. Chairman. The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Florida (Mr. Stearns) is recognized for 5 minutes. Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Chairman, I intend to offer an amendment to move $10 million into the Adoption Incentives Program. I decided not to offer that amendment today, but I would like to engage in a colloquy with the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Porter) regarding the importance of funding this program. Mr. Chairman, the Adoption Incentives Program has helped to dramatically increase a number of children adopted out of foster care. I certainly appreciate all the good work he has done in the Labor, Health, and Human Services appropriations bill, including the $2 million increase for the Adoption Incentives Program. I would like to ask the gentleman to continue his hard work in conference and build on this program by further increasing funding for this program. Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield? Mr. STEARNS. I yield to the gentleman from Illinois. Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Florida (Mr. [[Page H4237]] Stearns) for highlighting the importance of the Adoption Incentives Program. I will continue to work with him and with my colleagues in conference to ensure States receive the funding they need to help more kids move from foster care to permanent and loving, caring homes. Mr. STEARNS. I thank the chairman. I appreciate his commitment to providing more money for adoption. I strongly support the positive steps Congress has taken in this area and believe we should do even more. That is why I am here this morning. President Clinton supports increasing funding for this program. Adoption is also a positive alternative to abortion, and I hope the gentleman is successful in finding additional money in funding for the Adoption Incentives Program. Amendment No. 189 Offered by Mr. Stearns Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment. The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment. The text of the amendment is as follows: Amendment No. 189 offered by Mr. Stearns: Page 49, after line 12, insert the following section: Sec. 214. Amounts made available in this title for carrying out the activities of the National Institutes of Health are available for a report under section 403 of the Public Health Service for the following purposes: (1) To identify the amounts expended under section 402(g) of such Act to enhance the competitiveness of entities that are seeking funds from such Institutes to conduct biomedical or behavioral research. (2) To identify the entities for which such amounts have been expended, including a separate statement regarding expenditures under section 402(g)(2) of such Act for individuals who have not previously served as principal researchers of projects supported by such Institutes. (3) To identify the extent to which such entities and individuals receive funds under programs through which such Institutes support projects of biomedical or behavioral research, and to provide the underlying reasons for such funding decisions. Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order on the amendment. The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman reserves a point of order. Pursuant to the order of the House of Monday, June 12, 2000, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Stearns) and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Stearns). Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, this is a sensitive subject. I have a Congressional Research Report here, which I worked with in doing this amendment. My amendment has three components to it. The first identifies and asks NIH to identify amounts that are distributed, given to individuals and corporations seeking funds from the Institute to conduct research. We have had constituents who have applied to NIH and who have been unable to find out, after great frustration, why they did not get the money. They could not find out who the individual was who got the money, or corporations, and they did not know or find out how much it was. So my amendment, first of all, asks NIH to identify the monies that are given to individuals and also then the amendment asks that they identify the individuals so that we see the money expended, the individuals who received it and then we would like to see some justification for why the NIH gave this money. Now I have a report from the Congressional Research Service that sort of confirms what my amendment is talking about. It concludes, and I would just like to read the conclusion from this Congressional Research Report, that there is no question that NIH is an esteemed institution that subsidizes biomedical research and is a value to the people the world over, but that does not remove it from its vast agenda and continuing controversy over how the agency should allocate its ever- increasing appropriations. As a public agency, supported through tax revenues, NIH will, in all likelihood, face even greater scrutiny in the future. That is what my amendment does. It attempts to bring NIH into the next millennium with more transparency. I have been a long-time advocate of NIH. In fact, I have supported the idea of doubling its funding over the next 5 years. A lot of universities in Florida, particularly the University of Florida and Florida State, have benefited from NIH research grant money. So I am a great supporter of NIH, but we are talking about Federal tax dollars here, and I am concerned we are not making public the information from grants that NIH has given the individuals, the amount of money provided, and how they made their decisions on these grants. So I hear in my congressional district in Central Florida from doctors that they have not been able to succeed in getting NIH funding and they do not know why and they have to apply 5, 6, 7 times with no answers. There is just sort of a huge Federal bureaucracy. They say we just need to have much more transparency there. Let me share what I have learned about the research grants and how these decisions are made. In reviewing steps that could or should be taken by NIH, I discovered that NIH is starting, just starting, to move in the right direction with a peer review process. There are several areas that Congress must look at when assessing NIH approaches and decisions that are made by them and how research dollars are to be spent. First of all, how effective is its peer review system and the agency's ability to identify proposals with the greatest potential? Another issue is why the agency has not installed an electronically- based grant application award system. This is pretty basic today. So I urge them to do so. This would be exceedingly beneficial to everybody. Supporters of NIH, and there are many, including myself, would like to see a greater accountability of the NIH director and to make its planning and budgeting reporting process more open. In 1998, Mr. Chairman, a report was issued by the Institute of Medicine and the National Academy of Sciences entitled Scientific Opportunities and Public Needs. This report highlighted several issues that needed to be addressed by NIH, including its peer review process. So we have on the books documentation that shows that NIH needs to be more scrupulous in how they award grants and make the information known. I think NIH's policies and reviews and procedures should be expedited and this amendment simply is saying to NIH, let us have some more transparency and make the number of people, their names available, who the research grants are given to, how much money they were given and in the end what was the process that was used. If this was done, Mr. Chairman, I think this would move this Agency towards this transparency concept I envision. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk. My amendment would require a report to: (1) identify amounts disbursed to enhance competitiveness of entities seeking funds from the Institutes to conduct biomedical and behavioral research; (2) to identify the entities receiving funding, including a separate statement on expenditures for individuals who have not previously served as principal researchers of projects supported by the Institutes; and (3) to provide an explanation for such funding decisions made by the National Institutes of Health to entities seeking funds to conduct biomedical and behavioral research. Money is available under Section 403 (42 U.S.C. 283) of the Public Health Service Act for the purposes of carrying out such a report. First, I want to say that I am a long-time supporter of NIH because I know how valuable the research being conducted by this illustrious body has been to our nation in finding the causes and cures of diseases. The NIH has and will continue to greatly benefit our nation. In fact, I am a cosponsor of the resolution to double the NIH budget over a five year period. We are currently in our third year in that effort. There are many fine universities in the State of Florida that benefit from NIH research grant money, including the University of Florida, which I once had the privilege of representing. That being said, however, I have heard from numerous individuals about the difficulties involved in securing research grants through NIH. These are federal tax dollars we are talking about! I am concerned that we are not making these grants available to new graduates who need this important seed money to continue their biomedical and behavioral research in their chosen fields. We all know that universities and colleges across the country are not having students enter the hard sciences as they once did--we must ensure that those that do are not discouraged from putting their talents to work in [[Page H4238]] research efforts being conducted by the federal government. There is a positive note to all this. Let me share with you what I learned about the research project grants and how these decisions are made. In reviewing steps that could or should be taken by NIH, I discovered that NIH is moving in the right direction in its peer review process. There are several areas that Congress must look at when assessing NIH's approach to decisions that are made by them in how research dollars are to be spent. First, how effective is its peer- review system and the agency's ability to identify proposals with the greatest potential. Another issue is why the agency hasn't installed an electronically-based grant application and award system. This would certainly be beneficial. Supporters of NIH, and there are many, including myself would like to see a greater accountability of the NIH Director, and to make its planning, budgeting and reporting process more open. In 1998 a report was issued by the Institute of Medicine and the National Academy of Sciences entitled, Scientific Opportunities and Public Needs: Improving Priority Setting and Public Input at the National Institutes of Health. This report highlighted several issues that needed to be addressed by NIH, including its peer review process. As a result, the NIH Council of Public Representatives (COPR) was created by former NIH Director Dr. Harold Varmus. The IOM committee recommended steps to make the agency more welcoming to public input, including the establishment of COPR. There were 20 public members selected to COPR and the first meeting was in April 1999. The committee members have participated in the NIH budget retreats, the NIH Government Performance and Results Act (GRPA), hearings on patient protections, health research related to diverse populations, health disparities, performance reviews of Institute Directors in addition to the regular COPR meetings and conference calls. The council has taken a life of its own and taken its role very seriously reviewing NIH's policies and procedures, research priorities, research funding, public input, and input to the public. The Council sets the agenda and directs the discussion items. During these meetings we have learned the difficulties involved in the budget process and with the uncertainty of each year's appropriations bills, and the difficulty in making multi-year research commitments. Most directors have played it conservatively to make sure they will have the funds to continue projects. In addition the need to increase young researchers has been a priority at NIH. The research training program and mentorship program has been increased to meet this important crisis. My amendment would require a report to identify and provide an explanation for funding decisions made by the NIH to entities seeking research grants. I would urge the NIH to continue in its efforts to ensure that our nation's best and brightest receive the dollars necessary to conduct important life saving research. While it is good to know that some steps have been taken, I believe it is incumbent upon Congress to continue to serve as a watch dog since taxpayer dollars are involved. I believe that we have benefited by finding out more about this newly formed Council, but I would remind my colleagues that this did not come about until the IOM and the National Academy of Sciences brought these issues to light. {time} 1200 Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition to the amendment. The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Porter) claims the time in opposition and will be recognized for 5 minutes. Does the gentleman from Illinois continue to reserve a point of order? Mr. PORTER. Mr chairman, I continue to reserve my point of order. The CHAIRMAN. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Porter). Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, I would say to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Stearns) that who receives grants of NIH funding and the amount of those grants and the purpose for which the grants are made is public knowledge. That is readily available and can be provided to the gentleman, or anyone else, at any time he would like to have it. The peer review process is a process that has developed over a long, long period of time. It is set forth in Federal regulation. It is easy to understand the process and to see it at work. Is it perfect? Certainly nothing is perfect. It needs to be reviewed and made more responsive. Ask the scientific community, generally, whether this is a good system that is competitive and separates good science from bad science, I think there is, overwhelmingly, a general consensus that it works quite well to separate good science from bad, to bring the best science to the top and to fund only that which has great potential and is well conceived. With respect to electronic grant applications, NIH is working on that right now. I think it is a very good point that the gentleman makes and ought to be followed up on; but it is already being done, and we expect that the system will be perfected and brought on-line very soon. So I would simply say to the gentleman that he makes good points, but I think that there is great progress being made with respect to each one. Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield? Mr. PORTER. Yes, I yield to the gentleman from Florida. Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Illinois for his comments. Dr. Harold Varmus was the former NIH director, and he sort of confirmed what my amendment intends. He recommended steps to make the agency more welcoming to the public and available and transparent, including what he called a Council of Public Representatives, COPR. There were 20 members that he selected, put this together; and he had a meeting in April 1999. Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, those councils are up and running, yes. Mr. STEARNS. I know, Mr. Chairman, but part of the thinking he had was the council was there to make this agency more transparent. So I urge the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Porter) and the committee to continue this peer review and the process of making this more transparent. Point of Order Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order against the amendment because it proposes to change existing law and constitutes legislation in an appropriation bill and therefore violates clause 2 of rule XXI. The rule states in pertinent part, ``An amendment to a general appropriation bill shall not be in order if it changes existing law by imposing additional duties.'' I ask for a ruling from the Chair. The CHAIRMAN. The point of order is raised by the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Porter) against the Stearns amendment. Does any Member wish to be recognized on the point of order? In pertinent part, the amendment earmarks funds in a manner not supported by existing law. As such, it constitutes legislation in violation of clause 2(c) of rule XXI. The point of order is sustained. The Clerk will read. The Clerk read as follows: This title may be cited as the ``Department of Health and Human Services Appropriations Act, 2001''. TITLE III--DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION education reform For carrying out activities authorized by sections 3122, 3132, 3136, and 3141, parts B and C of title III, and part I of title X of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, $1,505,000,000, of which $119,500,000 shall be for section 3122: Provided, That up to one-half of 1 percent of the amount available under section 3132 shall be set aside for the outlying areas, to be distributed on the basis of their relative need as determined by the Secretary in accordance with the purposes of the program: Provided further, That if any State educational agency does not apply for a grant under section 3132, that State's allotment under section 3131 shall be reserved by the Secretary for grants to local educational agencies in that State that apply directly to the Secretary according to the terms and conditions published by the Secretary in the Federal Register. Amendment No. 14 Offered by Mr. Obey Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment. The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment. The text of the amendment is as follows: Amendment No. 14 offered by Mr. Obey: Page 49, line 20, after the dollar amount, insert the following: ``(increased by $65,000,000)''. Page 49, line 21, after the dollar amount, insert the following: ``(increased by $65,000,000)''. Page 52, line 7, after ``titles'' insert ``II,''. Page 52, line 12, after each of the two dollar amounts, insert the following: ``(increased by $960,000,000)''. Page 52, strike the proviso beginning on line 17 and insert the following: : Provided, That of the amount appropriated, $960,000,000 shall be for title II of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, [[Page H4239]] notwithstanding any other provision of law, for State formula grants and other competitive grants subject to such terms and conditions as the Secretary of Education shall establish to improve the knowledge and skills of such individuals as early childhood educators, teachers, principals, and superintendents, and for teacher recruitment and retention activities: Provided further, That of the amount appropriated, $2,115,750,000 shall be for title VI of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, of which $1,750,000,000 shall be available, notwithstanding any other provision of law, to reduce class size, particularly in the early grades, using fully qualified teachers to improve educational achievement for regular and special needs children in accordance with section 310 of Public Law 106-113 Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order on the gentleman's amendments. The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Porter) reserves a point of order on the amendment. Pursuant to the order of the House on Thursday, June 8, 2000, the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) and the gentleman f

Amendments:

Cosponsors: