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:
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: