Departments of Labor, Health and Human Sevices, and Education, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act of 2008

Floor Speech

DEPARTMENTS OF LABOR, HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, AND EDUCATION, AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS ACT OF 2008

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I rise in opposition to this amendment.

I rise as someone who has, for 25 years, as a member of the Labor-Health Subcommittee of the Appropriations Committee serving with my friend, Mr. Obey, supported increases in funding at NIH.

Mr. Castle is absolutely right. Many of those who come to our office want to make sure that we invest properly in the research and the basic biomedical research on disease.

John Porter was the chairman of our committee when we doubled the funding of NIH. We did so, of course, over the objections of the Republican budgets, as you may recall, which is why John Porter voted against so many of the Republican budgets because he said it did not sufficiently allow him to do his job. We agreed with him.

I care deeply about the process of discovery at NIH that brings so much hope to all the world for conquering and curing so many diseases that afflict humanity. Let me be clear, this amendment does not help medical research in my opinion. Not because it doesn't give it some more dollars. We have had a billion dollar increase, as you know, over the President's request.

I do not question the gentleman's motive in offering this amendment. I do question the wisdom of the measure which is, after all, what debates are about.

This amendment takes away from the whole spectrum of research, and particularly our ability to translate the research results from that basic research to its application to prevent, treat and cure illnesses that afflict mankind.

While this amendment may sound good, as very frankly some of the amendments that have been offered before which say we are going to take from here and give to there, which sound good on the surface, all of us would like to give more money to NIH. Simply stated, we do not have, however, the luxury of supporting research for the sake of simply having research if we do not translate it, have the statistical data available and the application. I take a backseat to no one in supporting medical research, but to cut funding for other public health service agencies as proposed under this amendment is simply not good policy. It is not good for the health of our people.

If the gentleman would like to offer an amendment to increase funding for NIH without harming other health priorities, then certainly that should be discussed and supported. But let me note that this bill includes a $750 million increase in funding for NIH. I said a billion, which is a billion higher than the President's request.

If we are to take molecules and turn them into miracles, the research that all of us seek, then we must support the long-term quality of our research efforts. I have done so for the last, as I said, 25 years. It is important for us to do so. But I think, frankly, the gentleman's amendment will harm the objective that he ultimately seeks and that Mr. Castle spoke of and that all of us support. So I urge defeat of this amendment.

Source