Snce August 1958, our subcommittee has been conducting a comprehensive eview of problems of international medical research (as well as international medical assistance.) The subcommittee, as such, has not as yet filed its interim report. The comments which I submit are therefore solely my personal appraisal, based on my review of the evidence. Our subcommittee has not been reviewing per se the question of appropriations for NIH or any other Federal agency. Data we have assembled bear very closely upon the question, however, and sustain in principle, the findings of your consultative committee. SMALL RATIO OF RESEARCH FUNDS IN RELATION TO DISEASE COSTS In my judgment, the facts which we have collected confirm major points as follows: 1. Present levels of Federal expenditures for health at home and abroad do not represent a sound ratio between (a) preventive medicine (principally through research) and (b) the much larger cost of disease to the Federal Government. At present, the Federal Government, according to our subcommittee estimates, is directly spending $3.7 billion for medical and health-related programs. Estimates vary as to the total current Federal biomedical research budget. But it does not represent as much as one-seventh of the $3.7 billion figure. And the latter expenditure does not include one penny of the enormous tax revenue lost to the Federal Government because of sickness and premature death among the American people, nor could it possibly include the immense intangible costs of pain, suffering, and premature death. MODEST CURRENT LEVEL OF FOREIGN SUPPORT 2. Evidence compiled by the subcommittee indicates that there is a tremendous number of worthwhile projects proposed by competent U.S. and foreign scientists which cannot at present be financed because of lack of funds available to the National Institutes of Health. Within our own country and abroad, we have seen and heard innumerable cases where distinguished scientists-for the lack of $5,000, $10,000, or $15,000, are unable to follow up on crucial research leads. I particularly endorse the findings of the consultative committee as regards expanding international medical research, as printed on pages 96-98 of their report. May I point out that there is a tremendous reservoir of foreign scientific genius which is still relatively untapped, as regards collaboration with U.S. science. During the 1959 fiscal year, only 166 foreign grants, as such, were made by NIH. Seventy-one totaling $1 million were continuations while 95, totaling $1.7 million represented new awards. In the National Cancer Institute, foreign research awards constituted only 2.4 percent of the total Institute awards and represented 2.1 percent of the total dollar volume. I believe that these foreign-to-domestic ratios should be increased and without sacrificing in any way deservant applications from our own U.S. scientists. The only way to do so is by expanding the total of funds available to NIH. NEED FOR INCREASED INTERDISCIPLINARY SUPPORT 3. One of my principal findings is that never before, in scientific history, has medical science faced greater needs for other professional skills-for the talents of physicists, chemists, biochemists, biophysicists, engineers, and others. The National Institutes of Health require a great expansion of funds in order to help strengthen the reservoir of nonmedical scientists in both the life sciences and in the physical sciences who can contribute to the international war against disease. REJECTION OF EXECUTIVE BRANCH'S STATUS QUO POSITION 4. It seems to me that the executive branch does not make a case for arbitrarily holding NIH spending to present levels simply by citing the fact that these levels represent sizable increases over the levels of 2, 3, 4 or more years ago. Of course, Federal biomedical research has sharply increased. It has increased because the American people and the Congress want it in creased. It has increased because there is a great need for larger Federal spending. Would the executive branch contend that the Department of Defense and NASA spending for earth satellites in the 1961 fiscal year should be held at the same level as 1960 simply because the latter represented enormous increases over 1959 or 1958? The answer is "No." For the same reason, therefore, we should reject the idea that NIH's status quo is sufficient simply because it is now somewhat better financed than in previous years. ANTI-INFLATIONARY EFFECT OF RESEARCH Biomedical research, it must be remembered, has an anti-inflationary effect. It cuts down losses from disease. It thereby increases the Nation's produe tivity-the total output of goods and services. Biomedical research is a generator of international good will, a factor urgently needed in a wodld torn by East-West tensions and misunderstandings Today, the letter and number "U-2" may spell controversy. But the letters "NIH" universally spell "noteworthy intelligent humanitarianism." They spell scientific brotherhood and friendship in the family of man. EXCELLENT COOPERATION FROM NIH WITH OUR SUBCOMMITTEE Our own subcommittee of the Committee on Government Operations has de veloped what we believe are a body of important findings which will strengthen the Federal Government's biomedical research effort. In this process we have enjoyed the excellent, frank, and invaluable cooperation from Dr. James Shannon and from his associates and staff at NIH. With NIH and other assistance, we have published nine committee prints and have several more in process, including an extensive volume of exhibits. Our subcomimttee has received from the medical scientists of the United States and abroad virtually unanimous and unstinted praise of NIH's work. Its scientific skills are beyond dispute. It seems to me, as one Member of the Senate, that this Subcommittee on Appropriations, which has already been of such great service to the Nation, can add further laurels to its credit by following in principle the recommendations which were made in the historic report by the distinguished consultative committee. COMMITTEE RECESS Senator HILL. The subcommittee will stand in recess subject to the call of the Chair. (Whereupon, at 3:35 p.m., Thursday, May 5, 1960, the subcommittee recessed subject to call.) (END OF VOLUME 1) DEPARTMENT OF LABOR Ambursen, Frances A Evans, Richard D. French, Ralph E.. Gundersen, Howard B. Harding, Curtis P.. Holcombe, John L.. Leopold, Alice K LIST OF WITNESSES Page 95 108 15 111 1027, 1029 67 60 15 108 24 1, 15, 24, 60, 67, 76, 88, 95, 101, 108, 111, 118 101 15 60 108 76 60 60 1071 88 88 24 15 15 76 76 95 DEPARTMENT OF LABOR INDEX General statement of Secretary Mitchell_ Agricultural labor____ Appropriation estimate_ Chronic labor surplus__. Management improvement_ Recruitment of new employees___ Analysis of 1961 budget estimate_ Workload acceleration_. Bureau of Apprenticeship and Training: Appropriation estimate__. Bureau of Employees' Compensation: Statement of Bureau Director_. Status of fund__ Page 1-14 5 1-5 6 4 5 4, 11 13-14 6 3 12-13 2 8 9-10 2 60-61 65-66 65 66 64 62-63 66-67 1268-1269 |