On September 26, the House approved, 414-2, a bill (H.R. 6164) that would reauthorize and restructure the National Institutes of Health (NIH). The House Energy and Commerce Committee approved the measure on September 20 (see The Source, 9/22/06). The bill, sponsored by Rep. Joe Barton (R-TX), would authorize $29.748 billion in FY2007, $31.235 billion in FY2008, and $32.792 billion in FY2009.
The measure also would: allow the director of NIH to use 5 percent or less of the total authorization to create a common fund to sponsor research across NIH institutes, offices, and centers; require that clinical trials be comprised of diverse human subjects, including women and minorities; require annual reporting on NIH’s collaboration with other Department of Health and Human Services agencies; require that the members of the Scientific Management Review Board have broad expertise regarding NIH functions; address fraud and abuse by requiring annual reports to Congress on activities related to whistleblower complaints; and require that the director of NIH “assemble accurate data to be used to assess research priorities, including information to better evaluate scientific opportunity, public health burdens, and progress in reducing health disparities.”
Rep. Anna Eshoo (D-CA) praised the bill, saying, “NIH, which I very affectionately call the National Institutes of Hope, is really a crown jewel in the jurisdiction of the Energy and Commerce Committee…There are many, many commendable provisions of this bill. The establishment of the common fund should serve to stimulate trans-NIH research in areas of emerging scientific opportunities, rising public health challenges, or knowledge gaps that deserve special attention and are going to benefit from additional research that involves collaboration between two or more institutes or centers…The bill contains many admirable goals and provisions that are going to help NIH in its long-term battle to overcome human disease and disability.” However, Rep. Eshoo expressed disappointment at the overall funding level in the measure: “What the bill does not address, and some Members raised this at the committee, is the issue of funding…In an effort to address this problem, Rep. Ed Markey [(D-MA)] offered an amendment during our full committee mark-up last week. His amendment sought to ensure that this Congress provided a real five percent increase in funding for NIH, not one that could be diminished by inflation. But the amendment did not pass.”
“Why is NIH reauthorization important, beyond the mechanical aspect of trying to have funding that is authorized and is given full oversight? Well, I think when you talk about major pieces of legislation you tend to talk in abstract terms, but I want tonight to personalize it a little bit,” said Rep. Barton. He continued, “My brother, John Barton, died of liver cancer six years ago. At the time that he passed away, he was taking an experimental NIH drug that, had it worked, would have saved his life…My father passed away 10 years ago from complications of diabetes. The NIH has invested and is investing tremendous resources in trying to find a way to combat the scourge of diabetes. I had an aunt who passed away from breast cancer 16 years ago. As we all know, that is one of the priority areas for NIH research. I myself had a heart attack last December 15th, but I was able to be successfully treated because of NIH research that has created what we now call these coated stents…So when I talk about the need to reauthorize and reform the NIH, I am talking in an academic sense, but I am also talking very personal. It helps my family. It helps every American family.”
