Of the 16 percent.

I always say it's one of my proudest accomplishments in my entire career in the Senate.

To sideline NIH on an issue of such importance, in my view, is shortsighted.

We moved, on this committee, to appropriate very substantial sums over a 4-year period of time.

So you are saying that that did not happen over 5 years. It just happened in 1 year?

Well, we had said, when we added that money, that $647 million in the continuing resolution, that some of that would be used for high-risk, high-impact research.

I always thought that it was higher than that. I don't know why I thought----

The idea was to get it back up to the level so that the peer-reviewed grants would be about where we were, I don't know, 25-30 years ago.

I just think, Dr. Zerhouni, we're going to have to continue to work on that.

That's good.

It is scandalous when you have the major responsibility for funding health programs in the Federal Government but are not able to use any funds for stem cell research.

Are you doing research into this?

Are you saying that diabetes is a leading indicator for having a stroke?

I am also interested in Parkinson's disease.

This woman came back, and it did not cure her of Parkinson's, but it really alleviated the symptoms greatly for her.

What would be the largest sector where that money would go for research?

It's time for the Nation's policymakers to find common ground to make sure that NIH does not lose its historical leadership.

Senator Harkin and I had to fight like tigers last year to add a little over $600 million to stop a $50 million cut in the National Cancer Institute.