On the recordMarch 28, 2017
Mr. Speaker, I thank Mr. Peters for his comments. His knowledge and expertise in this field is appreciated and, I am sure when shared with the other Members of this House, will have a positive result. Mr. Peters said something toward the end of his conversation that I think we need to drive home. I said earlier that the scientists suggested that instead of a $31.7 billion budget for the NIH, they needed an additional $3.3 billion. It is for those projects that Mr. Peters described as peer-reviewed by peers in the area of science-- whether it is heart disease, cancer, or HIV or Alzheimer's--that are worthy projects for which there is no money. If we could fund those--not reduce the level of funding, as suggested by the President, but, rather, increase it--what would be the result? I am going to toss this up one more time. This is what happens when research is applied to diseases. Breast cancer down, prostate cancer down, heart disease deaths, strokes, and HIV, all down as a result of research, and then the application of that research through the medical community. This is progress. This is what can happen. This is what we want to get to.
