That would not achieve the goal that we all would have to agree is critical for our future.

I think this is another wonderful example of how our efforts to help those who are seeking treatment for addiction need to have a broader range of options than what currently is possible.

I predicted that we might actually find in the next 10 years an artificial pancreas reaching FDA approval.

If we were thinking of a collection of the genome's greatest hits, this would go on the list.

You are right, and Mrs. Lowey, you are right, and all those who have made this case are right that we have not been taking enough attention as we should to balancing males and females in preclinical research.

This is a matter of great urgency, not just because of the economics, of course, but also because of the enormous human tragedies that are attached to this disease.

To achieve our mission, we must serve as effective and efficient stewards of the resources we have been given by the American public.

I urge everybody here because gathered in this room at this moment are the people who make the decision in the United States Senate.

I really am hopeful that Democrats and Republicans can come together again this time and build on the bipartisan foundation.

Give us 5 percent real growth for 10 straight years and we can make a difference in the lives of people around the world and save more than the money that you will put into medical research.

That hangs over us like a dark cloud, because if sequestration is not dealt with, we stand to lose another $19 billion that would have gone to medical research over the coming years.

There is generally broad embrace for the need in preclinical studies to include males and females unless there is a compelling reason.

The challenge here in terms of both the economic and human cost of this disease can hardly be overstated.

Cystic fibrosis is a wonderful example of how knowing the molecular basis of a disease can get you to a point with a great deal of hard work to a targeted therapeutic.

the worst thing you can do, I think, to biomedical research is to create an area of uncertainty, of ups and down, of a roller coaster.

It is unprecedented to have NIH and academic researchers getting together around the same table with equal financial contributions with these 10 pharmaceutical companies.

The best thing we could do for science would be to get on that kind of a stable, predictable trajectory so we can plan more than 3 months at a time.

We are constraining the energy, the innovation, the creativity of the most amazing engine for discovery the world has seen, which is America's science.

This subcommittee came together in a bipartisan way to reverse the deeply troubling downward spiral of support that NIH has found costing us about 25 percent of our purchasing power for research over the last 10 years.

That's our seed corn. It has been the strength of America . . . the biomedical research community, their creativity, their innovative instincts, and we're putting that at serious risk as we see this kind of downturn in the support for…

Biomedical research is at a critical juncture--a moment of exceptional opportunities that demand exceptional attention if their promise is to be fully realized.

If the public has paid for the research, the public should have access to it.

It's often, it seems to me, that vision research is a couple of steps in front of things that are happening in biomedical research. It's clear that vision research has played a disproportionately large share in scientific breakthroughs.

If we were thinking of a collection of the genome's greatest hits, this would go on the list.

Clearly, with pancreatic cancer, one of the big problems is the inability to know it is there until it is already very far advanced.