Statement of Congressman John D. Dingell, Ranking Member
Committee on Energy and Commerce

COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE MARKUP

September 20, 2006

Today we are marking up several health-related bills along with some noncontroversial energy matters and two resolutions. In the interest of time, I will focus on just two of the health bills.

First, I welcome your efforts, Mr. Chairman, to consider a reauthorization of the National Institutes of Health (NIH). You have included minority staff in many of the discussions, and there is much in the bill to commend it. I note that many stakeholders have taken a similar view.

It is unfortunate, however, that the Members of this Committee are being required to make snap decisions on many important issues. The hearing on the bill occurred just yesterday and there was no subcommittee markup. This will make it difficult to perfect the bill.

The greatest problem this Congress has created for NIH, however, is tight funding. This was not created in this Committee, nor will it be solved in this Committee. After years of significant funding increases for NIH in its fight against disease, this Congress has effectively chosen to provide flat funding for NIH. After adjusting for inflation, this actually is a cut.

The budget resolution passed by this House on a partisan basis has resulted in a budget allocation for the House Labor-HHS Appropriations Subcommittee that provides for the flat funding of programs in its jurisdiction, including NIH. The Senate Subcommittee had an allocation just slightly higher, and it reported a bill with an increase of $200 million, or a 0.7 percent increase. Tax cuts have taken a higher priority than domestic programs such as NIH and education.

We are today marking up a bill that purports to authorize a 5 percent increase in the NIH budget over each of the next three years. But we know that when the Congressional Budget Office scores this bill, it will score it as costing nothing. That is because it merely authorizes appropriations, and there is no reason to believe that there will be any increase this year, no matter what we do today.

Second, the Committee will be considering the Ryan White HIV/AIDS Treatment Modernization Act of 2006. Since 1990, the Ryan White funding has been an integral part of our domestic response to the HIV/AIDS epidemic. The CARE Act makes taxpayer dollars available to metropolitan areas, States, and territories for essential healthcare services and medications for people living with and affected by HIV/AIDS.

When Democratic staff set out to engage in the bipartisan, bicameral process with majority staff and staff from the Senate, we were presented with an opportunity to ensure that the Ryan White program continues its vital role in our response to the HIV/AIDS epidemic. Yet, even after months of negotiation and the best efforts of a dedicated team, Members on both sides of the aisle are left with many unanswered questions and are understandably unwilling to give up the certainty they see in current law for the uncertainty this proposal provides.

This is another program hurt by the majority’s budget priorities. No amount of negotiation can change the fact that this program has been underfunded. Simply put, without more money, there are too many cities and States hurt by suggested changes to achieve the needed consensus.

- 30 -

(Contact: Jodi Seth, 202-225-3641)