independent laws each dealing with particular medical research problems and create interference with the attaining of the highly desirable objectives of S. 2385 to coordinate Federal medical research in a National Science Foundation.

Senator SMITH. Mrs. Gardiner Cowles has requested that her testimony be read at this hearing and it is inserted in the record at this point.

(The brief of Mrs. Cowles is as follows:)

STATEMENT OF MRS. GARDINER COWLES

The proposed legislation presently being considered by this committee-the enactment of a National Heart Act-confronts your members with a domestic crisis equal to or greater than any now facing our country on the international scene. There is loose in this land today an insidious killer that annually accounts for more than 588,000 American deaths. Unless arrested and brought under control, this killer will eventually claim the lives of 60,000,000 of our citizens presently alive.

There is one stark fact facing this honorable body which cannot be evaded: The American people are looking to Congress for the apprehension of the Nation's No. 1 criminal-diseases of the heart and circulation. To people that are ordinarily shocked and horrified by even a single homicide in any of its communities, this bill is looked upon as a challenge to Congress.

Ordinarily, I dislike quoting statistics to support a point, for even the devil can quote scripture. Too often I find that statistics make people think of a problem in terms of dollars, automobiles, radios, or some other commodity. But there are some facts and figures from which we cannot escape. For instance, one out of every three deaths in the United States is presently caused by diseases of the heart and circulation. In varying degrees, 9,000,000 of our people--or about 1 in every 16 Americans-are disabled by heart and allied diseases.

Now, the figures I have quoted do not represent commodities, goods, or other material wealth. They represent people-human beings who constitute the United States of America. This Nation is not composed of brick and mortar, cities and towns, farms, factories, and forests. It is made up of people; people who have made this the greatest Nation on earth. Yet, we have permitted diseases of the heart and arteries to murder more than 588,000 of them in one short year-more than twice the number of casualties we sustained in our armed forces during World War II.

Nor can we stop there. Medical records indicate that circulatory and heart deaths are steadily on the increase. Everywhere, our citizens are constantly threatened by one phase or another of the disease. They live under the constant fear of expecting that one out of every two past the age of 45 will succumb to heart disease. Where human lives are concerned, these are short odds-they are odds that are constantly growing shorter.

I believe that the American people have the right to demand that Congress make its contribution in the fight to cut deaths due to heart disease. That Congress is charged with this duty is clear from even a cursory reading of the preamble to the Constitution of the United States. For, no one will challenge the fact that some 800,000 annual deaths caused by arterial and heart diseases creates a problem that falls within the purview of the general welfare clause.

One of the glories of the United States is the freedom accorded the individual to follow those pursuits deemed most likely to bring him happiness. It has been because of that ideal that our Nation has produced some of the world's greatest statesmen, lawmakers, scientists, educators, and other personalities. We cannot, however, evade the bitter truth that many of our finest minds have been and will be heart-disease casualties in their prime of life. Quite often they are lost to us when our Nation has the greatest need for their talents. Recent examples of such tragic national losses were the untimely deaths of men like Franklin Roosevelt and Wendell Willkie. Cut down at the zenith of their mental powers and abilities, their deaths deprived our country of their mature talents at a time when they desired to serve it most.

In time of war, we moved swiftly, and without regard for cost, to defeat the enemy that threatened us. I believe the problem of heart and arterial diseases should be approached on the same basis that we approached the problem of human security and the right to life during the war.

The toll of human life should not be measured in terms of dollars. Nevertheless, fewer than $3,000,000 a year, of both private and Government funds, are presently being spent in this country on research for new treatments and cures for diseases of the heart and circulation. This amounts to $3.98 per death to combat these diseases. And our Government alone has seen fit to allocate only $1.65 per death to combat the No. 1 killer of Americans!

Medical science has conquered yellow fever, diphtheria, typhoid, smallpox, and other dire afflictions. It has even robbed leprosy and tuberculosis of their terrors. In spite of the advances made by medical science, the death rate of heart and arterial diseases continues to climb steadily.

Enactment of the bill before you will enable eager scientists, long handicapped by a lack of funds, to exchange their inadequate equipment for modern weapons of medical warfare. Creation of a National Heart Institute with large sums for research, medical education, and facilities, would help to eradicate a condition whereby, according to the American Medical Association, only 635 doctors out of a national effective force of 135,000 physicians, now specialize in the field of heart disease.

Such an institute would give grants-in-aid to institutions for research into new treatments and cures. It would provide doctors with refresher courses and medical students with better teaching. It would promote better coordination of research work in these fields. It would make more available for prompt use new information in the field of heart disease. Above all, it would help save some of the 600,000 who annually die from heart and arterial diseases-25 percent of whom are under the age of 60. By extending their productive life, we would necessarily benefit our national economy, our national well-being and our national security.

For the sake of our children; for the living-hopeful and courageous-trusting the vision of their legislators, doctors, and scientists, we must and we can conquer this scourge. The will of the American people demands aggressive warfare against the common enemy. We owe it to ourselves to meet the challenge. The obligation for leadership in the fight now rests in the hands of Congress. Senator SMITH. Mr. Goldblatt, will you take the stand, please. Mr. Goldblatt, we are very glad to hear from you. I understand you have made quite a study of health problems and have been of great help to the American Cancer Society. We have heard much of your activities on which you are to be congratulated, and it is a pleasure to have you appear before the committee.

Just feel free to speak as you wish.

Mr. GOLDBLATT. I should like to stand up, if I may.

Senator SMITH. You may be more comfortable seated, but do as you please.

STATEMENT OF MAURICE GOLDBLATT, CHICAGO, ILL.

Mr. GOLDBLATT. My remarks may take about 10 minutes and I never sat that long in my lifetime.

It is a great pleasure to appear before you on such a great cause. It is an honor and a privilege to testify on behalf of this bill, S. 2215. As you may know, I am not a doctor nor a scientist, not even a speaker.

In order to relate to you the facts which will encourage you to pass this bill I will have to mention some of my experience of the last 2 years. I might have to talk about myself a little so I will have to mention my background.

In 1914 my brother Nathan and I started a little store. At the time I was 21 years of age and we had a capital of $500. During the succeeding years our volume of business has reached close to $100,000,000. In that time we have done as other businessmen have done and

served as directors of different institutions and I have been on the board of a hospital and have a little knowledge of medical work. About 32 years ago, at the height of life, my brother Nathan passed away suddenly with cancer. About 6 months before that we had had a meeting of our board and my brother Nathan and I had a talk as to what was the best thing to do with the money. After a survey it was recommended we put the money into cancer research. That answer did not suit us. My father and mother died of heart disease and the result was we did not do a thing. Six months later my brother Nathan died of cancer.

Naturally, when I have seen a person suddenly becoming sick and know that no doctor can do anything for him it has stunned me terribly. That was the case when my brother died and for 4 or 5 months afterward I did not know what to do.

At that time I did not know anything about the subject so I said, "I am going out to see how many people are killed by cancer. I will see how much research is being done." To my surprise, I found such a large number of people losing their living from this terrible disease and such a small amount of research being done that I looked for the reason.

The reason I found was that there were not enough facilities, nor doctors, nor scientists.

I approached the University of Chicago and talked with some of the outstanding doctors. Dr. Huggins, who has found a cure for cancer of the prostate, showed me how by facilities and equipment he could conduct investigations and research into the disease. I talked with other outstanding cancer and leukemia researchers.

After that, I finally met scientists like Dr. Urey, Dr. Zirkle, Dr. Franck, men who had a great deal of responsibility for the atomic bomb. They said they could do a great deal of research-cancer research and in the field of atomic energy-but they needed facilities. They needed a building and machines and equipment. They said their requirement was $5,100,000 which they did not believe they had a chance of getting, because they could not get $500,000 equipment.

I had a meeting with the Chicago trustees and told them of their responsibility and if they would allow me to form a board for a University of Chicago Cancer Research Foundation with men interested in finding the cure for cancer, I would provide the money-$5,000,000. They asked how it could be done. I said I would give them $1,000,000 now. They were not ready yet to take the money because they said, "We are spending $280,000 now." After these proposed facilities were set up they said, "We will spend a million and a half" and asked, "How are you going to get that?"

I went out and saw the American Cancer Society and talked to the top people there. I heard from them what they were doing and said I would be glad to go on their board to help raise funds for the society if they would pledge their support to the University of Chicago's society, which they said they would do.

I went down to see the Public Health Service at Bethesda and saw Dr. Scheele there for the first time. He said they would be able to give them large sums of money with which to conduct their research when I told him what they were doing. When I told that to the University of Chicago they were delighted and they OK'd the deal to go on with the buildings immediately. We went out and inside 4 or 5 weeks raised close to $2,000,000 outside of the money I gave them.

Today, the University of Chicago has all the money needed for these facilities. They are going through with these plans, but not fast enough to suit me.

But while I was working on this, I could not help but get this heart situation right. I went to see these outstanding men and got large sums of money, but the question came up, What are they doing on the heart?

I went to see certain people who could not see me because they were suffering from a heart attack. I could not ask them for funds for cancer for I knew their problem was the heart. They made me feel that they would contribute to a program to push research into heart trouble to a larger extent than to cancer because cancer affects more women than men-so far as they were concerned. Over the age of 55 it is the woman's enemy. So, I think I could have done a much bigger job with men if I had talked "heart" to them.

I went back to the university and found so little was being done on the heart. I went to see Dr. Bain of the University of Chicago. He said, "I have operated on a dog, but I haven't the room to do anything more." He added, "I hope after this cancer hospital is up they will give me more space."

I went to see Dr. Kharasch. He was just crying for something to carry on with and I talked to outstanding heart specialists all over. It was just the same cry with all of them.

Now the American Heart Association is going to be strengthened. They are going to do a much bigger job if the Public Health will set up the department the way you have it in this bill. In other words, the same situation I found on cancer I found on the heart. I went to the Public Health Service and asked, "What are you doing on the heart?" They gave me a statement.

Dr. Dyer said the Government was providing $9,100,000 to universities for research. Out of that only $725,000 went for heart research. We need a department to start the ball rolling and I know the minute it is established it will strengthen the American Heart Association to raise money.

I have a record here that I would like to read to you. This will answer the question which your committee asked General Donovan, "Will the public give if the Government gives?"

National Heart Institute legislation is needed to dramatize the problem for public interest. An example of public and private interest is demonstrated in the outstanding work of the American Cancer Society and its Government counterpart, the National Cancer Institute.

The following tabulation represent contributions to the American Cancer Society and Congressional appropriations to the National Cancer Institute:

It is believed that the record of public and private interest in the cancer problem is demonstrated by the joint attack of these two organizations on a common enemy-cancer.

More and not less private funds have come forward each year as the need was demonstrated by the American Cancer Society and the National Cancer Institute.

The life-insurance companies paid out approximately $400,000,000 on heart research. The Whitney Foundation paid out $200,000 on heart research. A total of $2,300,000 on heart research was spent last

year.

This year I hope the contributions by private interests will be larger still.

I am trying to bring out to you, gentlemen, that the effect of Government contributions to this cause has been to encourage private contributors. People who are worried that the Government may have to carry the whole load when once they set up a fund can cease their worrying. I have talked to Senators and Congressmen and you are interested that the Government should not do the larger part, but that the public should do it. These figures show that the Government does encourage private contributors very substantially.

So it will be with the American Heart Association. It will enable that group to do a bigger job and receive more cooperation from the public generally.

When we become 55 years old, we have two great enemies. Just like in this last world war these enemies are powerful. One is cancer and the other is the heart. We have to know more of their ways-how they attack us. And we have to have research. We just do not know about them. I have talked to different doctors and they tell me, "You can walk out of this door and drop dead of heart disease."

That is because we do not know enough about the heart and we will not know until we provide facilities for research. There is high blood pressure and many different troubles which require big hospitals so people can be kept in them for a year or two with an opportunity to follow through with research. Instead of that, today the hospitals are so overloaded that they push them right out and there is no chance to make a study of cases.