National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2017

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, do the math. A Federal prisoner held in a Federal prison in America today costs us about $30,000 a year. The most serious and dangerous criminal prisoners held in the Federal prison system are put in supermax facilities for $86,000 a year. That is the cost. Not a single prisoner has ever escaped from a supermax facility in the United States--ever. It costs $30,000 for routine prisoners and $86,000 for the most dangerous.

What does it cost us to incarcerate one detainee each year at Guantanamo? It costs $5 million apiece--$5 million for each detainee. The budget to keep Guantanamo open is about $500 million a year, and we have fewer than 100 detainees there, and there is a request for another $200 million in construction at Guantanamo. So when Senators come to the floor and say we have got to keep Guantanamo open for fewer than 100 detainees, one obviously has to ask the question: Is there another place they can be held just as safely, just as securely, at considerably less cost? The answer is obvious. The answer is clear. The supermax Federal prisons can hold anyone convicted of terrorism, serial murder, or heinous crimes, and can hold them securely without any fear of escape.

The argument was made by the Senator from Kentucky: Well, if we are going to put terrorists in prisons across America instead of Guantanamo, that is a danger to the community. Really?

I represent the State of Illinois. We have the Marion Federal Prison in southern Illinois. We have a lot of good men and women who work there. What are we doing? For $30,000 a year, we are holding convicted terrorists in the Marion Federal prison. I have been a Senator for Illinois for 20 years. How many times have I received complaints that terrorists were being incarcerated at the Marion Federal penitentiary? None--not one, not one time.

So for the symbol of maintaining Guantanamo, we are going to continue to spend $5 million a year per detainee. This bill before us, the Defense authorization bill, will continue that.

If we are looking to save some money that taxpayers are giving to our government and perhaps should be spent in better ways, let's start with Guantanamo. The President is right that if they are a danger to America and the world, they could be safely held in other prisons across the United States at a fraction of the cost of what we are spending at Guantanamo. Those who call themselves fiscal conservatives cannot ignore that obvious argument.

Let me say a word. I support Senator Shaheen's provision when it comes to the Afghans who helped us. It is a good provision. These men and women risked their lives for us and for the men and women in uniform. We need to allow them to come safely to the United States and be in a position where they can have peace of mind that they are not going to be killed because they are friends of America. I think her provision is a good one. I am anxious to support it.

Let me just say on the state of play on amendments that I have an amendment that I consider to be very important. I offered it over a week ago, so Members have had more than enough time to take a look at it. I will describe it in very simple terms, instead of going into a long explanation, although I certainly have one ready.

Basically, within this bill--and S. 2943, the National Defense Authorization Act, is a big bill--there is about $524 billion in spending for our Department of Defense. I want America to always be safe, always have the best, and I want us to invest in the men and women of our military because we believe in them, their families, and our veterans.

There is a provision in this bill, though, that troubles me greatly. It is an effort to eliminate a program known as the Congressionally Directed Medical Research Programs. How big is this medical research program? It is $1.3 billion. It is less than two-tenths of 1 percent of the total expenditure for the Department of Defense.

Is it important? I think it is very important. For 25 years, the Department of Defense medical research has come through with breakthrough financing to eliminate concerns, and it gives hope to members of the military, their families, and to everybody living across America.

I remember when it started. I was a Member of the House of Representatives. It was 1992. One group came forward--the Breast Cancer Coalition. They said: We need a reliable place to turn for a steady investment in breast cancer research. That is what started the program.

It is true that breast cancer is not limited to the military. But it is also true that there is a higher incidence of breast cancer among women in our military than in the general population for reasons we still don't understand. So is this an important issue to the military and the rest of America? Of course, it is. Over the last 25 years, we have invested more than $3 billion in breast cancer research through this program. Has it been worth it? I can tell you it has. Through their research, they developed a drug called Herceptin. The Department of Defense medical research developed this drug Herceptin to fight breast cancer.

One of my colleagues here in the Senate told me this morning that the life of his wife was saved by this drug, Herceptin. I was downstairs for a press conference just a few minutes ago. Another woman came up to me and said that her life was saved. She was diagnosed with breast cancer, and Herceptin saved her life. That was a part of the investment in the Department of Defense medical research program that paid off. I can go on--and I will later--about other investments that have paid off, not just for the members of the military and their families but for all of America.

What is proposed in this bill is the largest cut in medical research since sequestration in Congress. We asked the Department of Defense: If the provisions of this bill that are being asked for are put in place, what impact will it have on medical research programs in the Department of Defense? They said it would effectively eliminate them.

This proposal in this bill will swamp medical research programs in the Department of Defense with more redtape than they have ever seen. An example of this is that this Department of Defense authorization bill calls for an annual audit of every entity applying for medical research grants from the Department of Defense. The audit requirements are the same as for the largest defense contractors in the United States. We have never held other entities other than the largest defense contractors to these standards. It will require an additional 2,400 audits a year by the Department of Defense.

Well, does the agency that does the auditing have the extra personnel? Do they have work that needs to be done? It turns out that they have $43 billion in existing contracts that have not been audited, and this bill will pile on 2,400 more audits. It will slow down any effort to promote medical research, and it will dramatically increase the overhead costs for that medical research.

Surely, there must be some scandal in this program that led to the conclusion that we need all this redtape. But the answer is no. The close scrutiny and investigation of the Institute of Medicine and other entities have found that this program over the years has been a good program. It has had some mistakes, but only a handful when you look at the thousands of medical research grants that have been given.

I am going to ask for an opportunity to offer this amendment to strike the provisions which basically kill the Department of Defense medical research program that is directed by Congress.

We don't earmark what entities are going to get the grants. It is a competitive, peer-reviewed process. I want to make sure this amendment gets a vote, and, after that vote, I will be more than happy to move forward on all the amendments on this bill. It is an important bill, and I hope we can pass it at the end of the day.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, this Senator will never apologize for medical research--never. I certainly understand the National Institutes of Health have the primary responsibility for medical research. I am pleased to report that at this moment in the subcommittee, we are marking up an increase of more than 5 percent in the funding for that important agency.

I thank Senator Blunt from the other side of the aisle and Senator Murray from our side of the aisle for finding the resources for that. But to argue that because we are putting money into the National Institutes of Health we can take money away from the Department of Defense ignores the obvious. We take money away from the Department of Defense medical research program at the expense of men and women in the military, their families, and veterans.

Look at the example the Senator from Arizona used. He stood and he pointed to his chart and he said: Well, there is even spending here for epilepsy and seizures. Now, why would that be? We have to spend money on our military and their issues.

Well, let's take a look. Since the year 2000, over 300,000 Active- Duty servicemembers have experienced a traumatic brain injury. Currently, the prevalence of post-traumatic epilepsy among those members who have suffered a brain injury is unknown. There are few risk factors that are known to guide decisionmaking in diagnosing the treatment of the disease. According to the American Epilepsy Society, over 50 percent of TBI victims--these are military members who have been exposed to traumatic brain injury with penetrating head injury from the Korean and Vietnam wars--have developed post-traumatic epilepsy. For the Senator from Arizona to point to this as one of the wasteful areas of medical research is to ignore the obvious: that 300,000 of our men and women in uniform have suffered from traumatic brain injury. And we know from past experience that many of them end up with post-traumatic epilepsy. To argue, then, that this medical research into epilepsy and seizures has no application or value to members of the military is basically to ignore the obvious.

What we have tried to do in establishing this program is, first, we cannot earmark that any grant be given to any institution. All we can do is suggest to the Department of Defense areas that we think have relevance to our military. They then have to make the decision. Each and every grant has to pass a threshold requirement that it have relevance to the military and their health.

Well, it turns out there are many things that are concerning. Would you guess that prostate cancer is a major concern in the military as opposed to the rest of our population? You should because the incidence of prostate cancer among those who serve in the military is higher than it is in the general population. Why is that? Is it an exposure to something while they served? Is there something we can do to spare military families from this cancer by doing basic research? I am not going to apologize for that, nor am I going to apologize for the breast cancer commitment that has been made by this Department of Defense medical research program.

The Senator from Arizona is correct. Groups are coming to us and saying: This Department of Defense medical research is absolutely essential.

I just had a press conference with the Breast Cancer Coalition. There has been $3 billion invested in breast cancer research through the Department of Defense over the last 24 years. As I said earlier, it led to the development of a new drug that saved the lives of breast cancer victims--Herceptin. The drug has saved lives. To argue that this money was not well spent, should have been in another category, didn't apply here and there--let's look beyond that. Let's consider the lives saved, not just of men and women across America but of members of families of those who have served our country.

The list goes on and on. I could spend the next hour or more going through every single one of them. The provision of the Senator from Arizona in his own bill is designed to eliminate the medical research programs at the Department of Defense. That is not my conclusion; that is the conclusion of the Department of Defense. He has put in so much redtape and so many obstacles and added so much overhead and so much delay that he will accomplish his goal of killing off medical research at the Department of Defense directed by Congress. That would be a terrible outcome--a terrible outcome for people who are counting on this research.

No apologies. I am for increasing the money at the National Institutes of Health. I have said that already. And I am for increasing money at the Department of Defense. It has been money well spent and well invested for the men and women of our military.

I might add and let me first acknowledge that my colleague from Arizona has a distinguished record serving the United States in our U.S. Navy. We all know his heroic story and what he went through. So I am not questioning his commitment to the military in any way whatsoever. But I will tell you that veterans organizations and others stand by my position on this issue. When we had the press conference earlier, it wasn't just the Breast Cancer Coalition; the Disabled American Veterans was also there asking us to defeat this provision in the bill that would put an end to the Department of Defense medical research programs.

For the good of these families, all of the members of these families in the military, as well as our veterans, let's not walk away from this fundamental research.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I ask for 2 minutes.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, the total for the Department of Defense medical research programs we are discussing amounts to less than 0.2 percent of this total budget--less than two-tenths of 1 percent--and the Senator from Arizona is arguing that we are wasting money that could otherwise be spent in more valuable ways for our military. We are not wasting money; we are investing in medical research programs that serve our military, their families, and our veterans, and I will never apologize for that.

Yes, these groups are upset because they have seen the progress that has been made with these investments, coordinating with the NIH and the Institute of Medicine. They have done the right thing. They have found cures, they have relieved the problems and challenges facing our military, their families, and the veterans who have served.

In terms of whether the amendment the Senator has already put into the bill is going to have any negative impact on Department of Defense medical research, let me quote the Department of Defense and what they said about the language from Chairman McCain: These changes would drastically delay the awards, risking the timely obligation of funds, significantly increase the effort and cost for both the recipients and the Federal Government. With the additional audit services needed, documentation that recipients would be required to provide, changes to recipients' accounting systems, the scientific programs would be severely impacted. Massive confusion would follow. Most likely, recipients would not want to do business with the Department of Defense. These issues would lead to the failure of the Congressionally Directed Medical Research Program.

If the Senator wanted to come and just say ``Put an end to it,'' that would be bold, that would be breathtaking, but it would be direct and it would be honest. What he has done is cover it in redtape. I am in favor of research, not redtape. There is no need to kill off these critical medical research programs for our military and our veterans.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source