National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2018

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, each year the Department of Defense funds billions of dollars in military-relevant medical research--research that offers our servicemembers concrete treatments for the particular diseases and afflictions that impact them the most, research that offers families hope, research that improves lives, and research that saves lives.

Last summer, during consideration of the fiscal year 2017 Defense Authorization Act, there was a question as to whether Congress would permit this lifesaving research to continue or whether instead we would wrap it up in so much redtape that it would basically go away.

I was proud that this Senate Chamber, on a bipartisan basis, voted resoundingly to continue medical research in the Department of Defense by a vote 66 to 32. It was an important, bipartisan vote, especially in a Senate where we have a difficult time finding common ground. When it came to medical research in the Department of Defense for members of the military and their families, we said unequivocally that we are committed to it on a bipartisan basis. I was proud to lead that fight, along with Senator Roy Blunt of Missouri, a Republican, to protect defense medical research. Altogether, 40 of my Republican and Democratic colleagues co sponsored our effort.

That vote was not just a vote for medical research, it was a vote for the men and women in the military and their families. The vote recognized that right now, we are closer than ever to finding cures for dreaded diseases like cancer; closer than ever to understanding how to delay the onset of neurological diseases like Alzheimer's and Parkinson's; closer than ever to developing a universal flu vaccine.

That vote recognized that now is the time to be ramping up our investment in medical research, not scaling it back. The Senate spoke, but unfortunately it didn't end the debate.

This year, the fiscal year 2018 National Defense Authorization Act now pending on the floor of the Senate repeats last year's research- killing provisions and, for inexplicable reasons, adds two more. Just like last year, these provisions in the bill pending on the floor of the Senate would effectively end the Department of Defense medical research program. Like last year, these provisions wrapped this research in more redtape than you could possibly explain. And we face the prospect for the second year in a row of the end of this critical, lifesaving medical research.

These provisions are dangerous, and by cutting medical research, they will cost lives--the lives of our military and their families. So I filed a bipartisan amendment, along with 53 additional cosponsors and my lead cosponsor, Senator Roy Blunt, Republican of Missouri, to remove these provisions from this Defense authorization bill so that lifesaving research can continue.

The underlying Defense authorization bill has four provisions that, if enacted, will end the DOD's research.
The first provision, section 733, would require the Secretary of Defense to certify that each medical research grant awarded is ``designed to directly protect, enhance or restore the health and safety of members of the Armed Forces''--not veterans, not retirees, not the spouses of military members, not the children of military members.

To make matters worse, after the Secretary makes this certification in writing to the Armed Services Committee, the Defense Department is then required to wait 90 days before awarding the grant. It is not only redtape, it is built-in delay.

In my view, veterans, retirees, and spouses and children of servicemembers are all vital members of the Department of Defense's military community. They use the Department of Defense healthcare system. They deserve to be counted. When a member of the military deploys, the family deploys, and we ought to stand by all of them.

The second provision, section 891, requires that medical research grant applicants meet the same accounting and pricing standards that DOD requires of procurement contracts. That sounds simple enough, doesn't it? But these are regulations that private companies have to meet to sell the Department of Defense goods and services, like weapon systems and equipment.

The third provision, section 892, changes the ground rules for how to handle the technical data generated by this research--information related to clinical trials and manufacturing processes. How does this bill change it? This should sound familiar: by wiping away the existing regulations and imposing overly burdensome and unappealing regulations that would scare off research partners.

I am sympathetic to what this section may be attempting to do. In the face of ever-increasing prescription drug costs, it does make sense for the Federal Government to have more rights when it comes to products and treatments developed with Federal taxpayer dollars. However, we must be more strategic about how to approach this. I look forward to working across the aisle on ways to beef up the government's role in helping to keep drug costs down, especially for products that would not have been possible without Federal investments.
The fourth provision, section 893, requires the Defense Contract Audit Agency to conduct audits on each grant recipient.

For those who aren't familiar with this audit agency, it is currently backlogged with tens of billions of dollars' worth of procurement contracts that it has to audit. This provision in the bill would add to this pile, requiring it to conduct an additional 800 audits per month on medical research grants--more redtape; no real reason.
Taxpayers deserve to know how their money is being spent, and the existing system does that. The grant application must show that the research is relevant to the military. No grant makes it through the first round without showing clear military relevance. If an applicant fails this test, that is the end of the story. If they clear the hurdle, then they are subjected to a long list of critical defense researchers

[[Page S5719]]

and issue experts in the disease in question to ensure that their research proposal is worth the investment. But that is not it.

Representatives from the National Institutes of Health and the Department of Veterans Affairs also have input at that point to make sure it doesn't duplicate any existing research. These rules are in place to protect taxpayer dollars, and they work.

This year's Defense authorization attempts to add redtape to the program in the name of protecting it but in reality ends it. Simply put, these provisions would strangle the Department of Defense medical research program in suffocating redtape. Don't take my word for it. The Coalition for National Security Research, representing a broad-based coalition of research universities and institutes, said:

[These sections] could jeopardize funding for research activities that have broader relevance to U.S. military, including the health and wellbeing of military families and veterans, and the efficiency of the military healthcare system.

We asked the Department of Defense how the new system proposed in this bill would work. Here is their analysis:

This language would, in essence, eliminate military family and military retiree relevant medical research, inhibit military medical training programs, and impact future health care cost avoidance. Impacts will take place across all areas. . . . [Researchers] would most likely not want to do business with the DOD. . . . [The provisions] may create a chilling effect on potential awardees of DOD assistance agreements.

A ``chilling effect'' on medical research--is that what we want to go
on the record to vote for with this bill? Is that what the Senate wants? Is that what we want to say to members of the military, their families, and retirees? I don't think so.

These provisions are simply put in the bill to erect roadblocks to critical, important medical research.
Let's talk for a minute about the medical research funded by DOD, the real-world impact.

Since fiscal year 1992, the Congressionally Directed Medical Research Programs has invested almost $12 billion in innovative medical research. This medical research command determines the appropriate research strategy, filling research gaps, and creates a public-private partnership between the Federal Government, private universities, and those who desperately need this research.

In 2004, the Institute of Medicine, an independent organization, looked at the medical research program that I have discussed, and what did they find? ``The CDMRP has shown that it has been an efficiently managed and scientifically productive effort.'' That is a pretty solid endorsement of $12 billion worth of medical research.

They found that this program ``concentrates its resources on research mechanisms that complement rather than duplicate the research approaches of major funders of medical research in the United States, such as the National Institutes of Health.'' They also found that ``the program appears to be well-run, supports high-quality research, and contributes to research progress.''

The Institute of Medicine also reviewed the program in 2016. This was their conclusion just last summer about the same program:

CDMRP is a well-established medical research funding organization, covering many health conditions of concern to members of the military and veterans, their families, and the general public. . . . In general--

And this is highlighted--

the committee found CDMRP processes for reviewing and selecting applications for funding to be effective in allocating funds for each research program.

This program has been closely vetted, as it should be. It is a matter of medical research critical to members of the military and their families. It is a matter of life and death. It is a matter of the integrity of spending taxpayers' dollars. It is a good program, a solid program. It has not been wrought with scandal. There is no reason for us to turn it upside down or to turn the lights out in the offices of these researchers.

The Institute of Medicine had this right. We have real results to back up the way we feel about this. What areas have they embarked on with critical successful research? One of the greatest success stories of this program is advances we have made in breast cancer treatment. In 1993, the Department of Defense awarded Dr. Dennis Slamon two grants totaling $1.7 million for a tumor tissue bank to study breast cancer.

He began his work several years earlier with funding from the National Cancer Institute. The DOD kicked in to help.

Dr. Slamon's DOD-funded work helped to develop Herceptin, which is now FDA approved, one of the most widely used drugs to fight breast cancer. This research has not only saved the lives of countless women in the military, but it has had application far beyond the military.

The same thing is true when it comes to prostate cancer and Parkinson's disease. What we found over and over is that money invested in this program for medical research is money well spent. Why, then, would we bury this program in redtape?

I am happy that some 54 or 55 Senators from both sides of the aisle are going to stand with me, and I see I have other colleagues preparing to speak. I will return to speak more specifically about the programs of this agency.

Is there a person in this country who believes that America is spending too much money on medical research? Well, perhaps there is, but I haven't met them. What I have found over and over is that Members of both political parties are committed to medical research. The Department of Defense does a great job with the resources given to them.

Let's continue this program as a salute to our men and women in the military, their families, and our veterans.
I yield the floor.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source