Concurrent Resolution On The Budget, Fiscal Year 2016

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I heard my friend from Wyoming say he is relieving his stress over the budget by reading the Tax Code. In my religion, when you go to confession, you are given a penance for your sins. I cannot think of a more awesome penance than reading the Tax Code. I certainly hope it gives my friend from Wyoming a good frame of mind as he attacks this vote-arama.

I am going to be brief because our ranking member on the budget has arrived on the floor, but I do want to say this: Budgets make choices, and there are one or two choices--certainly more than one or two but one or two that I would like to highlight that I think are worrisome.

The Republican budget eliminates health insurance for 27 million Americans. That is 9 percent of people in America who would lose their health insurance protection because of the Republican budget. Part of it is the passionate refusal of the Republicans to accept the Affordable Care Act, which now in itself protects 15 to 16 million Americans. We have said to them, if you don't like the Affordable Care Act, give us an alternative, and they have yet to do so--and, frankly, because it is fairly difficult, as it was passing this bill. But to take health insurance away from 27 million Americans and say that is going to make a better life for working families? No, it will not. It will make a bigger challenge for these families which will be extremely difficult.

Secondly, I am worried and I think other Members from both sides of the aisle share concerns about sequestration cuts when it comes to areas such as biomedical research. How in the world can we justify cutting research from the National Institutes of Health to find cures for diseases such as cancer, Alzheimer's, diabetes--the list goes on. If we believe we are making a better America by cutting back research and innovation, particularly biomedical research, it is extremely shortsighted. When I take a look at the 200 or so pending amendments on budget resolution, it looks like there are 10 of them--including one I am going to offer--relative to medical research. Democrats and Republicans are saying spare this area of Federal spending. I would like to propose that all of us who share this goal on both sides of the aisle join in an effort to make sure this is treated differently in our budget. It shouldn't be subject to mindless and deep cuts in biomedical research, which will deny to a lot of suffering people the hope they need and deny cures that will not only save lives but save dramatic amounts of money.

I yield the floor.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. DURBIN. First, I want to thank her. I took a look at the 200 pending amendments on this budget resolution, and I think at least 10 relate to biomedical research from both sides of the aisle. This is clearly a bipartisan issue, and I thank my colleague for speaking out on this Alzheimer's issue, because these victims and advocates for research came this week to visit.

It is stunning, just stunning, to think for a moment that we diagnose a person with Alzheimer's in America once every 68 seconds. When staff told me that, I couldn't believe it. I said, that has to be wrong, but it is right. It is an indication of the rapid development and growth of this terrible disease.

So I thank my colleague for putting in perspective the fact we spend over $200 billion a year already on it, and that doesn't calculate all of the sacrifices of the caregivers in helping members of the family.

It would seem to me that amidst all this budget debate there should be certain areas that are sacred, and I think biomedical research should be one of them. I thank my colleague for speaking up on Alzheimer's and I hope we can continue this dialog on behalf of NIH and the other agencies doing the research.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, we have a Tax Code in America which creates incentives and rewards to companies all across the United States.

I am proposing what I call the patriot employers' tax credit. It is a tax credit for those American companies that hire Americans and keep their jobs in the United States, for companies that pay at least half of their employees $15 an hour--and we picked that number because at that wage, one doesn't qualify for the basic safety net programs--companies that provide good health insurance for their employees, good pension programs for their employees, and companies that give a preference to veterans and to those in the Reserve and National Guard who are serving overseas. I think those companies deserve our encouragement, a reward of a tax credit for patriotic employers.

I hope my colleagues will join me in standing up for the companies that stand up for America.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source