Richard J. Durbin

Not analysed yet

A requested analysis is usually ready within half an hour; come back to this page or reload it.

Mr. President, I have been through a lot of events on Capitol Hill in my life. There was one, last night, that was worth remembering. It was a gathering for a rally for medical research investment by Congress and the President for the good of all of our country and beyond, and there was one presentation which really had an impact. A former colleague of ours in the U.S. Senate, Ben Sasse of Nebraska, is fighting a heroic battle against cancer. He was diagnosed quite a few months ago with pancreatic cancer, and it spread throughout his body. I recall when it was first reported. Senator Sasse was candid, honest, and levelheaded in saying this is considered a death sentence, but we are going to fight it. Well, there he was last night and in communication with this group that gathered on Capitol Hill--doctors and researchers and scientists from all over the United States--to report on his progress. Nine months after they predicted he would not survive, he has survived. He talked about the fact that he was going to enjoy a meal with his family, and he counted every meal that he had with his family as a triumph over the early predictions that it would never happen. The reason I raise that point is that there are a lot of issues that come before us in Congress, and there are a lot of political opinions on those issues. What I have found over the years is that a few issues transcend politics. Medical research is one of those issues. It is a situation where I don't care if the researcher, scientist, or doctor is a Democrat or a Republican or even votes. I want to know if they are doing worthwhile research that can lead to cures, can save lives. Most every one of us has been in the circumstance where some terrible diagnosis comes out affecting someone in your family or someone you love. One of the first questions you ask, of course: Is there anything we can do? Is there a drug? Is there a surgery? Is there a procedure? Hoping beyond hope that there will be good news and at least the promise, the possibility of the one you love being spared--medical research does that. When I had a chance, about 12 years ago, to go to the National Institutes of Health, which is the premier medical research agency in the world--in the world--I met with Dr. Francis Collins. He is a legend. He served under Presidents of both political parties, headed up the NIH, and was really part of the solution and cures of so many things in front of us. And I asked him, when I visited 12 years ago: What can I do, as a Member of the Senate, to help medical research in America? And he said: Senator, if you can just give us 5 percent growth each year on a consistent basis, my researchers will have confidence that they can stick with their research and maybe find that cure. But when you go up and down with the research money, it is almost impossible to get that level of confidence. That inspired me to come back to Capitol Hill to meet with then- Republican Senator Roy Blunt of Missouri, who chaired the subcommittee that funds NIH, and I told him that story about Dr. Collins. So Roy Blunt and I, a Republican and a Democrat, reached out to enlist people to gather support in our cause, 5 percent real growth each year. Among those who were contacted was Patty Murray, who has been committed to medical research throughout her Senate career, as the ranking Democrat on the Senate Appropriations Committee, and Senator Susan Collins of Maine, who is now chairperson of the Senate Appropriations Committee, and many others. It was a bipartisan effort, and it was successful. Over the last 10 years, we have increased the spending for medical research at NIH from $30 billion a year to $49 billion a year. That substantial 60 percent increase was what Dr. Collins was asking for. Now, we have challenges that we have to face. The administration, in the first two budgets of the second Trump administration, has asked for dramatic cuts in medical research. You didn't hear me wrong. They have asked for dramatic cuts in medical research. And you say to yourself: Why? Why in the world would we take a step backward when it comes to medical research? Our former Senator Ben Sasse is living proof--living proof--that ``research leading to cures'' works. It is the right investment. Ask any family who is facing a terrible disease if research is important to them, and you know the answer already. So now comes a proposal from the Trump administration, not only on the budget to cut the NIH, but the Department of Defense and the National Institutes of Health have supposedly reached a 10-year agreement--these two Agencies. The Department of Defense, of course, is the largest Department in the Federal Government. The NIH is far from the largest. The agreement sets up a path for the Department of Defense and NIH to collaborate on chemical and biological defense research and development. That is a good thing, isn't it? Of course, it is. But who is going to pay for it? Who is going to pay for this research? The Department of Defense, which has a trillion-dollar annual budget--a trillion-dollar annual budget? Or is it the NIH, an Agency that struggles at $49 billion to fight off cuts in the budget proposed by the President? If you guessed the NIH, you are right. You see, what the announcement failed to mention was that this so-called agreement at the Department of Defense and NIH, which costs as much as $2 billion, is being paid for by virtually eliminating the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases. Let's be honest about this. A move to siphon funds away from the Nation's premier medical research Agency, which struggles with lifesaving research, to further bankroll the Pentagon, the most heavily funded Agency in our government--what is wrong with this picture? By implementing this agreement, the Trump administration will, once again, undermine the NIH, when they should be boosting it, supporting it, on a bipartisan basis. Since day one, the Trump administration has been hellbent on cutting NIH funding. This latest decision is another foolish gesture on their part, which should be stopped in its tracks. For years, this investment and research at NIH have been worthwhile. This proposal to transfer one-third of the Agency's budget on infectious diseases is a mistake. DOD is increasing its investments in medical research, and that is a good thing, I have been a supporter of that myself, when I chaired the subcommittee of appropriations on defense spending. But we need to be committed all the way when it comes to funding NIH. Mr. President, I want to talk about the treatment of air traffic controllers by this administration. Later this afternoon, I will take an airplane ride from Washington to Chicago. I think it is likely to happen today, if the Senate schedule allows it. Once again, as I have done hundreds of times--literally thousands of times--I will entrust my safety, my future, and my survival to a competent aircrew, as well as the air traffic controllers of America. It is one of the most stressful jobs in the world. They work 6-day weeks. Unfortunately, there have been proposals that they should not receive the pay raise that was promised. In April, Congress authorized a 2.8-percent pay increase for our Nation's air traffic controllers. It should be a priority. Instead, they have only received 1 percent of the 2.8 percent. This wasn't a mere oversight. It was intentional, and the administration admitted it. In a recent interview, the FAA Administrator Bryan Bedford was asked what was delaying this payment to the air traffic controllers. He told the reporter the administration needs to ``unlock more productivity,'' and that the data regarding controller productivity is ``really, really poor.'' I would like to quote Secretary Duffy back to his own Agency head, by saying: ``[Controllers] need support [and] they need money. . . . '' We are currently understaffed when it comes to air traffic control. They are working 6 days a week on one of the most stressful jobs. Give them the pay raise that we promised, and do it in a timely fashion. I yield the floor.