[Congressional Record Volume 157, Number 39 (Tuesday, March 15, 2011)]
[Senate]
[Pages S1614-S1615]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                               THE BUDGET

  Mr. DURBIN. Madam President, last week, Senator Inouye of Hawaii, the 
chairman of the Senate Appropriations Committee, proposed a bill to 
fund the government through the end of this fiscal year. It is hard to 
believe we are almost halfway through this year and still haven't 
resolved the basic issue of our budget. Our failure to resolve it, 
lurching from 2 weeks to 3 weeks of funding, may serve some political 
purpose, but it doesn't serve the purpose of good government because 
many people who have to make critical decisions that involve more than 
a momentary glimpse or glance at our fiscal situation are held back.
  I met a man last night whose business is to supply the United States 
with vaccine for anthrax, tuberculosis, and similar things. We have an 
inadequate stockpile of vaccine. The government has said to him: We 
want you to produce more vaccine, but we are only funded for 2 more 
weeks.
  He said to me: How can I, as a businessman, make a commitment to 
produce vaccine with an uncertainty as to whether it will be paid for?
  That is a pretty reasonable question, and it reflects the fact that 
as we move from 2 weeks to 3 weeks of funding, postponements are made 
in decisions which have an impact on the future of our country.
  This morning, I wish to address, as well, something that goes beyond 
the obvious--stockpiling vaccine--and looks to some of the other 
aspects of the House Republican budget bill and what it will mean to 
America if it is adopted. This is a bill which they proudly boast will 
cut $100 billion in spending. Most people across America, sensitive to 
our deficit crisis, say we should start by cutting spending. That is a 
reasonable request by voters in New Hampshire and Illinois. But there 
comes a moment when we have to use our best judgment about where cuts 
should be made and where cuts, when made, would cost us dearly for a 
long time to come.
  Senator Inouye, in his bill, tried to balance $51 billion in cuts 
below the President's original budget request in a way that would not 
hurt our investment in America's future and economic growth.
  American innovation has always fueled economic sustainability and job 
creation. Senator Inouye's bill lays out a wise path toward providing 
more jobs and less debt--two things we desperately need to do. Under 
his alternative spending bill, which I supported, the budget for the 
National Institutes of Health--which is the premier agency for medical 
research in America--is frozen at $31 billion, the same amount it 
received last year. This means the funds required to perform cutting 
edge breakthrough medical research and new clinical trials for much-
needed cures and treatments will be available. It also means that 
nearly 12,000 jobs across the State of Illinois in hospitals, 
universities, and medical centers will continue to be supported under 
the Inouye budget.
  Under the House Republican budget, the National Institutes of Health 
is cut by $1.6 billion. That is a cut that is severe by any measure. It 
would cause new construction projects to be halted when it comes to 
medical research laboratories and put 351,000 U.S. jobs in danger of 
being lost. We can't afford these shortsighted cuts when our Nation is 
struggling but is determined that we will come out of this stronger 
than we went in.
  That said, we know that freezing budgets is not going to be enough. 
Thoughtful and difficult cuts will have to be made. The Senate 
appropriations bills provide $6.8 billion for the National Science 
Foundation. This is a cut of $573 million from the President's budget, 
but it is still $284 million more than was provided in the bill passed 
by the House. Under the Democratic Senate alternative, we can continue 
to fund basic research and create jobs and programs that educate the 
next generation of scientists in America. That is not possible under 
the House bill.
  As I travel to research laboratories in my State--Argonne National 
Research Laboratory, Northwestern University Medical Care Center--I 
meet some of the best and brightest young people I have ever seen in my 
life. They are from all over the world, and they come here because this 
is the place to do research and to make the breakthrough findings that 
will change America and change the world. Thank God for their 
intelligence and their idealism. But they look at me and say: Senator, 
am I going to have a job 6 weeks from now? If I am not, tell me now. I 
have to make a plan with my life.
  Maybe they will leave research and go into work for a private company 
and make more money. Maybe they will go back home to another country 
where they will be welcomed in their research capacity. So the 
generation of scientists affected by this decision are as important as 
the breakthroughs that might be found in the research itself.
  The National Science Foundation will continue to provide $8 million 
of innovation research to Illinois small businesses under the Inouye 
bill, but the funding level difference between the House and the Senate 
and what they want to cut and what we want to cut is dramatic.
  Let me give an example: We are working on a new supercomputer at the 
University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign. It is called Blue Waters. 
When it is completed, it will be the fastest computer in the world. 
Most Americans, when asked where is the fastest computer in the world 
today, would probably say America; we are the leaders. No, it is in 
China. But we are trying to devise and invent the next computer.
  Now, what difference does that make? We know fast computers make 
quick decisions and help us find ways to solve problems we never even 
imagined. We are about to sacrifice many of the economic gains we can 
realize if we go through with the House Republican budget.
  The budget for the Department of Energy's Office of Science was also 
examined and cut by $388 million to $4.7 billion for the year. Now, 
that is a $200 million cut. It is difficult because the Office of 
Science supports seven of our National Laboratories. University 
research centers and private companies use their facilities to create 
new drugs, biofuels, and solutions to our country's toughest problems. 
Research done by Abbot Laboratories at the Advanced Photon Source at 
the Argonne National Laboratory is crucial to the development of an 
AIDS drug--Kaletra--which is now the world's most prescribed drug for 
fighting AIDS and the HIV virus. Cutting back on the funds for Argonne 
National Laboratory, dismissing one-third of their scientists

[[Page S1615]]

and engineers--as the House Republican budget calls for--cutting back 
their research by 40 to 50 percent for the remainder of the year, slows 
down the use of the Advanced Photon Source, which is utilized by 
virtually every major pharmaceutical company.
  The question may be asked: Does it work? Here is living proof--
Kaletra, the most widely prescribed drug for fighting AIDS, developed 
at the Argonne National Laboratory.
  The House Republicans say: Slow down, stop, we will get back to you 
later. Can we say that in a world that demands innovation and research 
and that is looking for solutions to problems? If we cut $1.1 billion 
from this account, as the House Republican budget suggests, facilities 
at the National Laboratories in my State and across the country will 
shut down and workers will be laid off. That is a simple reality.
  I am not coming to the floor and engaging in scare tactics. This is 
what the Directors of the National Laboratories have told me. If these 
centers and Laboratories are closed, private companies--Eli Lily, Texas 
Instruments, GE Research, and 3M--have a choice. If our Laboratories 
are closed, they will find labs overseas, outside the United States. 
Does that help our economy? Does that create jobs in America--to cut 
research?
  The House Republican budget cuts this research and innovation and 
welcomes these companies to leave and go overseas to create jobs. Could 
we possibly be envisioning that at a moment when we have so much 
unemployment and we are facing a recession in this country?
  Japan, China, and Europe are ready to receive these research 
projects. They are building facilities in the hopes that these 
companies will decide they are more reliable than the United States. 
That is what the House Republican budget threatens. Whether it is in 
medical research, energy research, or finding new drugs, unless we make 
a commitment that people can count on, that research is going overseas 
and jobs will flow with that research to other countries and not to 
America.
  We need to cut the budget and reduce our deficit, no doubt about it. 
Let's not do so in a way that costs America jobs and cuts off American 
innovation at the knees. The spending bill before the House of 
Representatives is going to cripple our economy at a time when it is 
just starting to recover. Economists tell us the House Republican 
budget will cost us more than 700,000 jobs. That is not the way to move 
America forward.
  We can find a way to eliminate tax loopholes and benefits, improve 
the way we spend money, and thoughtfully--thoughtfully--decrease our 
spending. These are elements of a sustainable plan for reaching the 
budget balance we are seeking and, equally important, the economic 
growth we need. We cannot balance the budget of America with 15 million 
people out of work. We have to build an economy that creates good-
paying jobs and people drawing paychecks who pay their taxes. That 
sustains government growth as well as economic growth.
  I am going to be working with my colleagues in the Senate to come up 
with a better approach than the House Republican budget, and I 
certainly believe we can and should.

                          ____________________