[Congressional Record Volume 161, Number 92 (Wednesday, June 10, 2015)]
[Senate]
[Pages S3980-S3981]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                   NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT

  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, we are considering this bill, and you can 
see by the size of it, it is a major undertaking. It comes up every 
year. It is the Department of Defense Authorization Act. It is an 
extraordinarily important bill. It literally authorizes programs for 
the defense of America.
  We have two able leaders who brought the bill to the floor. One is 
the chairman of the Armed Services Committee, John McCain, a man with 
whom I entered the House many years ago and a man whose reputation and 
service to America is well known. He is someone who has served in the 
U.S. Navy, was a prisoner of war during the Vietnam war, and has been a 
leader in speaking out on behalf of the military throughout his life. 
It is built into his family. It is built into his soul.
  On our side, we have Senator Jack Reed from Rhode Island. Senator 
Reed is a graduate of the West Point Military Academy. He served as 
well in the Active Army. He brings that service, that part of his life 
to his work on the Democratic side of the aisle. When it came to 
putting this bill together, I do not think we could have picked two 
more able leaders from the Senate, a Republican and a Democrat, to 
bring this bill to the floor.
  They have their differences. But for the most part they agree on this 
bill. It was troubling this morning to hear the Republican majority 
leader suggest that the differences we have over this bill suggest a 
lack of commitment by Democrats to the military of the United States. 
That is not true. It is not fair. We are as committed on our side of 
the aisle as those on the other side of the aisle when it comes to the 
men and women in uniform--committed to making certain that they have 
what they need to be trained, to fight effectively, and to come home 
safely.
  We are also committed to bringing them home to a welcoming America, 
preparing veterans programs for the rest of their lives, so they can 
have productive lives, happy lives after having risked their lives for 
America.
  So to suggest that the Republicans are for the military and Democrats 
are against it, I regret that the majority leader made that suggestion. 
Both sides are committed--both the chairman and the ranking member are 
committed. But what is the issue that divides us when it comes to this 
bill? It is basically an issue of funding. Here is what it comes down 
to: We have a Budget Control Act, and if we do not hit the numbers in 
spending, in comes sequestration. What is sequestration? It is an 
across-the-board cut.
  We do not want to see that happen. We have seen it. We know what it 
does. It was devastating to the Department of Defense when we went into 
sequestration. I know because I chaired the Appropriations Committee 
and I listened to the Secretary of Defense and the leaders from our 
branches and services tell us: It is impossible for us to budget an 
effective national security if we have to wonder whether we are going 
to face an across-the-board cut. I can understand that, not only in 
readiness, which is essential to the survival of our troops, but also 
in the procurement of substantial, expensive, important, and necessary 
technology.
  So Senator McCain on the Republican side brings to the floor this 
authorization bill and says: We will solve

[[Page S3981]]

the problem of sequestration by inserting about $38 to $40 billion in 
wartime emergency funding into the Department of Defense. Well, we 
don't believe that is the right way to go, neither does the Secretary 
of Defense, neither does the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff 
because it is a 1-year fix.
  We need a fix that has some continuity and predictability to it. 
Therein lies the difference in approach between Democrats and 
Republicans. Is one side patriotic and the other side not patriotic 
because we disagree on a budget reform? Of course not. We happen to 
believe there is a better way to do this and so does the President.
  But there is another element I want to make a reference to. The 
Republican majority leader came here and said: Well, the Democrats are 
fighting to put more money into the rest of government--nondefense. It 
is true, we are. He used his two examples: Well, they want to hire more 
people at the Internal Revenue Service and maybe they want to put 
another coat of paint on their offices. That is what the majority 
leader said.
  Well, it could not be further from the truth. I will argue for 
adequate funding for the Internal Revenue Service. The overwhelming 
majority of Americans who pay their fair share of taxes and are honest 
people and try to follow the law should be respected. Those who don't, 
those who try to cheat our tax system should be held accountable. I do 
not think that is a radical idea. It takes employees at the Internal 
Revenue Service to make sure that is true. Right now we have cut back 
on their spending.
  But let me go to another issue which I think really tells the story 
about why we think we not only need to make sure the Department of 
Defense is adequately funded, but we want to make sure other areas of 
government are adequately funded. Once every 67 seconds in America 
someone is diagnosed with Alzheimer's--once every 67 seconds. It is a 
disease which is now growing at a rapid pace because of the aging of 
our population. It is extraordinarily expensive. Under Medicare and 
Medicaid, $200 billion were spent last year in the care of those with 
Alzheimer's.
  That number is projected to grow dramatically in the years to come. 
Well, it is a heartbreaking disease, as you see someone whom you dearly 
love, someone in your family, and their mind is not as responsive as it 
once was. It is extraordinarily devastating to these families, and it 
is extraordinarily expensive to taxpayers.
  So what will we do about it? I hope we will be committed, on a 
bipartisan basis, to medical research. Medical research, through the 
National Institutes of Health, is part of the nondefense budget that we 
are trying to help by resolving this whole question of sequestration. 
It is not about putting a coat of paint on my office. That is not why I 
am fighting to make sure the nondefense part of the budget is not 
victimized by sequestration. I am fighting for the National Institutes 
of Health.
  How important is it that they not face sequestration? They have done 
it. They faced it. Let me tell you just one example of what it meant. 
Dr. Frank LaFerla is at the University of California in Irvine. He is a 
medical researcher. He and his team have created mice that develop 
Alzheimer's disease in the same way humans do. Now, his research team 
can study that disease in these mice, but the mice need to age 18 
months before research on potential Alzheimer's disease treatments can 
be done.
  In 2013, when we faced sequestration, across-the-board cuts in the 
budget, Dr. LaFerla was faced with the prospect of having to sacrifice 
these laboratory animals and close his lab. If that had happened, 
months of research would have been wasted. That is what happens when 
you do something as mindless as sequestration in the Department of 
Defense and in the National Institutes of Health.
  We even have an amendment, which I hope will not be offered but is 
pending--has now been filed, I should say, in the Senate, which would 
cut medical research in the Department of Defense. I wonder what my 
colleagues are thinking; that we in America should cut back on medical 
research as a way of balancing our budget. I am praying for the day 
that Dr. LaFerla or someone like him will find a way to delay the onset 
of Alzheimer's and, God willing, find a cure. If they do, the 
investment in the National Institutes of Health will be paid off over 
and over and over again, and human suffering will be avoided.
  So when I hear the Republican majority leader dismiss the idea of 
funding outside the Department of Defense, when I hear him suggest that 
the Democrats are trying to work toward a budget solution that is fair 
to the Department of Defense and all other agencies so that we ``have 
enough money to paint our offices''--that is what he said--I am 
troubled by that. There is much more at stake.
  When it comes to medical research, I would hope the Senator from 
Kentucky feels, as all of us do, this is not partisan at all. The 
victims of Alzheimer's are of both political parties and people who 
never vote. They are just across the board. We ought to be committed to 
making certain that medical research makes a difference and that we 
believe in it. I hope this amendment that is being offered to cut 
Department of Defense medical research is not offered, because if it 
is, I plan to come to the floor and tell the story about what that 
medical research has meant over the last 20 years.
  For example, the second largest investment in breast cancer research 
is in the U.S. Department of Defense. There are dramatic stories to be 
told about what they have discovered and what they have been able to do 
in the Department of Defense. The suggestion that we should eliminate 
this research to me is a very bad one. It does not reflect the reality 
of the fright and concern that come with a diagnosis of breast cancer.
  I am prepared for that battle, not just on breast cancer but on all 
of the other areas of medical research in the Department of Defense, as 
well as medical research in the National Institutes of Health. If there 
is one issue that should unite us, Democrats and Republicans, it is 
medical research. I will tell you, the people I represent in Illinois, 
regardless of party affiliation, believe that we in both political 
parties should be making this commitment.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. COATS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. COATS. Mr. President, I know we are in morning business time, and 
if I could speak on the Republican time, reserving the time remaining 
for the Democrats, I would be pleased to do that.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________