Richard Durbin

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I rise today to talk about the important issue of child labor in tobacco fields. I want to tell you about Calvin, a 17-year-old boy just over five feet tall, who migrated to the United States by himself at age 13, leaving his family behind in Mexico. Calvin never enrolled in school. Instead, he joined a migrant crew that travels between several states to work in different crops. He migrates to Kentucky in August to work in the tobacco fields. Calvin has worked in tobacco farms since he was 16, and he experiences headaches and nausea from nicotine poisoning. Calvin said he got sick while working in a curing barn. ``I got a headache and nausea. I was vomiting,'' he said. ``It happened when I was hanging the tobacco in the barn.'' I wish that Calvin's experience was unusual. But in May of last year, the Human Rights Watch published a report based on interviews with over 140 children who worked on U.S. tobacco farms in 2012 or 2013. The majority of those children were working for hire, and not on a family farm. Some of the findings are staggering and show that Calvin is not along. Human Rights Watch found that child tobacco workers began working on tobacco farms at age 11 or 12. During peak harvest periods, children can work as many as 50-60 hours a week. The majority of these children experience symptoms like nausea, vomiting, loss of appetite, dizziness, lightheadedness, headaches, and sleeplessness while working on tobacco farms. These symptoms are consistent with acute nicotine poisoning, which happens when you absorb nicotine through their skin. Furthermore, in these conditions, children work in high heat and humidity and in some instances, they use dangerous tools that include sharp spikes to spear tobacco plants and climb to dangerous heights to hang tobacco in curing barns. These children are exposed to pesticides that are known toxins. Long-term effects of this exposure include cancer, neurological deficits, and reproductive health problems. In his first summer in the field, 12-year-old Miguel was topping tobacco plants on a farm in North Carolina wearing shorts and a short- sleeved shirt, his torso draped with a black plastic garbage bag to cover himself from the summer's heavy rainstorms. Miguel wore only socks--because he did not have shoes that could withstand the thick mud from the heavy rain. Miguel lives with his mother, 13-year-old brother, and 5-year-old sister in a rural town in North Carolina. He attends a public school full-time, and works in the fields during his summer break to help cover the costs of food, clothes, and school supplies for the family. Miguel was hired by a farm labor contractor to work on different farms planting sweet potatoes one day, topping tobacco the next. When asked which crop was harder work, Miguel said, ``tobacco, because you have to walk, and you have to use your hands all the time. It's really tiring.'' It is tiring. By the time Miguel got home, he would have trouble walking because his legs and feet were so sore from working all day. Not only was 12-year Miguel physically overworked, he, like Calvin, also had to deal with frequent headaches, caused by nicotine poisoning, from working in the tobacco fields. He said, ``It was horrible. It felt like there was something in my head trying to eat it.'' I am introducing legislation today, with Senator Reed of Rhode Island, Senator Feinstein and Senator Brown to take children like Calvin and Miguel out of the tobacco fields. Our bill would make it illegal to allow children under the age of 18 to handle tobacco plants or dried tobacco leaves. Currently, U.S. law prohibits children under the age of 18 from buying cigarettes . . . but allows children as young as 12 to work in tobacco fields. In most other jobs in the U.S., children are not allowed to work before the age of 15. Today, there are no specific restrictions protecting children from nicotine poisoning or other risks associated with tobacco farming in this country. The United States is the 4th leading tobacco producer in the world, behind China, Brazil, and India. Even Brazil and India prohibit children under 18 from working in tobacco production. It's time for the United States to adopt similar restrictions. Our children shouldn't be working long hours with a plant that makes them sick. I encourage my colleagues to work with me to pass S. 974, the Children Don't Belong on Tobacco Farms Act. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I rise today to talk about the important issue of child labor in tobacco fields. I want to tell you about Calvin, a 17-year-old boy just over five feet tall, who migrated to the United States by himself at age 13, leaving his family behind in Mexico. Calvin never enrolled in school. Instead, he joined a migrant crew that travels between several states to work in different crops. He migrates to Kentucky in August to work in the tobacco fields. Calvin has worked in tobacco farms since he was 16, and he experiences headaches and nausea from nicotine poisoning. Calvin said he got sick while working in a curing barn. ``I got a headache and nausea. I was vomiting,'' he said. ``It happened when I was hanging the tobacco in the barn.'' I wish that Calvin's experience was unusual. But in May of last year, the Human Rights Watch published a report based on interviews with over 140 children who worked on U.S. tobacco farms in 2012 or 2013. The majority of those children were working for hire, and not on a family farm. Some of the findings are staggering and show that Calvin is not along. Human Rights Watch found that child tobacco workers began working on tobacco farms at age 11 or 12. During peak harvest periods, children can work as many as 50-60 hours a week. The majority of these children experience symptoms like nausea, vomiting, loss of appetite, dizziness, lightheadedness, headaches, and sleeplessness while working on tobacco farms. These symptoms are consistent with acute nicotine poisoning, which happens when you absorb nicotine through their skin. Furthermore, in these conditions, children work in high heat and humidity and in some instances, they use dangerous tools that include sharp spikes to spear tobacco plants and climb to dangerous heights to hang tobacco in curing barns. These children are exposed to pesticides that are known toxins. Long-term effects of this exposure include cancer, neurological deficits, and reproductive health problems. In his first summer in the field, 12-year-old Miguel was topping tobacco plants on a farm in North Carolina wearing shorts and a short- sleeved shirt, his torso draped with a black plastic garbage bag to cover himself from the summer's heavy rainstorms. Miguel wore only socks--because he did not have shoes that could withstand the thick mud from the heavy rain. Miguel lives with his mother, 13-year-old brother, and 5-year-old sister in a rural town in North Carolina. He attends a public school full-time, and works in the fields during his summer break to help cover the costs of food, clothes, and school supplies for the family. Miguel was hired by a farm labor contractor to work on different farms planting sweet potatoes one day, topping tobacco the next. When asked which crop was harder work, Miguel said, ``tobacco, because you have to walk, and you have to use your hands all the time. It's really tiring.'' It is tiring. By the time Miguel got home, he would have trouble walking because his legs and feet were so sore from working all day. Not only was 12-year Miguel physically overworked, he, like Calvin, also had to deal with frequent headaches, caused by nicotine poisoning, from working in the tobacco fields. He said, ``It was horrible. It felt like there was something in my head trying to eat it.'' I am introducing legislation today, with Senator Reed of Rhode Island, Senator Feinstein and Senator Brown to take children like Calvin and Miguel out of the tobacco fields. Our bill would make it illegal to allow children under the age of 18 to handle tobacco plants or dried tobacco leaves. Currently, U.S. law prohibits children under the age of 18 from buying cigarettes . . . but allows children as young as 12 to work in tobacco fields. In most other jobs in the U.S., children are not allowed to work before the age of 15. Today, there are no specific restrictions protecting children from nicotine poisoning or other risks associated with tobacco farming in this country. The United States is the 4th leading tobacco producer in the world, behind China, Brazil, and India. Even Brazil and India prohibit children under 18 from working in tobacco production. It's time for the United States to adopt similar restrictions. Our children shouldn't be working long hours with a plant that makes them sick. I encourage my colleagues to work with me to pass S. 974, the Children Don't Belong on Tobacco Farms Act. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, in Illinois and all over the country thousands of high school students are participating in spring sports, including the national pastime: baseball and softball. As with any sports team, these students are training their growing bodies to compete in a worthy endeavor, but with that comes some risk. They put on helmets, they put on pads, but unfortunately some of them will still get hurt. Injuries are a part of all sports, but as we learn more about the long term effects of concussions and how frequently they are ignored, it is clear we have to step up our game to confront this health risk. The National Federation of State High School Associations estimates about 140,000 students who play high school sports have concussions every year. Sports are second only to motor vehicle crashes as the leading cause of traumatic brain injury among people aged 15 to 24 years. According to the Centers for Disease Control, the number of children age 19 and younger being treated in ERs for traumatic brain injuries went from 153,373 in 2001 to 248,418 in 2009--a 60 percent increase. Some students stay in the game not recognizing the risks of playing hurt--especially when they have had a concussion. Many athletes do not know the signs and symptoms of concussion, which may cause many concussions to go undetected. A 2010 Government Accountability Office study found many sports- related concussions go unreported. Athletes who continue to play while concussed are at risk for catastrophic injury if they sustain another concussion before recovering from the first one. This second injury can cause symptoms that can last for months and can even be fatal. Youth athletes are at the greatest risk from sports-related concussions because their brains are still developing and are more susceptible to injury. According to the American Academy of Neurology, athletes of high school age and younger with a concussion should be managed more conservatively when it comes to returning to play because they take longer to recover than college athletes. Since 2009, states have started implementing legislation guiding return to play procedures for student athletes who have sustained a concussion. With a push from the National Football League, NFL, all 50 States and the District of Columbia have successfully passed some form of legislation with varying concussion safety measures. Illinois has been a leader on this issue and passed legislation in 2011, recognizing the dangers associated with concussion. In Illinois, a student athlete who is suspected of sustaining a concussion or head injury in a practice or game is immediately removed from the game until he or she is cleared by a health care professional. This is a great step forward for Illinois, and I commend the Illinois High School Association and its support of this legislation for its work protecting student athletes. I would like to introduce the Protecting Student Athletes from Concussions Act, which would support the progress made by states like Illinois. The bill would, for the first time, set minimum State requirements for the prevention and treatment of concussions. The legislation requires schools to post information about concussions on school grounds and on school websites and adopt a ``when in doubt, sit it out'' policy. This policy requires that a student suspected of sustaining a concussion be removed from participation in the activity and prohibited from returning to play that day. They can return to play in future events after being evaluated and cleared by a qualified health care professional. The ``when in doubt, sit it out'' policy is recommended by the American College of Sports Medicine and the American Academy of Neurology, which recommends that an athlete suspected of a concussion should not return to play the day of their injury--under any circumstance. According to the Center for Injury Research and Policy in Columbus, Ohio, more than 40 percent of young athletes return to play before they are fully recovered. Concussions are not always easily diagnosed, and symptoms that might indicate concussion don't always manifest themselves immediately. Athletes don't want to let down the team or the coach and are often eager to return to the game. So helping athletes, school officials, coaches and parents recognize the signs and symptoms of concussion can make all the difference in putting a player's safety above winning. This legislation will ensure that school districts have concussion management plans that educate students, parents, and school personnel about how to recognize and respond to concussions. It asks schools to adopt the ``when in doubt, sit it out'' policy to be sure athletes are not put back in the game before they have recovered from an initial concussion. I am pleased that a variety of organizations are supporting this bill, including the NFL, NCAA, NHL, NBA, American College of Sports Medicine, American Academy of Neurology, among others. I look forward to working with the schools, athletic programs and others to build on the progress already made in protecting student athletes from concussions. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, in Illinois and all over the country thousands of high school students are participating in spring sports, including the national pastime: baseball and softball. As with any sports team, these students are training their growing bodies to compete in a worthy endeavor, but with that comes some risk. They put on helmets, they put on pads, but unfortunately some of them will still get hurt. Injuries are a part of all sports, but as we learn more about the long term effects of concussions and how frequently they are ignored, it is clear we have to step up our game to confront this health risk. The National Federation of State High School Associations estimates about 140,000 students who play high school sports have concussions every year. Sports are second only to motor vehicle crashes as the leading cause of traumatic brain injury among people aged 15 to 24 years. According to the Centers for Disease Control, the number of children age 19 and younger being treated in ERs for traumatic brain injuries went from 153,373 in 2001 to 248,418 in 2009--a 60 percent increase. Some students stay in the game not recognizing the risks of playing hurt--especially when they have had a concussion. Many athletes do not know the signs and symptoms of concussion, which may cause many concussions to go undetected. A 2010 Government Accountability Office study found many sports- related concussions go unreported. Athletes who continue to play while concussed are at risk for catastrophic injury if they sustain another concussion before recovering from the first one. This second injury can cause symptoms that can last for months and can even be fatal. Youth athletes are at the greatest risk from sports-related concussions because their brains are still developing and are more susceptible to injury. According to the American Academy of Neurology, athletes of high school age and younger with a concussion should be managed more conservatively when it comes to returning to play because they take longer to recover than college athletes. Since 2009, states have started implementing legislation guiding return to play procedures for student athletes who have sustained a concussion. With a push from the National Football League, NFL, all 50 States and the District of Columbia have successfully passed some form of legislation with varying concussion safety measures. Illinois has been a leader on this issue and passed legislation in 2011, recognizing the dangers associated with concussion. In Illinois, a student athlete who is suspected of sustaining a concussion or head injury in a practice or game is immediately removed from the game until he or she is cleared by a health care professional. This is a great step forward for Illinois, and I commend the Illinois High School Association and its support of this legislation for its work protecting student athletes. I would like to introduce the Protecting Student Athletes from Concussions Act, which would support the progress made by states like Illinois. The bill would, for the first time, set minimum State requirements for the prevention and treatment of concussions. The legislation requires schools to post information about concussions on school grounds and on school websites and adopt a ``when in doubt, sit it out'' policy. This policy requires that a student suspected of sustaining a concussion be removed from participation in the activity and prohibited from returning to play that day. They can return to play in future events after being evaluated and cleared by a qualified health care professional. The ``when in doubt, sit it out'' policy is recommended by the American College of Sports Medicine and the American Academy of Neurology, which recommends that an athlete suspected of a concussion should not return to play the day of their injury--under any circumstance. According to the Center for Injury Research and Policy in Columbus, Ohio, more than 40 percent of young athletes return to play before they are fully recovered. Concussions are not always easily diagnosed, and symptoms that might indicate concussion don't always manifest themselves immediately. Athletes don't want to let down the team or the coach and are often eager to return to the game. So helping athletes, school officials, coaches and parents recognize the signs and symptoms of concussion can make all the difference in putting a player's safety above winning. This legislation will ensure that school districts have concussion management plans that educate students, parents, and school personnel about how to recognize and respond to concussions. It asks schools to adopt the ``when in doubt, sit it out'' policy to be sure athletes are not put back in the game before they have recovered from an initial concussion. I am pleased that a variety of organizations are supporting this bill, including the NFL, NCAA, NHL, NBA, American College of Sports Medicine, American Academy of Neurology, among others. I look forward to working with the schools, athletic programs and others to build on the progress already made in protecting student athletes from concussions. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, it was 150 years ago today--150 years ago today--when who is called the last casualty of the Civil War died. He was a man who was born in the Presiding Officer's home State of Kentucky. He grew up for a part of his life in Indiana but spent his formative years in my State of Illinois. He was a country lawyer, an unlikely Congressman who, because of a political deal, was given a chance to serve in the U.S. House of Representatives. He served only 2 years. He brought his family here to Washington for that experience. They lived just across the street, in a boarding house where the Library of Congress now sits. His family did not like Washington in those days in the 1840s and returned back to his wife's home in Kentucky. He stayed out here and served in Congress and liked it. He wanted to serve for a longer period of time but was reminded that this was not part of the agreement--only 2 years. So he left Washington, went back to Springfield, IL, practiced law, but continued to aspire to higher office. In 1858, he ran for the Senate against a man named Steven Douglas. They had historic debates across the State of Illinois. When the votes were finally counted, Douglas was the victor, and this man returned to the practice of law. Just 2 years later, though, he was elected President of the United States. He came to Washington at one of the most dangerous times in our history. The Civil War had started, and there was a question as to whether the Union could survive, whether the United States of America would survive. This simple country lawyer from what was considered the frontier of America in those days led our Nation during the most dangerous moments in our history. He watched as more Americans died in that Civil War than in any war that we have ever witnessed. He saw a nation bitterly divided. The war raged on for years. There were moments--bleak and dark moments--when it looked as if the North would fail and the division of the country would begin. But eventually the North prevailed in a victory that really the American people had given so much to achieve. In April of 1865, this was a tumultuous period. I commend to all of my colleagues a book written by Jay Winik, a Senate staffer entitled ``April 1865,'' if you want to get a feel for what it was like in America that month. Many things occurred. The second inaugural address of this President is one of the most beautiful, touching, and moving speeches ever given by a President, where he turned toward the enemy who had fought the North for so many years and basically extended an olive branch when many others would have done just the opposite. ``With malice toward none'' and with ``charity for all,'' he gave that speech right outside here--right outside the Senate Chamber on the porch. Then, in celebration of the victory of the Union, he and his wife attended a play not far from here, at Ford's Theatre. It was there that an assassin took his life. So 150 years ago today, Abraham Lincoln, the President of the United States, was assassinated. We have learned a lot from his life, from his leadership, and we enjoy the blessings of liberty and the Union today because that President and the men and women who stood by him saved the Union. I reflect on this because I come from what is known as Mr. Lincoln's hometown of Springfield, IL. I am not an expert on Lincoln. I am just a fan, as so many people are, not only across the United States but around the world. I hope we can remember him just for a moment today and reflect on the need for all of us to extend an olive branch to our personal enemies and to our political enemies and try to find how to eliminate an enemy by making a friend, as Lincoln said.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I cannot believe that Loretta Lynch still sits on this Executive Calendar of the Senate. It is put on our desk every day we are in session. She has been on that calendar for a longer period of time than any nominee for Attorney General in the last 30 years. Senators can vote for or against Loretta Lynch to be Attorney General. That is their right. But an Attorney General nominee whose qualifications and character are unquestionable deserves better than the treatment she is receiving from this Senate. Ms. Lynch deserves a timely vote, just as other Attorney General nominees of other Presidents have received. She was reported out of the Senate Judiciary Committee on February 26 in a bipartisan vote. Nine Democrats and three Republicans voted for this Presidential nominee. She has now been pending on the Senate calendar right here for 48 days--48 days on this calendar. Not one word has been spoken on this floor in derogation of this fine woman, this fine nominee. The last seven Attorney General nominees combined--all seven of them--had to wait on the Senate floor for a total of 24 days--seven nominees, 24 days. For Loretta Lynch it is 48 days. The Senate has confirmed other nominees while the human trafficking bill has been pending on the floor. There is no procedural obstacle. While that bill has been pending, the Senate has voted on nominees for Assistant Secretary of Transportation, Assistant Secretary of Commerce, the Federal Mine Safety and Health Review Commission, and the Federal Retirement Thrift Investment Board. And on Monday we voted on a Federal judge. It is routine for the Senate to consider nominees on the Executive Calendar while still considering legislation. It has been 158 days--more than 5 months--since Ms. Lynch's nomination to be Attorney General was announced. A vote still has not been scheduled. This is far longer than any recent Attorney General nominee has had to wait. Janet Reno waited 29 days. John Ashcroft, a Republican nominee, waited 42 days. Alberto Gonzales, 86 days. Michael Mukasey, 53 days. Eric Holder, 64 days. But when it comes to Loretta Lynch, it is 158 days. The last Attorney General nominee whose nomination took this long to process was Edwin Meese in 1984, who faced questions and investigations relating to questions of ethics. There have been no such allegations--none--that have been raised against Loretta Lynch. Senate Republicans have the capability to bring up nominations promptly. The majority leader, Senator McConnell of Kentucky, can walk to this floor and within a minute call her nomination, and it will be voted on immediately. It is in his power to do it. Why will he not do it? Why will he not give this woman, who has such an extraordinary life story, a chance to serve as the first African-American woman in the history of the United States to serve as Attorney General? There is no substantive reason--not one. I welcome any Republican Senator to come to the floor and make the case against Loretta Lynch. No one did it in committee. No one has done it on the floor. It is time for us to move forward and approve this nomination.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, the Presiding Officer probably does not remember these days because of his age, but I do. When I was a child, polio was a scare that every family felt. I had friends in school who were stricken with polio. Some of them, in the most extreme cases, ended up in something called an iron lung. The Presiding Officer has probably seen pictures of it. It is an incredible situation where someone would be encased in this tube, this metal tube that would help them breathe. Many were stricken with polio and ended up crippled, and their lives were compromised to some degree in those days because disabilities were not treated as well then as they are now. Parents did not know what to make of this. No one knew what caused polio. My mother, God bless her, had a theory that one of the things that might cause polio was playing in the street after a rainstorm in the flooded waters. She would just ban me from doing that. ``That can cause polio,'' she said. That was my mother's theory. It was as valid as any other theory in those days. No one knew what was going on, what was causing it. Many Americans lived in fear of that infectious, viral disease that attacks the nerve cells and the central nervous system causing muscle wasting, paralysis, and sometimes death. In 1952, nearly 60,000 children in the United States were reported to have polio, with more than 20,000 cases of paralysis. There was a panic about this epidemic. Families were afraid for their kids and the scientists struggled to understand the disease. Dr. Jonas Salk, a pioneer in the field of vaccine research, was recruited in 1947 by the University of Pittsburgh to be the director of virus research and to work on finding a polio vaccine. His work caught the attention of Basil O'Connor, the president of the National Foundation for Infantile Paralysis, now known as the March of Dimes Foundation. The organization decided to fund Dr. Jonas Salk's work to develop a vaccine against polio. For 5 years, Dr. Salk worked tirelessly on this effort while the country donated their dimes to the foundation to support his work. Then, on April 12, 1955, Dr. Thomas Francis, Jr.--an epidemiologist at the University of Michigan and a mentor to Salk--announced that Salk had discovered a polio vaccine that was safe and effective. When the announcement was made, it was as if time stood still. I still remember it as a kid. Americans turned on their radios and TVs to hear the details. Department stores set up loudspeakers and judges suspended trials so everyone in the courtroom could hear this good news. April 12 was deliberately chosen for the announcement because it marked the 10th anniversary of the death of the most famous polio survivor of all, former President Franklin Delano Roosevelt. Roosevelt also founded what would become the March of Dimes Foundation in 1938, without which Salk might not have been able to complete his work. A massive field trial, the first of its kind, was conducted on over 1.8 million children to prove the vaccine was 80 to 90 percent effective. Church bells rang across the country, factories observed moments of silence, and parents and teachers wept to finally be relieved of this fear. But it had only just begun. The U.S. Government invested heavily in mass production of the polio vaccine and led campaigns across the Nation to see that every kid was vaccinated. I hated the thought of getting a shot, but the notion that I would be protected from polio for life was certainly worth it. As a result, polio was eradicated from the United States in 1979. Sunday, we marked the 60th anniversary of the announcement of the discovery of the first safe and effective polio vaccine. In commemoration of that announcement, I submitted a resolution last month celebrating the discovery of the polio vaccine and supporting the efforts to eradicate that disease around the world. The resolution also encourages Federal funding for the Global Polio Eradication Initiative for biomedical and basic scientific research so more lifesaving discoveries can be made. Thanks to the work of scientists funded by the CDC and nonprofit organizations such as the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, polio has been eradicated in all but a handful of the world's poorest nations. The success of the polio vaccine shows us what medical research can accomplish. If we can do this with polio, then we can do it again. I thank Senators Kirk, Leahy, Shaheen, Murray, Boxer, Coons, Markey, Isakson, Ayotte, and Reed of Rhode Island for cosponsoring my resolution. I also thank the March of Dimes, the American Academy of Pediatrics, the U.N. Foundation's Shot@Life campaign, the Rotary Club, and RESULTS for supporting this resolution. But today, America's place as world leader in cutting-edge biomedical research is at risk. We no longer invest as we should in basic scientific research. From 2003 to 2012, the U.S. investment in the NIH research didn't even keep up with inflation, and the number of research grants awarded by the National Institutes of Health has declined every year for the past 10 years. This is shameful. It is shameful in a great Nation such as the United States, where we have seen achievements such as a polio vaccine, for to us walk away from medical research. One decade ago, 30 percent of qualified NIH proposals were funded. Today, it is half that--15 percent, the lowest rate in America's modern history. Dr. Francis Collins, who directs the National Institutes of Health, told me that inadequate funding of basic medical research will cause some of America's best young researchers to take their talents to other places and even other countries. It has already started. We are on the verge of losing a generation of medical researchers in America. In 1982--listen--18 percent of NIH primary investigators, medical researchers, were under the age of 36--1982, 18 percent under the age of 36. Today, 3 percent are under the age of 36. Young researchers have given up. If Congress and the President don't want to put money into the NIH, they are going to go someplace else. How many Jonas Salks are we losing because of our cuts to basic medical research? How many lifesaving discoveries are being delayed and ignored? With the right commitment, we can change this. I tried to gather on the floor--during the debate on the budget resolution--a dozen different Senators who cosponsored amendments calling for more money for medical research. They were from both sides of the aisle: Senator Collins on the Republican side of the aisle, interested in Alzheimer's; Senator Wicker of Mississippi, also interested in medical research. I brought them all together and said: Why don't we cosponsor the same amendment. We are all trying to reach the same goal. They agreed, and it passed unanimously on a voice vote as I hoped it would. This is what we need to do. Dr. Collins spelled this out in clear terms. We need to increase the funding in biomedical research by 5 percent over inflation every year. Five percent over inflation for 10 years, Dr. Collins tells me, will dramatically change medical research in America. Can we afford it? Can we afford a 5-percent real growth in biomedical research? Think about it for a second. Do you know what that will cost us over 10 years--5 percent real growth in biomedical research. It is going to cost us $150 billion. That is a lot of money, isn't it? Do you realize that once every 68 seconds in America someone is diagnosed with Alzheimer's? I didn't believe that when my staff told me. I checked it, and it is true. Once every 68 seconds an American is diagnosed with Alzheimer's, and we know what that means: for most of those patients, a steady decline to death, and for their families, the heartbreak of losing communication with someone they love and then caring for them in this state of Alzheimer's disease--once every 68 seconds. Do you know what it costs us as a government to care for Alzheimer's victims last year, Medicare, Medicaid? We estimate $200 billion. Now, step back, a 5-percent growth in biomedical research over 10 years will cost $150 billion. What if that research could find a way to delay the onset of Alzheimer's for months--maybe for years--and, God willing, find a cure. What I am saying is whether it is Alzheimer's, cancer, heart disease, diabetes, each and every one of these is praying for and depending on medical research to give Americans who are stricken a fighting chance. It is up to us. We have to make that decision. I would take this question to the Iowa caucus, to the New Hampshire primary, any State, any city in the Nation, and ask the crowd that you would assemble, that anyone assembles, what do you think is a high priority? Do you think biomedical research by our government is a high priority? I know the answer, because every one of us lives in fear that someone we love will be diagnosed with a serious illness. You know the first questions you would ask that doctor: Doctor, is there a medicine, is there a surgery, is there something I can do, something that can be done? And you pray, pray to God, that the doctor says: Yes, we have a new medication in clinical trials at the NIH. It is very promising, and this may be the answer for your son, your daughter, your wife, your mother, and your father. That is what this comes down to--real life, real family challenges. The American Cures Act I introduced a couple of years ago sets this 5 percent funding goal. I have talked to my colleagues on both sides of the aisle and asked them to join me. This shouldn't be a Democratic idea, not a Republican idea. This is as basic as it gets. The next great scientific and medical breakthroughs will be discovered by researchers if we fund the research, but it isn't just a matter of biomedical research at the NIH. I had a visit with Department of Energy Secretary Ernest Moniz, and over breakfast we talked about the American Cures Act. He said: Senator, let me put in a word here. Do you know who develops the technology for diagnostic evaluations--whether it is MRIs, PET scans, and things of that nature? Do you know who develops the technology for the application of radiation therapy for cancer victims? A lot of it is done right here at the Department of Energy. He awakened me to the fact that we think about NIH automatically in biomedical research--and we should. There is more to the story. So I have really reached out and said: American Cures Act, 5 percent real growth for biomedical isn't enough. We need 5 percent growth when it comes to innovation, the next breakthrough when it comes to diagnosing breast cancer at an early stage, treating cancers with radiation, other things. The American Innovation Act would provide an annual budget increase of 5 percent for the National Science Foundation, the Department of Energy Office of Science, the Department of Defense science and technology programs, the National Institute of Standards and Technology Scientific and Technical Research, and the NASA Science Directorate. You say to yourself, can we afford it? I will say what I know. I know that when we embark on scientific research of real value, it not only can cure disease, in the process it will create a company. It will create many companies. It could create many jobs in the right fields and develop our economy in the right way. We are debating this now on the floor of the Senate. They are not debating it in Beijing. They have decided they are going to pass us. The Chinese have embarked on a medical program in medical research and other research, determined--within the next 20 years--to pass the United States. Will we let that happen? The men and women of the Senate will make that decision, and the men and women of the House and the President. All told, the American Innovations Act would invest $100 billion over 10 years; the American Cures Act, $150 billion--$250 billion. How much money will we spend on our budget in that 10-year period of time? Somewhere in the range of $18 trillion to $20 trillion. This is a tiny, little decimal point, but what a difference it could make. Some of my colleagues talk about burdening our children and grandchildren with debt. I agree. We shouldn't. But the way to reduce our deficit and grow our economy is not by killing research and innovation. It pays for itself many times over. We have cut the budget deficit by two-thirds since the start of the recession which we just went through 7 or 8 years ago. Now it is time to close the innovation deficit. In the last years of Jonas Salk's life, he was searching for an AIDS vaccine. He didn't need to do that. His place in history was assured, but Jonas Salk wasn't content to rest on past achievement. After all, he was an American, and when his early efforts failed, he was undeterred. Jonas Salk said: ``You can only fail if you stop too soon.'' This is a decisive moment of a historic opportunity for America and for Congress. We must continue to invest in basic science and research in order to reap the rewards of decades of work by the best scientific and medical minds of the world. The only way we can fail is by stopping too soon. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Nevada (Mr. Reid) is necessarily absent.

Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from California (Mrs. Boxer) and the Senator from Nevada (Mr. Reid) are necessarily absent.

Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from California (Mrs. Boxer) is necessarily absent.

Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from California (Mrs. Boxer) is necessarily absent.

Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from California (Mrs. Boxer) is necessarily absent.

Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from California (Mrs. Boxer) is necessarily absent.

Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from California (Mrs. Boxer) is necessarily absent. The PRESIDING OFFICER Are there any other Senators in the Chamber desiring to vote?

Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from California (Mrs. Boxer) is necessarily absent.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, last week on Thursday, the evil forces of nature struck in Fairdale, IL. Since that moment of terrible loss--two lives and many injuries, terrible property destruction--we have seen the better angels of our nature come forward. This is an all-too-common picture in my part of the world in central Illinois and downstate Illinois. This is the devastation from a tornado of dramatic power and strength. Two twisters--one of them a category EF-4, with wind speeds of up to 200 miles an hour--tore through DeKalb and Ogle Counties and badly damaged the towns of Fairdale and Rochelle last Thursday evening. That picture tells part of the story of the tornadoes' path, where giant trees were uprooted, homes ripped from their foundations. The damage is stunning. Sadly, two women, neighbors who lived in Fairdale, lost their lives in the event. Geraldine Schultz and a close friend and neighbor, Jacklyn Klosa, both fell victim to the tornado that struck their homes. Neighbors say the two friends were inseparable in life and both departed life at the same moment. The tight-knit communities of Fairdale and Rochelle are pulling together today to help victims sort through the rubble. One tornado tracked a 25-mile continuous path from near Rochelle through Fairdale, to near Belvidere. This is a photo of what was, until Thursday, a popular restaurant in the town of Rochelle, IL, about 80 miles from Chicago. Twelve people, including diners and staff, were inside Grubsteakers Restaurant when the tornado struck. It was a miracle. Everybody made it into the basement just in time before the twister hit. They all survived, though they were trapped in the basement for an hour and a half waiting for rescue crews to clear them. A few people had to be treated for cuts and bruises. Everyone was covered in thick dust that had blown from overhead, but they lived through it, a terrible, terrifying ordeal. On Friday I spoke and again on Saturday with the director, the head of the Illinois Emergency Management Agency, James Joseph. Governor Rauner was out at the scene the next day after the tornado. We sent our staff there to monitor any possible Federal assistance that might be coordinated with the State and local effort. We are continuing to gather the information together to see if there is a possibility of Federal help, but I have been very wary because of two recent experiences in Illinois--in Washington, IL, and Harrisburg-- where tornado damage there looked so devastating and still did not meet the threshold qualification for Federal assistance. When I spoke with Rochelle Mayor Chet Olson, and DeKalb County board chairman Mark Pietrowski, I told them to do their homework and keep track of their expenses but that it was a long shot for Federal help. I made it clear the delegation and I stand ready to help in any way we can, particularly working with the Governor. As is so often the case when a disaster such as this strikes, the first responders, friends, and family members wasted no time rushing to the aid of people whose homes and businesses were damaged. I have no doubt the people in Fairdale, Rochelle, and all of the other areas that were struck will clean up and rebuild. They will mourn the loss of life, they will heal the wounds of those who were injured, and they will start tomorrow to make another day. For the families of the women who lost their lives and for everybody who lost homes and property, our thoughts are with you. I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Delaware (Mr. Coons) is necessarily absent.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I am proud to introduce today a bill to try to bring some transparency and fairness into FEMA's disaster declaration process. It is the Fairness in Federal Disaster Declarations Act. The inspiration for the bill was a tragic one. On February 29, 2012, leap day, a category F-4 tornado tore through southeastern Illinois, causing damage in 11 Illinois counties and causing major damage in the small towns of Harrisburg and Ridgway. Eight people in Harrisburg, alone, died in the event and 15 people were killed in total. Winds reached 175-miles per hour. It is not too much of a stretch to say these two small towns were almost wiped off the map. Requests for Federal assistance after a disaster are made by the Governor of each State. The state emergency management agency typically does a preliminary damage assessment and then the Governor decides whether State resources are adequate to absorb the costs of clean up and recovery. In the case of the Harrisburg and Ridgway tornado, the Governor's request for federal emergency designation for Individual Assistance was denied, as was the State's appeal of that decision. With that denial, individuals whose homes or properties were damaged were precluded from direct federal help. I asked FEMA why it denied the Governor's request--which was supported by my colleague Senator Kirk and me, along with the entire Illinois delegation--and we were told it was because the disaster did not meet or exceed the State's per capita. In other words, because Illinois is a highly populous state, it is presumed it can absorb the costs of cleanup and recovery from disasters up to a certain level. FEMA said the deadly tornado event did not exceed the state's presumed capacity. Currently, FEMA multiplies the number of people in a state by $1.35 to determine a threshold of the amount of damage a state would have to have incurred to be considered for Assistance. In Illinois, that figure is about $18 million. Well, Harrisburg, Ridgway, and the surrounding communities had about $5.5 million in Public Assistance damages. $5.5 million is a lot of loss, particularly in a rural area--but not enough to qualify for Federal assistance under FEMA' s rules. From 2002 to 2015, Illinois was denied federal disaster assistance seven times. Texas was denied thirteen times--for damage caused by everything from wildfires to tropical storms. Florida was denied Federal disaster assistance eight times during that 13-year period, and California, New Jersey, and New York were each denied four times. FEMA's formula does not work for large, populous states, particularly those with a concentrated urban area, like Illinois. Although the ultimate decision whether to award Federal assistance is made by the President, by statute, under the Stafford Act, FEMA is required to consider six factors when determining whether assistance is warranted. After the Harrisburg and Ridgway tornado, we pushed FEMA a little harder and asked what else, in addition to the per capita, was considered in the denial. After all, 15-people died in the event and the damage was startling. We were told that specifics of FEMA's analysis is not public and wouldn't be disclosed. Illinois ran into the same issue in November 2013 when, once again, tornadoes swept through the State. This time six people were killed and whole neighborhoods were nearly destroyed. The Cities of Washington, Gifford, and New Minden, Illinois, experienced the worst tornado damage I have ever seen. Public infrastructure was decimated, but because Illinois did not meet one of FEMA's criteria, we were denied Federal Public Assistance. These events inspired my colleague, Senator Kirk, and me to introduce a bill to try to build in a bit more transparency and fairness into FEMA's process. The Fairness in Federal Disaster Declaration seeks to improve the disaster analysis by assigning a value to each of the factors FEMA must consider when determining whether Federal disaster assistance will be made available. When it comes to Individual Assistance--funding to help people repair and rebuild their homes--the breakdown would be as follows: Concentration damages--the density of damage in an individual community--would be considered 20 percent, Trauma--the loss of life and injuries and the disruption of normal community functions--would be 20 percent of the analysis, Special Populations--including the age income of the residents, the amount of home ownership, etc.--would comprise 20 percent, Voluntary agency assistance--a consideration of what the volunteer and charitable groups are providing--would make up 5 percent, the amount of Insurance coverage--20 percent, and the average amount of individual assistance by State, which includes the per capita analysis--would make up 5 percent of the analysis. The bill also would add a seventh consideration to FEMA's metrics-- the economics of the area, which will receive 10 percent consideration. This includes factors such as the local assessable tax base, the median income as it compares to that of the state, and the poverty rate as it compares to that of the state. For Federal Public Assistance, the breakdown would be similar, with a greater emphasis placed on the Localized Impacts of the disaster, which would warrant 40 percent of the analysis. It is reasonable that FEMA should take into consideration the size of the state requesting assistance, but as the regulations stand, large states are being penalized. Assigning values to the factors will help ensure that the damage to the specific community weighs more than the state's population. Illinois is a relatively large State, geographically, and has a concentrated urban area. The State-- particularly downstate--is being punished for this fact. If the Cities of Washington and Gifford, and Harrisburg and Ridgway, do not qualify under FEMA's current criteria for federal assistance, something is wrong. This legislation is necessary because the way FEMA evaluates whether to declare an area a Federal disaster is not working. It is done behind closed doors and it works against states with large populations. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. DURBIN

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.

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, is there any time remaining?

Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Indiana (Mr. Donnelly) is necessarily absent.

Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from California (Mrs. Feinstein) is necessarily absent.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from California (Mrs. Feinstein) and the Senator from Maryland (Ms. Mikulski) are necessarily absent.