Richard Durbin

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from California (Mrs. Feinstein), the Senator from Maryland (Ms. Mikulski), the Senator from Hawaii (Mr. Schatz), and the Senator from New Mexico (Mr. Udall) are necessarily absent.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, the Flake amendment--and Senator Flake is my friend--strikes the project labor agreement option. What is a project labor agreement? It is only awarded to a company after they win the competitive bid. So they have to come in with a low competitive bill. What does a project labor agreement contain? How much it is going to cost, what wages will be paid, and how disputes will be settled. The net result is that projects cost less and they are done on time. Why would we want to eliminate the possibility of saving taxpayers money with project labor agreements? I hope my colleagues will vote no so we can put the money we are going to save from the Flake amendment into some important investments in America.

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.

Mr. DURBIN. Will the Senator from Maine yield for a question?

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.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, we have a number of challenging foreign policy issues at the moment--from Russian aggression in Ukraine to ISIL and the Syrian civil war to stemming climate change. Yet amid these larger demands, it is important to remember there are many smaller struggles going on all over the world that are also important--struggles for basic political freedoms which can still result in jailings or worse. Today I would like to mention a number of such brave individuals who are being detained for exercising or advocating for such democratic values. First, I am deeply troubled by the recent crackdown on human rights activists in Azerbaijan--part of a disturbing pattern in that country that has significantly deteriorated during the last year. The New York Times summed it up nicely in its recent editorial by describing Azeri President Aliyev as a modern-day ``Jekyll and Hyde'' who is able to convince the world that he plays nice with the West while creating one of the worst human rights records at the same time. Aliyev wants the world to believe that Azerbaijan is a model country that promotes moderate Islam, has strong relations with the West, and is an ideal host for the upcoming European games, yet it currently holds more political prisoners than Russia and Belarus combined--not a great distinction to be sure. At the end of 2014, Aliyev's henchmen brazenly raided Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty offices in Baku, just weeks after the government arrested one of the country's best known investigative reporters, Khadija Ismayilova. After more than 2 months of detention, she was charged with embezzlement, illegal entrepreneurship, tax evasion and abuse of power--similar charges to those of other human rights activists. Last August, Senators Cardin, Murphy, and I sent a letter to President Aliyev expressing our concern over the imprisonment of Anar Mammadli and Bashir Suleymanli, the chair and the executive director of the Election Monitoring and Democracy Studies Center, an organization that promotes free and fair elections in Azerbaijan. Recently, Bashir was finally released but his colleague Anar remains behind bars. Just prior, police arrested Leyla Yunus, the director of the Institute for Peace and Democracy. The very next week, the police followed up by arresting her husband, Arif Yunus; fellow activist, Rasul Jafarov, a human rights defender and chairman of the Human Rights Club; and Intigam Aliyev, the country's most prominent human rights lawyer and the 2012 winner of the prestigious Homo Homini Award for his work defending the rule of law in Azerbaijan. Last month, the Washington Post ran a powerful letter on its opinion page written recently by Khadija where she states that the reason she is in prison is because of the regime's corruption and vows to continue to expose that corruption. Less than a week later the Azeri government suddenly called for a closed-door trial and found her guilty of criminal libel. To quote her piece in the Post: The fight between good and evil goes on, and the most important thing is that this fight should not end. If we can continue to reject the thinking that is imposed on us and believe that human dignity is not for sale, then we are the winners, and they, our jailers both inside and outside prison, are the losers. Sadly, this is just a snapshot of the many brave Azeris or organizations facing trumped-up charges or imprisonment for simply exercising basic political freedoms. To them, I say, the world is aware of your plight and courage. And to President Aliyev, I urge you to release your own people whose only offense has been to ask for a peaceful democratic Azerbaijan. You cannot be a part of the Western community of democracies while violating its core democratic principles. Second, Mr. President, is Saudi Arabia--a country that is an important ally to the United States on many issues and yet could not be more different when it comes to basic freedoms. I have spoken about human rights concerns in Saudi Arabia on the floor before--the troubling lack of freedoms for women and the use of obsolete blasphemy and apostasy laws to stifle freedom of religion and expression. In 2012, the Saudi Government imprisoned a young blogger named Hamza Kashgari for tweets considered blasphemous. Fortunately, after nearly 2 years, I was pleased to hear of his release. Writer and activist Raif Badawi, however, has not been so fortunate. Also imprisoned in 2012, Raif Badawi was sentenced to 10 years in prison and 1,000 lashes for apparently launching a Web site that suggested a peaceful discussion about religion. He received his first set of 50 lashes in public on January 9, and spent his 31st birthday in jail, severely wounded. His wife, Ensaf Haidar, who fled to Canada with their three children after she began receiving anonymous death threats because of her husband's case, fears her husband may not be able to physically withstand another round of lashings. I was relieved to hear that after international outrage about this treatment as well as serious concern about his health, Raif's next rounds of floggings have been repeatedly postponed. His case was referred to the Supreme Court in Riyadh only to be returned back to the Court of Appeals in Jeddah, where reports indicate he may be retried and even worse, could face the death penalty. Raif's lawyer, Waleed Abu al-Khair, a prominent human rights activist in his own right and head of the Monitor of Human Rights in Saudi Arabia, was himself arrested and sentenced to 15 years in prison followed by a ban on travel for 15 years. Also concerning is that his case was taken up by the Specialized Criminal Court in Jeddah, which was created in 2008 to deal with terrorist suspects but has also taken to trying human rights activists on dubious charges. I sent a letter to Saudi Arabia in January along with several colleagues--Senators Leahy, Shaheen, Rubio, Feinstein, Wyden, Kirk, and Boxer--urging the release of both Raif and Waleed. My staff has also met with Samar Badawi--she is Waleed's wife and Raif's sister, and she is an activist in her own right--it is a whole family of activists. For years she has been a strong advocate for women's rights in Saudi Arabia and has served her own time in jail for it. In fact, in 2012, she was one of the recipients of the International Women of Courage Award from the State Department. Samar and others have raised the profile of countless women who have stood up for their rights in a country where zealous interpretations of religion and traditional customs guide Saudi laws, like the one requiring all women to have a male guardian. The guardianship law automatically restricts Saudi women from driving, as many of you know, but also from making their own choices regarding marriage and divorce, employment, travel, banking, and countless other basic life decisions. Raif, Waleed, and Samar are only a few of the many independent activists and peaceful dissidents in Saudi Arabia who have faced persecution. Now, like many of you, I was saddened to hear of the passing of King Abdullah bin Abdul Aziz on January 23. Many have described him as a man of vision, peace, and reform. As his brother, Salman, takes the seat as the new King of Saudi Arabia, I hope he will take every opportunity to free Raif, Waleed, and others jailed on account of their beliefs, to allow greater room for political debate and freedoms, and renounce any further prosecutions under charges of apostasy or blasphemy. Last, Mr. President, I would like to turn the attention toward Ethiopia, a country I last visited in 2010, when I had the opportunity to meet with then-Prime Minister Meles. Meles' government made many advances and Ethiopia was and remains an ally and leader a difficult region. It has also received millions over the years in development assistance from the United States. And yet, Ethiopia continues to be a country with a troubling human rights record, particularly regarding freedom of the press. Many had hoped that new Ethiopian Prime Minister Hailemariam would bring a change to his late predecessor's human rights policies. Unfortunately, last July the Ethiopian Government charged six bloggers and three journalists--known collectively as the Zone 9 Bloggers--under a broadly used terrorism law, despite any credible evidence be offered. Sadly, these bloggers seem to have been arrested to narrow the already small space for free media expression in Ethiopia. Some of you may have heard of Eskinder Nega, a prominent independent journalist who was critical of the Ethiopian Government and was detained on eight different occasions before being convicted in 2012 on terrorism charges and sentenced to 18 years in prison. Others may know of Reeyot Alemu, a schoolteacher and columnist with one of Ethiopia's last remaining independent papers was also convicted in 2012 on counts of terrorism and sentenced to 5 years in prison. Reeyot has breast cancer and is in desperate need of urgent and proper medical care beyond what prison can provide. Both Eskinder and Reeyot have won prestigious international awards for their work while serving prison terms. Both represent the plight of their countless colleagues in the industry who have suffered threats, intimidation, politically motivated prosecutions, and even physical abuse. I sent a letter with Senators Boxer and Menendez to the Ethiopian Government about the Zone 9 Bloggers last summer and I know Secretary Kerry has also raised their cases. I am troubled to hear that a fair and transparent trial for them only continues to be delayed. In fact, their case was adjourned 20 times before the group finally had the opportunity to plead not guilty in court last month, only to be adjourned again for March 30, just shortly before the Ethiopian general elections in May. Prime Minister Hailemariam, you have an opportunity to turn the page on your country's human rights record by reversing a troubling pattern of press harassment. These are just a few of the many political prisoners around the globe that struggle, often at great risk, for a better future for their fellow countrymen and women and for their children. I want them and their families--and the governments unjustly holding them--to know that they are not forgotten. I will continue to draw attention to their plight and work for their release, along with my colleagues here in Congress and their countless advocates around the world.

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 are engaged in an annual ritual on the floor of the Senate--the budget resolution. The budget resolution comes to the floor, and Senator Enzi of Wyoming and Senator Sanders of Vermont lead the effort to debate the budget resolution. This is not a law because it is never sent to the President. It is something passed by the House and the Senate that kind of says: The President told us we couldn't spend anything more than X; we will tell you how we would spend it. It always is different from what the President suggested. So we get into a debate about how we are going to spend our Federal budget. That is what a budget resolution is all about, and we have to make choices--just as families make choices when it comes to things they buy for their families and for their homes. So I will talk about an amendment I am going to offer which gives us a choice. First, today on Capitol Hill we have visitors walking the corridors wearing purple sashes. If we look closely, written on those sashes it says Alzheimer's Association. It is not unusual for us to get visits from people who are interested in medical issues--cancer, diabetes, Alzheimer's. The list goes on. They come here basically with very fundamental requests: Can you find more research dollars to help us find a cure? Can you provide support to the families who are facing this disease? I have faced that so many times as a Congressman and as a Senator. I use this as an illustration, because Alzheimer's is a disease and an issue which is becoming more dominant in America. I am about to state a statistic which I didn't believe when I heard it, and I went back and checked and double checked, and it is true. I have spoken on the floor here about 3 minutes. In that 3-minute period of time, three Americans have been diagnosed with Alzheimer's. One American is diagnosed with Alzheimer's every 68 seconds in America. It is a disease which is starting to gallop across our Nation and affect more and more families. It is expensive, costly--costly, of course, to the victim who loses touch with the people they love and the life they want to lead; costly, too, to the caregivers--the children, the spouses, and others-- who turn their lives around and start to care for the person with Alzheimer's. Last year in America we spent $200 billion on Medicare and Medicaid for Alzheimer's victims, and, sadly, the projection is that in just a few years, we are going to see this figure surpass $1 trillion. It will literally eat up the Medicare and Medicaid programs as we know them. That is one disease, but it is one that is so serious that we have to take it seriously. I can speak in personal terms--and I bet everyone can--about cancer, what it has meant to my family, what it means to families all across America. Here is what it gets down to: Will we make a decision as a nation to make the right investment in biomedical research? We have the best biomedical research agency in the world--the National Institutes of Health. Nobody questions that. The Centers for Disease Control is right by its side in the work that it does. The Department of Defense, Veterans Administration, even the Department of Energy, all do work in relation to medical research and medical technology. So the question that is posed to us--to this generation of Senators sitting on the floor--is this: Are we going to do further research in areas that can cure disease, alleviate human suffering, and, yes, reduce the cost to the government? I have found this is the most bipartisan issue in the world. I have been all over Illinois, and we have a lot of Republicans, Democrats, and Independents. When I stop to talk about biomedical research, everybody is on board. The mother with the diabetic son, the father with a wife suffering from some form of cancer--they are all on board, they are listening. And they should. What I will offer as an amendment here is generally just a marker. It doesn't mean that medical research will be enhanced or grow in size, but it basically puts us on record as to whether the United States Senate believes that we should invest additional money into biomedical research. Why should we put more money into it? I went out to the National Institutes of Health. There is a doctor out there named Dr. Francis Collins. I think he is one of the best. Francis Collins, back in 1988-- if I am not mistaken--was given the task of mapping the human genome. I am a liberal arts lawyer, so I am lost. The human genome has something to do with our DNA and tells the people who research it a lot about us and diseases we are likely or not likely to have. So they mapped the human genome, which took years to do, and with that information they are making giant strides now in finding cures for diseases and breakthroughs and identifying some of these issues. We all read about Angelina Jolie and what she is going through with her fear of cancer. It is based on a family history, medical advice, and, yes, something that has been found in her DNA through the human genome project that leads her to be more sensitive and worried about her own health. She is a famous actress, and that is why we pay close attention. But it applies to families across the board. Here is the point I am getting to. We are falling behind in biomedical research. In the last 10 years we have lost 23 percent of our spending power to fund medical research. That means that, 10 years ago, one out of every three promising research projects was funded. Today, it is one out of six. I don't need to tell the Senator from Maryland, Mr. Cardin, because NIH is in his State, and he knows what they do and he knows the researchers and Dr. Collins. I went to Dr. Collins, and I said to him: What can we in the Congress do to help you find cures for diseases? Senator, he said, it is very basic: Give us 5-percent real growth in our appropriation for 10 straight years--5 percent over inflation. Give me that, Senator, and I promise you--I promise you, we will pay for it over and over in saving money on medical treatment, in alleviating the suffering of disease that we face in this country. That is what I am trying to do. The American Cures Act is legislation I put in to do that. Well, what will it cost, Senator? It is easy to come up with some idea on the floor that is going to cost a lot of money and not pay for it. What will it cost us? Over a 10-year period of time, a 5-percent real growth increase in NIH, CDC, and the other departments I mentioned, over a 10-year period of time as additional spending comes to $150 billion. In that 10-year period of time, we will appropriate more than $15 trillion in Federal spending. Work the decimal points. I am talking about a tiny sliver of a small percentage that goes into medical research. And I am also saying that I am willing to stand here as a Senator and promise you that medical research will pay for itself over and over and over again. I am of an age that I can remember the fear of polio--some folks with gray hair may remember that too--when, as a kid, kids were coming down with polio, crippled by it, many of them living in iron lungs, and parents were scared to death. We didn't know where it was coming from. My mother had a theory that it had something to do with water standing in the street: Don't you go play in that puddle. You may get polio. Who knew? No one knew. But we were afraid because we knew fellow classmates who were getting polio. And then, 60 years ago, along comes Jonas Salk. Every school child in America knew that name. We didn't look forward to that shot; that is for sure. But the notion that we would be liberated from the fear of polio, that was such an amazing discovery that it was national and international news. Medical research can do that. Jonas Salk did that. We have done it over and over again. So now, will our generation give up on biomedical research? Will we decide that balancing the budget, eliminating the deficit is more important than a small contribution toward the National Institutes of Health? I hope not. The amendment I will offer will ask the Senate to go on record to support this effort. Senator Moran from Kansas was here earlier. He has a similar amendment. I am going to vote for Senator Moran's amendment. I hope he votes for mine. Let's be bipartisan about this. Let's find something we can agree on. Let's make it biomedical research. Let's make it a commitment to the NIH. I know that people we represent in every State of the Union will say: You did the right thing, Senator. Put politics aside. Give the money to those researchers to find cures for those diseases. It is not only going to save us money; it is going to save lives.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from West Virginia (Mr. Manchin) is necessarily absent.

Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from West Virginia (Mr. Manchin) is necessarily absent.

Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from West Virginia (Mr. Manchin) and the Senator from Nevada (Mr. Reid) are necessarily absent.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. Madam President, this is an important moment in the Senate each year because we try to define what our values are and the way we spend our money. If you want to know a family's values, take a look at the family budget. Are they putting some money away for their young son or daughter to go to college, making sure they can own a home, paying their bills on a regular basis, or are they wasting money on things they can't afford? The budget tells a story about values. This budget presented by the Republicans tells another story. It tells a story about America's future. I have a friend back in Springfield, IL. He has been a friend for years and years. Ten years ago, his wife was diagnosed with Alzheimer's. His life changed dramatically. He could no longer go to work on a regular basis. He devoted every waking minute to his wife. She is still alive today and struggling, but that family was different. Their lives were different. Across America, families just like his family learn about the diagnosis of Alzheimer's every day. Do you know how often we diagnose an American with Alzheimer's? Once every 68 seconds. The millions who are now afflicted by that disease--many of them have a very tough future ahead of them, as do their families. What does that have to do with this political debate? It has a lot to do with it. It has to do with some basic things. First, should we continue to cut the money for medical research in America? The Republican budget says: Yes. We can't afford medical research. Really? Well, last year, we spent $200 billion in Medicare and Medicaid on Alzheimer's victims alone--$200 billion. When we asked for $3 or $4 billion more for medical research in the hopes we can find a way to delay the onset of Alzheimer's or, God willing, even find a cure for it--we will more than pay back the money we invest in research. But the Republican budget says that is something we cannot afford in America today. When it comes to those who are suffering from Alzheimer's, how do they get by? Many of them get by with Medicare, which, of course, is the insurance policy for the elderly and disabled. But this budget cuts Medicare. Many low-income victims of that disease and many others rely on Medicaid, but this budget makes dramatic cuts in Medicaid. That is the vision the Republicans present to us in their budget--the vision of an America that cannot afford to do the research to find cures for diseases such as Alzheimer's, cancer, diabetes, and the list goes on. They see an America where we cannot afford to help people who are struggling to get by. This budget proposes takes 26 million Americans off of health insurance. I will repeat that--26 million Americans off of health insurance. Is that the answer to America's future? Have you ever been the father of a sick child and not had health insurance? I have. I will never forget it as long as I live. I felt helpless and worried that my little daughter was not going to get the right care she needed. Thank God the day came when I was covered with health insurance and could get her the best. But I think about the millions of Americans who never saw that day and the fact that 26 million Americans would lose health insurance because of the Republican budget. We are a better nation than that. We should prepare for a better future than one where the have- nots are growing in number. The sad reality is that the Republican budget, although it finally answers its political prayer and eliminates the Affordable Care Act, still collects all of the revenue from the Affordable Care Act. They will never be able to explain that one to us. How will they explain to the millions of seniors who are under Medicare that they are eliminating the program that reduces the cost of prescription drugs? These are seniors on fixed incomes who are trying to stay healthy and independent at home and who depend on drugs that could be pretty expensive. The Republican budget eliminates that provision in the Affordable Care Act which helps those seniors pay for their prescription drugs--the so-called doughnut hole. As I go through the lengthy list of what the Republicans have done in their budget, I have to ask, is this their vision of America--fewer people having health insurance, fewer seniors being able to afford the prescription drugs they need to get by, cutting Medicaid, where we provide prenatal care for moms so the babies are healthy? For goodness' sake, it is not only the right thing to do, it is the economic thing to do. A sick baby is a tough challenge for any family, but it is a challenge for all of us. The medical bills a premature baby might incur far exceeds the cost of good prenatal care so the mom and baby are healthy. But that is just another area of cutbacks when it comes to this Republican budget. This budget is certainly not going to become the law of the land. I believe even some Republicans will have a struggle trying to vote for it or explain it. More, importantly, though, I hope this budget is a chance for us to have a conversation about what middle-income America is going to look like in the future. I think that is the key to America's success. We talk a lot about income inequality. To put it in a few words, it means that a lot of families are working hard every single darn day and they cannot make ends meet. They are living paycheck to paycheck. What are we doing for them? This Republican budget cuts the available college assistance for their kids to go to school. That doesn't help that middle-income family. This Republican budget doesn't invest in America when it comes to education. This Republican budget cuts back on the help to schools to make sure they are producing graduates with the skills to compete in the 21st century. If we really want to focus on helping middle-income families, we cannot vote for this Republican budget. It is a set of priorities for them which America really cannot accept. As Senator Sanders has said--our ranking member on the Budget Committee--we need to work to give middle-income families in this country a fighting chance. This bill does not do that. Sadly, this bill makes too many cuts in too many critical areas. I am going to offer an amendment to this bill. See if you like this idea. I think it is a good one. My colleagues will get to vote on it. Here is what it says. We have a tax code full of provisions to encourage businesses to do certain things. We give them deductions, credits, incentives to do things, such as drilling for oil, building wind turbines, so many things--some good, some bad; it depends on your point of view. I suggest that we put a provision in our Tax Code that says we will provide a tax credit to companies that stay in the United States and don't bail out and head to a foreign country, companies that invest in American jobs by maintaining or increasing the number of workers in the United States compared to the number of workers overseas. Secondly, those companies will get a tax credit if their corporation pays fair wages by paying most employees a wage so that a family of three doesn't have to depend on the government for a safety net program. That is about $15 an hour. If a company keeps jobs in the United States and pays about $15 an hour as a minimum, we will give them a tax credit. Those companies should also provide quality health insurance for their employees. Who would disagree with that one? They should also prepare their workers for retirement by providing a pension or 401(k) with fair employer contributions. The last point is that those companies should support our veterans, our troops, and people with disabilities by giving them a chance to work there. How about those companies? From where I am sitting, those are patriotic American companies that deserve a break in the Tax Code as much, if not more, than any other company. I will bring that amendment to the floor and let my colleagues vote on it. I hope we can get a bipartisan consensus. We ought to create incentives for companies to stay in the United States, employ Americans, pay a good wage, provide health insurance and pensions, and give a break to veterans and people with disabilities who are applying for jobs. Let's have some priorities that reflect the future of a growing, solid America--an America with a growing middle class. I yield the floor.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from West Virginia (Mr. Manchin) is necessarily absent.

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

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I am glad I heard the comments of my colleague firsthand and I wish to respond to them directly. As of today, Loretta Lynch, who is the President's nominee for Attorney General, has had her nomination pending before the U.S. Senate for 131 days. How does that compare to previous nominees for Attorney General? It is three times longer than the period of time that Attorney General Ashcroft was pending before the U.S. Senate, 2\1/2\ times longer than the time taken to confirm Attorney General Mukasey, and twice as long as the time taken to confirm Attorney General Holder. Why? In some cases, these nominees had questions that were raised by Members of the Senate--questions about their political views, their background; legitimate questions requiring time to answer. I sat in the Senate Judiciary Committee hearing for this nominee, Loretta Lynch. There were no questions raised of any nature, of any kind, questioning her ability to serve as Attorney General. None. When my colleague from Arizona notes the fact that I have voted against African-American women nominees in the past, it is true. I am not arguing that every Member of the Senate should vote for Loretta Lynch simply because she would be the first African-American woman to serve in that capacity. All I am saying is she deserves the same fair treatment we have given to other nominees for this job. She has now been pending before the Senate longer than any nominee for Attorney General in the last 30 years. She has been on the calendar now--on the calendar waiting for a vote--for a longer period of time than the last five nominees for Attorney General combined. Why? It has nothing to do with her qualifications for the job, which are the very best. Why in the world are we taking this important post--Attorney General of the United States of America--why are we taking this important civil rights moment, when the first African-American woman in history is being given an opportunity to serve, and entangling it in the politics of the Senate? A week ago, the majority leader, Senator McConnell, said right outside this Chamber he was going to call her nomination this week. We breathed a sigh of relief; she has been waiting so long. Then, over the last weekend, he announced she wouldn't be called until a bill pending on the floor is passed. Yes, I am upset and frustrated on her behalf to think that she is being treated in this manner. I am not going to use any pejorative terms other than to say I believe it is insensitive for the Senate to hold her up for such a lengthy period of time with no objection to this woman's character, fitness, and ability to continue to serve the United States. She has served. She is currently in a position as a U.S. attorney in New York. She has the support of the following organizations: the National District Attorneys Association, the Federal Law Enforcement Officers Association, the International Association of Chiefs of Police, the Major Cities Chiefs Association, the Association of Prosecuting Attorneys, the FBI Agents Association, and a long list of Republican- and Democratic-appointed former U.S. attorneys, including Patrick Fitzgerald and Scott Lassar from the Northern District of Illinois. She has the support of former FBI Director Louis Freeh and former Deputy Attorney General Larry Thompson from the George W. Bush administration. Under ordinary circumstances, this would have been an easy ask for the President to bring a person of this quality to the Senate for confirmation. She had three votes supporting her on the Judiciary Committee from the Republican side. I don't understand the objections of the others, but I respect whatever their reasoning. All I am asking for--all the President is asking for and all the Senate is asking for--is a vote. Bring her off the pages of the calendar, before the Senate, for a vote. Don't make it contingent on some bill or some political agreement in the future. Let this woman, who has led such an extraordinary life, have her chance to continue to serve the United States of America. That, to me, is only fair and only just and would be in keeping with the traditions of the Senate to follow. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the time during the quorum call be divided equally between both sides.