National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2016

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, let me say at the outset that the Senator from Arizona, although we are of opposite political faith, has been my friend and colleague for a long time--since we first were elected together in a class in the House of Representatives. Our friendship and relationship has had its peaks and valleys. I hope we are at a peak at this moment. I will concede, before I say a word about his amendment, that I have no question in my mind, nor should anyone, about the commitment of the Senator from Arizona to the men and women who show extraordinary courage in battling for the United States of America in our military. The Senator's own personal life is a testament to his dedication to the U.S. military. I know he has brought that dedication to his service as the chairman of the Armed Services Committee and in bringing this authorization bill to the floor.

Secondly, I don't question his commitment to medical research either. As he said, when we reach a certain stage in life, we may value it more because we realize our own vulnerabilities and the vulnerabilities of those we love. So what I am about to say is not a reflection of his commitment to the military nor his commitment to basic medical research, but I do question this amendment, which Senator McCain has said he will not offer but has filed, and I have been prepared for several days now to debate.

Here is the question: Should we have within the Department of Defense a medical research capacity? I think yes, and I think for obvious reasons--because there are certain challenges to the men and women who serve in our military and to their families which relate to their military service.

Secondly, if we are going to have such a military research program, should politicians and lobbyists, as the Senator said, be able to pick the diseases and pick the research? No, of course not. That is why this appropriations bill, which we will consider later this week, and this authorization bill address a situation where this is done by competitive grant. In other words, if we have researchers at some hospital who are researching a medical condition important to our military, we have to compete for it. It is not automatic. The decision is not made by Senators or Congressmen. It is made by medical professionals about which research makes a difference. So I think medical research is important to our military. Politicians shouldn't pick and choose those researchers and those research grants; it ought to be done by professionals.

Third, this undertaking in the Department of Defense is substantial. It is about $1.8 billion for all of the different medical research. In perspective, the funding for the National Institutes of Health is about $30 billion. This is relatively small.

Dr. Francis Collins heads up the NIH and I went to him and I said: Doctor, I am working on this defense medical research bill; I want to make sure we don't waste a penny. I don't want to duplicate anything you are doing at NIH.

He said: Trust me, we will not. We coordinate everything we do. What they do is complementary to our work and what we do is complimentary to their work. We are not wasting a penny.

So I think those three things are an important starting point in this debate. Medical research is important to national defense. Politicians have no role in choosing who is going to do the medical research. Also, whatever we do is going to be coordinated with medical research at leading agencies such as the National Institutes of Health.

There are a lot of items on this list of research that I think very few people would ever quarrel with. Should we have a joint warfighter medical account in research? Should we have orthotics and prosthetics research for those who have lost a limb in military service? How about a military burn research unit, wound care research, military dental research--all of these topics relate to actual service.

The only specifics which the Senator from Arizona raised, questioning why the Department of Defense would get involved in research, I would like to address. One item he specified is breast cancer. It is true the second largest undertaking for breast cancer research in America takes place at the Department of Defense. It started there--and I will be honest--I remember why. It started there because the funding through the National Institutes of Health was not reliable or predictable, and the Department of Defense made a commitment: We will make our commitment to breast cancer research.

Is there a reason it would be in the Department of Defense? Even though the Senator from Arizona has raised questions about it, I wish to call his attention to the following: In 2013, researchers in the Department of Defense developed a vaccine that promises to protect women against a recurrence of breast cancer. Breast cancer is a disease diagnosed in female troops at a rate 20 percent to 40 percent higher than the civilian population. I am a liberal arts lawyer, so I don't know why. Can I figure out why more women in our military are diagnosed with breast cancer than women in our civilian population? I don't know the answer to that, but I want to know the answer to that. I want to know if there is something--anything--environmental or otherwise that our troops, and particularly women in the military, are exposed to that makes them more likely to come down with a diagnosis of breast cancer. Is that a legitimate question at the Department of Defense? It is obvious it is.

How good are these researchers if we put several billion dollars into breast cancer research in the Department of Defense? The researchers recently completed a 10-year study of this vaccine known as E75, tested on more than 100 female soldiers recovering from breast cancer and they had a similar test group of civilian women. The research is happening within the Cancer Vaccine Development Program, an Army research network studying vaccines' potential to fight breast, ovarian, uterine, and prostate cancers.

Researchers indicated that in trials, the vaccine cut the risk in half that a woman's breast cancer will return--in half. Is it worth it? Is it worth it for us, through the Department of Defense, to put money into breast cancer research when female troops have a rate of breast cancer diagnosis 20 to 40 percent higher, when these researchers are finding a vaccine which in trials is cutting the recurrence of breast cancer in half compared to other populations? It seems very obvious to me.

This is not the first time the defense researchers in breast cancer have done extraordinary things. In 1993, defense researchers developed Herceptin, now FDA approved, and one of the most widely used drugs to fight breast cancer--developed at the Department of Defense. Do we want to take the research decisions away from the researchers?

The amendment which the Senator from Arizona offers would give the Secretary of Defense the last word as to whether we do this research. Now, I have known Secretaries of Defense, and they are talented individuals, but when it comes to making medical decisions about medical research, I don't think any of them are qualified to do that. Let's leave it in the hands of the professionals, not in the hands of politicians, not in the hands of political appointees, and not in the hands of bureaucrats.

Let me also say this: When we look at the list of diseases that are studied at the Department of Defense, some of them may sound odd. Lou Gehrig's disease--ALS--why would we include that on a list for Department of Defense research? Let me explain. Men and women who have served in the U.S. military are 60 percent more likely than civilians to develop Lou Gehrig's disease--men and women who serve in the military. Gulf war veterans are twice as likely as the general population to develop Lou Gehrig's disease. Should we invest money for medical research in the Department of Defense for Lou Gehrig's disease? And then should we ask the basic question, Why? Why would it be more likely that one would develop Lou Gehrig's disease if one served in the U.S. military or if one was in the Gulf war? Those are legitimate medical questions that relate to our military. For the Senator to offer an amendment to take out any of that type of research, I think that is the wrong thing to do.

We don't have to speak about traumatic brain injury. Everybody knows what has happened. We have seen the returning veterans--roadside bombs--what they have gone through. Between 48,000 and 169,000--169,000--military servicemembers who have served and are serving in Iraq and in Afghanistan have developed post-traumatic epilepsy--head injuries. Post-traumatic epilepsy is a form of epilepsy resulting from traumatic brain injury. I put a provision in here for competitive grants on epilepsy and seizures for this reason: $7.5 million--we have 169,000 who are dealing with these traumatic brain injuries and dealing with seizures and epilepsy afterward. Is this a legitimate area of Department of Defense medical research? Absolutely. We cannot ignore the reality of what our troops have gone through and what they need when they come home. To cut out this research would be a mistake.

Let me also say, in 2013 alone, 100,000 servicemembers sought treatment for seizures at our veterans hospitals. It is a serious, serious problem.

I could go through every single element I have here of medical research at the Department of Defense. I hope the examples I have given illustrate that men and women who serve our country face medical challenges which the ordinary civilian population may not face. I think we have a special obligation to them to engage in the research that can make their lives whole again and give them a chance to come back from our military and have a happy and full life, which we promised them. We said: If you will hold up your hand and give an oath to America that you will risk your life for our country, we will stand by you when you come home, and that includes more than a GI bill to go to school.

It is more than a place to live. It is even more than basic medical care. It involves medical research.

The final point I wish to make is this. This Senator will never apologize for trying to come up with more money for medical research. Never. Once every 67 seconds in America someone is diagnosed with Alzheimer's in America. When my staff told me that, I said you have to be wrong. They are not. It is once every 67 seconds. We spent $200 billion in Medicare and Medicaid on Alzheimer's patients last year, not to mention the devastating costs to individual families who have someone they love suffering from this disease.

We don't have an Alzheimer's provision. Well, we have a small Alzheimer's provision in this particular medical research bill. Am I going to stand here to apologize for putting $12 million in Alzheimer's research? I will tell you, if we could delay the onset of Alzheimer's by 1 month, by 2 months, by 6 months, God willing, if we could find a cure, we would more than pay for this medical research over and over and over again. We would spare people from the pain and suffering they go through with this disease and spare their families as well. When it comes to medical research, I will never stand and apologize for putting money into medical research. Every one of us has someone we love in our family facing a terrible, threatening, scary diagnosis and praying to God that there has been some area of research that may find a cure or a surgery. That is what this is about.

I am glad the Senator has withdrawn his amendment. I repeat what I said at the outset. I will never ever question his commitment to our members in uniform and our veterans, nor will I question his commitment to medical research, but I will be sending him information that I think demonstrates what we are doing here has a direct impact on military families and military veterans.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record three pages of organizations that support my effort to stop this amendment.

There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in the Record, as follows:

Groups Opposing the McCain Amendment To Prohibit Certain Types of Medical Research Programs at DOD

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source