-9999

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, we are coming down to the wire here. June 1 looms over us and the threat that on that date, unless Congress takes action, the United States will default on its debt for the first time in the history of our Nation. All the people who are in the know tell us it would be a disaster of such proportion that it would harm individuals, families, and businesses across the United States and would ultimately diminish the United States reputation for the most stable currency--the U.S. dollar--in the world. Individual families would see their 401(k)s and savings accounts diminish, the interest rates for purchases go even higher; businesses would fail, and workers would lose their jobs.

You have to ask yourself: Why would we even consider approaching that kind of calamity? Well, you take a look at the agenda that is being offered by Speaker McCarthy in the House of Representatives, and he spells out exactly what his goals are. First, he wants to cut spending in areas that he thinks are wasteful. For example, he would wipe out 30,000 law enforcement and Border Patrol jobs.

How many times has the Speaker's party reminded us that we have a crisis on our southern border and need to marshal our resources to protect America? Whether he is exaggerating or simply stating a fact is your own decision, your own conclusion; but can any part of his warning be answered by eliminating our personnel--our national personnel--on the border? I don't think so.

This approach by Speaker McCarthy would also threaten housing and food security for tens of thousands of American individuals, including many veterans. It would deprive 1 million senior citizens of access to Meals on Wheels. That is what his goal is in terms of cutting the budget.

And I might add a couple of other things for your consideration. He would cut money for medical research in the United States by 25 percent. I have tried to work over the last 6 or 7 years with the goal of increasing medical research spending by 5 percent real growth every single year. We have gone from $30 billion to $48 billion in annual appropriations for what is considered the most sophisticated and successful medical research program in the world.

And, now, the Speaker has told us: We want to cut back on medical research. Tell that to the families of cancer victims. Tell that to the families who are trying to cope with diseases that are life-threatening on a daily basis. The breakthroughs that come about because of this medical research should inspire us to spend even more--even more--on research.

To think that we may be close to a vaccine against pancreatic cancer. That was unthinkable a few weeks ago or months ago, but now there are reports that NIH research is leading in that direction with some promising conclusions.

To think that we have the possibility of finally dealing with those maladies of the brain which haunt us in every family in this country. The notion that the researchers, because of NIH grants, at Northwestern University in Chicago have now found a successful way to breach the blood-brain barrier and have medications go directly into the brain, what can that do? Well, it might deal directly with brain cancer-- glioblastoma and similar maladies. But, in addition, they are looking at the possibility that it has applications for Alzheimer's and Parkinson's and other brain-related diseases like Lou Gehrig's.

Do we want to stop research on that? I ask the Speaker: Do you really want to achieve that? That is your goal: to slow down and stop research by the U.S. Government which leads the world in these fields?

Mr. President, I think what really is at stake here is the Speaker is calling for these dramatic cuts in critical American programs in an effort to preserve the tax cuts that were instituted during the Trump administration. These are tax cuts that benefited corporations which were not paying their fair share of taxes and continue to receive blessings from the Trump administration to pay even less; and wealthy individuals who were doing quite well for themselves got a tax break at that time. Speaker McCarthy wants to preserve those tax breaks even at the expense of law enforcement, Border Patrol, helping our veterans, Meals on Wheels, and medical research. Well, that is not my priority in serving in the U.S. Senate.

There is one other item that I want to mention that is part of the Speaker's agenda that is bringing us to the brink on our national debt, and that is that the House Republican bill is really a gift-wrapped present for the fossil fuel industry. The bill that they are proposing guts critical environmental protections to fast-track new fossil fuel projects. It mandates the sale of new oil and gas leases and accelerates drilling both on- and offshore.

That is not just bad for the planet; it is bad for our people, our economy, as well as our Nation and the hopes of becoming energy independent. If this MAGA manifesto becomes law, it would eliminate 140,000 clean energy jobs across America, jobs which were promoted with the Inflation Reduction Act.

The Republican proposal would cut billions of dollars in clean energy investments, the majority of which benefit businesses and workers in their own States. Importantly, these investments are not only job creators; they are vital to our Nation's capacity to remain resilient in the face of an environmental crisis.

Just yesterday, the World Meteorological Organization warned that the next few years will be the warmest on record for planet Earth. Temperatures may even breach the targets set by the Paris Agreement-- not in the next five decades but in the next 5 years. What we see coming from this are not only warmer days but more extreme weather events. You have to be sensitive to that if you are paying any attention at all. We need to make sure that every community in America is prepared for this challenge.

The House Republican proposal would make us more vulnerable in a climate crisis. It would cut funding for projects that expand access to clean air and clean water, especially in western States with chronic drought, and it would roll back programs to curb pollution in low-income communities across America.

Whenever we debate energy policy in Congress, Republicans tend to revert to the same old arguments. They say: Think about the economy.

These Republicans insist that, if we want to become energy independent, we have no choice but to invest more in oil and gas. In their view, America is hopelessly addicted to fossil fuels, and forcing us to remain beholden to foreign oil giants is the Republican answer to this challenge.

But, the truth is, they are wrong. Fossil fuels are not the future. We will need a transition; that is for sure. The future is going to be seen in communities like my own hometown of Springfield, IL. Last month in Springfield, an American-owned solar company broke ground on a project called Double Black Diamond.

Now, if you are a skier, you have to wonder what that has to do with flat land in Springfield, IL. Well, it has nothing to do with skiing. What they are talking about is building one of the largest solar farms in America in the area, and the energy produced will be sent to the residents of Chicago. It is amazing. These communities that have committed themselves to green energy are making massive investments in clean, sustainable, renewable energy.

Solar is the fastest growing, most affordable source of new electricity in America. Last year, my wife and I decided to install solar panels on our home in Springfield. It was a decision which was guided more by determination to see if it worked and to do something positive in our family to help with the climate crisis that we face. Well, we installed them, and the good news is this: In the first couple of months, we started to see our electricity bill disappearing. What was $115 a month turned into $15 a month. And, of course, there were tax credits available for that decision for our family and for every family that moves in that direction.

We estimate that 230,000 homes in Illinois will do what we did: put solar panels on the roof. With net metering, they will find it is a benefit in their monthly utility bills and a benefit to our environment.

Right now, if we don't do this, China and other countries will. They are going to pursue solar energy and the next generation of technology, and we will be left behind if the Republicans have their way with their budget bill.

So I would conclude by saying fossil fuels had their day. There is still a transition period where they will be needed, but we have got to point to the future where we can tell our kids and grandkids: We are sensitive to this climate crisis. We are investing in the right kind of energy for the future. We are not going to have America take second place to China or any other country when it comes to competition for this technology.

The Republican approach is yesterday. We have got to think about tomorrow.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source