[Congressional Record Volume 166, Number 89 (Tuesday, May 12, 2020)]
[Senate]
[Pages S2360-S2361]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                              CORONAVIRUS

  Mr. DURBIN. Madam President, there was a meeting last week--a 
telephone conference call--of the leaders of a dozen major nations 
around the world. It was a meeting to discuss something we are all 
thinking about, the answer to the question everyone in America asks 
every day: How will this end? When will this end? In this telephone 
conference, leaders from other nations talked about the ending that 
most of us envision--the discovery of a safe and effective vaccine that 
can protect people around the world from the scourge of this 
coronavirus.
  I am not sure when that vaccine will be discovered--the sooner the 
better--but the big question we need to ask ourselves at this point is, 
Where will it be discovered, and what benefit will it provide for the 
United States?
  You see, there was one major nation that boycotted this international 
telephone conference about discovering a vaccine. It was the United 
States. President Trump decided not to participate with the leaders of 
nations from around the world in this global conversation about finding 
a safe and effective vaccine to fight coronavirus. I am not sure what 
his motive was. But we know that at least 94 other vaccines are being 
explored and worked on in nations around the world--in England, for 
example, and in Germany and so many other countries. They are looking 
for the same safe and effective vaccine as we in the United States are 
looking for.
  I have great faith and confidence in the men and women in medical 
research in the United States and the production facilities in our 
country, but I am not so proud or so vain as to believe that no other 
country could find that safe and effective vaccine. And if they did--
and if they did--would we hesitate for a moment to turn to a country 
and say that the United States wants to be part of producing that 
vaccine and receiving that vaccine for the people who live here?
  Why would the President of the United States decide we are going to 
boycott that conference, stay away from it? Oh, I am sure he has a 
dozen reasons, but they don't seem very convincing to me. We should be 
at the table wherever there is a serious, credible effort to discover a 
vaccine. The United States should be participating.
  They were trying to raise $8 billion. That is a lot of money, but 
remember, we are dealing with an effort to rescue our economy from 
coronavirus, which is now in the range of $2.8 trillion. They are 
asking the participants to put in money. Norway said it would pledge $1 
billion--Norway. The European Union said it would pledge $1 billion 
toward this global vaccine effort. The United States should have been 
at that table. We should be all in for any credible effort to find this 
vaccine as quickly as possible. I have introduced a resolution calling 
on the administration to reverse its position and to join in this 
effort.

  I want to commend Bill and Melinda Gates, who participated in that 
telephone conference and pledged millions of dollars of their own funds 
on behalf of the United States. Thank you to the Gates family for 
caring.
  Now, Mr. President, you should join them.
  This morning, the Republican leader came to the floor to talk about 
the problems and challenges that we face and the fact that there is 
another bill that is going to be offered publicly this week by Speaker 
Nancy Pelosi--the next in a succession of legislation that we have 
considered over the last several weeks.
  We have seen dramatic investments in unemployment insurance for a 
record number of unemployed people in this country. We have seen 
dramatic investments in the small businesses of America, to give them a 
fighting chance to reopen and to prosper in the future. I have joined 
in all of these on a bipartisan basis, and I will continue to.
  I don't know the specifics of Speaker Pelosi's proposal. Senator 
McConnell came to the floor and warned us not to think big and not to 
think about transformational things. Then, of course, he went back to 
his time-honored course about the question of liability.
  Senator McConnell has come to the floor repeatedly--repeatedly--and 
said that before he would consider another COVID-19 rescue bill, he 
would need to see what he calls a redline honored when it comes to 
immunity from lawsuits.
  What is being proposed by Speaker Pelosi when it comes to State and 
local governments is really an affirmation of what has been said by 
every one of us when it comes to our first responders, the police, the 
firefighters, the paramedics, the healthcare workers, and the teachers. 
What she says in the bill is that they have been hit and been hit hard 
at the State and local government levels by this COVID-19. She is 
proposing, as I understand it, a substantial commitment to help those 
units of government that have truly been hurt by this coronavirus. What 
she is asking for, really, is whether or not all of our speeches about 
healthcare workers, police, first responders, firefighters, and 
teachers are really credible and whether, in fact, we will come up with 
the resources that are needed.
  Senator McConnell has said that he will not support that legislation 
unless--as he calls it--his redline of liability immunity is honored. 
What he is saying is that he refuses to fund our police, firefighters, 
paramedics, and teachers unless we provide guaranteed business immunity 
for corporations. This is, sadly, an invitation for irresponsible 
corporations and businesses to cut corners when it comes to protecting 
workers and those customers and such who would be threatened by 
coronavirus.
  The McConnell redline threat would result in more people being 
infected by the coronavirus and more people getting sick. That is not 
what we want. There is a better way. We should be talking about how to 
do this properly.
  This afternoon there will be a hearing before the Senate Judiciary 
Committee. One of the witnesses being called by the Republicans is a 
man named Kevin Smartt. He is the chief executive officer and president 
of Kwik Chek food stores in Bonham, TX. He is testifying on behalf of 
the National Association of Convenience Stores on this question of 
liability.
  I read his statement this morning in preparation for the hearing, and 
I commend it to my colleagues because I want them to listen carefully 
to what Mr. Smartt says he believes businesses need. Here is what he 
says. He talks about his own company Kwik Chek.

       Kwik Chek's first priority is the safety of our employees 
     and customers. Beginning in early March, we adjusted our 
     daily protocols to mitigate the spread of the virus. This was 
     a challenge--

  Listen to what Mr. Smartt says--

     because the guidance provided by the CDC, the Occupational 
     Safety and Health Administration, as well as State and local 
     governments, often conflicted with one another in addition to 
     being vague and difficult to follow. Yet despite many 
     uncertainties, including the constantly fluctuating public 
     health guidelines, we began to adjust to the pandemic.

  Mr. Smartt is not saying that businesses don't have a responsibility 
here. He is accepting that responsibility to create a safe environment 
for workers and customers, but he is saying to us: When are you going 
to establish the standards? Why do you keep changing the standards?
  Here we are with Senator McConnell threatening to derail the next 
rescue

[[Page S2361]]

bill for police, firefighters, and teachers across America, unless 
there is guaranteed immunity from lawsuits, and here is one of the 
leading companies, the No. 1 primary witness of the Republicans in the 
Senate Judiciary Committee hearing, saying to the Federal and 
governments: Establish standards, reasonable standards, for us to live 
up to when it comes to conducting business, and we will do it.
  I think that is a reasonable request by his business. Why aren't we 
doing it? Why hasn't OSHA established standards for the safety of 
workers?
  One of our other witnesses here is this gentleman who is the head of 
the United Food and Commercial Workers, Marc Perrone. I have a special 
fondness for this union because when I was a college kid, I spent 12 
months working in a slaughterhouse in East St. Louis, IL, and it was 
this union that I belonged to back in those days
  It was tough, dirty, and dangerous work. I look to it as an important 
chapter in my life, when I saw how real people go to work every day and 
many times risk their safety and their health in doing it.
  Marc Perrone tells us there are literally thousands of his meat 
processing workers who have been affected by this virus and 95 of his 
members who have died as a result of it. What he is looking for--what 
we are looking for--is for those companies to establish standards of 
safety for their workers so that they can go back to work in this 
important business.
  Some are doing just that. I commend them. Some are working with the 
union to find safe ways to test their workers and to bring them back to 
a job site that is safe for them to work in. But they don't have a 
national standard to live up to. We haven't established a national 
standard, as we should. Whether through OSHA or through CDC, we ought 
to establish standards for businesses across this country to live up 
to. I believe many--Mr. Smartt with Kwik Chek and Marc Perrone with the 
United Food and Commercial Workers--would applaud that. They would say: 
At least we know what social distancing standards are to be used in the 
workplace. At least we know what protective equipment is required in 
the workplace to protect our employees. At least we know going into 
this exactly what the standards are that we need to live up to.
  Senator McConnell's approach is immunity from lawsuits; don't 
establish any standards and don't hold anybody to any standards at all. 
That is wrong. The net result of that is that more people would be in 
danger, more people would be infected, and more people would die. That 
is not the right approach.
  What we need to do is to make certain that when this is all said and 
done, we have a smart approach to this; that a business that is 
conscientious, cares for its customers, and cares for its workers has 
standards to live by and that they can meet reasonable standards that 
have been thought through from a public health viewpoint.
  It is no wonder that there is uncertainty when you look at the 
situation today. The Centers for Disease Control suggests voluntary 
standards, suggestions. The White House accepts some, publishes some, 
scoffs at others, and ignores others. There is just no clear message to 
businesses and people across America on what the standards of safety 
will be.
  So I would say that this hearing this afternoon is important to hear 
from Mr. Smartt and his willingness to look for standards that he can 
live by, and to hear from Marc Perrone about the dangers to his workers 
across the workplace. And don't believe for a minute that this caravan 
of lawsuits threat that we hear over and over tells the whole story.
  When you take a look at the lawsuits that have been filed, it is not 
just the so-called caravan of trial lawyers that are coming in and 
jumping on this. There are businesses suing businesses. There are lots 
of lawsuits that have little or nothing to do with personal injury. 
There are also lawsuits involving workers' compensation.
  Senator McConnell's suggestion is that we overturn the State laws 
that give workers the right to recover in the workplace if their 
injuries and or their health is impaired because of the COVID-19 virus. 
What a terrible outcome that would be to walk away from decades of 
established protection for workers in every State in the Union, for 
Senator McConnell's so-called redline threat when it comes to the COVID 
virus No. 4 bill that Speaker Pelosi is proposing.
  There is a reasonable answer here. We can say to these businesses 
across America: Join us in the fight. Let's stand together. You protect 
your workers, you protect your customers, and we will stand by you. We 
will establish a reasonable standard of conduct for you, which will 
protect you from frivolous lawsuits. But to take the approach by 
Senator McConnell, saying that we just are going to guarantee immunity 
from lawsuits, is exactly the wrong thing to do. We need a standard of 
safety that businesses can be proud of, that workers can respect, and 
that customers can count on so that they can go into places, do their 
business, buy the products, and know that there is a standard of good 
health that is being established for everyone.
  I yield the floor.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. CORNYN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered

                          ____________________