[Congressional Record Volume 166, Number 94 (Tuesday, May 19, 2020)]
[Senate]
[Pages S2485-S2487]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]


                           EXECUTIVE CALENDAR

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senate will 
proceed to executive session to resume consideration of the following 
nomination, which the clerk will report.
  The senior executive legislative clerk read the nomination of Scott 
H. Rash, of Arizona, to be United States District Judge for the 
District of Arizona.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Illinois.


                 Unanimous Consent Request--S. Res. 579

  Mr. DURBIN. Madam President, some of you at home may be old enough to 
remember a distinct circular scar on your upper arm. You may remember a 
parent or grandparent who had one. That mark was probably one of the 
world's greatest public health successes--the eradication of the deadly 
smallpox virus. That so many alive today no longer remember the death 
and misery caused by this disease is a testament to global efforts in a 
cooperative manner.
  The smallpox virus likely originated more than 3,000 years ago and 
was one of the most devastating diseases ever in the history of 
humanity. It was barely visible under the most powerful microscope and 
was known for fiery bumps covering the face and body, profuse internal 
bleeding, black vomit, and pieces of destroyed skin that would shed off 
one's body.
  Smallpox is estimated to have killed up to 300 million people in the 
20th century--300 million--and around 500 million in the last hundred 
years of its existence.
  In 1967, the World Health Organization launched a historic, intense 
effort to eradicate smallpox. The global eradication effort initially 
used a strategy of mass vaccination to achieve 80 percent vaccine 
coverage in each country and, thereafter, used contact tracing--
familiar with the word?--to reduce and rein in additional outbreaks.
  Ultimately, the global eradication of smallpox was certified and 
endorsed in 1980, making it one of the most successful collaborative 
public health initiatives in the history of the world. In fact, this 
month marks the 40th anniversary of the World Health Organization's 
historic achievement: the end of smallpox.
  Similar global efforts have been taken to deal with diseases such as 
polio and Ebola. So imagine my concern and that of the rest of the 
world that, amid the devastating global coronavirus pandemic, the 
United States decided just recently to sit out a conference to 
collaborate and raise funds to research, manufacture, and distribute a 
possible coronavirus treatment and vaccine.
  Just as with the smallpox effort, such a global collaborative 
approach makes sense, being both morally and strategically the thing to 
do to save lives around the world. You see, joining forces with other 
countries would help speed up the development and eventual distribution 
of a coronavirus vaccine that we all desperately seek. It would save 
lives in America, but it would also save lives around the world.
  No one knows--no one knows--where the vaccine will eventually be 
perfected or produced, so we should be on this. The United States 
should be at the table. We should be part of the collective global 
effort to find this vaccine.
  Clearly, other world leaders get it. They understand the obvious 
imperative of raising $8 billion to be spent over the next 2 years. 
Eight billion dollars is a massive sum of money until you place it up 
against the price we are currently paying for this virus.
  Our allies in the European Union and Norway came to this table that 
the United States vacated, or refused to attend, and each pledged $1 
billion toward this $8 billion goal.
  Who was absent from this critical effort to save lives around the 
world, including lives in the United States? Sadly, it was the United 
States itself. We were not part of this virtual global conference. You 
see, again, another short-sighted and critically missed opportunity to 
address the coronavirus, a question about what this administration was 
thinking. Why were we missing in action when all of these countries 
came together?
  I don't know where this vaccine will be found. It will be a great 
source of pride if it is in the United States. I have the greatest 
confidence in the men and women who are researchers and the businesses 
prepared to produce and develop it. I have the greatest confidence in 
them. But what if the very safest vaccine, the most effective vaccine, 
the one that is proven to be the best comes instead from England or 
Germany? Does that mean we will not use it because it is not the 
American vaccine? We know better than that. We want the safest, most 
effective vaccine, wherever it may come from, to be available to the 
world and, certainly, to the United States of America.
  Supporters in Congress said little or nothing when it came to the 
decision to vacate and to not be present at this international 
conference. The President has blamed others for problems that we face 
today, but it was his decision not to participate in this global 
conference on the vaccine. It could have devastating consequences.
  So what does it mean for America? Well, we continue to have some of 
the world's best researchers: experts at the National Institutes of 
Health, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and many 
universities and private researchers that work across the country and 
around the world. Many NIH-funded researchers have spent years studying 
coronaviruses. Their knowledge could help to pave the way for future 
breakthroughs.
  I applaud them, and I have to tell you, for the last 4 or 5 years 
there has been a quartet of Senators of both political parties who have 
given dramatic investments to the National Institutes of Health for 
additional research. We have been led by Roy Blunt, the Republican 
chair of the Appropriations Subcommittee, as well as Lamar Alexander, 
the Republican chair of the Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions 
Committee. Patty Murray has always been at the forefront of this 
effort, and I have done my best to back them up every way possible.
  We have had a 30-percent or more increase over the last 4 years in 
research at the NIH, so I believe in the NIH, and I have made it a 
major part of the job that I have undertaken here in the U.S. Senate 
with my bipartisan colleagues.
  Clinical trials, we know, are underway at NIH for vaccines. I want to 
commend that agency; Dr. Fauci, a friend of more than 20 years; and Dr. 
Collins, the same, for their tireless, unwavering, and inspired effort. 
But it is plausible, as I mentioned earlier, that the best vaccine 
candidate may turn up in some other country, not in the United States; 
that it will be some overseas company that decides to initiate and lead 
the production of the vaccine.

  In a rush to research and validate a vaccine, ramp up production, and 
address global allocation and supply needs that would ensure 
affordability and access worldwide, where will the United States stand: 
in the fray, in the battle, or on the sidelines?
  Last week we decided to stay on the sidelines and not to work with 
global partners to find this vaccine. When the United States pursues a 
go-it-alone approach while the rest of the world is working together, 
where does that leave us? That is why last week Senators Schumer, 
Murray, Leahy, Menendez, Murphy, Duckworth, and nearly three dozen 
others joined me in introducing a straightforward resolution that calls 
on the United States to join these global efforts.
  I am grateful to organizations like PATH, Shot@Life, Better World 
Campaign, and the UN Association of the United States for their support 
of this resolution as well. Quite simply, we should be part of these 
efforts to not only offer American expertise but to share in lifesaving 
benefits.
  We used to have a profound, well documented, proud bipartisan history 
of such effort. For example, I was pleased to rally around President 
Bush's call to stem the scourge of AIDS around the world through the 
historic PEPFAR Program. Many of my Republican colleagues in the Senate 
supported these efforts.
  Now we face this coronavirus outbreak. I was equally proud of 
President

[[Page S2486]]

Obama's efforts to set up infectious disease prevention systems and his 
leadership on the Ebola crisis.
  I have been told that one of my colleagues on the other side of the 
aisle is going to object to enacting this resolution this morning. I 
wanted to read the resolution clause that this colleague will be 
objecting to. I want those who are following this debate to ask whether 
they find this objectionable.
  Here is what it says: ``. . . calls on the United States Government 
to boost funding for and strengthen collaboration with key multilateral 
institutions at the forefront of responding to COVID-19, such as the 
Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations; Gavi, The Vaccine 
Alliance; and the Solidarity Trial.''
  This is not a radical or partisan suggestion. We did our best to make 
it nonpartisan because it should be. Does anyone in this country care 
if the researcher who finds that vaccine is a Republican or a Democrat? 
I certainly don't. We shouldn't care, either, whether it is found in 
the United States or another country. I would be so proud if it is 
found here, but if there is a safe and effective vaccine found in 
another country, we certainly want to participate in its discovery, its 
production, and its distribution. To stay on the sidelines at that 
point in history would be disastrous.
  Last Friday I was driving from Chicago to Springfield. It is about a 
3-hour and 15-minute ride. I had plenty of time in that rental car to 
listen to a lot of radio, but it was interrupted--interrupted by the 
President who, in a press conference, made it clear to us that he was 
going to address the need for this global vaccine, as he said, at warp 
speed.
  I have disagreed with this President on a lot of things, but I sure 
don't disagree with that statement. The sooner we can find it, the 
better, and I want the United States to use all of its resources to 
make it happen.
  The President was asked in a press conference afterward what that 
meant in terms of sharing this vaccine with the world, and he said, 
``We'll do it.'' It was a simple statement. There was no reservation. 
He made a pledge right then and there that, if we discover this 
vaccine, it will be shared with the world. Thank you, Mr. President. 
That was the right thing to say, at the right moment, as the whole 
world was watching to see the United States' leadership.
  What I am calling on in this resolution is simply that we use our 
expertise and an investment--and we make investments every day in 
global efforts--that we use this for a collaborative effort, a global 
effort, to find this vaccine. As I have said from the beginning, it 
will be a great source of pride if it is found here, but if it isn't, 
if there is a safer or effective vaccine that is available and it is 
discovered in another country, what difference does it make, if it 
saves lives in America and around the world.
  Let's be part of this effort. Let's set our pride aside and, instead, 
talk about the impact it would have on the people today who are in 
fear, suffering and, sadly, dying as a result of this global virus.
  Madam President, I ask unanimous consent, as in legislative session, 
that the Committee on Foreign Relations be discharged from further 
consideration of S. Res. 579 and the Senate proceed to its immediate 
consideration. I further ask that the resolution be agreed to, the 
preamble be agreed to, and the motions to reconsider be considered made 
and laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. RISCH. Madam President.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Idaho.
  Mr. RISCH. Madam President, reserving the right to object, let me 
state the resolution referred to by my friend from Illinois is 
comfortably residing in the Foreign Relations Committee at the present 
time and is subject to the regular order of Congress and of the 
committee.
  There is almost nothing that the Senator said that I disagree with, 
although from time to time I do disagree with my good friend and 
colleague from Illinois.
  I think that this is a matter of most consequence to the United 
States of America today, and certainly the pursuit of a vaccine and/or 
a cure are of utmost importance. I think that the process by which we 
go through that is incredibly important.
  Like the Senator from Illinois, I am a huge fan of the NIH and, for 
that matter, the CDC, which do great things for the public health 
system in not only America but in the world. They are vastly 
underappreciated. They are much like the electric switch in our rooms. 
Every morning, we get up and turn on the electricity and everything is 
fine, and we just take it for granted and don't even think about it. 
That is true of the NIH and the CDC. They do good work regardless of 
whether we are thinking about it.
  In America, we have something more than just a government effort when 
it comes to public health. We have this great machine called the free 
market and free enterprise system that incentivizes Americans, through 
the private sector, to do great and glorious things.
  Indeed, while my good friend from Illinois was bragging on the 
efforts by other countries to pursue the kinds of things that are 
needed, within the last 24 hours we have had a very important 
announcement from part of our private sector, which is making great 
strides in this regard.
  I think it is important that we do accept that there are various ways 
that we can and should pursue the vaccine and the cure for this 
horrible scourge. This matter is a lot deeper than that. It is the 
intent of our committee to hold hearings and develop very comprehensive 
legislation regarding how we pursue this in the future. What has just 
recently happened to us is of great interest to all of us but not 
nearly as important as what is going to happen to us in the future.

  There are parts of S. Res. 579, if not the vast majority of it, that 
I hope will be included when we get to what, hopefully, will be a 
comprehensive piece of bipartisan legislation to address this. Some of 
the whereases I am not too red-hot about, but as far as the resolutions 
are concerned, certainly, they state things that there would be 
unanimity, I think, in agreement.
  Where are we going with this? What my friend from Illinois has raised 
is a very small facet--an important facet but a small facet--of what we 
are going to do, what is the intent of our committee to do, going 
forward in what I think will be a bipartisan fashion. Again, like I 
said, I hope we are able to include these. I welcome the Senator's 
participation and all Members of the Senate's participation as the 
Foreign Relations Committee does move forward on some comprehensive 
legislation.
  What do we know for sure right now? I think Senator Durbin did an 
excellent job of taking us through history when it comes to some of the 
things we have had in the past like smallpox, AIDS, polio, and Ebola. 
And, certainly, the United States has been a leader and will be a 
leader on this particular scourge.
  The WHO--and, for that matter, other world organizations--have been 
large players, important players, helpful players in those efforts in 
the past on smallpox, AIDS, polio, and Ebola. Again, I come back to, 
just as an example, polio. A huge factor in that was not the U.S. 
Government involvement--well, it was a huge factor, but another huge 
player in that were private citizens, a couple in the United States, 
Bill and Melinda Gates, who played a huge role in eradicating polio, 
working with the WHO, working with the USG, and many others.
  I have no doubt, as we go forward on this, there will be that type of 
collaboration in the future. As the good Senator noted, this is not a 
political issue. This is not a Democratic issue. It is not a Republican 
issue. The virus doesn't care who you are or what you are. It is just 
looking for a home. We need to deny it that home, and we will. I think 
we will make great strides as we go forward.
  What do we know for sure right now? What we know is that this 
particular virus evolved in China, particularly in Wuhan Province, and 
specifically in a species of bat.
  What we also know is that there are about 2,000, so far, identified 
viruses that are in the same position that are carried by bats in the 
Wuhan Province. What we also know is that a virus has escaped from 
China before. There is a lot of speculation as to exactly how

[[Page S2487]]

this happened. We know that the virus jumped species, from the bat to a 
human being and then went around the world.
  We also know, for a fact, that this particular virus, like all 
viruses, acts uniquely. It is not exactly the same as other viruses 
that have jumped species and gone around the world. This one was unique 
in that, unlike some of the ones we have had in the past--this is our 
sixth experience since 2003 with the virus--this moved around the world 
at an incredibly fast speed. It was much more like a house on fire than 
the other diseases that we have talked about, like smallpox or polio. 
Its speed was unique. It was new. It was different.
  As a result of that, historical organizations that have dealt with 
these in the past were not expecting it and were not geared for it. 
They thought this virus would move much like the others that we have 
dealt with. The result of that, of course, was that it got away from 
us, from the world, and we now find ourselves in the position we are in 
because that happened.
  It is my hope, and it is my objective--and hopefully will be the 
objective of our committee, eventually the objective of the U.S. 
Senate, and hopefully eventually the objective of the world--that we 
develop a protocol for dealing with a virus or, for that matter, any 
other health challenge that moves at the speed of light and like a 
house on fire as opposed to a small, creeping thing that we have had in 
the past in some of the other challenges we have had.
  It is different. There is no doubt it is different. It is going to 
have to be dealt with differently, and we are going to have to develop 
a protocol that does address this speed. It is going to entail--and 
this is probably the heaviest lift of all of it we are going to do--the 
200 governments around the world to come together and agree that when 
something like this happens in their country, instead of covering it up 
or instead of making political excuses, or instead of hoping it is 
going to go away, that instead they call the fire department. And the 
fire department will be a new agency or perhaps even one of the old 
agencies that we have had that are geared to handle a pandemic that 
moves at this speed or presents other challenges.
  The institutions we have simply aren't geared to do that, which we 
found out with this epidemic. I think a good example is, as my good 
friend from Illinois mentioned, the Ebola challenge we had. The 
historical institutions, I think, dealt quickly with that and really 
held down the damage from it, which could have been much worse than 
what it was. We need to develop protocols for dealing with this.
  This is going to be a challenge. There is no question it is going to 
be a challenge because politics comes into this simply because of 
governments in the various 200 countries around the world have to deal 
with this. When they do deal with it, they have different ways of 
dealing with it.
  As chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee, I deal with our 
diplomats who deal with the diplomats from other countries. We deal 
with them on the committee directly, but since this thing has hit, we 
haven't had as much direct contact, but our diplomats have continued to 
have contact. In talking with them, one of the things I find 
particularly disturbing is, I ask: Are the Chinese humble about this? 
How are they dealing with this? What is their view of what has happened 
here? Interestingly enough, they take it as an opportunity to compare 
our form of government to their form of government. And they say: Look, 
we had a problem; we dealt with it. You guys had the same problem, and 
you dealt with it. And the reason is because we have this strong 
authoritarian central government that can control people and can 
control people in the most severe fashion, and we can deal with it. You 
people, with all these freedoms and your democracies, you have speech, 
you have these political arguments, you have these disagreements, and 
you allow dissent, and when you have that, you can't deal with it. 
Therefore, our form of government is better than your form of 
government. That is very dangerous talk.
  I am disturbed and disappointed the Chinese Government has viewed 
this as they have and has not viewed it as we have, as a challenge that 
is going to take historical changes as we go forward. That is a huge 
challenge as we go forward, but that shouldn't stop us from making 
every effort that we can to go forward, and we will.
  On the Foreign Relations Committee, it is our intent to hold hearings 
to deliberate, as the U.S. Senate does, and to produce what hopefully 
will be a bipartisan piece of legislation, which is substantially 
broader than what we have here, but hopefully that will include many of 
the things that we have here, and that will include--as the good 
Senator from Illinois has indicated--the necessity of including other 
governments in the effort as we go forward.
  I commit to Senator Durbin, and I commit to all that our committee 
will undertake this challenge. It is within the jurisdiction and the 
responsibility of our committee. We take it seriously. We are still in 
the throes of this, although it feels like we are on the downhill side 
and are starting to come out of this. As we go forward in a very 
commonsense, deliberative fashion, we hope to construct legislation 
that will address all of these very serious issues
  If there is one thing we know for sure--and I am absolutely convinced 
of it--this is going to happen again. Given the physical situation on 
the ground in Wuhan, China, and given the fact that there are 2,000 
other viruses, probably some of which are substantially worse than 
this--and, for that matter, the same situation in other parts of the 
world--this is going to happen again. Given the population of the world 
and given the culture of the way we live today in the world and our 
travel and interconnectedness, this is going to happen again.
  We need to be ready for it. We need strong legislation that will 
address this, not only at the U.S. level but also at the international 
level. The United States has been the world leader in world health 
issues, and I anticipate that we will continue to be like that. At the 
present time, it is under consideration in our committee. At the 
present time, we can't go forward with this.
  Before I state an objection, I want to yield to my good friend from 
Indiana, who also has some ideas in this regard, and all of which will 
be, I am sure, constructive on both sides of the aisle. I want to yield 
the floor to Senator Braun at this time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mrs. Loeffler). Is there an objection?
  Mr. RISCH. Not yet.
  I want to yield to Senator Braun.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Indiana.

                          ____________________