[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]
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.
____________________