[Congressional Record Volume 166, Number 94 (Tuesday, May 19, 2020)]
[Senate]
[Pages S2487-S2492]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
Unanimous Consent Request--S. 658
Mr. BRAUN. Madam President, I object, but my colleague from Illinois
is not wrong. I think after I get through explaining my objection,
hopefully, there will be something we can work out.
The United States should be engaging more in global efforts to find
treatments and vaccines for coronavirus. Governments, academic
institutions, scientists, researchers across the world are racing to do
it. The United States must work at home and with international partners
to develop treatments and vaccines. There is no reason we can't be
doing something on our own and working with others across the world.
This is a joint venture, if there ever has been one. However, the
nonbinding resolution that my colleague has offered is not an actual
solution. I come from the world--and one of the frustrations for being
here for just a year and a half is that we don't get more stuff across
the finish line. I have a real solution to ensure Americans benefit
from the vaccine and treatment development efforts happening across the
world. My bill, the ADAPT Act, S. 658, as amended, would create an
expedited, almost automatic approval process at the FDA for vaccines
and treatments that might occur across the world. We do not have the
market cornered on good ideas.
These countries have all developed regulatory systems that are
compatible and that should make us feel comfortable. But instead of
just talking about it, which we do so much of here, this bill would
actually establish the approval reciprocity for treatments and vaccines
between the FDA and other trusted counterparts.
[[Page S2488]]
If one of them approves a vaccine or treatment, they are quickly,
almost automatically, approved here in the United States with my bill.
We cannot afford miscommunication or bureaucratic foot-dragging with
something so important. My bill ensures that regulators will work
proactively to get Americans a vaccine as soon as possible.
Look at the early testing missteps we did have with the CDC. I
mentioned that in the briefing last Tuesday. Their overly proscriptive
approach delayed our testing capability for the first 40 days. The
result has been a one-size-fits-all approach of locking down the
economy, which I think we will see some of the disadvantages of that
over the next few months.
When my staff talked with the FDA about working with international
partners on treatment and vaccine development, the FDA assured them
that they have everything under control and are speaking with their
international counterparts. The FDA assured my staff that they have
covered the issues that might come into play when you are having a
partnership with somebody else. The FDA is promoting the idea and
having the doors open for developers to submit data and to seek
approval for treatments and vaccines
Until we have a vaccine, reopening will be gradual. We need herd
immunity and vaccines to be the final solution to this saga we are
going through, but we cannot afford bureaucratic obstacles slowing down
regulatory approvals for a successful vaccine.
As we have seen, certain steps of vaccine development can be achieved
at warp speed to cut down on development time, but regulatory approvals
will not be one of them unless we take legislative action.
The ADAPT Act is real action, not just talk, specifically designed
for times like this when scientists across the world are racing to
develop treatments and vaccines.
Therefore, with my prior objection, I do not want to leave my friend
from Illinois emptyhanded.
Madam President, in hoping my colleague from Illinois will not
object, as in legislative session, I ask unanimous consent that the
Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions be discharged from
further consideration of S. 658 and the Senate proceed to its immediate
consideration. I further ask that the Braun substitute amendment at the
desk be considered and agreed to; the bill, as amended, be considered
read a third time and passed, and that the motions to reconsider be
considered made and laid upon the table.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Mr. DURBIN. Reserving the right to object.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The assistant Democratic leader.
Mr. DURBIN. First, let me say to my friend and colleague from Idaho,
thank you. The tone of your remarks are positive, constructive,
bipartisan. That is exactly what the American people are looking for,
at least in Illinois, and I will bet you in Idaho as well.
This national emergency, this public health crisis, should bring out
the best in us and not the most political side of our nature. Thank you
because I think your remarks were offered in that respect.
We have been here now 3 weeks. This is the third week since returning
from a break where most of us were at home. I think this is the longest
period of debate on the coronavirus we have witnessed on the floor of
the Senate in 3 weeks.
I thought this 3-week period would be all about COVID-19, all about
the vaccine. It hasn't. We have taken up many other things that have
nothing to do with it. What we have talked about here this morning is
encouraging to me. If bringing this resolution up with a unanimous
consent request is going to lead to the Senate Foreign Relations and
other committees moving forward on important policy questions that you
raised, and I hope I raised as well, then it was not time wasted. It
was time well spent.
We do agree on so much more than we disagree, I am sure of it, when
it comes to this. I invite you, I encourage you, I beg you, as soon as
we return from next week's recess, the sooner we can bring a hearing
before your committee and others the better.
I would like to address the unanimous consent request of my colleague
from Indiana as well.
It has been my good fortune in the House and Senate to work with the
Food and Drug Administration. It is probably one of the most underrated
agencies of our Federal Government. They make decisions, literally,
life-and-death decisions, every single day of things unimaginable to
us. It is hard to look at all of the things they regulate and inspect
and not be impressed. I have been impressed over the years with the
Food and Drug Administration. But the gold standard of the Food and
Drug Administration, which was established at least 60 years ago with
the Thalidomide scandal, was that this agency was to take a look at
drugs that were about to go on the market in America and conduct tests,
ask questions, do their own research to determine two things: Are they
safe, and are they effective? Safe and effective. That is it. But it is
a lot.
Over the years, for 60 years or more, they have used this standard to
judge drugs, clinical trials, which carefully measure the impacts of a
drug on the human body over a period of time and the like. It is
frustrating because, at times, it takes longer than we wish. There are
exceptions that have been created at the Food and Drug Administration
for extraordinary circumstances wherein it can accelerate the process,
but by and large, it has to judge drugs as being safe and effective.
Nearly three-quarters of drugs today are approved in the United
States by the Food and Drug Administration before they are approved in
any other country around the world. The FDA is considered the gold
standard. I have been told that so many times. Many countries look to
the Food and Drug Administration in the United States to see if it has
approved of a drug's being safe and effective before they move forward.
This demonstrates that the Food and Drug Administration has an awesome
responsibility but is doing a good job in ensuring Americans have
timely access to the same drugs as have patients in other countries.
The ADAPT Act, which Senator Braun brings to the floor, is a
solution, I believe, in search of a problem. Sadly, it runs a real
risk. This notion that we are somehow going to open up the possibility
of a drug's having been approved in another country being approved in
the United States quickly, without any review, I think is a dangerous
thing to do.
To date, we know what the coronavirus has done to us, and we also
know that this bill would completely change how drugs would be approved
for sale in the United States of America. It is not a minor bill. It is
a major change. Under current law, if a pharmaceutical company wants to
sell a drug, it needs the approval of the FDA. It tests it to be sure
it is safe and effective. It is the gold standard.
The Senator's proposal would abolish this method. That is
significant. Instead, the Senator's proposal says, if a drug has been
approved by another developed country--I am not sure of his definition
of a ``developed country''--it can bypass standard U.S. regulation and
come to market without going through the Food and Drug Administration's
study, review, and approval.
It is worth noting that many Members of the House and Senate have
criticized the pharmaceutical industry for charging Americans the
highest drug prices in the world. I have been in that chorus from time
to time and have suggested that drug prices in the United States should
be the same as they are in Canada and Europe for the same drugs. Many
times, people on the Senator's side of the aisle have resisted that
suggestion. They have called it socialism and have said we shouldn't
let other countries dictate what America has to pay for drugs. Yet,
now, apparently, Senator Braun is comfortable with letting other
countries dictate whether our drugs are safe and effective.
This bill is not a targeted response to the coronavirus; it is an
open-ended giveaway to some pharmaceutical operation. More importantly,
it is putting our safety at risk in America, which we never ever want
to do. Instead of approving the resolution I introduced that simply
expresses the support for global coordination, Senator Braun wants to
completely overturn our Nation's drug approval process.
This bill was introduced more than a year ago. It is still in search
of a cosponsor, and it hasn't been consented
[[Page S2489]]
by the Republican Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions,
which oversees the FDA. Now is the time for the best and the brightest
from all nations to work together toward the shared goal of ending this
pandemic and finding a safe and effective vaccine. It is not the time
to completely upend our Nation's drug approval process to make it easy
for some countries to flood our market with unsafe and ineffective
drugs.
For these reasons, I object to Senator Braun's counterproposal.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The objection is heard for both unanimous
consent requests.
The Senator from Indiana.
Mr. BRAUN. Madam President, this may be a rare moment of some
collegiality on the idea in general. I think the American public and,
especially, I, who is one who has watched this place operate for so
many years in my leading up to the point when I ran for the Senate,
accept the kind of guidance that there may need to be more fleshed out,
and the Senator objected to it.
Yet I think the American public deserves action out of this place,
and so often it seems we dawdle and do not get to the point. Look at
how long it took the body to come to an agreement on criminal justice
reform. One of the first questions I asked when I got here was, How
long have you been working on it? The answer--10 to 12 years. When you
look at what we do get accomplished here, I think we need to figure out
how we become more effective, how we get things done more quickly, and
how we pay for it in the long run.
So I am going to savor the moment we have here. We are at least
talking about it. Hopefully, we will be able to work with my neighbor
from Illinois to still push the idea that this is a critical time and
that we need to get something done.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Illinois.
Mr. DURBIN. Madam President, I believe there is a unanimous consent
request pending. Has there been an objection to my original unanimous
consent request?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objections were heard to both unanimous
consent requests.
The Senator from North Carolina
Remembering Tom Coburn
Mr. BURR. Madam President, I think divine intervention has played a
part here with this exchange and the comments of my colleagues because
I am here to pay tribute to my good friend Tom Coburn, who, on March
28, passed away--our colleague and, more importantly, a dear friend. I
almost sat in the cloakroom and then came out here, thinking this could
be a conversation that Dr. Coburn could be having on the Senate floor
about the need to accomplish things, to think outside the box. Yet, as
my good friend from Illinois said, don't destroy the gold standard that
is there; find a way to work within it. Dr. Coburn had a lifetime of
doing that.
To pay tribute to a friend and a colleague, I actually have to rewind
26 years, when both Tom Coburn and I came to the House of
Representatives in a large class. It was alphabetical, so you can see
how ``B'' and ``C'' would be close and how Chambliss would be a friend
and Latham. We were a cadre of folks who really sized up very quickly
whom it could trust.
To understand Tom Coburn is to understand that this was a guy with an
incredibly diverse background in that he ran a medical device company,
in that he was an OB/GYN, in that he experienced things in life and, in
my case, was a little bit older. To understand Tom Coburn is to
remember the commercial wherein the bull went into the china store, and
no matter which way it turned, it was always going to break something.
Tom believed that you had to break something to understand whether it
was important or whether it was just clutter.
I think, like every new Member of Congress, you come in with a belief
that you are going to change the world but have no idea how to do it,
and you find that people who have been there for their careers hold all
of the cards, and that is the knowledge of how that legislation was
crafted and why it was done. To understand Tom Coburn is to realize
that this didn't scare him. Tom knew a lot, and when he hit things he
didn't know, he sounded like he did; therefore, people were scared to
take him on.
As a member of the Energy and Commerce Committee, on which we both
served, Tom was incredibly instrumental in healthcare policy, in
medical device issues. Tom was a practicing OB/GYN when he got to the
House and then, later on, when he got to the Senate, and he never could
understand why he could not go back to Oklahoma on the weekends and
deliver babies. Now, this is a man who had delivered tens of thousands
of babies over his career in Oklahoma, but the way the Senate rules
are--they are so antiquated--you couldn't go home and keep up your
license to deliver babies because you could not earn money. Tom
challenged that when he was in the U.S. Senate. He challenged that
antiquated rule, and he lost.
So, as I sat and listened to this debate that was about healthcare, I
could only sit there and think about the argument that Tom Coburn had
made about this antiquated rule that what you came in with and
practiced in civilian life you had to throw overboard here. You could
no longer do it. Tom decided he would go back on the weekends and
deliver babies. Yet, rather than have them make payments to him, they
would make payments to nonprofit organizations in his hometown of
Tulsa, and they would make them commensurate as to what they could
afford.
So, for a guy who was perceived as the right of the right hard-liner,
Tom was probably one of the most compassionate individuals. He was one
of the individuals who understood the common person, because, in his
mind, he was one his entire life--one who was never privileged, who
earned everything he got, and who banked everything he learned.
Ultimately, at the end of his career, he used that for this
institution, for the American people, and for people around the world.
Early on, I remember Tom and my sitting down with John Dingell, the
former Democratic chairman of the Energy and Commerce Committee. John
Dingell, who was a great man and whom Tom and I both liked a lot,
either wrote every bill that came out of the Energy and Commerce
Committee or his dad did before him for, probably, 60 years. John had
an inherent advantage every time we argued legislation because he
either wrote it or his dad wrote it. He knew why he did it, and he knew
why they structured it the way they did. I think John recognized
something in Tom--that here was a guy who could bring fresh life to it.
At the time, I remember Chairman Dingell sitting us down and saying:
Guys, spend a year listening, not a year talking.
Well, that was easy for me to do because I didn't know a whole lot
when I got here, but that was the toughest thing Tom Coburn was ever
faced with was to be silent because he really came in and wanted to
change the world in short order.
When he got there, Tom said: I will only be here for 6 years.
He accomplished a tremendous amount. His imprint is felt by the
people in the House today. You might remember he was probably the
loudest voice for government waste--for the size of what we spent, for
how much we took from the American people, and for what bad stewards we
were of how we used it and spent it. I think Tom left with peace from
the House of Representatives because, for the first time in our
lifetimes, the budget was balanced.
None of us anticipated what would happen in 2000 and the effects of
9/11, and nobody was more shocked than I, in the same year I came from
the House to the Senate, to see Tom Coburn run as a Senate candidate
for the State of Oklahoma. Tom came in with the same belief that we
needed to change things and that we needed to do it quickly. Tom served
on the House Intelligence Committee. When he got to the U.S. Senate and
served on the Senate Intelligence Committee, Tom understood much better
the challenges with which we were faced. I will not say that his
approach changed but that Tom assessed what was possible and never went
for what was impossible.
There are Senators in this Chamber who haven't had the good fortune
to serve with a Tom Coburn, who haven't been influenced and educated by
some
[[Page S2490]]
of the things Tom Coburn impacted many of us with--those of us who
spent our entire careers with him. Yet the American people will feel
the benefits of Tom Coburn's education here, his imprint on this
institution.
James Lankford, the Senator from Oklahoma, picked up his ``Pig Book''
that he put out every year, which is a list of those insane
expenditures that Tom Coburn used to come up with on an annual basis to
make us all feel shameful about the appropriations process. Thank
goodness Tom Coburn did that because James Lankford still does it today
on an annual basis.
I probably can't point to anything more important than healthcare to
tell you how Tom's impact on this institution has been felt, and I
think it will be felt for years to come. Tom and I believed that there
was a different direction, not because we were smart but because the
one we were on didn't work
I remember sitting down with Dr. Coburn, and he said: We are going to
change the healthcare architecture.
I said: Tom, you have been doing this for a long time. What
architecture works?
He said: Well, we are going to have to try them all, and when we find
one that doesn't fail, we will know that one is right.
When he got to that point, without hesitation, Tom came to the Senate
floor and talked about the Patients' Choice Act over and over and over
again. In the 3 or 4 years since Tom has been gone from the
institution, the debate has shifted. In fact, where Tom Coburn was and
where he tried to tell our colleagues we needed to settle--in
empowering patients and bringing transparency to healthcare--is
something we struggle with today.
There was no bigger advocate for transparency in healthcare costs
than Tom Coburn, and when the administration tried to administer that
this year, hospitals went to court and won--meaning, they don't have to
publish pricing. To the average person, that makes no sense. For those
of us who had been on the frontline with Tom Coburn, finally, an
administration had done it only to see it overruled. Yet, even on the
day he died, it was one of the key things that Tom believed--that
transparency was absolutely essential in the healthcare process.
I can remember Tom was not new to cancer. I think he fought cancer
four or five times. One day, during his most recent battle, we were
coming up on the Christmas holiday, I remember, and I think he was in
his chemotherapy treatment. He was still in the U.S. Senate, and Tom
was exhausted at the time. In between votes, he would go to the
cloakroom and lie down on the couch. Everybody knew he didn't feel
well. When he would get up to vote, we would look at the pillow. It
looked like a cat had been on it as Tom's hair would stay on the
pillow. Now, he never lost it all, but we understood the challenges he
was going through in his own personal life that he never expressed with
any of his colleagues or friends.
I have never seen a person who battled as peacefully as did Tom
Coburn. His impact will be felt for generations to come, not just here
but by the kids he delivered in Oklahoma, who today are 2 and 3 and 4
and 5 years old--kids who will grow up reading about their hero from
Oklahoma.
Though Tom had a distinguished congressional career and will be
remembered for a lot of legislative victories, that is not Tom Coburn's
greatest claim to fame. I have never known an individual more devoted
to a wife than Tom Coburn was to Carolyn. She was a beauty queen. She
was when she was young, and she was, in Tom's eyes, on the day he died.
He loved her without question. Tom also loved his daughters. He was so
proud of their accomplishments. He and Carolyn worked to make sure they
finally moved so they had everybody close. I think Tom knew that the
wheel of luck was going to run out. Yet, you see, that is not the way
Tom looked at it. He wanted to spend every precious moment with his
wife, his kids, and his grandchildren. He wanted any impact and
impression he could make to be on that next generation of Coburns.
For all of the qualities in Tom Coburn that I could talk about, there
is not enough time to really praise him. It would take days, and it
would take many individuals to come up and do it. It is probably
impossible to say goodbye to a friend like Tom Coburn. To me, there is
no question that I came to trust and value everything that Tom stood
for.
The one thing about Tom Coburn that many people knew was that Tom had
this tremendous peace about himself. I think some might have thought it
was because Tom had had such a stellar background and had known so
much. The truth is, if you had sat and talked to Tom, you would have
found out the truth. Tom loved his Lord Jesus Christ. He didn't hide
it. When given the opportunity, he wanted to share that peace with
anybody who was willing to sit and listen. Tom was criticized for where
he lived because it was certainly religious in leaning, but that was
Tom's life. As much as he adored his wife and children and
grandchildren, he adored his Lord just as much.
My colleagues were blessed to have Tom Coburn's influence on this
institution. Not everybody in America understands how blessed they are
to have had his influence on the policies and the way future
generations will be impacted by Tom Coburn for all of his works. Today
Tom may be in Heaven--no, today Tom is in Heaven, and I would bet my
colleagues that he is giving them hell. He is up there trying to change
the architecture of the deck chairs. He is up trying to say: Why do we
do things this way and not that way?
One of the things that used to bug Tom about this institution is he
couldn't figure out why we had telephones in the U.S. Senate that
looked as though they were created in 1950. You might remember, about 5
or 6 years ago, the Senate got new phones. They still will not redial
from the last number you called, and they still look like they are from
the Soviet era of the 1950s, but that is the way the U.S. Senate is,
and that is what Tom was trying to change. In many aspects he may not
have changed the telephone, but he changed the institution. He changed
the way we look at it.
Although he may be challenging the rules in Heaven today, make no
mistake about him, he is still preaching the Word and he has always
believed that Word. For all of the things Tom Coburn tried to
accomplish, he did it in a way that his Lord would have been proud of
him.
My colleagues, I know others will pay tribute to Tom Coburn's work
here. I am here today to pay tribute to Tom Coburn's life, not just the
impact he had on this institution or the Congress of the United States
as a whole but the example he set for all of us that life doesn't have
to be fair. But we as individuals have to be committed, and Tom Coburn
was committed to everything in life that he did. I am sure today Tom
continues to preach commitment to those who will listen.
With that, I honor his passing, and I say this to him in the spirit
that it is meant. Several days after we got word that he had passed, I
said to my wife: With COVID-19 and Congress dislocated, what would Tom
Coburn have done? She looked at me and she said: He would have grown a
beard.
We all remember those days when, all of a sudden, he would show up,
and the beard was grown, and he would say: Until this is over, I am not
going to shave. And that day I decided not to shave.
I was going to give this tribute to Tom Coburn last week. The events
of last week didn't permit me to come do that tribute, and I couldn't
make it through this week until I got home and shaved because it was
the most aggravating thing that I have ever had, and I understood why
in 64 years I hadn't grown any facial hair. I proved that I could do it
because I was honoring my friend.
I hope that others in this institution will look on Tom Coburn's
contributions in the same way I do, as a very special exposure that we
all had.
With that, I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority whip.
Mr. THUNE. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to complete my
remarks before the vote.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Coronavirus
Mr. THUNE. Madam President, as we continue our work here in the
Senate, COVID-19 continues to be at the top of
[[Page S2491]]
our agenda. We are monitoring implementation of the $2.4 trillion of
the coronavirus funding that we provided, and we are talking to experts
about what is needed to help our country reopen. Our committees, where
so much of our key legislative work is done, have held a number of
coronavirus hearings over the past 2 weeks, and there are more on the
agenda.
This week, the Committee on Aging will hold a hearing on caring for
seniors during the coronavirus crisis. The Senate Banking Committee
will hold a hearing with Treasury Secretary Steve Mnuchin and Federal
Reserve Chairman Jerome Powell to discuss implementation of the
Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act--the CARES Act--
which was our largest coronavirus relief bill.
The Homeland Security and Government Affairs Committee will hold a
hearing to consider the nomination of Brian D. Miller to be special
inspector general for pandemic recovery at the Treasury Department.
With just an ounce of cooperation from Democrats, we could confirm this
important watchdog yet this week.
Finally, the Commerce Committee, of which I am a member, will be in
executive session to consider legislation and nominations, including
two coronavirus bills.
Of course, while coronavirus remains our top priority, we are also
focused on doing the other business the American people expect us to
do, from funding our government to protecting our Nation. Last week,
the Senate voted to reauthorize three expired provisions of the Foreign
Intelligence Surveillance Act that provide essential tools to our law
enforcement and intelligence communities, as well as a number of
reforms to strengthen privacy protections and guard against abuses.
We have also been considering nominations for key administration
posts, including Director of National Intelligence and Secretary of the
Navy. This week, we expect to confirm a nominee to reestablish a quorum
at the Federal Election Commission, as well as a number of nominees to
fill vacancies on Federal district courts.
So that is what the Senate has been doing. What has the House of
Representatives been up to? Well, until last Friday, the answer was not
much. But on Friday, the House brought its Members back to Washington
to vote on a massive, $3 trillion piece of legislation the Democratic
leaders billed as coronavirus relief. In reality, as one House Democrat
pointed out, the legislation is nothing more than a messaging bill--
that from a House Democrat.
Under the guise of coronavirus relief, House leaders put together a
massive package of liberal priorities that they well knew would be dead
on arrival here in the U.S. Senate. How unserious is their bill? Well,
the Democrats' legislation mentions the word ``cannabis''--
``cannabis''--more often than the word ``jobs.''
Let me repeat that. House Democrats' legislation mentions the word
``cannabis'' more often than the word ``jobs.''
In case Democrats didn't realize, Americans are not suffering from
lack of cannabis right now. They are suffering from a lack of
employment.
Let me mention some other highlights of the Democrats' legislation: a
tax cut for millionaires and billionaires; stimulus checks for illegal
immigrants and deadbeat dads; environmental justice grants to study
pollution; significant changes to election law--that is really related
to the coronavirus--a ban on sharing information about lower cost
health insurance options; and more. I could go on. The list literally
goes on and on.
Unfortunately, while Democrats were focused on federalizing election
law and requiring studies on diversity in the cannabis industry, they
forgot about a few basics. Their bill does not include any meaningful
plan to get Americans back to work. It provides hardly any relief or
support for small businesses. It doesn't touch the issue of liability
reform--even though preventing frivolous coronavirus lawsuits will be
key to getting our economy going again--and it doesn't do anything to
hold China accountable. The Democrats' bill is a fundamentally
unserious bill at an incredibly serious time.
Democratic leaders knew from the beginning that there was no chance
of this legislation getting through the Senate or being signed by the
President. In fact, Democrats had some work to do to persuade members
of their own caucus to vote for the bill. As POLITICO put it, ``As of
late Thursday evening, the House Democratic leadership was engaged in
what a few senior aides and lawmakers described as the most difficult
arm-twisting of the entire Congress: convincing their rank and file to
vote for a $3 trillion stimulus bill that will never become law.''
Unfortunately, Democratic leaders were successful in their arm-
twisting, and the bill did pass the House, albeit with some Democratic
defections.
I have talked about the liberal wish list in this bill, but I haven't
mentioned the other aspect of this proposal, and that is the enormous
pricetag, a portion of which, of course, wouldn't even go to anything
coronavirus-related. My friends across the aisle think that all
problems can be solved with more money or a new government program, but
they can't. And spending too much money can actually hurt rather than
help Americans.
So far, we have spent $2.4 trillion to fight the coronavirus. That is
a tremendous amount of money, but these are extraordinary
circumstances, and they call for an extraordinary response. We may very
well have to spend more before this pandemic is over, and if we need
to, we will. But we have an absolute obligation to make sure we are
spending only what is needed.
Every dollar we have spent so far on this pandemic is borrowed
money--every single dollar. It is money we needed to borrow, and we
were glad to do it, but we do need to remember that it is borrowed
money, and the younger workers and our children and grandchildren are
going to be paying for it. We have an obligation to them to borrow only
what is absolutely necessary to fight and beat this virus. Diversity
studies for the cannabis industry should not be making that cut.
Some of the Democrats' proposals might be acceptable at another time,
and I emphasize the word ``some.'' But no matter how worthy the
proposal, there is a limit to what we can responsibly spend, and we
have to prioritize measures that will directly fight the virus and get
Americans back to work.
Republicans are also focused on developing measures that will help
fight the virus and get our economy going again without spending
trillions of dollars--something I might recommend to my Democratic
colleagues. We are currently working on a package of liability
protections. Personal injury lawyers are already filing coronavirus-
related cases, and we need to ensure that frivolous lawsuits don't
hamstring our economic recovery while ensuring that real cases of gross
negligence and misconduct are punished.
We are considering a lot of other measures to provide relief while
driving up the national debt as little as possible, such as regulatory
reform and tax protection for healthcare workers who cross State lines
to provide their services. I am pushing for approval of my Mobile
Workforce State Income Tax Simplification Act, which I introduced last
year, along with Senator Sherrod Brown.
Our legislation would create an across-the-board tax standard for
mobile employees who spend a short period of time working across State
lines. It would ensure that States receive fair tax payments while
substantially simplifying tax requirements for employees and employers.
This legislation has particular relevance in the age of coronavirus,
with doctors and nurses crossing State lines to voluntarily work in
States that have been hit hard by the pandemic.
The Governor of New York is looking to cash in on the pandemic and
has already threatened to subject these medical professionals to New
York's income tax. We need to make sure that doctors and nurses who
travel to other States to help fight the coronavirus aren't rewarded
with big tax bills.
Partisan messaging bills, such as the one the House Democrats passed
last week, are a waste of Democrats' time but, more importantly, do
nothing to serve the American people. How many hours did the Democrats
spend on their massive liberal wish list--hours that could have been
spent working with Republicans to come up with real relief
[[Page S2492]]
measures? But that is pretty much par for the course for Democrats
these days. They are intent on remaking America according to their ever
more extreme leftist agenda. They are certainly not going to let a
national crisis get in the way. In fact, more than one leader of the
Democratic Party has spoken with pleasure of the opportunity the
pandemic presents to remake America in their far-left image.
It is deeply disappointing that Democrats are more focused on their
pet projects than on addressing this pandemic and its consequences, but
that will not stop the Republican-led Senate from moving forward with
the business of the American people, and I hope that Democrats will
eventually decide to join us.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Cruz). All time has expired.
The question is, Will the Senate advise and consent to the Rash
nomination?
Mr. THUNE. I ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There appears to be a sufficient second.
The clerk will call the roll.
The bill clerk called the roll.
Mr. THUNE. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator
from Tennessee (Mr. Alexander) and the Senator from South Dakota (Mr.
Rounds).
Further, if present and voting, the Senator from Tennessee (Mr.
Alexander) would have voted ``yea.''
Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Ohio (Mr. Brown), the
Senator from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey), the Senator from Vermont (Mr.
Sanders), and the Senator from Rhode Island (Mr. Whitehouse) are
necessarily absent.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber
desiring to vote?
The result was announced--yeas 74, nays 20, as follows:
[Rollcall Vote No. 94 Ex.]
YEAS--74
Baldwin
Barrasso
Bennet
Blackburn
Blunt
Boozman
Braun
Burr
Capito
Cardin
Carper
Cassidy
Collins
Coons
Cornyn
Cortez Masto
Cotton
Cramer
Crapo
Cruz
Daines
Duckworth
Durbin
Enzi
Ernst
Feinstein
Fischer
Gardner
Graham
Grassley
Hassan
Hawley
Hoeven
Hyde-Smith
Inhofe
Johnson
Jones
Kaine
Kennedy
King
Lankford
Leahy
Lee
Loeffler
Manchin
McConnell
McSally
Moran
Murkowski
Murphy
Paul
Perdue
Peters
Portman
Risch
Roberts
Romney
Rosen
Rubio
Sasse
Scott (FL)
Scott (SC)
Shaheen
Shelby
Sinema
Smith
Sullivan
Tester
Thune
Tillis
Toomey
Warner
Wicker
Young
NAYS--20
Blumenthal
Booker
Cantwell
Casey
Gillibrand
Harris
Heinrich
Hirono
Klobuchar
Menendez
Merkley
Murray
Reed
Schatz
Schumer
Stabenow
Udall
Van Hollen
Warren
Wyden
NOT VOTING--6
Alexander
Brown
Markey
Rounds
Sanders
Whitehouse
The nomination was confirmed.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the motion to
reconsider is considered made and laid upon the table, and the
President will be immediately notified of the President's action.
____________________