[Congressional Record Volume 166, Number 122 (Thursday, July 2, 2020)]
[Senate]
[Pages S4201-S4205]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]



                              Coronavirus

  Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, just 3\1/2\ months ago, a sneaky, 
dangerous virus turned our country and the world upside down. It is 
hard to believe that it was just 3\1/2\ months ago--mid-March--that we 
were headed toward March Madness in basketball; that our economy was 
roaring; that unemployment rates for about every category were as low 
as they had been in a long, long time. America felt really good about 
itself. By the time we would have gotten to the Fourth of July, it 
would have been a terrific celebration except that here came this 
dangerous, sneaky virus that turned our lives and those in countries 
all over the world upside down.
  I want to comment this afternoon on some aspects of where we are in 
terms of COVID-19 based upon five congressional hearings this month 
that I have either chaired or attended in our HELP Committee or the one 
I participated in today in Senator Blunt's Appropriations Committee on 
Health. Of course, Senator Murray, of Washington State, is the ranking 
Democrat on both of those committees.
  Of course, much of the talk is about vaccines. Even though we have 
appropriated $3 trillion and another astonishing $3 trillion in credit, 
that is not going to really solve the problem. The only cure for this 
disease, this virus, will ultimately be through testing, treatments, 
and vaccines. It is appropriate that we talk about vaccines because our 
country is moving more rapidly than it ever has in producing a safe and 
effective vaccine for a new virus.
  As Dr. Francis Collins--the head of the National Institutes of 
Health--told our subcommittee this morning, it usually takes, 
historically, 5 to 10 years to create a vaccine. Here, the goal of the 
administration's warped speed effort to create a vaccine is to have 300 
million doses ready by the first of this coming year--in other words, 6 
months from now. That is its aspirational goal. The administration is 
not sure it will get there, but you don't get anywhere if you don't set 
high goals. We know that as a country. So it has set an enormously 
ambitious goal.
  We are taking steps that are like none we have ever taken before, 
such as Congress has appropriated money, has approved, and is starting 
to build a manufacturing plant for a vaccine before we know that it 
works. Now, we don't do that before we know that it is safe, but we 
will do it before we know that it works. We can be sure that, in some 
cases, we are going to lose that money, but it is better to cut 6 
months or a year off of the amount of time before the vaccine comes and 
take that financial risk. I think all of us would agree with that.
  Instead of talking about vaccines today, which are next year's 
solution, let me talk about two aspects of COVID-19 that are this 
year's solution--in fact, that are this fall's solution. One is 
diagnostic tests to find out whether you have the disease or not, and 
one is treatments, which is medicine that can be given to you to reduce 
the chance that you might be seriously ill or will even die.
  That is appropriate in the first place because, in not very many 
weeks, America will be headed back to school and to college. In Metro 
Nashville, TN, public school begins on August 4. All across the 
country, most colleges and schools will be back in business by Labor 
Day. There were 75 million students who were casualties of COVID-19. 
They were sent home from school or college in mid-March--100,000 public 
schools, 35,000 private schools, and 6,000 colleges. Graduations were 
canceled. Sports championships and once-in-a-lifetime events were 
canceled.
  In our country today, two-thirds of married parents with children 
work outside the home, and most single parents work outside the home. 
Suddenly, their children were home. Teachers were not really prepared 
for such wholescale remote teaching, and parents were not prepared for 
homeschooling. So ever since mid-March, students have been in limbo.
  We are looking forward to doing whatever we can to help make sure 
that those 75 million students in schools and colleges can go back to 
school and college this fall and go back safely. That is the importance 
of tests and treatments. That is the first.
  Now, there is another one, and it is not trivial. This is a sports-
hungry country. We love our sports, and everybody has a different sport 
one likes. The question I asked Dr. Collins this morning was: Are we 
going to have enough COVID-19 tests so we might be able to watch some 
football this fall or some basketball this winter? I had read that the 
National Hockey League was going to test every player every day in the 
National Hockey League.
  It is not recommended by the Centers for Disease Control and 
Prevention. It is not standard for there to be widespread testing at 
schools and colleges, even though the president of Brown University 
told our committee she would like to test all students on their way 
back to Brown.
  The fact is, if we are going to be able to go back to school, back to 
college, back to work, out to eat, maybe even watch a sports game, 
maybe even, in some cases, attend a sports game, we are going to need a 
lot more quick, reliable tests. Let me talk about those, just for a 
moment, in terms of going back to school and going out to eat and, 
perhaps, being able to watch a little football this fall.
  Admiral Giroir testified this month before our committee that our 
country has done 30 million tests--more than any other country. We are 
doing that at about the rate of 500,000 tests a day, and he says that 
we will have four to five times that many in September.
  Now, I hear about problems in this place or in that place about 
people not getting tests or that it takes too long for the results to 
come back from the labs. The fact is, that what is going on now is 
every State in the country is developing a plan for July through 
December on how many tests States like Indiana, Tennessee, and Alaska 
might need in working with the Federal Government, and the Federal 
Government has been supplying Tennessee with what Tennessee needs.

  In our State, for example, which is 1 of the States that is in the 
top 10 of having frequent testing, the Governor has said: If you want a 
test, you can have a test. Go down to your public health department, 
and you will get one for free. Now, whether they will be able to 
continue that, we will see, but that is what we are doing today.
  Despite that, when 75 million students try to go back to school and 
college, I imagine principals and administrators will want to test 
teachers frequently, older people frequently, and everybody in some 
classes if one student gets sick, maybe everybody in an elementary 
school if several students get sick, and maybe the parents and 
grandparents of the children if the children bring home the disease. So 
we are going to need a lot more tests.
  This is why Senator Blunt and I and others worked together in the 
last legislation to support what we called the shark tank at the 
National Institutes of Health. This was an unprecedented effort at the 
National Institutes of Health, led by Dr. Francis Collins, who led the 
Human Genome Project and is one of the most distinguished scientists in 
our country.
  This is a project to see if we can find a new way to create tens of 
millions of diagnostic tests that are what they call point-of-care 
tests. That means you can take them instantly; that you can get a 
result within an hour or so; and that they are inexpensive and 
reliable. You don't have to ship them off. You would probably do this 
with saliva. So you might put a lollypop in your mouth and let that 
saliva on the lollypop indicate, one way or another, whether you have a 
positive or a negative result.
  Dr. Collins' goal--and he said this is a very aspirational goal--is 
to be able to produce a million of those tests a day by Labor Day. This 
would change our lives in many numbers of ways. This would mean that 
Brown's president could surely test all students, not just once when 
they go back but more often. It would mean many sports teams could test 
every player every day if that is what it required.
  It would mean that we would probably have more tests than we would 
need.

[[Page S4202]]

  What would that do?
  It would, one, help to contain the disease so we could identify who 
has this disease so we could quarantine them and the people they have 
exposed instead of quarantining all of us and keeping us from going 
back to school, out to eat, and going to work.
  It would contain the disease, and it would build confidence. If you 
are working in a plant with 500 people and you know that 6 people have 
had to be tested because they had been tested and were found to have 
been positive, you are going to worry about that. Yet, if you know that 
you could get a free test today and any time you wanted and could get 
the result in an hour, I believe you would have more confidence in 
going to work or in going to school or in going out to eat or even in 
playing on a football team whether you are in college or in high 
school.
  So we are pulling for Dr. Collins' shark tank and his effort to 
produce these new ways of testing. They have had an unprecedented 
outpouring of applications. He said most of them come from smaller 
companies. They are down to 26, I believe is the number, and they are 
putting them through this rigorous test. His goal is a million new 
tests a day.
  That is important for principals to know and teachers to know and 
those who are hoping to play a little football and watch a little 
basketball this fall--that there might be plenty of quick, reliable 
tests to help contain the disease in your community and to be confident 
that you are in a safe place.
  And then what is the second thing we could expect?
  We heard about treatments. As Senator Kennedy says in his inimitable 
way, people aren't scared of the virus because they are afraid they 
might get sick; they are afraid they might die. And they might, 
particularly if they are in a vulnerable population or older age.
  There is no medicine for this virus, or at least there wasn't until 
recently. Now there is one, Remdesivir, which the United States has 
bought a huge amount of, which has been shown to reduce by 32 percent--
according to Dr. Fauci, who testified at our hearing yesterday--reduce 
by 32 percent the amount of time it takes you to recover from COVID-19. 
According to the experts who testified, there are other plasma 
medicines and steroids that have shown to be helpful. That exists 
today.
  So if you are a parent or a grandparent or a teacher or administrator 
worried about children going back to school, you are probably not very 
worried about the children catching COVID-19 because, generally 
speaking, they haven't seemed to get sick from COVID-19--all around the 
world. It has been older people who do. But the children might come 
home and bring it to the parent or the grandparent. As I said, this is 
a sneaky, dangerous virus. You can give it to somebody without showing 
any symptoms of having it. But if you get it, there are already two or 
three treatments that your doctors, your hospital can prescribe to 
shorten the time that you recover and to reduce the chance that you 
might die.
  Dr. Collins said that by the time we get to the fall, he expects 
there will be more of these treatments approved by the FDA. There are 
different kinds of treatments, and he didn't go into all the specifics, 
but one kind he mentioned was the so-called antibody cocktail. This was 
developed during the time of Ebola, and it was approved by the FDA. It 
helped us get rid of the Ebola disease before it came to the United 
States and caused a lot of trouble here.
  This antibody cocktail--``monoclonal antibody'' is the longer name of 
it--is not approved yet. It is not proved to be safe or effective yet, 
but because it was once before, there is a cautious optimism that it 
will be approved for COVID-19--a version of it--and that those will be 
ready by the fall.
  If it does work out that this treatment is safe and effective and 
approved by the Food and Drug Administration, there are several 
companies that have these antibody cocktails, and they should be able 
to manufacture large numbers of them.
  I guess my point is, we talk a lot about vaccines. We spend every day 
hearing about the deaths, the hospitalizations, and what is going on, 
and this spike or that spike, but as we think about 75 million students 
going back to school and college, going back to work, whether we will 
see some football or maybe basketball later, the two aspects that are 
needed to determine that are tests and whether the shark tank will 
produce enough of them and treatments, and both seem to have a good 
possibility of being there for us in the fall.
  We had a hearing last week that focused on this question: How do we 
sustain what we have built in this pandemic? In fact, one Senator 
lectured me a little bit and said: Why are we worrying about the next 
pandemic? We are in the middle of this one.
  And my answer was, because for the last 20 years, we forgot about the 
last pandemic as soon as it was over, and then we got to the next 
pandemic, and we weren't as ready as we should be.
  We have had four Presidents and several Congresses that passed nine 
laws to try to get us ready, and then here comes this sneaky, dangerous 
virus, and we find some gaps in our preparation. It is not President 
Trump's gap. It is not President Obama's gap. It is our gap because we 
didn't do some of the things we should do.
  One of the things I believe each of us should do in this Senate is be 
willing this year, this summer, to take the lessons we have learned and 
sustain what we built, not just to complete our work on this pandemic 
but to be ready for the next one.
  For example, do we have enough manufacturing capacity for the 
vaccines in the United States? Well, we didn't. Now we are building it. 
Are we going sustain it?
  No. 2, what about our stockpiles? We filled them up, and then they 
were depleted--the stockpile here, the stockpile in the States. 
Hospitals needed money. They sold off their stocks, and so they were 
depleted. We have now built them up, but are we going to sustain that 
for the next pandemic or just say: OK, we beat COVID; let's go and 
worry about something else.
  What about data? We are not getting all the data we want in the way 
we should be getting it from the Centers for Disease Control. Are we 
just going to forget that, or are we going to do something about that 
now?
  Hospital preparedness. Hospitals weren't really ready. They did a 
magnificent job of getting ready, but we lagged on hospital 
preparedness. We have built that up again. Are we going to sustain it, 
or are we going to let it drop off once more?
  Our State and local public health. Almost all of our public health 
efforts in this country are State and local. We are not a small 
European country where everything is centralized. We are a great big, 
complicated, diverse country where parts of Indiana are very different 
from parts of Tennessee and Alaska and New York or wherever we are 
from, and as Governor Leavitt, who testified before us, said, for 30 or 
40 years, we have gradually disinvested in our public health system. We 
are not building that up, but are we going to sustain it?
  So that is my hope, that when it comes to building up this 
manufacturing capacity here in the United States, increasing our 
stockpiles to the levels they should be, beginning to collect the data 
in the way it needs to be, preparing our hospitals to receive patients, 
building up our State and local public health--are we going to sustain 
that while we have our eye on the ball, or are we going to do what we 
have done for the last 20 years and slide off into a short memory?
  Senator Bill Frist, who was majority leader of this body, said that 
he made 20 speeches in 2005 and 2006 about what we needed to do to be 
prepared for the next pandemic, which he said is surely coming. They 
did some things, but most of the things that he said needed to be done 
weren't done. We could do them today if we would just have the resolve 
to do them.
  Governor Leavitt said that before a pandemic, those who do what he 
and Senator Frist did, which was to say we need to do all these things, 
are called alarmists, and then after a pandemic or in the middle of it, 
they are called inadequate to the task.
  Then there is the last point I would like to make, and it is about 
politics. The COVID-19 virus--this sneaky, dangerous enemy--is a 
science matter, not a political matter, but it has become too much of a 
political matter.
  Take the issue of masks. We have gotten into a situation where 
whether

[[Page S4203]]

you wear a mask depends on your attitude toward President Trump. For 
many Americans, it seems that if you are pro-Trump, you don't wear a 
mask, and if you don't like Trump, you do wear a mask.
  I suggested that the President might occasionally wear a mask just to 
signal to his followers that it is a good idea; recommended by every 
single health expert to wear a mask--certainly for the protection of 
everybody else.
  Another way to say it is that our athletic director at the University 
of Tennessee, Phillip Fulmer, said: If you really, really want to watch 
some football, wear a mask. What he means by that is that it would help 
contain the disease in our area so the football players can play 
safely.
  Well, yesterday the President made it clear. He said masks are good, 
and he is happy to wear them when he needs to. Of course, the fact is, 
he doesn't need to most of the time. He is tested every day. People 
around him are tested. And--as I am not wearing one right now--he is 
speaking most of the time. But there are times when I wear my mask. 
When I leave the floor, I wear the mask. When I go back down the hall, 
I wear the mask. When I am in a smaller room, less than 6 feet away 
from somebody, I wear a mask, and I expect others to do that as well.
  Every expert who testified in the six hearings I attended this month 
said there are three things to do: Wear a mask, wash your hands, and 
stay 6 feet apart when you can. If all of us do those things, we are 
much more likely to be able to go back to school, back to college, back 
to work, out to eat, and maybe even watch a little football.
  Vanderbilt University did a survey in the middle of May, and what 
they found was surprising. Most of the attitudes of people in Tennessee 
weren't about male versus female or east versus west or any other 
difference; it was about Republican or Democrat. Republicans didn't 
want to wear a mask very much; the Democrats mostly did. Republicans 
were eager to go out to eat; Democrats were a little slower. 
Republicans weren't as worried about catching the disease; Democrats 
were pretty worried. The debate got too politicized.
  I thank President Trump for what he said yesterday. He has 70 or 80 
million people as his social media followers. If they get the idea that 
wearing a ``Make America Great Again'' mask is good for the country, I 
bet millions will wear it. If they do, the country will be safer, the 
economy will be better, and we will be able to go back to school and do 
the other things we want to do.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record 
my opening statement from our hearing yesterday
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                           Opening Statement


  COVID-19: Update on Progress Toward Safely Getting Back to Work and 
                     Back to School--June 30, 2020

       All of our witnesses today are participating in person, and 
     some senators are participating by videoconference.
       I'd like to say something about masks:
       The Office of the Attending Physician has advised that 
     senators and witnesses may remove their masks to talk into 
     the microphone since our chairs are all six feet apart.
       So that's why my mask is off--because I'm six feet away 
     from everyone else. But like many other senators on this 
     committee, when I'm walking the hallways or on the Senate 
     floor, I'm wearing a mask.
       People wear masks because the Centers for Disease Control 
     and Prevention advises the use of ``simple cloth face 
     coverings to slow the spread of the virus and help people who 
     may have the virus and do not know it from transmitting it to 
     others.''
       Unfortunately this simple lifesaving practice has become 
     part of a political debate that says: If you're for Trump, 
     you don't wear a mask. If you're against Trump, you do. That 
     is why I have suggested the president should occasionally 
     wear a mask even though there are not many occasions when it 
     is necessary for him to do so. The president has millions of 
     admirers.
       They would follow his lead. It would help end this 
     political debate. The stakes are too high for it to continue.
       Around here, senators and staff wear masks--because we 
     don't want to make each other sick. I was exposed to COVID-19 
     by a pre-symptomatic staff member on my way to Dulles Airport 
     and, as a result, self-quarantined for two weeks. The senate 
     physician told me one reason that I did not become infected 
     was because the staff member was wearing a mask and that 
     greatly reduced the chances of exposure.
       It's also a pretty good way to make a statement. I like to 
     wear my plaid mask. Dr. Fauci uses his mask to demonstrate 
     his loyalty to the Washington Nationals. Senator Kaine is 
     either a cowboy or a bandit.
       If you want college football to return this fall, like I 
     do, listen to the words of Coach Fulmer at the University of 
     Tennessee who told fans how they can help make that happen: 
     ``If you really really want sports, football, and all those 
     things, then wear a mask and keep social distancing,'' he 
     said last week.
       The United States is in the middle of a very concerning 
     rise in COVID-19 cases and hospitalizations in many states, 
     and the experts in front of us today have told us that 
     washing our hands, staying apart and wearing a mask are three 
     of the most important ways to slow the spread of the virus.
       I am grateful to the Rules Committee, Sergeant at Arms, the 
     press gallery, the Architect of the Capitol, the Capitol 
     Police, and our committee staff, Chung Shek and Evan Griffis, 
     for all of their hard work to help keep all of us safe.
       Among the casualties of COVID-19 are the 75 million 
     students who were sent home from schools and colleges in 
     March.
       Add to the casualties the teachers who weren't prepared to 
     teach remotely and the working parents who suddenly had 
     school children at home and who weren't prepared to home 
     school. Add the lost sports seasons and once in a lifetime 
     graduation ceremonies. Then there were unprecedented dilemmas 
     for administrators and inadequate school budgets. Being sent 
     home from school does not rank with the sickness and death 
     the virus has caused. The United States has over 2.5 million 
     cases of the virus and over 126,000 deaths according to Johns 
     Hopkins University.
       While states and communities continue to take action to 
     help keep people safe, nothing was more disruptive to 
     American life--and nothing would head it back toward 
     normalcy--than for those 135,000 public and private schools 
     and 6,000 colleges to reopen safely this Fall.
       Earlier this month this committee heard from college 
     presidents and school leaders about their plans for safely 
     reopening this fall. This hearing is an opportunity for an 
     update and to hear from the nation's top health experts on 
     how headmasters, principals, superintendents, chancellors and 
     college presidents can open their schools safely just a few 
     weeks from now.
       This committee last heard from today's four witnesses on 
     May 12, when three of the four were quarantined and most of 
     the senators participated virtually. That was one of the 
     first virtual senate hearings in history and surely the best 
     watched virtual hearing. Every network carried the two and 
     half hours of statements and questions and answers from 
     senators.
       The question before the country today is not about whether 
     to go back to school or college or child care or work, but 
     how to do it safely. Even though COVID-19 has not, in 
     general, hurt young children and college-age students nearly 
     as much as older or more vulnerable Americans, there is some 
     health risk. But in my view the greater risk is not going 
     back to school.
       Guidance for reopening schools from the American Academy of 
     Pediatrics tells school administrators: ``the AAP strongly 
     advocates that all policy considerations for the coming 
     school year should start with a goal of having students 
     physically present in school.''
       The American Academy of Pediatrics adds: ``The importance 
     of in-person learning is well documented, and there is 
     already evidence of the negative impacts on children because 
     of school closures in the spring of 2020. Lengthy time away 
     from school and associated interruption of supportive 
     services often results in social isolation, making it 
     difficult for schools to identify and address important 
     learning deficits as well as child and adolescent physical or 
     sexual abuse, substance use, depression, and suicidal 
     ideation. This, in turn, places children and adolescents at 
     considerable risk of morbidity and, in some cases, mortality. 
     Beyond the educational impact and social impact of school 
     closures, there has been substantial impact on food security 
     and physical activity for children and families.''
       Dr. Lloyd Fisher, the incoming president of the 
     Massachusetts chapter of the American Academy of Pediatrics 
     told reporters last week: ``While for most children COVID-19 
     has not had the devastating and life-threatening physical 
     health effects that have occurred in adults, the negative 
     impact on their education, mental health and social 
     development has been substantial,'' he said. ``Nothing can 
     take the place of the daily face-to-face interaction our 
     children experience when attending school in person.''
       Many American colleges--overall considered the best in the 
     world--will be permanently damaged or even closed if they 
     remain, in Brown University president Christina Paxsons 
     words, ``ghost towns.''
       Mitch Daniels, the president of Purdue, wrote in a 
     Washington Post op-ed that for Purdue, ``failure to take on 
     the job of reopening would be not only anti-scientific but 
     also an unacceptable breach of duty.''
       So today, in addition to hearing more about the concerning 
     rise in cases and hospitalizations in some states in the 
     U.S., I would like to ask our witnesses in their statements 
     and answers to questions to put themselves in the place of a 
     superintendent

[[Page S4204]]

     of one of America's approximately 14,000 school districts, or 
     the principal or headmaster of one of the 135,000 schools, or 
     the president or chancellor of one of the 6,000 colleges, and 
     help them answer the question of how to reopen schools 
     safely.
       So Dr. Fauci, I hope that in your opening statement or in 
     answers to questions you will suggest the steps a 
     superintendent might take to open school safely, and how not 
     only to keep children safe but to keep safe the adults--
     teachers, parents and grandparents--with whom they come in 
     contact.
       Dr. Hahn--Will there be treatments or medicines this fall 
     that will help speed recovery from COVID-19 or reduce the 
     possibility of death? I believe the fear of going back to 
     school--or going anywhere these days--is in large part 
     because of the fear of severe illness. If that risk can be 
     lessened by new treatments, it should increase confidence in 
     going back to school.
       I'd also like to commend Dr. Hahn and the work FDA did to 
     get tests on the market as quickly as possible to help 
     understand the spread of the virus. Since then, FDA has 
     worked out which tests have not worked as well as they 
     should, and taken steps to remove them from the market. 
     That's what is supposed to happen during a pandemic.
       Admiral Giroir--at our last hearing you said you expected 
     there to be 40-50 million diagnostic tests available each 
     month by September. Is that still true? And exactly how does 
     a school district go about making sure it has those tests? 
     And who pays for them? What are the prospects from the 
     ``shark tank'' at NIH that there will be new fast, 
     reliable and inexpensive tests available for more 
     widespread testing?
       Dr. Redfield--you are continuing to work on additional 
     guidelines about going back to school and college safely. Are 
     CDC employees available to help states work with school 
     districts or college administrators to develop their plans? 
     And what advice do you have about the arrival of the flu 
     season this fall at the same time as COVID-19?
       This is a lot to discuss but there will be time during the 
     next two and half hours to answer most of those questions.
       Let me highlight three areas that have come up in our four 
     earlier hearings this month that I think need clarification.
       First, contact tracing. There is no doubt contact tracing 
     is crucially important to identify anyone who might have been 
     exposed so that person doesn't, in turn, expose someone else. 
     According to an NPR report on June 18, states already have 
     hired at least 37,000 contract tracers. State health 
     officials and Johns Hopkins Center for Health Security issued 
     a report estimating a need for at least 100,000 contact 
     tracers.
       Several reports have suggested that the federal government 
     should appropriate funds to pay for these contact tracers. 
     The reality is: Congress already has.
       On April 24, Congress appropriated $11 billion, which has 
     been sent to states and tribes for the expenses of testing. 
     The legislation explicitly said that money could be used for 
     contact tracing. This is in addition to the nearly $755 
     million from the first emergency appropriations legislation 
     signed into law March 6 that went out to states for 
     coronavirus response and can be used by states for contact 
     tracing.
       This is also in addition to the March 27 legislation in 
     which Congress provided at least $1.5 billion in the CARES 
     Act for states, territories, and tribes to use for COVID 
     preparedness and response, some of which can be used for 
     contact tracing. The CARES Act also included $150 billion to 
     states, but a significant amount of that $150 billion has not 
     been spent because it is restricted to expenses related to 
     COVID-19.
       For example, Tennessee Governor Bill Lee has told me that 
     he is reserving as much as $1 billion of what Tennessee 
     received so he can determine what flexibility he has in 
     spending the money. Washington state has not spent as much as 
     $1.2 billion. According the Missouri State Treasurer, 
     Governor Parsons has not spent about $1 billion.
       According to the report by state health officials and Johns 
     Hopkins, an average salary for a contact tracer would be a 
     little more than $35,000. That adds up to about $3.5 billion 
     for 100,000 contact tracers. So Congress has already sent to 
     states enough money to hire all the contact tracers that are 
     needed.
       Second, who pays for testing. In the CARES Act, Congress 
     voted to make all COVID-19 tests available to patients at no 
     cost. That meant insurers would cover diagnostic tests, which 
     detect whether a person is currently infected with the virus, 
     and also antibody tests, which indicate whether a person has 
     had COVID-19 in the past and now may have immunity to future 
     infection. Guidance from the Labor Department, the Treasury 
     Department, and the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid 
     Services last week said insurers are only required to pay for 
     tests without patient cost sharing if a doctor orders it. I 
     agree with that.
       But given that the CDC specifically recommends doctors 
     order tests in 2 situations--when a person has signs or 
     symptoms of COVID-19, or recently had contact with someone 
     known or suspected to have COVID-19--who pays for testing at 
     other times?
       I believe Congress will need to take further action. For 
     example, if a school wants to test its students randomly, 
     perhaps that school should coordinate with their state to 
     become a part of the state testing plan, making all tests 
     free to students and teachers. Congress may need to provide 
     more money to states to cover that.
       If an automaker wants to test all its employees at a plant 
     every two weeks, perhaps the automaker should pay for that 
     testing or become part of a state testing program using funds 
     already provided by the federal government.
       Third, flu shots. CDC has said more people need to get flu 
     shots this fall so health care workers can better distinguish 
     between COVID-19 and the flu. CDC says a priority is for all 
     children over the age of 6 months be vaccinated for the flu 
     so they don't become sick and pass it to more vulnerable 
     populations who could have more severe consequences.
       On January 24, Sen. Murray and I hosted our first 
     bipartisan briefing on coronavirus at a time there were only 
     4 cases in the U.S. Since then this committee has held 4 more 
     briefings. This is our 8th hearing on coronavirus and U.S. 
     preparedness.
       Last week's hearing was about steps to take this year, 
     while our eye is on the ball, to better prepare for the next 
     pandemic. I have issued a white paper outlining five 
     recommendations for Congress to prepare Americans for the 
     next pandemic, and that paper has received more than 350 
     substantive comments that are available to every member of 
     the committee.
       At the end of this hearing, I'm going to ask each witness 
     what are the 2-3 actions that Congress could take this year 
     to prepare for the next pandemic, some of which undoubtedly 
     could help with this pandemic.
       But this hearing is about what happens now as 
     administrators prepare to reopen schools and colleges.
       Experts underestimated this virus and there is still much 
     we don't know about it. But we do know the basic steps to 
     take to reopen schools and colleges in 2020 before there is a 
     vaccine and those are: social distance, wear a mask, wash 
     your hands, test, contact trace, and isolate those exposed or 
     sick. And hopefully by the fall there will be treatments to 
     make the consequences of the disease less severe.
       I look forward to hearing from our distinguished witnesses 
     how school leaders and college presidents can safely reopen 
     135,000 schools and 6,000 colleges, and also learning the 
     latest developments on testing and treatments that we can 
     expect during the year 2020 before vaccines arrive.
  Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, I thank Senator Blunt and Senator 
Murray for their cooperation this month in this series of six hearings 
that we have had on COVID-19.
  I think it is very important for the American people to know that 
while there is a vaccine down the road, the tests are coming, the fast 
tests, and the treatments are coming. They should be here by the fall. 
That is what the experts say. It is not what I say; that is what the 
experts who testified before us say.
  The experts all said the following: If you want to contain the 
disease, if you want to go back to school and back to college and back 
to work and out to eat and maybe even see a little football, stay 6 
feet apart, wash your hands, and wear a mask.
  I yield the floor.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Braun). The clerk will call the roll.
  The senior assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                                S. 4049

  Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. President, I am on the floor today to talk about the 
annual National Defense Authorization Act to support our servicemembers 
and their families. This is one of the few things that the Senate 
actually passes and does so on a bipartisan basis, and I am hopeful we 
will do that again. It is because Republicans and Democrats alike 
recognize it is imperative to give the men and women serving in our 
Armed Forces the resources and support they need to carry out their 
critical missions for all of us.
  This year, I am pleased to recognize the importance of ensuring that 
our troops get compensated properly for the hard work and sacrifices 
they make. It has an across-the-board 3-percent pay increase in it. 
They deserve it. On July 4, as we celebrate 244 years of freedom, I 
think it is appropriate that we demonstrate our support for the brave 
men and women in uniform whose sacrifices have ensured the liberty we 
are celebrating.
  I am also pleased that there is a lot in here that is really 
important to the people I represent in Ohio. At Wright-Patterson Air 
Force Base in Ohio, which is our State's largest single-site employer, 
the bill authorizes $23.5 million for important work on a new hydrant 
fuel system for the Defense Logistics Agency. It will make a big 
difference to our airmen and Air Force civilians and to the troops 
around the

[[Page S4205]]

world who rely on DLA for their equipment and resources.
  There is also $35 million for enhanced energy efficiency at Wright-
Patterson's National Air and Space Intelligence Center, NASIC. We are 
so proud to have NASIC in Ohio, and we are happy to see this additional 
investment in infrastructure for NASIC. Hopefully, the Space Command 
will end up in Ohio as well.
  There is also $15 million in the bill for construction of a new Guard 
readiness center in Columbus, OH, which will serve as a staging area 
for the Ohio National Guard, which is increasingly being called upon to 
respond to crises. I will have a chance to visit with some of our Guard 
members next week in Ohio, and I look forward to it.
  One of the bill's other important initiatives that has a big impact 
on my State is authorizing $1.4 billion to upgrade and modify Abrams 
tanks. It authorizes about $847 million to build and upgrade the 
Stryker armored fighting vehicles. There is also an additional $378 
million to produce 72 Stryker chassis to support the Army's Maneuver 
Short Range Air Defense Program. This is all really great news for our 
men and women in uniform. Why? Because they are going to get from Lima, 
OH, the best equipment in the world to be able to protect themselves 
and keep the peace. These Abrams and Stryker vehicles are the most 
advanced and lethal tanks and armored vehicles on the battlefield 
today.
  Of course, this isn't just a big win for our military; it is also 
great for the Joint Systems Manufacturing Center, which I call the tank 
plant--always have. It is in Lima, OH, and it is the only facility in 
the world that can do what they do. It is certainly the only facility 
in the United States that has the capacity and the highly trained 
personnel capable of producing Abrams tanks and Stryker armored 
vehicles. It is a strategic asset for our country and a source of 
employment for some truly outstanding engineers, welders, and other 
technicians. I love going to the plant and talking to them about what 
they do. A lot of them are veterans, and all of them believe that they 
are part of the effort.
  The Obama administration, by the way, 9 years ago, wanted to shutter 
this plant. They said that we wouldn't need tanks in the future and we 
should shut down the plant and shut down the line, which would have 
cost billions of dollars to mothball and then try to start it again. 
Thank goodness we didn't do that. We fought hard against it. I 
recognized it was the wrong decision and fought against it every step 
of the way. I remember, at the time, some of the taxpayer groups were 
saying: Oh, my gosh, this is somehow inappropriate to keep funding 
going when the Obama administration says it is not necessary. But it 
was necessary. It was necessary then, and, boy, it is certainly 
necessary now. We saved the taxpayers a lot of money by not shutting it 
down.
  We provided enough funding to keep it open partly by bringing in 
foreign sales, and I helped in that, to try to get other countries to 
try to use our tank plant, which they have and still do. We also 
reversed years of backlogged maintenance recently, and we ensured our 
workers have a safe environment in which to work. So it is doing well 
now. The lines are humming. Thank goodness we kept it open.
  In 2018, I had the opportunity to be the first Member of Congress to 
see the latest model of the Stryker Dragoon vehicles. They have a 30-
millimeter turret--a cannon on top of an armored vehicle. This is a 
wheeled armored vehicle with a turret on top of it. That 30-millimeter 
cannon replaced the normal 50-caliber machine gun. The 50-caliber 
machine gun is effective in certain instances, but the 30-millimeter 
cannon is much more effective in many places on the battlefield, 
particularly in Europe, given the threat we face there.
  So whether it is in Eastern Europe in the Baltic States or being 
prepositioned in Germany for the possibility of having to respond, this 
is what our military wants, what our Army wants, and we have to 
continue to provide our soldiers this Dragoon variant of the Stryker so 
that they can deter aggression from Russia and others and help keep our 
allies safe. This includes, by the way, Ukraine.
  Talking about Ukraine, it has been in the headlines a lot over the 
last several months. I have been to Ukraine several times. I had the 
opportunity to be on the frontline in Ukraine at what is called the 
line of contact. Let me tell you, it is not a cold war; it is very much 
a hot war.
  I know that here, on this side of the Atlantic, what is happening in 
Ukraine can sometimes seem like it is half a world away and maybe 
doesn't affect us, but it is not far away, and it does affect us. It is 
very relevant. In a sense, it is where the modern battle is taking 
place between two very different ideologies, one of freedom and 
democracy and wanting to connect to the West, and that is modern 
Ukraine. That is exactly what President Zelensky and the Parliament 
there and others want to do. The other would be the oligarchy and the 
corruption of Russia, which want to pull Ukraine back into their orbit.

  In Ohio we have a large Ukrainian community, particularly in 
Northeast Ohio, and they certainly have a vested interest in seeing 
that their ancestral homeland can defend itself from Russian aggression 
as it works to align itself more with NATO and the West while promoting 
the platform of democracy, freedom, transparency, and free markets.
  I have met with President Zelensky several times, and I am encouraged 
by his commitment and his passion to keeping Ukraine on the right 
track, including fighting corruption. We have to continue as a country 
to ensure that elimination of corruption continues in Ukraine. I was 
pleased to see that Ukraine was very recently designated as a NATO 
Enhanced Opportunities Partner, and one day I hope to welcome them as a 
full member of NATO. We are passing, I hope, a unanimous consent 
resolution in this body with regard to this issue. We need to be sure 
and let Ukraine know we support them.
  For the past 4 years, I have worked to include provisions in the 
NDAA, the Defense bill we are working on now, that help expand military 
assistance to Ukraine and build on the Ukraine military security 
assistance initiative. This year I was pleased that the bill again 
authorizes $250 million in lethal and nonlethal aid to Ukraine. That 
includes $125 million in lethal assistance that they need. That is an 
increase of $75 million from last year's budget. So we are doing even 
more to help allow the Ukrainians to defend themselves.
  New this year, this bill includes my proposal to require the 
Departments of State and Defense to develop a new multiyear strategy to 
support the development of Ukraine's military forces, increasing its 
capability and capacity and providing a resource plan for U.S. security 
assistance.
  I had the opportunity to speak today to General Dayton, who will be 
nominated by the President to be the next Ambassador to Ukraine. This 
is a guy who has done a terrific job of working with the Ukrainian 
military to modernize the military, to ensure there is more 
transparency, civilian control, and to be sure they are following the 
model that will allow them to be successful in recruiting and in 
fighting against the Russian threat.
  There is a lot to like in the NDAA, and I have introduced some 
amendments that I hope will be included as well. I will continue to 
advocate for Ohio and for the men and women who keep us safe every day.
  I look forward to voting on the bill's passage in the Senate soon so 
that our troops, who give so much of themselves just to be able to keep 
us safe, have the resources they need, the best equipment, and the 
highest level of readiness to be able to fulfill that mission to keep 
the peace and to continue to secure our liberties