Unanimous Consent Request--S. 3372

Floor Speech

Date: March 12, 2020
Location: Washington, DC

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Ms. HIRONO. We are all working to do what we can to make sure our medical professionals, facilities, and the public have all the necessary equipment they need to address this pandemic.

My concern with my colleague's proposal, as I understand it, is that it would provide immunity for respiratory manufacturers from this point forward. Yes, this is a public emergency and we need to respond accordingly, and we certainly need to make sure that respirators are widely available, but let's do this with safety in mind.

I think we can come up with a bill that provides a more tailored approach to what my colleague is trying to do. For example, the House coronavirus package includes language which tracks the COVID-19 emergency countermeasures declaration issued by HHS which would extend countermeasure protections through 2024, rather than it be open-ended. I hope my colleague will work with me to expand access to this important equipment, but for now I must object.

I certainly would like to count myself as among those who will provide bipartisan support for this measure, but, for now, because it is totally open-ended, I must object.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Ms. HIRONO. In response, I certainly am not arguing that there is not a need for respirators, but let me be very clear that this provides immunity for respirator manufacturers from this point onward.

Again, I need to reiterate. This has nothing to do with recognizing the need for respirators. What I am arguing is there should be a timeframe for this because this protection is supposed to be during a public health crisis, and I am saying that the way the House is approaching this is, they would like to provide this protection for respirator manufacturers for a period of 4 years. We can certainly evaluate it at that point.

So, clearly, my objection does not mean the death knell for this amendment. It means that we should work it out so we can provide an appropriate timeframe.

So I, once again, reiterate my objection to the current form of this amendment.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT


Source
arrow_upward