[Congressional Record Volume 167, Number 109 (Wednesday, June 23, 2021)]
[Senate]
[Pages S4712-S4716]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]



                             Cloture Motion

  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mrs. Baldwin). Pursuant to rule XXII, the 
Chair lays before the Senate the pending cloture motion, which the 
clerk will state.
  The legislative clerk read as follows

                             Cloture Motion

       We, the undersigned Senators, in accordance with the 
     provisions of rule XXII of the Standing Rules of the Senate, 
     do hereby move to bring to a close debate on the nomination 
     of Executive Calendar No. 172, Deborah L. Boardman, of 
     Maryland, to be United States District Judge for the District 
     of Maryland.
         Charles E. Schumer, Richard J. Durbin, Benjamin L. 
           Cardin, Chris Van Hollen, Jacky Rosen, John 
           Hickenlooper, Tammy Baldwin, Richard Blumenthal, 
           Kirsten E. Gillibrand, Raphael Warnock, Martin 
           Heinrich, Christopher Murphy, Sheldon Whitehouse, 
           Bernard Sanders, Jeff Merkley, Patty Murray, Margaret 
           Wood Hassan.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. By unanimous consent, the mandatory quorum 
call has been waived.
  The question is, Is it the sense of the Senate that debate on the 
nomination of Deborah L. Boardman, of Maryland, to be United States 
District Judge for the District of Maryland, shall be brought to a 
close?
  The yeas and nays are mandatory under the rule.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  The yeas and nays resulted--yeas 52, nays 48, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 247 Ex.]

                                YEAS--52

     Baldwin
     Bennet
     Blumenthal
     Booker
     Brown
     Cantwell
     Cardin
     Carper
     Casey
     Collins
     Coons
     Cortez Masto
     Duckworth
     Durbin
     Feinstein
     Gillibrand
     Graham
     Hassan
     Heinrich
     Hickenlooper
     Hirono
     Kaine
     Kelly
     King
     Klobuchar
     Leahy
     Lujan
     Manchin
     Markey
     Menendez
     Merkley
     Murphy
     Murray
     Ossoff
     Padilla
     Peters
     Reed
     Rosen
     Sanders
     Schatz
     Schumer
     Shaheen
     Sinema
     Smith
     Stabenow
     Tester
     Van Hollen
     Warner
     Warnock
     Warren
     Whitehouse
     Wyden

                                NAYS--48

     Barrasso
     Blackburn
     Blunt
     Boozman
     Braun
     Burr
     Capito
     Cassidy
     Cornyn
     Cotton
     Cramer
     Crapo
     Cruz
     Daines
     Ernst
     Fischer
     Grassley
     Hagerty
     Hawley
     Hoeven
     Hyde-Smith
     Inhofe
     Johnson
     Kennedy
     Lankford
     Lee
     Lummis
     Marshall
     McConnell
     Moran
     Murkowski
     Paul
     Portman
     Risch
     Romney
     Rounds
     Rubio
     Sasse
     Scott (FL)
     Scott (SC)
     Shelby
     Sullivan
     Thune
     Tillis
     Toomey
     Tuberville
     Wicker
     Young
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. On this vote, the yeas are 52, the nays are 
48.
  The motion is agreed to.
  The Democratic whip.


                  Unanimous Consent Request--H.R. 1652

  Mr. DURBIN. Madam President, last week, I told the story of a mother 
who received critical support from an organization called Life Span in 
Chicago after her daughter was sexually assaulted by the mother's 
husband. The services provided by Life Span were paid for by the 
Victims of Crime Act, VOCA.
  This week, I want to tell you another story that is even more 
troubling, but it dramatizes the need for us to act today, this 
afternoon. I am going to use the name ``Sasha,'' not the real name of 
the woman involved. She is a mother of three kids, and she was living 
with a man who was unpredictable and dangerous.
  He tried to kill her--not once but three times. He tried strangling 
her, and the third time, she passed out. When she woke up with the kids 
nearby, she knew that was it. She couldn't take it anymore. So she went 
to a hospital. She was scared to death. She heard about a group called 
Harbor House. Harbor House is basically a domestic violence survivors 
center.
  I would tell my colleagues in the Senate, if you have ever visited a 
domestic violence survivors center and met with any of the victims, you 
will never forget it. I swear, you will never forget it. I can remember 
the first time I met with one of the victims in one of the shelters. 
She was crying. Her eyes were red, one eye was blackened, and she 
choked back the tears and told me the story of what she lived through. 
For some reason--and I am not a psychologist; I can't explain it--she 
blamed herself. And it happens so often.

[[Page S4713]]

  What happens to these women who are the victims of domestic violence 
abuse? Where do they go? Some of them can't find anywhere to go and end 
up dying as a result of it. What happens to their kids who witness 
these acts of violence in the home when mom is getting strangled by 
this man? What happens to them? Well, luckily, we care enough in 
America to do something about it. Through VOCA and the Crime Victims 
Fund, we send money to Harbor House and Life Span and other agencies 
and say: Do your best. Help them put their lives back together again. 
Protect them.
  Well, I want to fast-forward and tell you that 6 months after Sasha's 
experience, things are much better. She lives safely in an apartment. 
She still works with adult counselors and youth counselors to get 
herself and her kids through this, and she knows that she is not alone. 
These VOCA-funded advocates stepped into her life at just the right 
moment and saved her life. They may have saved the lives of her 
children too.
  So when we cut back on funding for whatever reason, we are 
jeopardizing the services that I just described that are so critical.
  With decreased VOCA funding--if we do nothing today, with decreased 
VOCA funding, Harbor House will have to cut its staffers, exactly the 
types of professionals who helped Sasha and her family.
  The executive director said:

       If VOCA is cut, imagine being Sasha and having to go 
     through all of that alone.

  That is why we have to pass this bill. That is why it is so critical.
  As I noted last week, VOCA passed in 1984 to establish the Crime 
Victims Fund. We can't even count the number of people who have been 
helped over the years. Three thousand applicants come through my State 
Attorney General's Office in Illinois, and every State has a similar 
story to tell of thousands of victims helped by service providers, 
victims of domestic violence, sexual assault, child abuse, trafficking, 
and drunk drivers.
  And the Crime Victims Fund doesn't receive a dime of taxpayers' 
dollars. How about that? What I just described for you doesn't come out 
of the Treasury. It is funded through criminal fines, penalties, 
forfeited bail bonds, and special assessments collected by the Federal 
Government.
  Historically, most of the money comes from criminal fines, but in 
recent years, deposits have dropped off significantly. That is why we 
are here at this moment. They need help, and they need it now.
  Monetary penalties from deferred prosecutions and nonprosecution 
agreements are currently deposited in the Treasury instead of the fund. 
As a result, the shift has had a devastating impact on the fund. That 
is why a bipartisan, bicameral group of Members of Congress, working 
with advocacy organizations, have come up with this VOCA fix. Our bill 
would stabilize the depleted fund by redirecting monetary penalties 
from deferred prosecutions and nonprosecution agreements to the victims 
and service providers who need the help.
  The reduced deposits into the fund have already had a devastating 
impact. Victim assistance grants have been reduced by more than $600 
million in this year. And more cuts are coming if we don't do something 
today.
  Like Harbor House, advocates across the State and across the country 
are begging for help. We don't have any time to waste. Every day that 
goes by, we miss an opportunity to help replenish the fund and to put 
these services on the street.
  So far this year, the fund has already missed out on a total of 
nearly $550 million in deposits that could be helping these agencies, 
and we are not even halfway through the year. That is why it is 
imperative that we pass this bill. The House already did it in March, 3 
months ago--broad bipartisan support. Here in the Senate, we have a 
broad bipartisan coalition of Senators--36 Democrats and 21 
Republicans. We all get it. We are all for crime victims. But we have 
been stopped because of an objection on the floor.
  Let's end this today. Whatever the merits of any budgetary argument, 
for goodness' sake, lives are at stake here. Unfortunately, this 
objection about moving forward was made last week, and it probably will 
be made again today. It involves Senator Toomey's concern about a 
budgetary issue. It is a complicated issue about something called 
CHIMPs, for goodness' sake, which he can explain, and I am sure he 
will.
  But after last week's argument on this, I went to the advocates who 
are telling us that we should send this money as quickly as we can and 
said: Is he right? Is this designed, without his amendment, so that 
this money will not go to the people who need it?
  They said he is wrong. This is not going to happen.
  Here is their statement: ``During floor remarks for the unanimous 
consent [last week], it was represented the VOCA Fix Act fails to 
correct certain structural issues that prevent the funds from reaching 
victims and their advocates. The premise of this statement--that these 
structural issues impact the distribution of VOCA funds to survivors 
and advocates--is not accurate.''
  This is from the actual agencies themselves.
  ``While the use of CHIMPS (Changes in Mandatory Programs) as budget 
offsets continues to be a contentious issue, the claim that 
Appropriators hoard money rather than releasing it to victim service 
providers is false.''
  Inaccurate and false.
  ``In reality, Appropriators have substantially decreased the size of 
the budget offset by releasing far more than the amount required by the 
proposed substitute, and the proposed substitute intended to 
restructure the entire appropriations process is incredibly 
controversial.''
  In other words, we are going to dive into the deep end of the pool on 
budget process, budget rules, and budget regulation while people are 
literally drowning in violence--victims of domestic abuse.
  For goodness' sake, isn't there a better time and place and a better 
group to hold hostage? It shouldn't be these domestic violence cases.
  I yield at this point to the Senator from Rhode Island.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Rhode Island.
  Mr. WHITEHOUSE. Madam President, I won't speak long, but I wanted to 
echo the comments of our distinguished Judiciary chairman, because I 
have had a similar experience.
  As we were going through COVID, I was hearing from our domestic 
violence groups in Rhode Island that two things were happening at once. 
Instances were going up. People were trapped together. It was very 
difficult to find sanctuary houses to go to, and the experience of 
domestic violence was soaring. And while that was going on, the funding 
coming into these agencies through VOCA was declining.
  Now there is a pretty simple--well, first let me thank the Rhode 
Island Coalition Against Domestic Violence and Sojourner House, which 
provides sanctuary services, and Progreso Latino, which works in this 
space in our Latino community, for their great work. There are a lot of 
organizations in this space, and I want to start by appreciating them.
  The problem has nothing to do with domestic violence or domestic 
violence victims as to the money. The problem is that more and more of 
these cases are resolved by deferred prosecution and nonprosecution 
agreements, but the funding for VOCA comes out of criminal sentences, 
criminal prosecutions. So because of that change in the way these cases 
are treated--which is actually a good thing, generally--the money is 
diverted, and, as a result, the Crime Victims Fund has reached its 
lowest level in 10 years.
  The victim assistance grants in Rhode Island fell 50 percent--5-0 
percent--cut in half from fiscal year 2016 to fiscal year 2021, from 
$7.6 million to $3.8 million, which means that many of these local 
organizations that put their heart and soul into protecting these 
victims at the worst time in their lives have to deal with 50-percent 
cuts.
  This is simple. It will allow monetary penalties in those deferred 
prosecutions and nonprosecution agreements to flow the same way they 
flow when traditional prosecutions take place.
  This is endorsed across the board. This is as noncontroversial as you 
get--56 State and Territorial attorneys general, more than 1,700 local, 
Tribal, State, regional, and national advocacy, government, and law 
enforcement organizations.

[[Page S4714]]

  Just this year, $545 million has been lost to the VOCA fund because 
we haven't corrected this. So I would echo my chairman's remarks and 
urge my friend, the Senator from Pennsylvania, to find another point of 
leverage, another fulcrum, for his efforts to solve unrelated problems, 
but let this problem be solved and let these victims be served.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Hickenlooper). The Senator from Illinois.
  Mr. DURBIN. I thank the Senator from Rhode Island.
  As if in legislative session, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate 
proceed to the immediate consideration of H.R. 1652, which was received 
from the House and is at the desk; further, that the bill be considered 
read a third time and passed, and the motion to reconsider be 
considered made and laid upon the table.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  The Senator from Pennsylvania.
  Mr. TOOMEY. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, I have good 
news for my colleagues from Illinois and Rhode Island, and that is that 
the modification that I am suggesting to the unanimous consent request 
proffered by the Senator from Illinois is not complicated. It has 
nothing to do with budget rules, and, in fact, it is the simplest thing 
in the world.
  Now, the Senator from Illinois wants to put more money and money from 
a new source into the Crime Victims Fund. I completely agree. I fully 
support it. I have liked this idea from the first time I heard of it, 
and I supported it.
  But there is something that is important to note here. The Crime 
Victims Fund is a Federal Government account, and the Senator is very 
determined that more money go into that account.
  So what do we disagree on? Well, it is very simple. The Senator from 
Illinois seems to be equally determined that there can be no 
requirement that the money actually come out of that account and go to 
crime victims and their advocates. That is the only thing that I want 
to do differently. It is to insist that money going into that account 
actually comes out and goes to the victims of crime and their 
advocates.
  Now, if my concern that this money is not going to end up going where 
it is advertised to go is not valid, then, I don't know why my 
colleagues wouldn't agree to my very narrow amendment which, by the 
way, doesn't have a thing to do with budget rules. I don't attempt to 
change budget rules in this effort. We should change them, but this 
isn't where I am trying to do it. What I am simply trying to do is to 
make sure that the money that goes into the account--the increase, 
too--actually goes to where it is supposed to go, which is to the 
victims of crimes and their advocates.
  So you have to ask yourself: Why would somebody oppose the proposal 
that this money actually be required to go to victims and their 
advocates? Why would somebody oppose that?
  Maybe it is because there is some other place that some of this money 
is meant to go, and that is at the heart of this. See, under the 
ridiculous rules we operate under, if the money doesn't end up going to 
crime victims and their advocates, then, it frees up additional money 
to be spent on whatever anybody else wants to spend it on. The money 
that is withheld from the people who are supposed to get it, crime 
victims and their advocates, creates the opportunity to spend more on 
who knows what.

  Now, would anyone actually do this or is this just a theoretical 
construct that I have made up? Well, let's take a look at the recent 
history. The fact is, since 2000, in the year 2000, over $80 billion 
that could have and should have gone to crime victims and their 
advocates was intentionally withheld so that more money could be spent 
in other categories.
  What this chart shows is the amount of money year in and year out. It 
starts in 2000. You see these low bars. Well under a billion dollars 
was actually allocated to crime victims.
  There was much more money going into those accounts--much more 
money--because, you see, how much going into the account isn't the only 
thing that matters. What is actually, ultimately, much more important 
is how much comes out of the account and goes to the crime victims. And 
only when I and some of my colleagues started raising hell about this--
the dishonesty, the deception, the fact that the crime victims and 
their advocates weren't getting nearly what they were supposed to be 
getting--only then--this is the red line that represents when we 
started doing this--that is when the allocations started to change.
  This graph represents the huge surge in funds that we have been 
sending to crime victims and their advocates in recent years because 
some of us were no longer willing to tolerate this and we were raising 
Cain about what had been going on.
  Now, what I am simply trying to do is to prevent us from going back 
to what was routine around here, what was standard operating procedure, 
which was to deceive people, pretend that money was going to end up 
going to the Crime Victims Fund when everybody knew it wasn't.
  Now, why would I be concerned that we might be going back in that 
direction? Well, I will tell you why. President Biden has been very 
instructive about this. In his budget that he released just months ago, 
he actually specifies that in his budget he wants money to be diverted 
from the crime victims fund, which is mentioned by name, and one other 
fund, so that more money can be spent on other purposes.
  This is my concern. This isn't something that has been made up. This 
is President Biden in his budget asking us to go right back to what we 
used to do.
  So, then, when I come down here and I suggest one modification to the 
very constructive idea that we add this settlement money to the fund, 
and the modification is that the money actually has to go to crime 
victims and their advocates, that is objected to. People are insistent 
that we not have a requirement that this money actually be allocated.
  So someone might think that that is a pretty strong body of evidence 
that suggests that maybe all of this money isn't going to end up where 
it is supposed to go.
  Therefore, I ask unanimous consent that the Senator modify his 
request to include my amendment, which is at the desk; that it be 
considered and agreed to; and that the bill, as amended, be considered 
read a third time and passed, and that the motion to reconsider be 
considered made and laid upon the table with no intervening action or 
debate.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, if you 
listen to this explanation, there is one thing missing and it is 
critical. There is a suggestion that this money for the Crime Victims 
Fund is being spent for another purpose. You never heard that, did you? 
It said it could be, maybe it will be, it might be--but it hasn't been.
  Listen to what they say, these people in the advocacy groups are 
jealously watching every penny. They want every dollar, just as you do 
and I do. And what do they say about your argument?
  The premise of your statement that these structural issues impact the 
distribution of the victims funds to survivors and advocates is not 
accurate. It goes on to say that the claim that appropriators hoard the 
money rather than releasing it to victims services is false. This is 
from the very agencies receiving the money.
  Are they in on the deal, Senator?
  I don't think so. They are desperate for these funds, and without 
them, they are going to have a serious cutback in services.
  The proposed substitute intended to restructure the entire 
appropriations process is incredibly controversial, and you know it and 
I know it as a member of the Appropriations Committee. Yet you are 
tangling up this relief for the victims of crime, victims of domestic 
abuse, women who are seeking shelter and hospital care and trying to 
care for their children and what they are going through. You want to 
hold back on the possibility--the possibility--that somebody is going 
to spend this on something else, even though you have no proof that it 
has been done--none.
  And the people who are the advocates for these groups are saying to 
you: What you are saying is inaccurate and false.
  And you won't give it up.

[[Page S4715]]

  I would suggest: Pick another target. Find some other group to make 
your budget point of order. Please don't take this out on these people 
who are in the most desperate situations in their life. This is not the 
time and place to raise this budget debate. I seriously hope that you 
will think about them for a moment.
  I object to your modification.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there an objection to the original request?
  Mr. TOOMEY. Reserving the right to object, this is an amazing 
argument that the Senator from Illinois is making. He is saying: Don't 
worry. He would never do what the Senator from Pennsylvania is 
suggesting might happen and which, by the way, always used to happen, 
and, which, by the way, the President is asking us to do. We would 
never do it. Oh, but I will object to a requirement that the money 
actually go where we say it is going to go.
  I think that tells us all we need to know. So I object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Florida.


                   Unanimous Consent Request--S. 2084

  Mr. SCOTT of Florida. Mr. President, it has been a trying year for 
our Nation. Thankfully, the vaccine has brought so much hope and a 
semblance of normalcy back to the lives of many Americans.
  As families and businesses in Florida and across the United States 
continue to work hard to recover from the devastation of COVID-19, 
travel is critical to get our economy fully reopened.
  From the beginning of the pandemic, I encouraged everyone to wear a 
mask as we learned more about this virus, but now the science is clear 
that broad mask mandates aren't necessary. Unfortunately, the CDC has 
decided to buck the science when it comes to travel and is still 
requiring face masks on public transportation.
  We have all heard the stories of how this mandate impacts families: a 
mother and her six children traumatized by being kicked off a flight 
after her 2-year-old daughter refused to wear a mask; a New Jersey 
couple forced to deplane because their 2-year-old wouldn't wear a mask; 
a Colorado mother and their family booted off a flight over fears their 
3-year-old son, who has a disability, wouldn't wear a mask; an Orthodox 
Jewish family kicked off a flight because their 15-month-old baby was 
not wearing a mask.
  You can't make this stuff up. It has made traveling with children 
nearly impossible. After a year of hardships and being apart from loved 
ones, these families were denied the ability to reconnect. It is awful 
and unnecessary. And I hear stories all the time about parents with 
young children deciding, I am not getting on an airplane because I know 
I will get kicked off or I might get kicked off.
  And to make guidelines even more confusing, you are allowed to remove 
your mask to eat and drink. So why is it OK and totally safe to not 
have a mask while you eat a snack but dangerous to be unmasked any 
other time?
  The CDC itself has been clear that mask mandates aren't needed. You 
don't have to wear a mask in a restaurant. You don't have to wear a 
mask in a hotel. You don't have to wear a mask at a school. You don't 
have to wear a mask in a stadium. So why is the CDC singling out 
airlines and public transportation? It doesn't make any sense.
  This isn't a political argument. In fact, during our Commerce 
Committee markup of the surface transportation measure last week, both 
Democrats and Republicans expressed frustration at the continuation of 
the mask mandate. Republican and Democratic Governors and mayors across 
the country have followed the science and lifted mask mandates.
  Just like the Federal Government should not be in the business of 
requiring Americans to turn over their vaccination records, the Federal 
Government should not be mandating citizens wear masks on public 
transportation.
  That is why I introduced the Stop Mandating Additional Requirements 
for Travel, or SMART Act, which would revoke the Federal requirement 
for Americans to wear masks on public transportation. Americans should 
be free to make choices they feel are in the best interest of their own 
health and the health of their loved ones.
  If someone wants to wear a mask, they are absolutely free to do so, 
but the government has no right to tell them what to do. If an airline 
or other private company decides it wants to implement a mask policy, 
so be it. This does not prohibit them from doing so.
  I have been clear. Private companies should be able to make decisions 
that they feel are appropriate for their employees and their customers. 
And their customer gets to make a decision.
  This bill is pure common sense, and I am glad to be joined today by 
my colleague from Utah, Senator Lee, and he will be speaking after I 
ask for the consent.
  The science just doesn't support keeping the mask mandate in place. 
We have to listen to the science and work together to move America 
forward. I know Americans will do the right thing to stay safe, and I 
hope my colleagues join me in passing this important bill.
  Mr. President, as if in legislative session, I ask unanimous consent 
that the Committee on HELP be discharged from further consideration of 
S. 2084 and the Senate proceed to its immediate consideration. I ask 
unanimous consent that the bill be considered read a third time and 
passed and that the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid 
upon the table.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  The Senator from Washington.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, right now, 
experts at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention are 
continuing to update their mask requirements based on the latest 
developments, including requirements related to travel. They need us to 
be reinforcing their science-based work to keep people safe, not 
overruling it.
  We cannot pretend this pandemic is over. This virus is still 
spreading; it is still mutating; it is still costing lives; and it is 
still leaving survivors with long-haul symptoms. And the new Delta 
variant is more contagious, more likely to send people to the hospital, 
and already in our country.
  We have made great progress on vaccinations, but there are still 
people who are not vaccinated, as well as people who cannot yet get 
vaccinated. We know masks remain a simple, effective way to protect 
everyone, especially in small crowded spaces--in an airplane, on a bus, 
or a train.
  Getting rid of mask requirements for travel before the experts tell 
us it is safe to do so is not going to get people to their destinations 
any faster, and it is not going to end this pandemic any faster. 
Instead, it will draw things out. It will cost time, and it will cost 
lives. To get everyone safely through this pandemic, we need to listen 
to the experts and let them do their jobs; therefore, I object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
  The Senator from Utah.
  Mr. LEE. Mr. President, I echo the remarks presented by my friend and 
colleague, the junior Senator from Florida. I agree wholeheartedly with 
his analysis. I think it is unfortunate that we missed this opportunity 
to enact meaningful change today, change that is backed up by science.
  It was in January of this year that the Centers for Disease Control 
ordered the mandatory use of masks on planes, trains, buses, and other 
modes of public transit of every kind everywhere across this country. 
If Americans failed to comply with this mandate, they risked being 
fined or even criminally prosecuted.
  Six months later, the coronavirus continues with the CDC refusing to 
recognize its own research that the mandate is no longer defensible. It 
is now June. The vaccine has been made available for months, COVID 
cases are plummeting, and the country is anxious to return to the way 
things once were. The CDC has even said that vaccinated Americans don't 
have to wear masks and can get their lives back to normal.

  More than 45 percent of Americans are now fully vaccinated. States 
are lifting their restrictions, and in restaurants, stores, and 
workplaces across the country, it is no longer required, mercifully, to 
wear a mask. If Americans still want to wear one, they can make that 
decision for themselves. They are free to do so. But the CDC's 
requirement that vaccinated individuals--even vaccinated individuals--

[[Page S4716]]

must wear masks on all forms of public transit now blatantly 
contradicts the Agency's own policies and the Agency's own scientific 
research. It needlessly promotes fear and plays politics with the lives 
of the American people, not to mention it has imposed absurd 
expectations and serious consequences on children and families, 
especially families with children trying to travel.
  You see, after the January mandate, the CDC issued a corresponding 
mandate that exempted only children over the age of 2, in keeping with 
their original mask-wearing guidance, guidance that is among the most 
stringent in the world and, I would add, the most unrealistic in the 
world, when you consider that they require it up to and including 
children as young as 2 years old.
  So what have been some of the results of this guidance? Parents have 
been kicked off and banned from flights if their small children refuse 
to wear a mask. For parents of kids with disabilities and many parents 
of especially small children, compliance has been nearly impossible.
  We already know that children, especially young children, are 
unlikely to contribute to the spread of the virus. What we do not know, 
however, is what scientific studies, if any at all, the CDC happens to 
be relying on in reaching this guidance--in reaching the conclusions 
underlying this guidance.
  In fact, several of my colleagues and I sent a letter to the Agency 
with this very question more than 2 months ago, on April 22, 2021. And 
now, more than 2 months later, we have yet to receive an answer. It is 
a very simple question, and we have yet to receive any shred, any 
semblance, any scintilla of an answer. I find that unacceptable.
  If the CDC actually believes its own research, then it should act 
like it. And if it believes in the vaccines, the very vaccines on which 
we have spent billions of taxpayer dollars, then it should act 
consistently and instill confidence in the American people, rather than 
fear.
  And with the vaccine now free and widely available, Americans should 
be able to weigh the cost of the options before them and choose for 
themselves whether to receive the vaccine, whether to wear a mask, or 
whether to take their own precautions free of any mandates imposed by 
their government.
  But if the Federal Government is going to have a say in whether or 
not there should be a mandate, it should be up to Congress, the sole 
branch of the Federal Government empowered to enact law and, not 
coincidentally, the branch elected by and held most accountable to the 
people at most regular intervals. It should be up to this branch of 
government, the legislative branch, to enact such a mandate.
  To the extent that the CDC issued this mandate, it did so using 
authority delegated to it from Congress. We, in Congress, did not pass 
the mask mandate, and we do not have to defer to those bureaucrats who 
did.
  The science--the science shows that wearing masks should not be 
Federal law, and we should act accordingly. We should, moreover, give 
Americans some reason to want to be vaccinated. When there is light at 
the end of the tunnel and when they can see there is some tangible, 
immediate benefit to them getting vaccinated, they are more likely to 
do it. If they can safely enter a place of mass transit without a mask, 
if they choose to do so, many more people will choose to get vaccinated 
if we give them that benefit or if we at least allow the operators of 
those modes of transportation to allow people to do that.
  We can assert our rightful authority and promote sound science and 
common sense by supporting the bill introduced by my friend and 
colleague, Senator Scott of Florida. We need this to pass. The American 
people have suffered through a very, very long COVID winter. It is time 
for them to be able to make their own choices. That is what we do best 
as Americans because we believe in freedom.
  We also believe that whenever the coercive power of government, 
especially the coercive power of the Federal Government is exercised, 
it must do so with the authority of Congress. We should never tacitly 
acquiesce to the authority of overlords within a bureaucratic Agency 
who are elected by no one and ultimately accountable only to 
themselves.
  We are in charge here. We make the law. We shouldn't blindly defer to 
anyone, certainly not the CDC when the CDC ignores its own science.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Florida.
  Mr. SCOTT of Florida. Mr. President, I thank my colleague from Utah 
for his comments. I want to thank his continued commitment always to 
make sure that we, Congress, handles everything we can. We don't defer 
constantly to the executive branch in making decisions that we should 
be making.
  This is a simple example of why we should be making this decision. 
This is following the science, and I am actually shocked that my 
colleague from the State of Washington does not want to follow the 
science.
  I don't understand why my colleague from the State of Washington 
wants government to be dictating things. Why do we want to dictate to 
Americans how to lead their lives? Why does she think that the 
government--why has the government lifted mandates in States all across 
the country but not--and why is the CDC fine with every place but 
public transportation? It just doesn't make any sense.
  Americans will do the right thing. It is not our job to dictate, to 
tell them how to lead their lives. If someone wants to wear a mask, so 
be it. They should do it, but the government has no right to tell them 
that they have to wear a mask. If an airline or another private company 
decides it wants to implement a mask policy, have at it. We shouldn't 
prohibit them from wanting to do that, but we should not be dictating 
this.
  So I am disappointed that my colleague from the State of Washington 
didn't go along, but I think it is important for us to always make sure 
we are doing the right thing for the American public and, right now, 
the right thing is eliminate the mask mandate on public transportation.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan.