[Congressional Record Volume 168, Number 46 (Tuesday, March 15, 2022)]
[Senate]
[Pages S1171-S1175]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                          LEGISLATIVE SESSION

                                 ______
                                 

  PROVIDING FOR CONGRESSIONAL DISAPPROVAL UNDER CHAPTER 8 OF TITLE 5, 
   UNITED STATES CODE, OF THE RULE SUBMITTED BY CENTERS FOR DISEASE 
 CONTROL AND PREVENTION RELATING TO ``REQUIREMENT FOR PERSONS TO WEAR 
        MASKS WHILE ON CONVEYANCES AND AT TRANSPORTATION HUBS''

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senate will 
resume legislative session and proceed to the consideration of S.J. 
Res. 37, which the clerk will report.
  The senior assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       A joint resolution (S.J. Res. 37) providing for 
     congressional disapproval under chapter 8 of title 5, United 
     States Code, of the rule submitted by Centers for Disease 
     Control and Prevention relating to ``Requirement for Persons 
     To Wear Masks While on Conveyances and at Transportation 
     Hubs''.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Virginia.
  Mr. KAINE. Mr. President, I rise in opposition to S.J. Res. 37, which 
we are now considering and which we will vote on at 5:30.
  This is a resolution that would use the CRA process to undo the CDC 
guidance requiring use of masks on transportation: planes, buses, 
trains, and some transportation hubs.
  I think this is an issue that should be discussed, and, possibly, to 
use a medical metaphor, a scalpel should be used to make it just right. 
Unfortunately, the CRA process is a meat cleaver, and this is not the 
kind of thing we should be using a meat cleaver against.
  If S.J. Res. 37 passes, it could lead us to be extremely vulnerable 
if there were a resurge in coronavirus cases, as we are seeing in other 
nations like Germany.
  Let me explain. The CDC imposed a mandate to wear masks on 
transportation in February of 2021--again, planes, buses, trains, and 
train and bus stations, as well as airports.
  We all know that the CDC has recently examined the caseload of COVID-
19 in the country and dropped their mask recommendations for most of 
the Nation. About 98 percent of the American population now live in 
communities where there is no mask recommendation, thank goodness--not 
even indoors. That is great.
  But in some parts of the country, some parts of my Commonwealth, 
infection rates are still so high that the mask recommendation for 
wearing indoors is still one that the CDC strongly recommends.
  The CDC mandate, with respect to masks on transportation, was set to 
expire on March 18, Friday. On Friday, March 18, it was set to expire. 
After the CDC dropped the recommendation about wearing masks indoors, 
the CDC decided to extend the mask requirement on transportation for 1 
month, from March 18 to April 18.
  Why did they do that when they were dropping the mask recommendation 
indoors for much of the country? Well, the reason was pretty obvious, 
and they explained it.
  Here is the problem with transportation: You might board a bus, 
plane, or train in an area with low infection but pass through areas of 
high infection and end up in an area of high infection. So 
transportation is a little bit different than what should the rules be 
in an indoor venue in my hometown of Richmond or in communities in 
Connecticut, where the Presiding Officer lives.
  So what the CDC said is, we are going to take an additional month, 
and we are going to analyze the science around closed spaces--
transportation venues--and we are going to look at this issue of 
traveling from one community to another, and then we will come up with 
a best recommendation and best guidance with respect to mask mandates 
in transportation. That sounds very reasonable to me, very reasonable 
to extend the mask requirement by 1 month.
  I would argue to my colleague Senator Paul--this is his resolution--
we should be weighing in with the CDC and giving them best guidance--
and, obviously, they are considering what science is recommending; they 
are in dialogue with the transportation industry that has strong 
feelings about that--and then seeing what guidance the CDC comes up 
with in April before the April 18 deadline, to which they have 
extended.
  That would be reasonable, but what this resolution does is not 
reasonable. It not only wipes out the mask requirement; it wipes it out 
forever. It states that the CDC no longer will have the authority to 
impose a mask requirement in transportation unless or until this body 
passes new legislation allowing them to do so.
  That legislation in the Senate would require 60 votes. I would 
venture to argue that there is no way, in the politicization of COVID, 
that a piece of legislation giving the CDC the power to do mask 
mandates in transportation would get 60 votes in this Chamber.
  So if S.J. Res. 37 passes, we will have taken away from our premier 
health authorization the ability to impose a mask mandate if it is 
necessary.

  Now, I pray that it is not necessary. I am happy to see the reduction 
in COVID caseloads in Virginia and across much of the Nation. But there 
are parts of Virginia where the caseloads are still high and where 
masks are still recommended. And there are parts of every one of our 
States or Commonwealths where the infection rates are still high, and 
masks are still recommended.
  So it is fine to wish that COVID is going away. I mean, Lord, do we 
all wish that it is going away, but we know that in some parts of the 
country it isn't. And we also know, if we are looking at the data 
internationally, that China is experiencing a significant upsurge; 
Germany is experiencing a significant upsurge.
  So what if--what if--we face a new COVID variant that starts to wreak 
havoc on us, just as Delta did when we thought we were in a decline, 
just like Omicron did when we thought we were in a decline? What if 
there is a new variant that comes and starts to wreak havoc more 
broadly across the country? Wouldn't we want the CDC to have the power 
immediately, upon an upsurge of COVID nationally, to impose a mask 
requirement on transportation? If S.J. Res. 37 passes, they will not 
have the ability to do that.

[[Page S1172]]

  And what might be the consequences of that? The consequences could be 
very severe in terms of people's health. We know that. We have 
experienced now close to a million deaths to COVID. But it also could 
have severe economic consequences.
  Our transportation infrastructure--public transit and buses and 
trains and planes--is a critical backbone of the American economy, 
which is now starting to grow and add jobs, thank goodness. But if 
COVID hits again, and CDC does not have power to impose a mask mandate, 
many people who use transportation to get to work or to travel to 
places where they can do their work will no longer feel confident in 
their ability to do so. Many employees who work in the transportation 
sector will worry about being exposed to rising COVID case levels and 
may choose not to work.
  So the consequences of another COVID surge in this country are not 
only health consequences, but they are critical potential consequences 
to our economy at a time, after 2 years, when, finally, we are seeing 
some significant GDP growth and job growth and wage and salary growth.
  So I would urge my colleagues, don't use a meat cleaver, when this 
mask mandate is set to expire on April 18. It is barely more than a 
month away. Don't use the meat cleaver to bar the CDC from taking 
necessary public health action should there be a resurgence in COVID. 
Instead, let's work with the CDC and see what guidance they come up 
with for this April 18 deadline. That would be much better for our 
public health and much better for our economy.
  So for those reasons, I would urge my colleagues strongly to stand 
with smart economic policy and wise public health policy and not 
eliminate the ability of the Nation's premier public health Agency from 
imposing a transportation mask requirement should public health demand 
it.
  With that, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kentucky.
  Mr. PAUL. Mr. President, there is a very distinct possibility that 
the mask mandates saved no lives. There is a very distinct possibility 
that the mask mandates did not change the trajectory or incidence of 
the coronavirus pandemic. In fact, there is a distinct possibility that 
mask mandates were simply coercive security theater that did not 
enhance the public safety at all.
  While the efficacy of masks is debatable, the question of whether or 
not the Federal Government possesses the power to mandate that you wear 
a mask is not debatable. The 10th Amendment clearly states that powers 
not specifically enumerated by the Constitution for the Federal 
Government are retained by the States and the people respectively.
  In United States v. Lopez, the 10th Amendment is affirmed. The 
Supreme Court ruled that the Constitution withholds from Congress the 
plenary power that would authorize enactment of every type of 
legislation. The Supreme Court went on to say that allowing the Federal 
Government a general police power of the sort retained by the States 
would violate the principle that the Federal Government is one of 
enumerated and limited powers.
  Furthermore, no statute exists that remotely conveys a power to 
mandate masks to any Department of the Federal Government. Yet, since 
March of 2020, unelected bureaucrats from the Centers for Disease 
Control have incessantly declared that we should ``follow the science'' 
and submit to their mandates. But those bureaucrats defy science and 
practice something closer to sorcery.
  For 2 years, they have incanted the magic word ``emergency,'' which 
they believe conjures up special powers that require each one of us to 
wear face masks they tell us have talismanic qualities. The only 
problem with this assertion is that none of it is true. The CDC does 
not have limitless authority during emergencies, and masks are not 
effective at preventing the spread of COVID-19.
  This, after all, is the same Agency that decided merely by uttering 
the word ``emergency'' that it empowered itself to tear up every rental 
contract in America. Fortunately, the Supreme Court put the CDC in its 
place, saying that it ``imposed a nationwide moratorium on evictions in 
reliance on a decades-old statute that authorizes it to implement 
measures like fumigation and pest extermination. It strains credulity 
to believe that this statute grants the CDC the sweeping authority that 
it asserts.''
  But the CDC has yet to learn its lesson. For a third time, the CDC 
extended the mandate, forcing everyone wishing to exercise their right 
to travel to wear a mask. The mask, to the CDC, is effectively a 
passport. Those who work for airlines are compelled to incessantly 
remind paying customers not only to wear a mask while we board but in 
between bites and in between sips. ``Sir, please put your mask on in 
between peanuts. Sir, after each peanut, please put your mask on.'' The 
absurdity.
  Is it any wonder that the Federal Aviation Administration has logged 
a surge in reports of bad passenger behavior? According to the FAA, 
nearly two-thirds of the more than 800 reports of unruly passengers 
this year have been related to masks. Thus, the CDC's mandate is a 
safety risk to airline employees and passengers alike.
  The populace, which has been pushed around too far for too long, no 
longer sees a flight attendant entrusted to make travel more 
comfortable but, rather, a border guard who polices the unfriendly 
skies. And who can blame them when the head of Delta Airlines wants to 
put the names of vocal opponents of mask mandates on a no-fly list, a 
place we had supposedly reserved for those suspected of terrorism?
  Perhaps we shouldn't be surprised that, as all 50 States either 
dropped or plan to drop the mask mandates, the CDC stubbornly 
perpetuates its mandates.
  The history of the last 2 years is a history of the CDC making 
recommendations despite the evidence, not because of it. From the 
beginning, the CDC has ignored the scientific data that demonstrated 
the ineffectiveness of masks.
  At the beginning of the pandemic, Dr. Fauci advised Americans to 
refrain from wearing masks, but as we were so often told, the science 
has changed--except that it really hasn't. At least 30 studies 
demonstrate that masks have little to no impact on transmission, 
including those that predate the emergence of COVID, which highlight 
the lack of effectiveness of masks outside the hospital setting.
  In May 2020, an article by researchers at Harvard Medical School 
published in the New England Journal of Medicine not only held that 
``wearing a mask outside health care facilities offers little, if any, 
protection from infection'' but that one of its few useful functions 
would be to serve as a reminder of ``other infection-control 
measures.''
  The article went so far as to state that masks are not only tools but 
they are also talismans that may help increase healthcare workers' 
perceived sense of safety. In other words, the masks are a placebo. 
They might not do anything, but at least they can trick people into 
thinking they are protected.
  Unfortunately for those who support mask mandates, the article went 
on to warn that ``focusing on universal masking alone may, 
paradoxically, lead to more transmission of COVID-19 if it diverts 
attention from implementing more fundamental infection-control 
measures.''
  Translation: The mere symbolic benefit of universal masking comes 
with the cost of a false sense of security, which potentially risks 
further spread. For example, imagine the 80-year-old husband who 
chooses to wear a cloth mask to take care of his COVID-stricken wife. 
The CDC has prompted him to believe that wearing a cloth mask will keep 
him safe, when in reality this misinformation has prompted him to 
engage in risky behavior.
  Among the reasons why masks have such poor results outside a hospital 
is user error. About a year after the initial reports of COVID cases, a 
large controlled study of about 8,000 participants was published by the 
Public Library of Science. That study found that face masks ``did not 
seem to be effective against laboratory-confirmed viral respiratory 
infections nor against clinical respiratory infection,'' which was 
likely due to poor adherence to the protocol.
  People simply cannot replicate the hospital setting at all times, in 
all locations. Even N95 masks cannot help a person who does not know 
how to use

[[Page S1173]]

it. Multiple studies show surgical and cloth masks are not effective in 
reducing transmission.
  In November 2020, a Danish study published in the Annals of Internal 
Medicine found that high-quality surgical masks failed to demonstrate 
significant reductions in confirmed viral transmissions. This is a 
large study. This is a randomized controlled study in Denmark with 
thousands of people who wore masks and thousands of people who didn't 
wear masks. And--guess what--they had the same incidence of disease.
  Additionally, a randomized trial in Bangladesh found that cloth masks 
did not have a statistically significant effect on COVID transmission.
  But we should not be surprised by these results because we have known 
the limitations of masks for a long time. A 2015 Vietnamese study of 
1,600 participants found that cloth masks allowed 97 percent 
penetration of particles. They took sodium chloride particles the same 
size as a virus, and they blew them through a cloth mask, and they got 
97 percent of the particles on the other side of the mask. They didn't 
work.
  A 2019 study from Nepal found that the pore size of the cloth mask--
the opening that air goes through in the cloth mask, the pore size--
ranged from 80 to 105 micrometers, but the size of the COVID particle 
is only 0.12 micrometers. That means that the pores in the cloth masks 
are more than 650 times as big as the COVID particles.
  Science.
  If the virus is 650 times smaller than the pore, it is not going to 
work.
  Wearing a mask to stop COVID is like trying to catch flies with a 
chain link fence. The virus can simply travel right through and around 
the mask.
  And what was Dr. Fauci's prescription, after studying and concluding 
that masks were ineffective? Wear two masks. He is wearing masks all 
over his face. Just another one. If only we had four masks, maybe we 
would be safe. That is not science; that is theater.
  The CDC announced that it would look into two masks, but we never 
heard back from them. A few days later, even Fauci conceded there is no 
evidence that double masking is going to make a difference. I guess he 
was just wearing it for style.
  Actually, there is data even on double masking, just not the kind 
likely to be approved by Dr. Fauci. A study published in the New 
England Journal of Medicine in late 2020 monitored nearly 2,000 marine 
recruits who were subjected to anti-infection measures, including 
double masking.
  What did it find? It found several incidences of COVID still being 
transmitted despite the double masks. Yet our President, our Governors, 
and our mayors routinely lectured us to ``just wear the damn mask.'' 
Now, 2 years later, what benefits did we get from all that masking? Not 
a damn thing.
  A 2021 study published in the International Research Journal of 
Public Health found that there was no association between mask mandates 
imposed by the respective States and reduced spread of COVID-19. The 
study verifies what we have seen in the real world.
  If you look at mask mandates that were put on State by State or 
country by country and you compare that to the incidence of the 
disease, there is no relation. In fact, often the relation is inverse.

  Here you have California and Florida. In Florida, if you have been 
down there--look, even AOC goes to Florida because they won't make you 
wear a mask. You can do what you want. Nobody has been wearing a mask 
for 2 years in Florida. California: If you are paddle boarding by 
yourself, they will send the Coast Guard after you. If you are jogging 
on the beach in California by yourself, they will arrest you.
  Wildly different mandates, yet this is the infection curve for 
California and Florida. It is the same. Death curves, infection curves, 
there is no evidence that any State mandate changed anything. In fact, 
if your objective--at the end of this pandemic, people are going to 
discover--I don't know if they will ever admit this--that the truth of 
the matter is nothing that man did other than the vaccine and natural 
infection, accumulated immunity from both natural and from vaccine 
sources, slowed this down, as well as the mutation of the virus.
  Plexiglass--give me a break. You think the virus doesn't go in and 
around your plexiglass? We spend millions of dollars on stickers: Stand 
6 feet apart. You are on the plane 2 inches from people for 2 hours, 
and then what do they say?

       Please, as you exit the plane, we are going to practice 
     social distancing.

  And you can stand 6 feet away from the person you have been 2 inches 
from for the last 6 hours.
  It is ``Moronville.'' It is medieval. They knew more about infectious 
disease in the medieval ages than they do in today's modern age with 
the government directing this.
  But despite very different mask policies, California and Florida 
ended up with about the identical outcome. Ashish Jha, dean of Brown 
University School of Public Health, who provided one of these charts on 
Twitter, noted that the infection rates for California, which had a 
mask mandate, and Florida, which did not, have ``strikingly similar'' 
infection rates--specifically, 9.5 percent for Florida, 9.54 percent 
for the draconian mandates of California. They were the same. One place 
had no freedom; one place had their freedom--and the rate of disease 
was the same.
  Is nobody willing to really look at the science? Are we willing to 
submit to wearing masks forever?
  As journalist Jacob Sullum pointed out, if you compare California to 
Texas, another populous State that had no mask mandates, the case 
trends also are very similar. The same basic pattern was discovered in 
almost every State. In short, States with mask mandates fared no better 
than States without them.
  Unsurprisingly, nationwide, masks did not prevent transmission or 
even death. This is a chart looking at the death rate and with the mask 
mandates. So the dotted line is the mask mandate. Oh, my goodness, we 
put a mask mandate on, and many more people began to die. Did the masks 
cause death? No. They just are unrelated. But if you are trying to 
prove that a mask mandate lessened death, there is no evidence of it. 
Death went up and then down and then up and down again.
  The trends on death, the trends on incidence have nothing to do with 
plexiglass; they have nothing to do with stickers; they have nothing to 
do with masks. Yet we did all of these things in medieval fashion.
  In the 14th century, the Pope burned incense. They thought they could 
protect themselves from plague. People wore garlic around their neck, 
even up to World War I. It didn't work; except the garlic did probably 
scare some people and keep them away from you.
  When the CDC reversed itself--again--in July 2021 and recommended 
that vaccinated people--who they said didn't have to wear a mask--now 
had to wear a mask again, the death rate, which had been going down for 
months, sharply rose again. No relationship unless it is inverse--
unless putting on the mask caused the death rate to get worse, there is 
no relationship between mask mandates and lessening the incidence or 
lessening death. This is, sadly, yet more evidence that masks do not 
prevent transmission of disease that, for some, proves deadly.
  It has distracted us. We have been distracted and actually comforted 
by something that is not working. And we have been tricked into 
engaging in risky behavior: wearing a mask thinking we are safe. With 
80 percent of people wearing a mask, most of them are still getting 
infected. They have been vaccinated, and they are wearing a mask and 
still getting infected. Maybe we ought to reassess.
  Despite all of this evidence, the CDC still cannot bring itself to 
end its travel mandate. Is it any wonder why this Agency lost so much 
credibility over the last 2 years? They have lost their credibility 
because they have treated every American as if we all have the same 
level of COVID risk.
  Because of this approach, our children have suffered the most from 
the CDC's unscientific mandates. The CDC guidance on school masking is 
as aggressive as it can get, recommending universal indoor masking by 
all students aged 2 and older, staff, teachers, and visitors to K-12 
schools--regardless of vaccination status. With the CDC calling the 
shots across the country, kids have not experienced a normal day of 
school for 2 years. Schoolchildren

[[Page S1174]]

have to wear masks all day, which results in complaints of difficulty 
breathing, headaches, acne, anxiety, and depression.
  And by covering the lower half of the face, we have robbed the 
students of effective visual communication. So profound has been the 
change in our learning that we have now changed the definition for 
adequate number of words for children to know. It used to be 50 for 
normal development; we changed it to 30 because they can't see the 
faces to mimic people. For people who are hearing impaired, they have 
even more difficulty if they can't see the lips.
  Here is really the big insult of insults. We go to the State of the 
Union. Now, we have these elderly Senators and these elderly 
Congressmen, and, finally, they are free of their masks. They take 
their masks off, and your 4-year-old at home--the chance your 4-year-
old dies of COVID is 1 in 2.32 million. They are going to be struck by 
lightning before they get COVID and die--but these old guys are fine 
now. They are a thousand times more likely to die from COVID, but they 
are fine with no mask; but your 4-year-old has to wear a mask--no logic 
whatsoever in this, no science involved in this. But it is 
authoritarians run amuck.
  Sweden took a dramatically different approach. Swedish schools 
remained open for the majority of the pandemic and wore no masks--1.8 
million kids, not one of them died. If you look at the incidence of the 
disease among teachers--you say, ``We have to put masks on the kids or 
the teachers will die.''
  In Sweden, no masks on the kids and the incidence of disease among 
the teachers is the same as every other profession in Sweden--no 
difference. There were lower death rates there than in the U.S. But the 
one thing the Swedes did not suffer is their test scores were not 
lower. Their test scores are up, and no one is concerned about the lost 
years of education or mental development.
  Mask mandates on planes don't make any more sense than mask mandates 
in school. While testifying before the Senate Commerce Committee, 
Southwest CEO Gary Kelly said that 99.97 percent of airborne pathogens 
are captured by the airplane filtration system, and it is turned over 
every 2 to 3 minutes. I think the case is very strong that masks don't 
add much, if anything, in the air cabin environment.
  This is from the CEO of Southwest.

       It is very safe and very high quality compared to any other 
     indoor setting.

  United Airlines CEO Scott Kirby added that, in fact, air quality on 
planes is safer than an ``intensive care unit'' and that sitting next 
to someone on a plane ``is the equivalent of being 15 feet away from 
them in a typical building.''
  It is not just airline CEOs who agree that mask mandates do not make 
sense. When discussing mask policy, even CNN, even the doctors on CNN--
the radical disciples of Dr. Fauci--now admit that cloth masks are 
nothing more than facial decoration and the responsibility should shift 
from a government mandate to an individual mandate. When the leftwing 
doctors on CNN are getting it, really, you would think the CDC might 
wake up. Doctors, scientists, airline CEOs are all presented with the 
science, and those who are all truthful will tell you that the mask 
mandates are nothing more than COVID theater.
  But the mandates have been more like a curse. Think about what you 
have lost: Fathers were not there and allowed to see their babies born; 
mothers have given birth to babies alone; our children have fallen 
behind in education and mental development; weddings were postponed and 
ceremonies were drastically scaled back; many of us were deprived of 
one final goodbye to a dying loved one.
  We are about to return to normal, and it can't happen soon enough. We 
are about to get our lives back, to get our liberty, and our pursuit of 
happiness back. But it won't happen until we finally wake up and say 
the science doesn't indicate this; until this body that supposedly 
represents the people votes to say: Enough is enough--enough of the 
theater, enough of the pseudoscience. Let's let people make their own 
decisions. But the CDC says no. It has extended again the travel 
mandate. We have another month of this.

  But people are upset. I don't care whether you are a Republican, a 
Democrat, or an Independent. There are Democrat moms, Independent moms, 
Republican moms and dads frustrated at their 4-year-old, their 6-year-
old going to school for a nonfatal disease--nonfatal to children. 
Meanwhile, elderly Congressmen and Senators are now running around 
without their mask on, and they have no problem, but they are going to 
make your kid wear a mask. It makes no sense.
  Now is our chance to say, Enough is enough. We have it within our 
power today to assure the American people that we are irreversibly 
going back to normal. We can tell our constituents that the 
unscientific mask mandates are on the way out once and for all. For 
once, we can follow the science and put an end to the travel mask 
mandates.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Markey). The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. MARSHALL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. MARSHALL. Mr. President, we finished up some three or four 
townhalls this weekend, bringing us, I think, over nine. And I will 
tell you this, Americans know they are being lied to. They know the 
decisions coming out of the White House and the CDC are politically 
driven. Let me tell you this for sure: Kansans are mad, and they are 
upset, and they know this lie is continuing, and their anger continues 
to grow. And at the end of every townhall, I can tell you, two or three 
people will grab me and say: Please, please keep fighting for our 
freedoms.
  This is what else they tell me. They tell me they don't trust the CDC 
anymore, that the CDC has lost their reputation; and I am telling you, 
it will be difficult for them to ever get it back.
  Now, they are being told that we have to wear masks on airplanes for 
another month or so--another horrible decision coming from the White 
House, more ill advice from the CDC. And all the time we know that 
these masks--with these masks comes a psychosocial downfall, that it 
creates problems. But the CDC continues to lust for control--to control 
our lives and exert their control over us, over me, over our children 
and our grandchildren.
  My concern is this: The CDC continues to make decisions as if they 
are in a vacuum without consideration of the big picture.
  Let's just take a moment and talk about where we are today. Ninety-
five percent of Americans have some level of immunity--95 percent. New 
infections are down 94 percent, hospitalizations down over 80 percent. 
As far as we know, there is no new variant of concern anywhere in the 
world that is rearing its ugly head right now.
  What do we truly know about the science and the benefits of wearing a 
mask? What do you know about the risk of wearing a mask? Well, I asked 
the CDC that same question, I am sure, over a year ago now. I asked 
them for the studies that support their recommendation to wear masks--
some 80 studies. I looked at every one of them. I would say half of 
them weren't worth the paper they were printed on--poor scientific 
quality, cherry-picking data--but most were still very inconclusive.
  A few suggested masks might help if they are worn perfectly, if it is 
the right type of mask. Some of the studies even said that masks were 
harmful.
  Now, I will acknowledge that in a perfect world that, for a brief 
period of time, wearing an N95 mask properly could theoretically give a 
person benefit. But we now know and have now proven that cloth masks 
have offered little benefit, and they may actually make viruses and 
infections more common.
  Does the CDC really believe masking would help in an airplane? And if 
they did so, why wouldn't they suggest we wear N95 masks, and why do 
they allow cloth masks? It just seems very inconsistent.
  The big problem is always compliance. Seatbelts don't work unless you 
wear them. An airbag on the car doesn't work unless you have it turned 
on. Just look around. Nobody can wear these masks for hours and hours 
at a time without touching their nose and touching their mouth and 
adjusting

[[Page S1175]]

the mask. Then we take it off to eat and to drink just for moments at a 
time. In the real world, it doesn't make any sense that the mask would 
work and certainly not in schools. I think that has been well-proven.
  I think we look at Sweden as a country whose mortality is a fraction 
of ours from the COVID virus, a fraction of its neighboring countries--
a country that had very limited use of masks without mandates as well.
  I think the big opportunity with airlines is they made a big 
investment in air exchange. We know air exchange works. From our 
experiences in surgical centers, we know that when we moved to the 
modern air exchangers, that a number of infections--post-op infections 
for joint replacements--went down significantly. We always knew the air 
replacement was a big part of this.
  But, no, this administration continues to want to control our lives. 
Their healthcare infectious disease czar, Dr. Fauci, decreed that even 
after airline executives gave testimony that masks were of no benefit, 
Dr. Fauci decreed that he didn't think masks would ever come off on 
airplanes. Why? Why would he make such a bombastic, ignorant claim?
  It is time to stop all the mandates. It is time to stop all the 
travel mask mandates. It is time to let our people go.
  I yield the floor.


                          Vote on S.J. Res. 37

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, all time is yielded 
back.
  The clerk will read the title of the joint resolution for a third 
time.
  The joint resolution was ordered to be engrossed for a third reading 
and was read the third time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The joint resolution having been read the 
third time, the question is, Shall the joint resolution pass?
  Mr. MARSHALL. Mr. President, 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 legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Illinois (Ms. 
Duckworth), the Senator from New Jersey (Mr. Menendez), and the Senator 
from New Hampshire (Mrs. Shaheen) are necessarily absent.
  The result was announced--yeas 57, nays 40, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 81 Leg.]

                                YEAS--57

     Barrasso
     Bennet
     Blackburn
     Blunt
     Boozman
     Braun
     Burr
     Capito
     Cassidy
     Collins
     Cornyn
     Cortez Masto
     Cotton
     Cramer
     Crapo
     Cruz
     Daines
     Ernst
     Fischer
     Graham
     Grassley
     Hagerty
     Hassan
     Hawley
     Hoeven
     Hyde-Smith
     Inhofe
     Johnson
     Kelly
     Kennedy
     Lankford
     Lee
     Lummis
     Manchin
     Marshall
     McConnell
     Moran
     Murkowski
     Paul
     Portman
     Risch
     Rosen
     Rounds
     Rubio
     Sasse
     Scott (FL)
     Scott (SC)
     Shelby
     Sinema
     Sullivan
     Tester
     Thune
     Tillis
     Toomey
     Tuberville
     Wicker
     Young

                                NAYS--40

     Baldwin
     Blumenthal
     Booker
     Brown
     Cantwell
     Cardin
     Carper
     Casey
     Coons
     Durbin
     Feinstein
     Gillibrand
     Heinrich
     Hickenlooper
     Hirono
     Kaine
     King
     Klobuchar
     Leahy
     Lujan
     Markey
     Merkley
     Murphy
     Murray
     Ossoff
     Padilla
     Peters
     Reed
     Romney
     Sanders
     Schatz
     Schumer
     Smith
     Stabenow
     Van Hollen
     Warner
     Warnock
     Warren
     Whitehouse
     Wyden

                             NOT VOTING--3

     Duckworth
     Menendez
     Shaheen
  The joint resolution (S.J. Res. 37) was passed as follows:

                              S.J. Res. 37

       Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
     United States of America in Congress assembled, That Congress 
     disapproves the rule submitted by the Centers for Disease 
     Control and Prevention relating to ``Requirement for Persons 
     To Wear Masks While on Conveyances and at Transportation 
     Hubs'' (86 Fed. Reg. 8025 (February 3, 2021); determined 
     through a letter of opinion from the Government 
     Accountability Office dated December 14, 2021, and printed in 
     the Congressional Record on December 15, 2021, on pages 
     S9206-S9208, that the order is a rule under the Congressional 
     Review Act), and such rule shall have no force or effect.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Peters). The Senator from Rhode Island.

                          ____________________