[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.
____________________