[Congressional Record Volume 171, Number 29 (Wednesday, February 12, 2025)]
[Senate]
[Pages S936-S940]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
NOMINATION OF ROBERT F. KENNEDY, JR.
Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Mr. President, I rise today alongside Senator Schumer
and Senator Cortez Masto and so many others who have come to the floor
today in opposition to the President's nomination of Robert F. Kennedy,
Jr., to lead the Department of Health and Human Services.
The Secretary of Health and Human Services is the top health official
in our country and is in charge of everything from preventing disease
outbreaks to making sure our kids are healthy and have a good start in
life.
Americans need and deserve a Secretary who is guided by facts and
science in decision making. After all, this is someone who will be in
charge of overseeing the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's
critical efforts to fight disease outbreaks; the Food and Drug
Administration's work to ensure the safety of the medications Americans
rely on and the food on our grocery shelves; the National Institutes of
Health's ground breaking, lifesaving medical research; the
Administration for Community Living's support for older adults and
people living with disabilities, as well as their families and
caregivers; and the Administration for Children and Families' work to
oversee the foster care system and child adoption programs--something I
care deeply about as a cochair
[[Page S937]]
of the adoption caucus for the U.S. Senate; as well as work to prevent
human trafficking.
Through these efforts and more, the Department of Health and Human
Services directly touches more lives, actually, than any other Cabinet
Agency.
The building that houses the Department is named for Minnesota's
``Happy Warrior,'' Vice President Hubert Humphrey, former U.S. Senator
for the State of Minnesota. He was a champion for expanding access to
healthcare, grew up in South Dakota, grew up at a drugstore, went on to
get his degree at Minnesota and eventually became a U.S. Senator,
always fighting for those--in his words--``in the shadows of life.''
Inscribed in the entrance hall of that building are words from
Humphrey's final speech in 1977:
The moral test of government is how that government treats
those who are in the dawn of life, the children; those who
are in the twilight of life, the elderly; those who are in
the shadows of life; the sick--
As well as, of course, those with disabilities.
That is the test for this Agency that is housed in the building with
those words from the former Senator from my State, whose desk I
actually have. I open it up, and I see his name, ``Hubert H. Humphrey''
carved into that desk.
You need someone as a Secretary of this Department that believes
deeply in those words and believes in them with all the modern science
and every tool we have to keep people healthy.
Robert Kennedy, Jr., does not pass that test.
Among the HHS Secretary's most important duties is ensuring American
medical research remains on the cutting edge. Yet Mr. Kennedy's record
reveals a consistent pattern of dismissing, distorting, and devaluing
the very research that is critical to HHS's mission.
Among other things, the Secretary oversees the National Institutes of
Health, which, for more than a century, has been a driving force behind
such groundbreaking discoveries as blood tests to detect HIV and
hepatitis, the use of lithium to manage bipolar disorder, and the HPV
vaccine to prevent cervical cancer.
This administration has already displayed open hostility to medical
research. Over the weekend, we learned that the administration intends
to defund and derail lifesaving medical research.
Let's be clear about what is happening here. They are looking for
money everywhere: Head Start program, firefighter grants. They are
looking for money over at NIH with that lifesaving research. Why?
Because the Republicans, led by Donald Trump, are about to reveal over
$2 trillion in tax cuts for the wealthy. We know because that was a
campaign promise.
And in the process, they are extinguishing hope for so many Americans
looking for treatments and cures. That is why they are looking to
cancel cancer trials and Head Start, to give tax cuts to their buddies.
Americans are already feeling the pain from this. I have constituents
writing to me afraid and afraid for loved ones. I heard from one
constituent over the weekend whose niece is fighting a very aggressive
cancer but has been seeing results from an NIH-funded clinical trial.
The niece has three small children at home while battling this disease.
And without this trial, she doesn't know what else her physicians could
do for her.
I have also heard from a constituent whose daughter got treatment at
the NIH last year. She said it ``was a great experience, with great
doctors and services,'' but she can't imagine how patients enrolled in
NIH studies for life-threatening conditions are feeling right now.
Another constituent told me one of her kids is living with a rare
cancer, and the administration's directive to suspend NIH funding
threatens the prognosis.
Simply put--
This constituent wrote--
this administration's policy will lead to many unnecessary
deaths.
Everyone knows someone in their life who has benefited from that
medical research.
For me, this is personal. I am standing here today because of one of
the types of research that is on the chopping block, that is research
on breast cancer. As many of our colleagues know, following a routine
mammogram in February of 2021, I learned that I had stage IA breast
cancer. I am lucky I only had stage IA. I still remember what it felt
like to walk in here about 15 minutes after finding out what the tests
had shown, and I had to walk in here like everything was fine and vote.
But then after that, I got treatment at the Mayo Clinic. All I had to
have was a lumpectomy and radiation--I never even had to go through
chemo--and I was in remission. And when it popped up again, the same
thing: lumpectomy, radiation, no chemo.
That would have never happened 50 years ago. That would have never
happened 25 years ago. That was because of research.
There are many in this Chamber, who either themselves or who have
loved ones who have had cancer who have gotten through it successfully
because of the research that occurred years and years back because our
Nation decided we want to be in the lead. We are not going to be a
follower. We are going to be in the lead when it comes to lifesaving
research. We are going to do it in our great universities and medical
institutions all over this country, and we are going to make sure that
we put the funding into that research.
Not just Democrats said this--no, quite the contrary. All of these
moves to invest in NIH and to understand how that research just can't
occur in one place with a famous name but has to occur all over the
country--that was bipartisan work, under Presidents that have been both
Democratic and Republican. And we have built that research, and we are
now on the cusp of finding out not just ways to make this easier to
deal with and easier treatments and to go into remission, but ways to
eradicate this once and for all. We are on the cusp of that with the
mapping of the human genome and with all the information that we have
gotten out of that.
We have seen what this has done for America. It has put us in the
lead. Studies have shown that every dollar in NIH funding spurs almost
$2.50 in economic activity. NIH funding supports hundreds of thousands
of jobs across the country and pumps more than $92 billion into our
economy. This includes generating $1.7 billion of economic activity and
supporting over 2,500 businesses and nearly 8,000 jobs in my State
alone.
I have heard from a number of constituents who are researchers, who
solve things--scientists, entrepreneurs, a microbiology lab technician.
One is worried that blocking Federal research funding will put their
research on hold and prevent her from employing lab personnel.
This administration's reckless freeze on NIH funding is a threat to
not just jobs but to those lifesaving cures. It will extinguish hopes.
It will extinguish what will be lives that will come after that and
after that. It will set back American innovation and put us at a
competitive disadvantage with countries like China. And this is just
the beginning of the assault on healthcare.
So it will be the HHS Secretary's job to push back against these
attacks. I haven't seen that happen--not with this nominee. Mr. Kennedy
has demonstrated open hostility to science.
At an event in Arizona, days before the President nominated him, Mr.
Kennedy said that ``600 people are going to''--this is his quote--
``walk into offices at NIH and 600 people are going to leave.''
On top of his desire to deprive our government of the great work done
every day by the men and women who keep Americans healthy, Mr. Kennedy
has expressed his intent to roll back the Agency's focus on combating
infectious diseases and remove funding that improves our understanding
of how, why, and where diseases are spreading.
Don't take my word for this, if you want; just take his. These are
quotes.
I'm going to say to NIH scientists--
He said--
we're going to give infectious disease a break for about
eight years.
That is his plan for overseeing the NIH: give infectious disease a
break.
Well, Mr. President, measles doesn't take a break. Tuberculosis
doesn't take a break. Polio doesn't take a break.
[[Page S938]]
And the reason we have largely eliminated those diseases in this
country is because medical research can never take a break.
Unfortunately, Mr. Kennedy's animosity toward the NIH does not come
to us in a vacuum. He has long been a vocal opponent of medical
research. When influential voices promote the idea that data-backed,
evidence-based research is unreliable, it breaks down trust in medicine
and public health science as a whole. To place Mr. Kennedy atop our
Nation's largest public health Agency is to provide this voice of
constantly questioning science and telling parents they shouldn't get
their kids vaccinated--it gives that voice a megaphone.
People are welcome to their opinion. Certainly, they are in this
Chamber and walking down the street. That is fine. This is America. But
it is giving this voice that is not based in science a megaphone.
For generations, America has led the way on medical research and
global health. Our Nation's scientists gave the world penicillin,
anesthesia, the pacemaker, and more. Mr. Kennedy's nomination puts
decades worth of scientific advancement at risk--so much so, in fact,
that the Wall Street Journal editorial board, not exactly a bastion of
liberalism, called it ``a threat to American medical innovation.''
Of course, Mr. Kennedy's opposition to science is hardly a secret.
Over the years, he has repeatedly chosen to ignore scientific evidence
in favor of conspiracy theories, most notably those involving vaccines.
Let me be absolutely clear on this: Vaccines are among the greatest
achievement of modern science, and the evidence supporting their safety
is overwhelming. Vaccines have saved 154 million lives over the last
half century. That is about six lives every minute. And each life saved
gains an average of 66 years of health.
In spite of that, Mr. Kennedy has long promoted baseless theories
about vaccines, including, most notably, during the pandemic. During a
period in our Nation and world history when trust in science was more
important than ever, Mr. Kennedy, instead, chose to stir up doubts
about lifesaving vaccines. Mr. Kennedy actively sought to halt the
rollout of the vaccines just 6 months after President Trump--the same
President who has now nominated him to oversee healthcare in our
country--declared the vaccines a miracle. That is from President Trump.
You all remember those days when we were trying to get the vaccines out
as soon as possible.
In May 2021, Mr. Kennedy filed a petition with the FDA demanding that
the Agency end authorization for the vaccines and avoid approving any
future COVID vaccine.
Mr. Kennedy's denial of basic science goes beyond his opinions on
vaccines. He has, on numerous occasions, spread misinformation about
the origins of diseases, claiming without evidence that humans, rather
than bacteria or viruses, cause infectious diseases. For example, he
has claimed that Lyme disease, which is spread by ticks--a big deal in
Minnesota--he claims it was created by the U.S. military in a lab on
Long Island in the 1950s. The fact is that the bacteria that causes
Lyme disease has been around for at least 60,000 years, and the ticks
that spread the disease have been around for at least 99 million years.
I also want to bring attention to Mr. Kennedy's denial of avian flu--
key for me on the Agriculture Committee. Last year, Mr. Kennedy said
the World Health Organization ``fabricated the 2006 bird flu outbreak,
which of course never happened.'' This is what he said.
Now, my State is the largest producer of turkeys, and Minnesota
turkey farmers will tell you that avian flu isn't fabricated; it is all
too real.
I remember hugging a turkey producer who had just had to eradicate
all of his birds. He was so proud of the operation he had. He was a
small turkey producer. Just like that, because of the avian flu, he had
to eradicate and kill those birds.
I have heard from one constituent who teaches farm business
management at a rural Minnesota community college. Several of his
students are turkey farmers, and they have seen firsthand the
devastating impact of that bird flu virus when it comes in: A turkey
dies. They know it is trouble. They get it tested. They know it is
going to go to the whole flock and beyond, and they have to take
immediate action.
Part of the result of that is, of course, higher prices at the
grocery store. When my constituent met with his students to complete
their 2025 cash flow projections, he said:
It was devastating to see the results, and I have great
concerns that this virus may cause bankruptcy for turkey
farmers.
We all know that those young farmers are not alone. For 3 years now,
poultry farmers in my State and across the country have been fighting a
new outbreak of avian flu, which has affected 156 million birds and
counting.
Following the 2015 avian flu outbreak, our colleague Senator Cornyn
and I worked to establish an animal vaccine bank and disease response
program as part of the 2018 farm bill. This has given farmers and
public health agencies critical resources for containing outbreaks, but
it is clear we need to be doing more, not less. That is why I am
working with Senator Boozman. I hope we can pass a farm bill and really
upgrade our work when it comes to avian flu.
But to do all that and the potential of having vaccines here for
various animals, we are going to need people in the government that
believe in science. Placing Mr. Kennedy in charge of public health in
our country could unravel that progress and more. He has already said
he didn't believe in the avian flu, that it was somehow manufactured.
What more evidence do you need, I say to my colleagues across the
aisle?
Facts are the foundation of medical science, and our next HHS
Secretary must commit to making decisions based on facts, not personal
beliefs.
I also have concerns that Mr. Kennedy will be a rubberstamp for the
administration's plans to undo the progress that we have made on
bringing down the sky-high costs of prescription drugs. For decades,
Big Pharma companies had a sweetheart deal written into law that
allowed them to charge our seniors whatever they wanted for lifesaving
prescription drugs.
That was unacceptable, and, along with my colleagues, we successfully
led the legislation to end it. Taking on the big drug companies wasn't
easy. I did for years and years and years. They had three lobbyists for
every Member of Congress and spent hundreds of millions of dollars--I
am sure many watching tonight have seen those ads--trying to stop us.
That was a great deal that got written into law. I don't know how they
got it, but they got it.
Then we said: Wait a minute. Why are these drugs in other
industrialized nations half the price of the drugs that we have in
America, especially when we paid for a lot of the research with our
taxpayer money? Then we found out, well, for the biggest drug-buying
group in the country for prescription drugs--our seniors--they get
locked-in profits on that, not like the VA, where they can actually
negotiate for our brave veterans. But when it comes to all the seniors,
no negotiation was allowed.
The power of over 50 million American seniors negotiating, that is a
pretty strong bloc. And our constituents finally said: Enough is
enough--major issues when people were running for office. And together,
we ended Big Pharma's sweetheart deal--Democrats only--in the Inflation
Reduction Act and gave Medicare the power to negotiate better prices
for prescription drugs.
So what was the result of that? Well, already, the last
administration negotiated the first 10 drugs--blockbuster drugs:
Eliquis, Xarelto, Januvia, Jardiance. The negotiated prices that they
negotiated with Big Pharma--because if Big Pharma didn't negotiate with
them, they were then not going to be able to sell their drugs through
Medicare. Do you know what prices they got?
Big Pharma is still suing. They have lost every single lawsuit saying
that we, in this body, didn't have the power--didn't have the power--to
stop the sweetheart deal that Congress had given them. Of course, we
had the power.
But do you know what happened with those negotiated prices for
seniors? They went down on those--just the first 10 blockbuster drugs--
60, 70 percent. And no one has questioned the statistic that in 1 year,
when this takes
[[Page S939]]
effect--in about a year--9 million seniors across the country, in 1
year--just 1 year--will save $1.5 billion in out-of-pocket costs. That
is ``b,'' billion.
That is not all we did, because the next drugs are coming down the
pike for negotiations--I will mention that in a minute--and the next
ones after that and the next ones after that. The torch has been passed
on to this administration. It is their turn to negotiate and get those
60 percent, 70 percent, 80 percent reductions like Secretary Becerra
and the Biden administration were able to get because they were
organized, because they knew what they were doing, and they stood tall
and they negotiated those prices after we passed the law.
What else did we do? The legislation passed under the last
administration capped monthly insulin costs for seniors at $35, capped
total out-of-pocket drug costs for seniors at $2,000 a year, starting
this year. And these savings are just the beginning. Last month, the
previous administration announced the next 15 drugs Medicare must
negotiate. These are more blockbusters: diabetes and weight loss drugs
like Ozempic, Rybelsus, Wegovy, which 2.3 million Medicare Part D
enrollees take, including thousands of seniors in my State.
For these seniors, getting those lower prices--you know how much
those drugs cost right now--makes a huge difference.
Finally, seniors in America--and, by the way, it helps nonseniors as
well. We already see the insulin prices lowered by the companies. Even
though the law--I would have liked to pass a law for nonseniors. Our
colleagues wouldn't join us in doing that. But the market worked, and
they are also getting that $35-per-month cap.
Think about what these next drugs will mean, though. Minnesotans like
Brian--Brian has been paying more than a hundred bucks a month for Breo
Ellipta, one of the asthma medications covered in last month's
announcement for the drugs of the Trump administration--it is now on
their plate to negotiate. Brian has been taking that for 20 years.
After all that, $24,000 spent on just one medication, think about if
that was reduced 60 to 70 percent. That is what they could do if they
have the right HHS Secretary.
Judith pays $1,100 a month for Otezla, an arthritis drug also covered
in last month's announcement. That is two-thirds of her Social Security
check.
Relief could be on the way for Judith, for Brian, and for millions of
seniors like them, but only if this administration follows the law and
commits to continuing Medicare drug price negotiation.
This task, of course, doesn't fall to the Veterans Secretary, doesn't
fall to the Commerce Secretary; it is the HHS Secretary. And I know I
speak for many of my colleagues when I say I have serious doubts about
this nominee when it comes to this.
Why? Well, to discuss Mr. Kennedy's testimony before the Finance
Committee last week and his responses to questions submitted in
writing, he could even have clarified it in writing.
What did he say? Our colleague Senator Cortez Masto, who just spoke,
pointed out that the President, our Republican colleagues, and Big
Pharma wanted to repeal the law we passed--that is the Inflation
Reduction Act--that contains the Medicare negotiation. She asked Mr.
Kennedy if he would commit to following the law and negotiate a good
deal for our seniors.
This is his response:
President Trump has asked me to end the chronic disease
epidemic and make Americans healthy again.
Oh, come on. It is a very straightforward question. Congress passed a
law. The former President signed it into law. It is the law that you
have to follow, and the law says you have to negotiate these drug
prices--not to mention that your Attorney General is going to have to
defend the lawsuits that Big Pharma is bringing to try to upend the law
that they are losing left and right, and you sure better continue the
track record of the Biden administration and win those cases.
So when Catherine Cortez Masto received this answer, which was a
nonanswer, in fact, he actually said something that makes you think, is
he really going to follow the law and negotiate a good deal for our
seniors? So she asked him to clarify his comments.
His response:
President Trump asked me to end that.
End what? I don't know. That is not leadership. He should have known
all about the prescription drug program and Medicare Part D. He is
taking over a major Agency that does this work for 50 million seniors
under Medicare--50 million seniors. Out-of-pocket savings of $1.5
billion in just 1 year on only the first 10 drugs, and then there are
going to be 15 more and 15 more and 15 more.
This is not the answer of someone who is prepared to stand up and
lower drug prices; that is the answer of someone who will do whatever
the President asks him to do, no questions asked.
Mr. Kennedy was also given the chance to provide clarity by answering
our colleagues' questions in writing. Yet he refused to give clear
answers to the vast majority of the questions.
When asked if he would refrain from making policy changes that would
raise drug costs for seniors with cancer, diabetes, cardiovascular
diseases, psoriasis, rheumatoid arthritis, or chronic kidney disease,
Mr. Kennedy refused to answer. He also refused to provide a clear
answer when asked if he supported policies that hold Big Pharma
companies accountable for price gouging.
From the person nominated to shape health policy in our country for
the next 4 years, we need someone who will commit to bringing down drug
costs. This is particularly important after the actions the
administration has taken in the last few weeks.
On his first day in office, the President signed an Executive order
that cut Affordable Care Act enrollment periods short and reversed
policies that make it affordable for parents to add their kids to their
health insurance. He is also making it harder for 24 million people to
keep coverage year to year by revoking automatic reenrollment in
affordable healthcare plans.
The Affordable Care Act is the law of the land whether the President
likes it or not, and the Secretary of Health and Human Services must
follow the law because, guess what, also, the American people like this
law. But when Mr. Kennedy was asked about the Affordable Care Act, he
attacked it, saying ``Americans don't like it'' instead of promising to
uphold the law.
The President's efforts to overturn the ACA are only the beginning.
He is also taking away new initiatives that lower prescription drug
prices, including one that offers seniors a flat $2 copay for drugs
that treat common chronic conditions.
In less than a month, this administration has made clear that it
intends to do Big Pharma's bidding instead of sticking to commonsense
policies that have brought down healthcare costs. Reversing them won't
bring down prices; it will raise them.
We have problems with healthcare access, costs, and the like, so we
need someone at the HHS who is actually going to work with us to take
this down. Whether it is the denial of care for way too many patients
under insurance policies or whether it is the expense of these
prescription drugs, where still more work needs to be done on patents
and some of the reforms on a bipartisan basis that we have gotten out
of Judiciary, we need an HHS Secretary that supports reform, and by
reform, I mean bringing down prices.
If you have been able to keep your healthcare coverage year to year
through the Affordable Care Act, then this nominee will not fight for
you. If you are a young adult who has been able to stay on their
parents' healthcare until you are 26, don't look at this nominee to
fight for you. If you are a senior shelling out thousands of dollars a
month because of that sweetheart deal I just mentioned, he is not going
to fight for you. He wouldn't even answer the question on whether he
was going to keep negotiating.
None of this that he has talked about in these hearings, from my
perspective, whether it is a rubberstamp for withdrawing the United
States from the World Health Organization, whether it is upending the
work of the Interagency Autism Coordinating Committee, whether it is
what I have just spoken about tonight about not believing in vaccines
or not carrying on the work of negotiating prescription drugs, none of
this will bring down healthcare costs. None of this will make Americans
healthier.
President Eisenhower, who established the Agency that is now HHS--
President Eisenhower, a trusted Republican President--said in his 1954
State
[[Page S940]]
of the Union Address that the Department ``symbolized the government's
permanent concern with the human problems of our citizens.''
The person at the helm of this Department must above all share that
concern that President Eisenhower put out there so clearly. He must
prioritize the well-being of his fellow Americans, must be guided by
facts and science, not politics or personal opinions. That is why
17,000 doctors have sounded the alarm about Mr. Kennedy's nomination.
It is why more than 700 public health experts called his nomination
``dangerous.'' It is why, for the first time in living memory, more
than 70 Nobel Prize winners across the fields of medicine, chemistry,
physics, and economics came together in public opposition to this
Cabinet pick.
I believe in listening to experts. I trust doctors. I trust public
health researchers. I trust Nobel Prize winners. That is why, on behalf
of every senior who relies on medications to live and age with dignity,
every child who deserves the promise of a future free from preventable
diseases, and every American whose health and safety depend on sound
scientific guidance, I will be voting no on his nomination, and I urge
my colleagues to do what they know is the right thing and vote no as
well.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wisconsin.
Ms. BALDWIN. Mr. President, I rise today in opposition to Robert F.
Kennedy, Jr.'s nomination to lead the Department of Health and Human
Services.
Healthcare is not just a policy to me; it is deeply personal. I got
into public service because of my own healthcare journey. When I was 9,
I was hospitalized with a serious childhood illness. It was similar to
spinal meningitis--that wasn't the exact diagnosis but similar. While I
fought to survive and then ultimately to get better and fully recover,
my grandparents, who raised me, struggled to figure out how to pay for
the lifesaving care that I needed and received. In total, I spent 3
months in the hospital in Madison, WI.
When I talk about healthcare, I don't just speak as a U.S. Senator or
as a Wisconsinite; I am speaking as a person who knows what it was like
to spend months in a hospital bed. I am speaking as someone who knows
the emotional toll and the financial stress that it put on my loved
ones. I am speaking as someone who knows firsthand how important it is
to protect our children from serious illness and the dire consequences
when our children do get sick. That is why I was so disturbed by Robert
F. Kennedy, Jr.'s nomination to lead our Nation's largest public health
Agency.
As a member of the Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee,
I was able to question Mr. Kennedy at one of his nomination hearings. I
watched as he over and over again parroted the same answer when pressed
about his anti-vaccine views. ``Show me the data,'' he would say. When
asked if he still believes that vaccines cause autism, he would not
commit. He again said, ``Show me the data.''
Well, Mr. Kennedy has had every opportunity to review the
overwhelming consensus of doctors, researchers, and experts that
vaccines are safe and effective. He certainly had the opportunity to do
so not just before his confirmation hearing but before spending a
decade peddling misinformation and conspiracy theories about vaccines.
Apparently, he didn't look at the research before traveling to Samoa
to rail against the measles vaccine. Perhaps if he had, the 83 people--
primarily infants and children--who died from a subsequent outbreak of
measles would still be with us.
I think it is clear that he also didn't bother to review the research
before spreading misinformation online, with one study finding that
among verified Twitter accounts, Mr. Kennedy was by far the top
purveyor of vaccine misinformation, garnering more than three times as
much engagement as the second most retweeted account.
Now, we are supposed to believe that if we simply show Mr. Kennedy
the research, he will change his tune. Well, I believe someone applying
to be the top health official in this country shouldn't have to be
convinced to follow the science. We shouldn't have to hold their feet
to the fire on whether they would be willing to protect our children
from polio or measles. They should already be an expert in the field,
not an expert at evading responsibility and spreading conspiracy
theories.
Americans deserve a leading health official who believes in science,
not in conspiracies. If Mr. Kennedy is not willing to believe or even
review the overwhelming data on vaccines before spreading dangerous
lies about their safety, then I highly doubt he will change his tune
when leading the Department of Health and Human Services. And it is not
just his statements like ``No vaccine is safe and effective.''
By the way, he really did make that statement. I have seen it on a
podcast. But he has repeatedly made claims with no evidence. He said
Wi-Fi causes cancer. He said antidepressants caused school shootings.
He questioned whether HIV does, in fact, cause AIDS. And time and
again, he is showing us who he is. By his own admission, he is not
interested in the research. He has no time for the data. And these
claims may seem outlandish. They may seem harmless, but they all point
to a fundamental truth about Mr. Kennedy. He not only does not believe
the science, but he is willing to actively undermine it. He spreads
dangerous conspiracy theories, and he puts families' health and safety
at risk.
RFK, Jr., will put Americans in harm's way. Kids will be at risk of
getting preventable diseases like measles and mumps. Women will have
essential healthcare ripped away. Families will be further away, not
closer, to having cures to diseases like cancer. And, sadly, the list
goes on and on.
So I urge my colleagues, especially those who understand how
dangerous vaccine skepticism is, to ask themselves this simple
question: Will this nominee keep your constituents safe? Or will he
harm them?
For Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., the answer is clear. I oppose this
nomination on behalf of Wisconsin families and encourage my colleagues
to vote no.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Banks). The Senator from Georgia.
____________________