[Congressional Record Volume 171, Number 29 (Wednesday, February 12, 2025)]
[Senate]
[Pages S949-S952]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                  NOMINATION OF ROBERT F. KENNEDY, JR.

  Mr. MURPHY. Mr. President, I am joining my colleagues on the floor 
today to raise the alarm about the impact on the people that we serve--
in particular, the most vulnerable people we serve: the frail, elderly, 
children--with the nomination and soon-confirmation of Robert Kennedy, 
Jr., to be the Secretary of the Department of Health and Human 
Services.
  I don't think it is hyperbole to say that there are very few people 
in this country that are less qualified to run this Agency than Robert 
Kennedy, Jr. I say that because there are few people in the country who 
have been so enthusiastic, so public, and so impactful in their ability 
to take some of the wildest conspiracy theories that are out there on 
the internet about our health system or about our kids or about our 
families, internalize them, and then disseminate them in a way that 
does great damage.
  There is obviously a reputation that comes with being a Kennedy. 
There is an ability to convince and lead people because when a Kennedy 
speaks--when a Kennedy speaks--there is an assumption that that comes 
with authority and grounding in fact. So when Robert Kennedy, Jr., even 
as a private citizen, has adopted and amplified some of the wildest 
conspiracy theories out there--most notably, his belief that there is 
not a single safe vaccine in the United States of America--it has 
consequences because people listen to the Kennedy family.
  But those consequences pale in comparison to the consequences that 
will be visited upon this country if a conspiracy theorist, someone who 
throws science out the window--not just a science skeptic; someone who 
is outright hostile to science--takes over the preeminent public health 
Agency in this country.
  But the danger is even deeper because what is happening throughout 
our government today is--let's not pull punches--a billionaire 
takeover. Elon Musk is running the U.S. Government today for all any of 
us can tell, and Elon Musk is running the government in order to enrich 
himself.
  Today, there is news that he is about to get a major contract for 
armored Teslas from the White House and news that he is going to 
personally meet with Prime Minister Modi. His agenda will not be the 
interests of the people of the United States of America. Elon Musk, as 
a representative of the White House, is going to sit down with Prime 
Minister Modi and talk about Tesla's business and Elon Musk's business 
in China. I mean, you couldn't make this up. You couldn't make this up.
  He is doing press conferences in the White House, and then he is 
leveraging his access to power, his access to the President, his 
influence over American policy in order to make money for himself.
  The same thing is happening at the Department of Health and Human 
Services.
  As we speak, Elon Musk and his lieutenants have access to all of your 
personal data--your Medicare data, your Medicaid data. They are not in 
there to try to make the government more efficient; they are in there 
in order to make money. I don't think that is hard to believe given the 
fact that it is entirely clear that Elon Musk's involvement in our 
foreign policy is with a design to make money for himself.
  The same thing is happening and will happen in the Department of 
Health and Human Services.
  I want to talk to you for a few minutes tonight about a radical anti-
patient, anti-science, and pro-billionaire agenda that will be realized 
if RFK, Jr., is successfully confirmed by this body. Let me walk you 
through the RFK policy checklist.
  The first thing that we are learning about is that he is going to 
oversee a gutting of NIH funding. This is a big deal because a massive 
cut in funding for NIH--well, that is life or death. NIH does the basic 
research that private pharmaceutical companies need in order to cure 
and treat diseases. If the NIH can't do research, well then our 
pharmaceutical companies can't build on that research to cure diseases.
  So what has happened already that RFK, Jr., has pledged to implement 
is one of the biggest cuts to NIH that we have witnessed in modern 
history. It is done under the disguise of efficiency because the cut is 
supposedly about reducing the administrative expenses in research. But 
anybody that has ever been in a lab will tell you that there is really 
a distinction with no difference between direct and indirect costs. You

[[Page S950]]

can't do the research without the administrative help and the indirect 
expenditures.
  For instance, these are the things that would be categorized as 
indirect expenses. That is what is being limited by the order that RFK, 
Jr., is going to implement at the Department of Health and Human 
Services.
  MRI machines that can measure whether a cancer treatment is working 
or not--that is an indirect expense, the equipment that determines 
whether the treatment that is being researched is working or not.
  Payment for specialized research assistance that analyzes the 
clinical data that comes out of research, like blood samples--so the 
human beings that analyze the data. That is an indirect expense, and 
that is all of a sudden going to be limited by this Executive order.
  Staff that monitor patients who are in clinical trials for adverse 
reactions--those people are apparently indirect expenses. You are going 
to have less people monitoring you for adverse reactions--maybe no 
people monitoring you for adverse events and reactions because those 
staff are deemed an indirect expense.
  Advanced microscopes that are used to examine genetic alterations 
within, for instance, a tumor tissue--critical to studying cancer 
development and progression. Those advanced microscopes are, according 
to the Trump administration, an indirect expense, and thus funding will 
be limited or eliminated.
  At the University of Connecticut, the estimate is that they would 
lose $165 million per year as a result of this new policy that Robert 
F. Kennedy, Jr., is going to enthusiastically embrace. The University 
of Connecticut tells me that it would mean that they would close labs, 
entire labs; that they would have fewer discoveries; that they would do 
fewer patient trials; and there would be major delays even on the 
projects that they would continue, meaning that some people will die 
unnecessarily, waiting for those cures and therapies to be developed.
  OK. Well, you could say that you shouldn't hold the incoming 
Secretary of Health and Human Services to account for a policy, but 
here is the problem: This isn't just a bad idea; it is illegal. It is 
illegal. Congress specified very specifically in statute how money 
would flow to research institutions. In fact, we were very prescriptive 
in limiting the ability of any President to be able to unilaterally 
reduce the amount of money that goes for things like indirect expenses.
  I am not going to vote for any nominee who is willingly going to 
implement an illegal order. What you are watching is an extraordinary 
seizure of power from the people by the executive branch.
  The reason spending power in article I is vested in the legislature 
is because, here in the legislature, in the Congress, we represent 
every political party, every political faction, every part of the 
country. So, when we come to a decision on how the taxpayers' money is 
spent, we have to, by definition, come to an agreement that spreads 
that money out amongst people from every part of the country--people 
represented by both Republicans and Democrats. That means that the 
money is spent fairly. If the President of the United States gets to 
have unilateral decision-making authority over where money gets spent, 
it becomes a fundamental, unconstitutional corruption because the 
President can then just decide to spend money only on his friends and 
to hurt his enemies.
  So I am not going to support any nominee, including RFK, Jr., who is 
taking jobs with the explicit promise that they are going to implement 
illegal, unconstitutional orders. And the Executive order to destroy 
NIH funding is just that.
  Listen, people rely on this research. People rely on this research. 
People will die if this research is delayed or if labs at the 
University of Connecticut or at the University of North Carolina or at 
the University of Wisconsin close. There is no consensus out there in 
America to destroy medical research. Nobody voted for Donald Trump to 
stop cancer research or juvenile diabetes research. So, when I say that 
there is an anti-patient--a radical anti-patient--agenda, I want to 
start with this plan to illegally gut NIH funding because that is anti-
patient, and it is radical because the American public does not support 
it.
  I know my colleagues have spent a lot of time talking about RFK, 
Jr.'s efforts to undermine vaccines, but I just think it is worth it 
to, once again, read into the Record some of the things that he has 
said, because it was stunning to me. I am a member of the HELP 
Committee. I listened to the testimony of Mr. Kennedy, and he said: I 
am not anti-vaccine.
  Yet let's just remind our colleagues of what he has said.
  He called the COVID vaccine a ``crime against humanity.''
  He said that taking the vaccine would ``increase [your] risk of 
[getting] COVID.''
  He said the COVID vaccines ``may have contaminated the country's 
blood supply.''
  He described the HPV vaccine as ``dangerous and defective. . . . With 
this level of risk, it would seem that no loving parents would [ever] 
allow their daughter to receive this vaccine.''
  He said that the polio vaccine may have led to the increase in 
cancer.
  He wrote that the measles vaccine ``instead of protecting children, 
not only delays onset of disease to later age cohorts but has the 
potential to cause serious and permanent injury.''
  He wrote that the tetanus vaccine ``makes children more susceptible 
to dying from other causes.''
  He stated:

       I do believe . . . autism does come from vaccines.

  And, most famously, he stated:

       There's no vaccine that is safe and effective.

  Yet he has the gall to come before the HELP Committee and say that he 
is not anti-vaccine. That is like somebody who sets fire to a building 
every single day and claims that he is not an arsonist.
  There is danger--danger--in creating an impression that vaccines are 
unsafe, that vaccines cause autism. It has been debunked. There is such 
a thing as truth in this country. There is scientific consensus. I am 
not saying that we shouldn't question science, but there are questions 
that have been settled, and it has been settled that vaccines are not 
just safe but are essential for the preservation of the health of our 
children.
  Third, I want to talk about these attacks on the FDA.
  Mr. Kennedy said:

       If you work for the FDA and you are a part of this corrupt 
     system, I have two messages for you: Preserve your records, 
     and pack your bags.

  Now, listen. I don't think there is a single Senator here who would 
say that we shouldn't be having a conversation about FDA reform, about 
making sure the system works better. But there is a draft 
Executive order out there, apparently, that has been reported on that 
talks about halving the staff at the FDA, and you are literally about 
to confirm somebody who says that everybody at the FDA should pack 
their bags. That sounds like somebody who is going to enthusiastically 
shut down or, at the very least, neuter the FDA.

  Now, I talked about what this means at the outset. This is both anti-
patient and pro-billionaire. It is anti-patient because--well, I didn't 
even check ``anti-patient.'' Well, it is absolutely anti-patient. It is 
anti-patient because, if you halve the staff at the FDA, you are just 
going to get fewer drugs and therapies approved as quickly. That is 
clear. So, ultimately, patients are going to be hurt.
  But it is pro-billionaire because, once you shrink the resources, it 
is up to the administration as to who gets the access to the regulatory 
system and who doesn't. So, if you are a billionaire who is friendly to 
Donald Trump or if you are a pharmaceutical company that is friendly, 
you might get that access.
  But here is the other thing that happens when it is harder for 
science to dictate what drugs and therapies ultimately end up in the 
hands of consumers: It allows the snake oil salesmen--the people who 
are peddling the snake oil cures, the unproven cures--it allows them to 
gain a foothold because there are fewer actual proven drugs and 
therapies that are moving through the pipeline. So the unproven, 
unregulated drugs get a leg up.
  I am just going to show you one other chart here. It is kind of 
extraordinary how many people who are coming into the administration or 
who are

[[Page S951]]

associated with the administration are peddling these scamming 
products. A lot of them are these things called vita gummies.
  This vita gummy scam--the Surgeon General nominee is hawking these 
vita gummies. Mehmet Oz, who is going to be Director of CMS, is hawking 
what he calls miracle drugs--unregulated drugs and supplements. Alex 
Jones, who is a big Trump supporter, is hawking Super Male Vitality 
serum. The guy in line to be the next FBI Director is making money 
online by selling something called vaccine reversal pills.
  Let me say that again. Kash Patel, who is about to be voted on here 
to run the FBI, is making money online by selling something called 
vaccine reversal pills.
  So, when you curtail the ability of the FDA to be able to regulate 
and to be able to move legitimate drugs through the process, you are 
benefiting the people who are hawking the unregulated, often charlatan 
drugs, and I don't know that it is coincidental that a lot of those 
people are either close to Donald Trump or are getting jobs in the 
Trump administration.
  One, two, three, four. The fourth thing I want to talk about is the 
erasure of public health data.
  So this is a big deal. Researchers, clinicians, doctors--they rely on 
data that is posted on the CDC's and FDA's web pages. There is really 
important data on those web pages, but because of these Executive 
orders that have mandated that Agencies scrub anything, for instance, 
that refers to terms like ``sex'' or ``gender,'' the CDC and FDA have 
taken offline numerous web pages and datasets, including 
recommendations on how physicians should treat sexually transmitted 
infections. Why? Because I guess the word ``sex'' is in the word 
``sexually'' transmitted infections. So the attack on science and the 
attack on patients includes the erasure of public health data that our 
clinicians rely on.
  RFK, Jr., has made no commitment that he would put that data back 
online. This crazy, insane assault on what they call DEI means that, if 
you have done research on anything with the word ``sex'' in it, like in 
sexually transmitted infections, apparently, your research is no good. 
That is wild. But RFK, Jr., is, apparently, going to implement the 
destruction of basic public health data that has anything to do with 
gender or sex. That is radical. That is anti-patient.
  Let me talk to you about one particular conspiracy theory because it 
just matters to me greatly, and this one is both anti-patient and pro-
billionaire.
  So Robert Kennedy has lots of really wild, really dangerous ideas, 
but one of them is that treating kids for depression--treating kids for 
depression--is what has caused school shootings in this country.

       Kids always had access to guns.

  He said on a talk show.

       There's no time in American history or human history that 
     kids were going to schools and shooting their classmates. It 
     happened--you know, it [happened] coterminous with the 
     introduction of these drugs, with Prozac and . . . other 
     drugs.

  So what he is saying is that it is not the number of guns that are 
out there, and it is not the assault weapons. It is the fact that we 
are trying to humanely treat children for mental illness.
  He also says:

       We have always had an abundance of guns [in the United 
     States]. In the last 20 years, there has been no per capita 
     increase in the number of guns we have.

  That is totally inaccurate. That is totally inaccurate. So, as 
somebody who has spent their career working to protect kids from gun 
violence and who believes that gun violence is a public health issue, 
it is heartbreaking and unacceptable to me that we are about to 
nominate a candidate to lead the preeminent public health Agency, not 
just in the United States but in the world, who believes that guns are 
not the primary cause of school shootings but that antidepressants are. 
There is zero evidence of that fact--zero evidence of that fact.
  That should be offensive to every parent in this country who may not 
know exactly how we solve the problem of school shootings in this 
country but who certainly knows that the problem is not that we are 
treating kids for mental illness.
  I want to talk about two last important elements on RFK, Jr.'s policy 
checklist.
  The first--and I have referred to this throughout my remarks--is this 
idea that you are going to have to take a loyalty pledge to the 
President and his political agenda in order to receive funding. This is 
that DEI Executive order that says that they are going to end radical 
and wasteful government DEI programs. They say, if your research 
program has anything to do with environmental justice, equity, 
diversity, inclusion, sex, or gender, that they are going to cease 
funding your program.
  Now, once again, that is illegal. The President cannot--cannot--apply 
additional conditions to grant programs authorized by Congress beyond 
those that are explicitly authorized by Congress. Sometimes, the 
President has some wiggle room, some ability to make decisions that 
apply extra conditions, but Congress has not given the President the 
ability to issue an order as wide and as broad and as vague as this. 
Nobody out there in the medical research field has any idea what this 
means. They have no idea whether they are running a DEI research 
program or not. So what it allows for is another fundamental corruption 
for the Department of Health and Human Services to just decide, inside 
a closed, walled-off room, what is DEI and what is not.

  I just speculate that there is probably going to be a whole bunch 
more DEI research programs in Oregon and Connecticut than there would 
be in Mississippi or Texas. It is just another way to move money away 
from people who may not line up with your political ideology or your 
political agenda as a President and hand it to your loyalists and to 
the people who are with you.
  Then, finally, I will just come back to one of the places that I 
started. Elon Musk and his billionaire crowd--they are inside the 
Department of Health and Human Services right now. Right now, an 
unaccountable billionaire who didn't get elected to anything has access 
to your most intimate personal information--your Medicare records. 
Whether you have seen a doctor, whether you have had a surgery, whether 
you have gotten treatment for mental illness or addiction, Elon Musk, 
an unaccountable billionaire, the richest man in the world, has access 
to that data.
  Maybe we aren't certain what Elon Musk is going to do with all of 
that data--by the way, he apparently has access to your Treasury data, 
to your tax records, and to your Social Security information as well--
but RFK, Jr., is not going to stop that. He is not going to stop an 
unaccountable billionaire from having access to some of the most 
sensitive data that exists--your health records.
  Elon Musk is interested in having access to this data in part because 
it gives him a competitive edge over the folks that he is trying to win 
business against.
  So any way you cut it, Robert Kennedy's agenda for the Department of 
Health and Human Services is anti-patient, and it is pro-billionaire. 
Gutting NIH funding, undermining vaccines, attacking the FDA, erasing 
public health data, blaming shootings on antidepressants--by the way, 
that is pro-billionaire because guess who gets helped when guns aren't 
the problem; it is the wealthy, rich owners of the gun companies--using 
this vaguely termed notion of DEI to force people to pledge loyalty to 
Donald Trump in order to receive Federal funds and then giving Elon 
Musk and his friends access to very sensitive health records.
  I know a lot of my Republican friends know in their hearts that this 
is a very dangerous choice, and I am very sad for this body that on 
this nomination that so clearly implicates one of the most sacred 
responsibilities of the U.S. Congress--the protection of the health and 
welfare of our children, of our families--that we weren't able to find 
a way to tell President Trump: Pick somebody else. Pick somebody else. 
Find somebody who isn't so enthusiastically going to gut funding for 
research. Find somebody who doesn't show such affection for conspiracy 
theories. Find somebody who doesn't blame shootings on treating kids 
for mental illness.
  There are a lot of really conservative healthcare leaders out there, 
a lot of

[[Page S952]]

healthcare leaders who supported Donald Trump who won't do as much 
damage as RFK, Jr., will do.
  There is still time for my Republican colleagues to join us and send 
a message that loyalty to the people of this country and a commitment 
to protecting the healthcare of this country matters more than loyalty 
to President Trump.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oregon.

                          ____________________