[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.

                          ____________________