our government plays a critical role in informing the public, the american people look to us for trust. they look to us for guidance during the roughest points of our history. and they look to us for factual, accurate information so they can have the freedom to raise their families without fear and anxiety. that trust is broken when partisan officials use their platforms to spread reckless and damaging information. they attempt to overwhelm americans with views that push anti-science narratives or foreign propaganda, often that threatens our national security. you can't go on to social media anymore without running into a fake headline or some hyperbolic claim with no source. i mean, for so many people, the more you see, the more you believe, and this leaves americans dazed and confused,

unsure of who to trust and where they can go to get accurate information. unfortunately, the new administration has shown a bias towards elevating people who peddle disinformation, spreading seemingly random falsehoods about our voting systems, marginalized groups or our public health. this has real, negative impacts on americans. now, way back in 1980, i graduated with a master's in earth sciences. i moved west to work as a geologist. scientist, it's low on mazlov's pyramid of science. i published peer-reviewed s stu studies. i have a reverence for this, despite the fact that there aren't that many of us left around here anymore. i'll be the first to admit that science

can sometimes surprise us. it's always evolving. it's why the entire field of science relies on constant evaluation, constant research to continue to make new discoveries or deepen our understanding of complex problem. meeting with science helps us get the most accurate information we can. yet, the trump administration's appetite for antiscientific claims and disinformation is something that in many ways threatens all of us and puts our country at risk. this morning the senate confirmed tulsi gabbard as director of national intelligence. i voted no on her confirmation. ms. gabbard has none of the relevant qualifications or intelligence experience sufficient for this role. and officials from both sides of the aisle have raised concerns about her ability to provide the president with impartial analysis as the nation's top

intelligence officer. ms. gabbard is frequently parroted russian disinformation. she repeated russia's erroneous justification for its brutal invasion of ukraine. she criticized kiev's democratic government, a steadfast partner of the united states. and she spread repeatedly falsehoods about her own involvement in bioweapon research in ukraine. let's be clear about what this means. an american adversary invades another democracy, and ms. gabbard actively pushes their narrative. either she cannot p distinguish fact from fiction or she intentionally chooses to promote false claims. either scenario should be disqualifying for a cabinet official, let alone one who's responsible for assuring the president has accurate and timely intelligence. as they say, he who stands for

nothing will fall for anything. regardless of her intentions or what she actually believes, her readiness to champion clear disinformation undermines our national security and puts american servicemembers at risk. as director of national intelligence, ms. gabbard will have full visibility to every threat that the military and civilian personnel performing these vital missions in colorado and across the country and around the world, they're working tirelessly to address. they need leaders, we need leaders who base every assessment and decision on accurate intelligence, not propaganda, especially not propaganda from one of the most threatening rivals that we have. president trump's nominee to the department of health and human services, robert f. kennedy jr. is another clear example of someone willing to overlook facts and science when it's convenient. he has a wide following, and

many people look to him for guidance and for leadership. in particular, his ideas of a healthier america appeals to many coloradoans and to me as well. but make no mistake, our country can and should be healthier, and we all share a vested effort in that direction. there's a bipartisan appetite to get us there. we should provide better food options and keep unsafe chemicals out of the products that we eat. but we have to be able to do it in tandem with fact-based science and thoughtful policy to protect americans and to keep them safe. rfk jr. has shown a propensity for antiscience claims. one of his most antiscientific claim is that autism is caused by childhood vaccines. this is a claim that's been spread through many communities for decades. it's all based on a single paper

published back in 1998. that paper was retracted years ago, and there have been hundreds of studies on the nonexistent link between autism and the measles vaccine ever since. they have all, i repeat, they have all found zero connection between vaccines and the cause of autism. let me be clear, every single one found zero connection. it's settled science. vaccines are not only extremely safe. they're extremely effective. every year they save millions of lives all around the globe. we have effectively eliminated harmful diseases like polio and we're making considerable progress towards a vaccine for hiv and aids. for the last hundred years our country's life expectancy increased by 30 years.

25 of those 30 years are largely attributed to vaccine adoption and clean drinking water. vaccines not only save lives, but they also made them healthier and happier as they were extended. some of the damage from disinformation about vaccines is nearly impossible to undo. why would anyone accept the results of one debunked paper rather than the conclusions of hundreds of studies that have been conducted since? it is completely p understandable for parents to have questions and concerns about vaccines that their children receive. i know i have as a parent. as a parent of two kids, one who just turned two years old, i understand the concern that families feel. we want to make sure that we're doing everything we can do to keep our kids healthy and safe. we do the best we can with what

we have to make them as healthy and happy as possible. people who peddle vaccine skepticism are preying upon parents' very rational fierce to advance these -- fears to advance conspiracy theories. parents are trying their hardest to keep their kids safe and healthy, and it's irresponsible for people to playing them with pseudo science and misinformation when the science has been settled on this for decades. the measles vaccine is safe and does not cause autism. it's personal for me too. my son teddy, now in college, unfortunately got pertussis or whooping cough when he was four months old, before he was able to finish his full vaccination schedule after he interacted with an unvaccinated child. because of how rare whooping cough is now, it took us awhile

to get the correct diagnosis. finally when we got him into children's hospital, i remember staying up all night two nights in a row to blast little puffs of oxygen into his coughing face to snap him out of those coughs about every ten minutes and to prevent his oxygen blood levels from dropping too low, one of the most frightening experiences in my entire life. whooping cough, that disease is rare because of the vaccine and because of the adoption of that vaccine. america was able to almost completely stamp it out of existence. if we backslide in the number of children getting vaccinated, stories like what happened to my son teddy are going to become more common and more severe. when you consistently promote uncertainty in settled science,

it begins to raise doubts about all science and it slows our progress using science against the really big challenges like a cure for cancer or vaccines for the next pandemic. in president trump's first full term at the height of the covid-19 pandemic, operation warped speed help bring vaccines to the public in record time. the national institutes of health estimate that operation warp speed saved over 140,000 lives by speeding up the development of vaccines by more than five months. when the next pandemic comes along -- and it's not if, it's when -- we're going to need a robust federal response and prepared in the plan. we need to get our ability to get to a vaccine down to 100

days. we need that plan to be guided by actual science. otherwise we obviously endanger the lives and health of all americans. the department of health and human services also oversee the federal medical research, as senator durbin pointed out. the research has unlocked groundbreaking achievements in public health and will continue to help us cure diseases and work towards solutions for a variety of illnesses. however the white house announced late last week that they are slashing funding for the national institutes of health. this will have devastating impacts on researching projects in colorado and across the united states, including places in colorado like fort lewis college and national jewish health. our colorado institutions are at the forefront of medical research for everything from clinical trials for veterans struggling with ptsd to individuals with downs syndrome. these cuts from research

institutions, rural hospitals for our veterans will impact our most vulnerable communities. all this to give tax cuts to the wealthiest americans. again, i'm all for making government more efficient, smaller. if you want to seriously look at how we spend money and where we can cut actual fraud and waste and abuse, i'm in, i'm game. but i struggle to understand how stripping funding for cancer research or head start or hiring programs for law enforcement officers is wasteful. these cuts throughout our government are exaggerated by the extreme nominees who are ill equipped to manage large organizations. the l l administration has attempted to freeze federal funding, something the courts halted but the white house continues to pursue.

colorado and the american people are caught in their crosshairs. i committed to opposing nominees that pose a genuine threat to coloradans. we've also helped support lawsuits and 0 oppose some of these executive actions. i'd be the first to admit our government isn't perfect. government never will be. i'd be the first to recognize it takes all of our elected officials to do their duty to the american people and to be truthful and for our constituents to hold us accountable. the american experiment and democratic government is just too important to confirm people who actively spread disinformation and refuse to follow science. it threatens coloradans, it puts all of us at risk. mr. president, i yield back the floor.

the presiding officer: the senator from maine. mr. king: mr. president, i'd like to begin my remarks this afternoon by talking a little bit about the constitution. i spent some time last week talking about the constitution and our failure to observe that the constitutional fundamental structure of the division of power between the congress and the executive is being violated and the congress is allowing it to happen. another provision of the constitution is the provision in article 1 about advise and consent. it's a fundamental check and balance built in to the constitution by the framers for a reason. it wasn't a throw-away line or a few sentences that were put in because they wanted to fill the paragraph out. again, it's part of the structure that was designed to protect us from tyranny.

and the structure involved the division of power, the separation of power because the framers knew that if all power was concentrated in a single individual or single institution, that institution or that individual would inevitably abuse our people. that's human nature. that's 1,000 years of human nature. all power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely. so the advise and consent provision was in the constitution for a reason. it was in there for a reason, in order to provide a check on the executive and the people who were going to be put in charge of running the administration. by the way, i want to stop for a minute and focus on the word administration and the word executive because it really goes to the discussion we're having in this city, in this country right now about how our government is supposed to work.

the executive, executive comes from the word execute, and the word execute means put into action. it doesn't mean initiate the action. it means put it into action. the same for the term administration. there's a reason we call it the administration. they are to administer the laws. in fact, the obligation on the president in article 2 is to see that the laws are faithfully executed. and it does not give the president the power to ignore laws or to decide which laws he or she thinks are okay, to ignore the responsibility and constitutional authority of the congress to define spending. it does not give the president that power. although the fellow we approved for office of management and budget last week thinks he has that power. or this president or any president has that power. that's absolutely antithetical

to it the constitution, as established by the framers. so administration means administer the laws, execute the -- the executive means execute the larks not make them. we make the laws here. and the administration is to faithfully execute those laws. now, let's talk about advise and consent. advise and consent means we've a responsibility is a constitutional responsibility to consider each of the president's nominees for these important jobs. this isn't something that we may do or occasionally do. this is a fundamental part of our job. we take an oath when we come here to defend the constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic. i think it's interesting -- they knew in 1787 that there was a potential for domestic enemies to the constitution. so we have an obligation to take advise and consent seriously. now, i'm a former governor, as

is the presiding officer. and as a former executive, i believe the executive should have the ability to choose the team that they want, to choose their advisors. to choose the people they will work with, with some limitations. in other words, i start with the premise of the person elected should perhaps get the benefit of the doubt is a little too strong, but i start with the premise that they were elected and they should be able to choose the team that they are going to be-to-working with. however, i think there are two request,s. this has been my stated position on this since the entered the senate. benefit of the doubt to the executive. however, the nominee must be manifestly qualified and not hostile to the mission of the agency to which they've had been appointed. two criteria, two criteria that for me give life to the idea of

advise and consent. okay, let's talk about robert f. kennedy jr. he, unfortunately, checks both of the boxes as to being disqualified. number one, he's not remotely qualified to run an organization. he has no experience running anything remotely like the scope and scale of the department of health and human services. no executive experience in that sense. so that's number one. is he qualified? no. he's grossly unqualified. but the second box is -- my criteria, is he hostile to the mission of the agency? and if the mission of the agency, hhs, is to protect the health of the american people, i would argue he is manifestly hostile to that mission. there's been a lot of discussion here today -- and i think it's

interesting. i don't know how this debate has gone -- i haven't heard too many people come up on the floor and support this nominee and tell us why he should be approved because, you know what, mr. president? if this were a secret ballot, this man wouldn't get 20 votes. everybody in this body knows he's not qualified. everybody in this body knows he has to business anywhere near this position. but here we are. we're going to take a vote. unfortunately, it will probably be on a party-line basis. but let me focus on just one little piece. on january 29, barely a week ago, before the senate finance committee, here's what mr. kennedy said. quote, news reports have claimed that i'm antivaccine or anti-industry. i am neither. i am pro-safety. all of my kids are vaccinated. i bet that came as news to all of the folks he's been leading astray over the last 25-30

years. i believe vaccines have a critical role in health care. remember saul on the road to damascus. a remarkable conversion. a bright light was shown and suddenly the scales fell from his eyes. in his confirmation hearing. okay, let's go back a little over a year, july 6, 2023 this is a quote, a direct quote. there is no vaccine that is safe and effective. he later today, on the same podcast, reams are inherently unsafe. mr. president, this man shouldn't be confirmed because he told the committee and the senate something diametrically opposed to the position he's taken the last 30 years, all of his adult life. maya angela said, if somebody tells you who they are, you should believe them. and he's told us repeatedly. and he has acted on his vaccine skepticism. this wasn't something that was

rumbling around in his head. he's traveled the world. he's written articles, gone on podcasts, gone on tv and he's discouraged people from being vaccinated. and now he has this miraculous conversion 10 days ago. all my kids are vaccinated. i believe vaccines have a critical role in health care. the same thing during covid. he said, it is criminal medical malpractice to give a child one of these vaccines. wow, criminal malpractice. and of course it's been discussed. he said i do believe that autism does come from vaccines. july of 2023 there was one study in england -- i think it was in 1998 -- that showed that -- purported to show a tenuous convection between vaccines and -- connection between vaccines and autism. i'm reasonably confident that one of the authors recanted.

it was withdrawn and it's been debunked over and over and over again, but this man has been peddling this lie for 20 years, and who knows how many parents have fallen for that on the one hand who knows how many children have paid the price. just to talk about vaccines, at one point during the pandemic, there was a survey -- july of 2021 -- remember, that was the height of it -- they surveyed 50 hospitals in 17 states. 94% of the patients hospitalized in july of 2021 were unvaccinated. what does that tell you? vaccinations worked. and people who were unvaccinated were at enormously higher risk. 94% of the people were unvaccinated.

in addition to the vaccination issue, this guy -- this man doesn't respect the fda, the agency that was put in place to protect our health, to regulate us, to be sure that we're getting safe medications, to deal with some of the awful problems of the potential of harmful medications literally getting into america's blood vaccinate d. -- bloodstream. in december of 2024, barely a couple months ago two months, a he said he would fire officials at the fda. and in october 2024 he said on x, fda's war on public health is about to end. if you work for the fda and are part of this corrupt system, i have two messages for you -- prepare your records and pack your bags. he didn't say a certain office in the fda order a certain part of the fda or maybe there was one provision, a part that he didn'ting think was helpful. he said, if you wok for the fda,

that's everybody, preserve your records and pack your bags. this man is not only unqualified, he's antiqualified. he's a danger. we have physicians in the senate -- i believe that the hippocratic oath, do no harm, should apply to senate votes. you should not be voting for somebody who you know is going to do harm to the public health. so this is a -- it's really a kind of surreal debate because everybody in this chamber knows this man should not be secretary of health and human services. now, i want to end with a personal story. one of the few advantages of being older is that you have a long memory. and in 1952 i was entering the third grade at macarthur school in alexander, virginia.

in my class was a kid named butch. and he was horribly twisted into a wheelchair. i don't think i'd ever seen a wheelchair when i was going into the third grade. he was there, and here it is -- i am neat even going to say -- i'm not even going to say how many years later, but i can close my eyes and see butch in that chair. polio was when he had. he was in pain daily. he could barely make himself understood. his arms were crossed. his legs were bent. grotesquely in the wheelchair. and three years later the salk vaccine began what turned out to be the elimination of polio. where would we be as a country if this man had been the head at

that time it was hew and somehow put a stop to this vaccine, which i believe he has said even the polio vaccine should be rescinded, which has saved millions of lives around the world. where would we be? i can't escape the memory of that boy in that wheelchair. i can't expect the memory of my parents not letting me go to the public swaim -- swimming pool because of the fear of polio. not being able to go out in the summer and play because of the fear of polio that stalked the land. the former republican leader was a victim of polio. former president franklin d. roosevelt was a victim of polio. it was the vaccine. and, mr. president, i hope this place comes to its senses and rejects this surreal nomination.

it would be probably be hard to find somebody less qualified to serve in this position. i believe that it will lead to damage to our country, to our health, to our children, and i urge my colleagues to vote no. if you vote yes, you'll regret t thank you, mr. president. i yield the floor. a senator: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from minnesota. ms. smith: thank you, mr. president. i -- before i begin, i want to ask unanimous consent that the following fellows in my office be granted floor privileges for the remainder of the first session of the 119th congress -- marie fernandez, sarah goldman, adam haas and alyssa rudelis.

the presiding officer: without objection. ms. smith: thank you, mr. president. i want to first comment on how much i appreciated the comments of my colleague from maine, senator king, both in your elucidation of the deep challenges of the robert kennedy jr. nomination but also your -- close look at what it means, what the difference is between the legislative branch and the executive branch and the role that we have in this body to provide advice and consent. and i appreciative what had you were saying -- i appreciated what had you were saying about what your north star is when you look at these nominations. i would say that i dprae with you, that i do -- i would say that i agree with you that i do believe that incoming presidents should be able to surround themselves with people who they trust and that, of course, we may strongly disagree with the president, however, he has the

right to have people around him who agree with him. but i think there's something that you said, senator king, that was extremely partiality i also look at these nominations in terms of whether i believe they have the base-level qualifications to do the job. and then the second thing that i ask myself is, can i trust these individuals? can i trust robert kennedy to follow the law? i mean, that is fundamentally what their responsibility is, to certainly show -- be loyal to the person who put enemy in a that role but also at at base level thatter thisser going to follow the law. -- at a base level that they're going to follow the law. so, mr. speaker, i rise today -- mr. president, i rise today to highlight what i consider to be the threat of robert f. kennedy, the threat that he poses to americans' health and safety and well-being. and in fact i have concluded -- i've talked with him. i've listened to him. i've asked him questions, both in a private setting and also in committee.

and i've read his words and his history. and i can only conclude that he cannot be trusted with this important job, that i cannot trust him to follow the laws of this land. i believe that mr. kennedy is wholly unqualified for the position of secretary of health and human services, and that he is unprepared to lead. and i think that he cannot be trusted with the health and the well-being of americans, particularly in this moment. now, if you're listening to this and you don't really know that much about the department of health and human services, you got a busy life, you're trying to figure out how to afford your life and how to hold it together in what is a very busy and complicated word, i want to be clear on what mr. kennedy's confirmation would mean for minnesota families. if he is allowed to become secretary, i have concluded that your family will be less safe, that your loved ones will be

more likely to get sick and that you and the people that you care about will be less likely to get the care that you need. as i have thought about this, what i find most disqualifying about mr. kennedy is how he has basically made his career, his built a career around saying what -- what he needs to say in order to get attention. and by getting attention, he's making money. i think it's just important to understand this. this is whether he's talking about vaccines or infectious diseases, whether he is talking about anything. so we don't -- like you walk away from talking with this individual not entirely sure what it is that he believes because he does seem willing to say nearly anything to nearly everybody without actually considering what impact his words have on the lives of real

people, whether he's talking about reproductive freedom, whether he's talking about mental health care, whether he's talking about infectious diseases or vaccines. let's focus on the question of vaccines, because i think this has gotten the most attention and rightly so. in decades of public appearances, as well as in our one-on-one meeting, the one-on-one meetings i had with him as well as when i talked to him about this in front of the finance committee, mr. kennedy has continued to promote harmful and dangerous information. information that if people followed and paid attention to him and did what he suggested, it could do real harm to their families, it could hurt them. if you think about vaccines, this is his long and very public record of denying the safety and efficacy of vaccines. in fact, he has spent almost the last two decades of his life promoting these harmful and false theories that vaccines will cause autism and that they

are otherwise unsafe. as an example, in 2021, he proudly described stopping strangers out, you know, on hikes and telling them not to vaccinate their babies. can you imagine that? you're out walking around and robert f. kennedy jr. comes up to you, man of stature and power and says don't vaccinate your children. those words have impact. during a podcast interview in july of 2023, mr. kennedy said, and i quote, i believe senator -- senator king quoted this as well, there is no vaccine that is safe and effective. think about that. he's saying don't pay any attention to the science or experts, i'm going to del you that there is no -- tell you that there is no vaccine that is safe. the online store, the children's health defense. there's an online store, you can

go online and check it out. you will find there, they're selling little baby onecies that have unvaccinated and unafraid. here we are on the verge of a vote to decide whether the united states senate is going to confirm mr. kennedy, and of course now he's denying all of that, he's distancing himself from all of these past statements, but you can't run away from your words, certainly in this day and age, and i would argue in any day and age, those words are out there. you said them and it matters what the secretary of health and human services what he says about these things and it matters what he doesn't say as well. words have real consequences. just the mere fact in an of his presence of being head of of this agency, just the fact that he sits there is going to have a

factor to cause some people not to know whether they can trust vaccines. he's in a position of power and authority, has a high and loud bully pulpit. an individual who has told americans, both when he was out on hikes stopping them as their walking by and on every media megaphone that he can find that vaccines are neither safe nor effective. here he is about to assume, unless my colleagues come to their senses, about to assume the highest, you could argue, the highest health job that afbts the -- affects the health of all of our families. had is an unacceptable risk of health and safety of americans. i also wanted to highlight for my colleagues an exchange that i had with mr. kennedy when he came before the finance committee where i served. i wanted to ask him about a statement that he had made about

americans and anti-depressants. and when i probed him on this, i asked him to -- confronted him with some things he had said in the past about anti-depressants, basically saying that it appears, he said that basically that -- that -- attributed a connection between people who are using anti-depressants and school shootings. i asked him about that, and i asked him whether he thought that folks who take anti-depressants are dangerous or not, and he refused to even say that americans who take anti-depressants are not dangerous. he could not even get those words out of his mouth. in fact, he doubled down on his claims that anti-depressants do cause school shootings and he claimed this is an area that needs to be studied. and he knows people who had and i quote, much worse time getting off of ssri's than they have had

getting off heroin. this is a different strategy that i saw with mr. kennedy on the help committee and finance committee, when confronted with the facts, he would always say some version of show me the data, show me the information. even when the research is settled, the data is settled, and here let me come to this question about whether or not anti-depressants are dangerous and are somehow a contributor to school shootings, which is an outrageous thing to say. there's a study in 2019 that was published in the journal of behavioral science and law. and it says it appears most school shooters were not treated with psychotropic medications and even if they were, there was no direct causalization found. i was stunned when mr. kennedy said, i don't believe that researcher, i need to see other

data, he is not willing to accept the facts and science, he's not willing to do that. and i am simply not going to trust mr. kennedy when it comes to your loved ones, the folks you care about in your lives will have access to the mental health treatments that they need to live their lives as productively as they possibly can. it's also worth noting, mr. president, that these comments mr. kennedy is making, linking anti-depressants to school shootings, what it does of course is perpetuate the stigma that so many americans who struggle with mental health, so many americans struggle with the stigma, they already feel that, and yet here is potentially the next head of the health and human services who is perpetuating this stigma in a very real way. i have seen this in my own life. i have seen people who have been

bowed down by this feeling that they can't talk about their challenges with their mental health because people are going to think less of them. it is a stigma that i have spent my time in the senate working in a bipartisan way to try and break down. and so to see it perpetuated in this way by mr. kennedy is just such a clear reason why he cannot be trusted. the rigorous peer-reviewed research on ssri's, common form of anti-depressant is not only the -- it's -- the science that mr. kennedy has willingly chosen to ignore, but it's not the only science he has willfully chosen to ignore. mr. kennedy during his confirmation hearings that if president trump directed limb to go after mifepristone, one of the key drugs used in medication

for abortion, he would do whatever the president said even though this is a medication proven safe and effective, yesterday mr. kennedy said he would follow the guidance of the president and not the law when it comes to the safety of mifepristone. in fact, as my colleague, senator hassan made so abundantly clear in the committee, over 40 safety studies have demonstrated what mr. kennedy was not willing to see, which is that there is clear evidence that this medication is safe. on reproductive freedom, mr. kennedy has proven himself wholly untrustworthy, flip-flopping on his position depending on who he is talking to. he will say one thing to one person and another thing to another person all with the goal of winning friends and influencing people, but this is not the kind of character that you want to see in this most important job in the federal

government leading the department of health and human services. here's a bit of an example of how this has played out with mr. kennedy on the issue of reproductive freedom and abortion rights. on the morning of august 13, 2023, mr. kennedy said, quote, i believe the decision to abort the child should be up to the woman during the first three months of life. people may agree or disagree with this view, but it's clear what he's saying here. the very same day he -- his campaign followed up by saying that his position on abortion is that it is always the woman's right to choose and he does not support legislation banning abortion. on the same day, two difference positions, and then on may 19, 2024, he said i wouldn't leave it up to the states, this is a quote, i wouldn't leave it up to the states, my belief is that we should leave it up to the woman, we shouldn't have government

involved, even if it's full term, there's a completely different view and then the very next day, he tweeted abortion should be illegal up to a certain number of weeks and then restricted thereafter. he seems to change his mind so often that we don't know what he thinks or stands for. when you're the secretary of health and human services, you have to stand up for something. you have to stand up for the laws of the land and what is clear through all of this back and forth, it is clear to me is that the trump administration and mr. kennedy are more than willing to restrict or even ban access to medication abortion despite the fact that they've been determined to be safe an effective and that -- and effective and that he -- he and mr. kennedy and president trump are, in fact, dangerous for a woman's access to medication abortion. i want people to think about this for a minute. if you live in a state like mine

in minnesota, where the state determined that abortion should be accessible that this is a decision up for people to be able to make on their own without government interference and roughly 60%, maybe a bit more now of abortions are done through medication abortion, robert f. kennedy jr. and donald trump are going to affect your rights in minnesota with mifepristone just as much as they affect the rights of anyone in texas or any of our states. mr. president, i want to change topic to discuss a bit the question of infectious diseases and how mr. kennedy has taken similarly unfounded positions, positions that are not based on the science at all. on infectious diseases, he has taken positions that i think could put minnesota families at risk. at a -- here's an example of

that. at a children's health defense conference in november of 2023, the anti-vax organization that mr. kennedy led for the last seven years, mr. kennedy said, quote, he's going to say to the nih scientists, god bless you all, thank you for your services, we're going to give infectious diseases a break for eight years, they may want to give infectious diseases a break for the next eight years, but i'm pretty sure infectious diseases will not give america a break for the next eight years. here's a classic example of that. across the country we are facing a very real public health threat from avian flu. in minnesota, farmers know this better than anyone, it is not just affecting minnesota, it's

affecting many of our states. this is an infectious disease infecting flocks of wild birds and dmes indicated -- dmesty indicated poultry and many chick engs had to be culled, to be euthnized to prevent the spread of the virus. in the last year bird flu has jumped from poultry to livestock, often dairy cows, and then from livestock to humans, often the individuals working in livestock operations. so this is something we have to take seriously. it's important for us to pay attention to we need surveillance. we need to be working on treatments. we need to be evaluating whether -- finding a pathway potentially to some sort of a vaccine.

avian flu is not going to take an 8-year break. it's already infecting chickens and livestock and it is already infecting americans. and i know that in minnesota, people want somebody leading the department of health and human services who isn't going -- who is paying attention to this and wants to be on top of this. you know, one of the things that's sort of incredible when you dive into the things that mr. kennedy has written is that it's not even really clear if mr. kennedy believes that germs cause disease. i mean, if you read his words on this, you come away with a very concerning perspective. for six papers in one of his recent books, just as an example, he extols the virtue of something that's called the m miasma theory while simu simultaneously casting doubt on

evidence that germs cause disease. mr. kennedy doesn't really describe this miasma theory correctly but he most certainly doesn't accurate reflect germ therapy which is the basic understandable concept that medical students are introduced to at the very beginning of their medical education. that germs, virus, bacteria are the cause of many, many human illnesses. this is the kind of stuff that if it were coming from the secretary of health and human services, people are going to listen to this. and i just like think about the chilling effects that this could have on the health care that people are able to seek and receive, particularly if mr. kennedy is going to be dialling back or stopping the research on infectious diseases that is the lifeblood of the united states public health work

that we do. at the finance committee and then the next day at the help committee, my colleagues and i gave mr. kennedy opportunity after opportunity to dispel the false and misleading claim he has spread for decades and to distance himself from these past positions. and we gave him the chance to tell americans that he would keep them and their children safe and that he wouldn't threaten their access to treatments or to cures or to care and that he believed that the research is out there, that he believed the research that is out there and accessible to anybody and everybody who wants to see tshgs the research that is taught in medical schools, the research that is followed by national institute of health and he couldn't do it. he couldn't tell us, he couldn't just say that vaccines don't cause autism. he couldn't just tell us that antidepressants don't cause school shootings. he couldn't just tell us that he

will make sure that america's health insurance is protected. he could barely in his conversations and the questions that he was asked, mr. president, he could barely articulate that he understood the difference between medicare and medicaid. instead what happened is that mr. kennedy repeatedly talked about following the good science, the science that is good. but the science that he relies on is not good. and in so many circumstances, he quotes science or studies that have been disproven. the studies that he has referenced have been withdrawn or they don't say what he claims or purports to say that they do. most of all, what happens is that this has the potential to hold our researchers and our scientific community back from making the real progress that we need to make when it comes to

medicine and disease and treating ailments. think about the progress that we could one day make to help your cancer, to prevent alzheimer's. if we have to revisit the history, the record of science because mr. kennedy says that he doesn't think it shows what everybody else thinks it shows, think about how that's going to set us back, how that is going to keep us from moving forward to address the real health challenges of today and tomorrow. i think about what it might have meant if mr. kennedy had led the department of health and human services when we were in the midst of operation warp speed and we were doing everything we possibly could to get a vaccine to -- out to americans and the world to stop the millions of deaths that were happening because of the covid-19 virus.

what would have happened if mr. kennedy sitting in that position of authority had said i don't believe the science. i think we need to do more. i don't think any vaccine is safe and effective and therefore i want to call this vaccine back. and in fact that is what mr. kennedy did. he put -- he submitted a call to the department of health and human services in the early days of the vaccine saying that he thought that it should be pulled back from the market. think about what impact that could have had on all of our families if he had been in a position of authority and had been able to accomplish that. over and over again when he is faced with the actual science, for example, on the science that proves that ssri's are not associated with school shootings, that vaccines do not cause autism, that germs do cause illnesses, he has refer -- refused to accept it and has doubled down on his dangerous

beliefs. so this is concerning when it is an individual who is speaking on a podcast, but it could be a matter of life-or-death when it is the secretary of the department of health and human services. as i think about what i said at the beginning of my remarks about my strong belief that my job as senator is to assess whether i can trust somebody in this role, can i trust them to follow the law, can i trust this individual to protect the health and well-being of the people in my state and the people around the country, the answer is clearly no. this is an individual who cannot be trusted. at the heart of this nomination, of course, the heart of the work of the department of health and human services is america's health and health care. and it is clear to me that mr. kennedy has made it clear that he will enable the trump and musk agenda of chaos, that

he will enable what they are doing not to execute the laws of this country, which is their constitutional responsibility, but to attempt to write the laws of the -- make the laws of this country. and we could see this during his confirmation hearings repeatedly during his confirmation hearings, mr. kennedy said that he would follow mr. trump's directives. now, i'm going to be clear about this. i understand that it's the job of the -- any cabinet official to follow the policies of the individual who has put them there. but not if those policies break the laws of the united states of america. department heads, cabinet heads, the head of the department of health and human services is required to execute the law, not to execute the will of the president. because the president is a president. he is not a king. what i am convinced of at this stage is as we see would i believe is a massive power grab

by donald trump and elon musk to not just execute the laws but to make the laws that mr. kennedy would be a part of that process, that he would be an enabler of that power grab that we see happening all over the country. and that is another reason why i cannot trust him. we wouldn't -- i want to take a look for a minute at the directives that president trump has gotten -- has put out already. let's take a look at these. these directives of stopping lawfully executed payments to health care organizations that are -- have been made following the will of congress, the people who are supposed to be making the laws in this country. i heard a lot about this from minnesota, huge amounts of concern reflected back to me in my office about what is actually

happening with the president's directives, basically directing to withhold funding that congress has authorized. i heard from minnesota's community health centers that they were going to begin doing layoffs because of this federal funding freeze. it was basically a massive cut that they're experiencing. community health centers are all over the country and in my home state of minnesota they be the place that individuals can go to get basic preventive health care. it is a very important part of our health care network. and yet many of these have come to me and said that they're basically going to be laying off providers and other folks that are providing direct care to patients. one community health center's ceo in greater minnesota outside of the metro area said that it was the worst day of his 38-year career when he got word of this freeze. now, i understand, mr. president, that this freeze has

been unfrozen for now, at least in some cases, though in other cases it seems like it's back on again. in fact, i hear repeatedly that it's off and on and off and on in some sort of chaotic and confusing dance that they have started. but these clinics are still facing real challenges about getting access to their federal funding. and this is threatening their operations. imagine if you were running a -- like a small belt strap -- bootstrap and small little health center and every day you are just trying to make payroll. you don't have millions of dollars sitting in your bank account waiting for a rainy day. every day is a rainy day and every day you're just trying to make it work. and there suddenly one of your most important ways of paying to provide health care to individuals has just evaporated overnight. so then what happens? because people still get sick. people still need health care even if you're unable to get it at a community health center. so what do they do? think about this.

right now in minnesota -- it's probably the same in west virginia and other parts of the country. minnesota emergency rooms are packed full of people who have the flu or rsv or norovirus. they go to the emergency rooms. you want to go to the emergency room when you really, really need emergency care. you go to a community health center when you need to be able to get access to urgent care but the care that you need right now. and what's happening is that because there is so much -- there's a lot -- there is a lot of illness. people are getting sick in the wintertime. it's like 20 below in minnesota right now. if they can't get their primary care in a doctor's office, in a clinic, they're going to end up in the effort r. then what happens -- in the e.r. then what happens to the rest of us who really might need emergency care. the e.r. is jammed to overflowing. there's no space. you have to wait five hours to get the care that you need.

that's what's happening with this funding that is being put in jeopardy. that means that community health centers might not be able to help the patients that they typically help. i'm not talking about a small number of people here. that's 170,000 people in minnesota who rely on community health centers. and what's going to happen, those folks are going to end up in emergency rooms. and that's going to increase wait times and it's going to stress the capacity of hospitals to provide care that people need. president trump did this. robert f. kennedy if he were head of health and human services, i have no reason to trust that he would stop this. in fact, i believe the opposite. i believe he would enable it. and this is why i think his nomination will end up making all of us less healthy and less safe and less secure. president trump in another example unlawfully cut national

institute of health grant funding earlier this week. this amounts to millions of dollars that supports lifesaving research into alzheimer's and cancer and parkinson's disease. i'm just talking in minnesota there. this was retro active. it happened overnight. hospitals are left struggling. big research hospitals like the university of minnesota and the mayo clinic are suddenly looking at massive cuts to their research. they have trials for important treatments and cures for serious diseases that are suddenly thrown into chaos. and you have individuals who are part of those trials who are hopeful that they're getting to be getting -- they're hopeful in some way this is going to help them find a cure for what disease is ailing them. and with this cut to nih funding

overnight massive cuts, what does that mean for people's health, safety, and security. it means people are less well off. national institute of health is under the umbrella of the department of health and human services, the organization that mr. kennedy is asking congress to provide advice and consent on. again i have no confidence, in fact i am sure that mr. kennedy would be an enabler to president trump's power grab here and his undermining along with elon musk, his undermining of this extremely important research that keeps all of us -- helps us be healthy, helps us find the treatments and the cures for the diseases that are a threat to all of us. i see my colleague from massachusetts is here. i know she has an important perspective on this, with massachusetts being a -- another, as minnesota is,

another center of research and education and medical education, and i suspect that we agree with one another when it comes to the threat that robert f. kennedy poses to all of our health and well-being. so with that, mr. president, i will yield the floor to my colleague from massachusetts. ms. warren: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from massachusetts. ms. warren: thank you, mr. president. i want to say thanks to the senator from minnesota for her leadership on this point. i know that the great research institutions in minnesota that count on her support are out there fighting, thanks to donald trump, as they are in massachusetts. and the people all around this country, who rely on those research institutions, who are looking for those cures, for those better treatments, for those opportunities in their lives that right now donald trump and his co-president, elon musk, seem to want to cut off.

so we will stay in this fight. we will indeed. i am here today because americans didn't vote to bring back measles. americans didn't vote to bring back polio. americans didn't vote to bring back dangerous diseases we thought we had wiped out decades ago. americans didn't vote to get rid of critical vaccines that we know, based on science, we know save lives. but that is what robert kennedy jr.'s vision would mean for americans. that is the vision that donald trump will empower him to carry out. kennedy not only worked to u undercut vaccines at home and abroad, he's made a lot of money doing it. in fact, kennedy has made millions off peddling harmful conspiracy theories that hurt real people. he opposed the lifesaving covid

vaccine just six months into the pandemic. and he set himself up so that he and his family could make millions more from putting americans' health at risk. one thing is very clear, we cannot trust robert kennedy to make health care decisions that will affect every person in this country. right now millions of americans are sitting down for dinner with their kids, and i hope we just think for a minute about what rfk jr.'s plans would mean for them. will their teeth decay because kennedy took fluoride out of the water based on some conspiracy theory? will they have to worry about getting measles at school because kennedy is spreading anti-vax conspiracies on government letterhead? will parents have to risk their kids getting polio and maybe dying by sending them to day care because kennedy used his

hhs rules to open the door to a flood of bogus lawsuits that force manufacturers to pull the vaccines? here's the thing, robert kennedy has spent years on an anti-vaccine crusade, spreading baseless conspiracy theories under the guise of protecting children. so we don't need to guess the level of harm he will cause. his past already tells us everything we need to know. in july 2018, two children died immediately after receiving a measles vaccine that nurses had incorrectly mixed with a muscle relaxant. within weeks the samoan health ministry publicly confirmed the nursing error and charged the nurses with manslaughter. nevertheless, leading

anti-vaccine groups, including kennedy's own organization, children's health defense, ex ploppeded pluck -- exploited public fierce to question the reports and spread baseless claims. on oct. 5 -- on august 5, 2018, i'll quote the post, were these once healthy children the only two to receive mmr that day? if not, why were they the only ones to die? research needs to determine susceptibility so that no child is ever injured. del bigtree, kennedy's partner and former campaign manager, also released a video linking the tragedy to false claims about measles and telling his followers to, quote, share it with everyone you know. this is how we are changing the world. now, amidst public distrust and

a paused vaccine program in samoa, the vaccination rates mruchlted. about ten -- plummeted. about ten months later, once the samoan government had finally stood up against the disinformation and resumed the vaccine program, kennedy visited the island to meet with the prime minister. later, recognizing the blowback that comes with how much went wrong when a conspiracy theory cost people their lives, kennedy has since denied his visit had anything to do with vaccines and said anything suggesting otherwise was, quote, an industry propaganda trope. in other words, totally false, industry propaganda trope. kennedy lied. a blog post that kennedy himself wrote in 2021 admits that he

went to samoa to meet with the prime minister, who wanted to discuss the possibility of, quote, measuring health outcomes following the natural experiment created by the nation's respite from vaccines. think about what that means. another way to say it is that kennedy was interested in taking advantage of how the vaccination rate had plummeted, caused by misinformation, so that they could conduct uncontrolled trials on whether unvaccinated kids were healthier than vaccinated kids. a conspiracy theory that he had widely spread. you see, at the time, one of his traveling partners was working on a similar study with two anti-vaccine activists, which was ultimately retracted

following an investigation that, quote, raised several method logical issues -- methodological issues and confirmed this was not pectize up by strong data. the prime minister declined kennedy's outrageous proposal. he didn't want his country to be kennedy's guinea pig. he didn't want unvaccinated children to be studied to see what happened to them when measles or other diseases broke out. but that didn't stop kennedy from spreading his message. on this trip to samoa, he met with various anti-vaccine influencers, one of whom said the meeting was, quote, profoundly monumental for the movement. a few months after kennedy left, in october 2019, the vaccination

rate in samoa hit an historic low of 31%, down from 74% the prior year. and no surprise, a massive measles outbreak erupted. so here is kennedy telling us now, no, no, he had nothing, nothing to do with this, his trip to samoa had nothing to do with the measles vaccine and calling any claim industry propaganda trope. and yet he himself posted a blog about meeting with the prime minister and talking about a study to measure health outcomes following a natural experiment of studying children, some with no vaccination and some that were vaccinated? and the anti-vax groups he met with talked about how profoundly important it is. then mr. kennedy leaves,

vaccination rates drop down to 31%. the measles outbreak was truly tragic. in total, more than 70 children died. right up until a door-to-door vaccination campaign brought the disaster to an end. as hhs secretary, kennedy would be responsible for whether we keep our children vaccinated or subject them to, in his words, the same natural experiment that he was interested in testing in samoa. is that really what we want for our kids? is that what we want for our elderly parents? that is a living nightmare, and it could truly be our reality with kennedy heading up the department of health and human services. and all the while that this is going on, while kennedy is

promoting this anti-vax theory, he and his family are profiting off the plan. now, i've been sounding the alarm about kennedy since the minute donald trump announced that he would nominate him for hhs secretary. he's not just that he's unqualified. his long history of promoting anti-science conspiracy theories make him disqualified. this is a man who claimed, quote, there is no vaccine that is safe and effective. no vaccine. he said that the polio vaccine, quote, killed many, many more people than polio ever did. now, kennedy came to our committee and said, don't worry. he swears he is not anti

anti-vaccine. but he has spent years on an anti-vaccine crusade, spreading baseless conspiracy theories under the guise of protecting children and making millions of dollars in the process. and when, in senate hearings, he was confronted with his own wo words, he simply denied saying them, denied saying them, despite the videotapes, the transcripts, the blog posts and the people who heard them. kennedy thinks he knows what he needs to say to try to get the job that will put him in charge of our vaccine program. so he says he didn't say exactly what he said. kennedy's actions speak louder than his latest words, and time and time again kennedy has shown us who he is, an anti-science

conspiracy peddler who is willing to gamble with american lives. we know who he is. we need to pay attention. let's do a quick count of some of the ways that, as hhs secretary, kennedy could make the anti-vaccine lawsuits and his own payouts even bigger. what could kennedy do? well, as secretary of hhs he could publish his anti-vaccine conspiracies, but this time on u.s. government letterhead, something that might impress a jury in a subsequent trial. he could appoint people to the cdc vaccine panel who share his anti-vax views and let them do his dirty work. he could tell the cdc vaccine panel to remove a particular vaccine from the vaccination schedule. he could remove vaccines from a

special compensation program which, quote, would open up manufacturers to mass torts lawsuits. he could make more injuries eligible for compensation, even if there's no causal evidence. he could change vaccine court processes to make it easier to bring junk lawsuits that could get vaccines pulled from the market. he could turn over fda to his friends at the law firm, and they could use it however benefits their lawsuits. in short, as hhs secretary kennedy would have the power to make health care decisions that would affect millions of americans, working families work -- working americans, kids, seniors, on everything from vaccines to abortion to lifesaving drugs. kennedy would have the capacity as head of hhs to make it easier

to sue vaccine manufacturers, and in an area where the profit margins on vaccines are quite modest, if those lawsuits mount up vaccines could simply disappear from the market altogether. manufacturers could decide, you know, it's just not worth the lawsuits, we'll go produce other drugs. those kinds of decisions are critically important, and the consequences are grave. for many americans, they may be the difference between life or death and they can change lives forever. so while you and your family are forced to deal with grave consequences of kennedy's conspiracy-driven health care decisions, kennedy could set himself up to make millions of dollars off his anti-vaccine

crusade, just like he's been doing for decades. remember the very first ethics agreement that kennedy submitted to us on senate finance committee, he said that even while he served as secretary of hhs, he planned to keep a financial stake in ongoing litigation, including vaccine-related litigation. that means that from the jump, kennedy's plan was to keep making money off the backs of lawsuits against vaccine manufacturers, some of which directly related to the very products that he would have the power to regulate as secretary of hhs. so there he is, he has the power to regulate these drugs, he has the power to make life a little better or a little worse for the vaccine manufacturers. he has the power to make it more

likely that lawsuits against vaccine manufacturers would succeed, and his initial plan was even while he sat there as secretary of hhs, he was going to keep on making money from that. this was a damning conflict of interest, so we called it out. kennedy told us, okay, okay, he would submit an updated ethics agreement. sounds good? what was his update? he said instead of personally keeping the millions that he would make off these ongoing lawsuits, he would hand that money directly to his son. later he confirmed that the son he's handing his interest off to is the one who works at wizner baum, the same law firm that kennedy has maintained this very

lucrative arrangement with over the years, so far netting him a reported $2.5 million just in the last few years. and kennedy has made clear that he can use his tools as hhs secretary to open up the door for more antivaxx litigation. and once he's through as secretary of hhs, go right back to wizner balm and cash in on the new flood of cases that kennedy himself has unleashed. so that is kennedy's idea of fixing an ethics issue. and beyond that, kennedy has flip-flopped countless times in his answers to the finance committee. he is untrust worthy. he has made so many contradictory statements that has come to the point it is hard to believe anything he says is

true. for example, kennedy originally said he was not an attorney of record in any of these vaccine-related lawsuits, but we did a little homework and we found at least five cases related to the vaccine litigation that hadn't been disclosed where kennedy appears to be the attorney of record. that is important because what it means is that kennedy is a lot closer to these cases than he's revealing, cases that he and his family will be able to make bank off even as he serves as secretary of hhs. the importance of this litigation cannot be overstated. just 20 years ago we watched vaccine makers pull their products off the market because they didn't have protection from

these kinds of lawsuits. the consequence of kennedy's ability to make those lawsuits easier is also the ability to shut down access and manufacturing for vaccines for every one of us. and i think that is a terrible mistake. kennedy claims that he is taking on big pharma, but that is the lie he is peddling to hide his conflicts. i pressed him on real ways to take on the industry, including using march in on big pharma's patents when they use taxpayer funds to bring drugs to market and then turn around and jack up prices on hardworking americans. and by having the government negotiate prices directly with big pharma on behalf of medicare beneficiaries. but kennedy, after talking a big game about taking on big pharma,

said, no, he doesn't support march-in rights, and, no, he didn't want to commit to defending medicare price negotiations. two proven methods to take on the drug industry and put money back into americans' pockets. so whose side is he on? well, one thing for sure, rfk jr. is on the side of his own bottom line. he has also refused to share a list of cases that he stands to benefit from. i told you he said, no, he was not attorney of record on any cases. we dug around and we found five. how many more are there? well, here's what kennedy said when we said, just give us a list of the cases that you're participating in so we can take a look at the possible conflicts. his answer? the list is so long and the

conflicts so clear that evidently it would be more damning than what we already know. kennedy's list of ethics issues and financial issues are a mile long, and there's still too much that he refuses to reveal. think about this. he's already told us enough about his conflicts, about how he planned to keep making money even while he was secretary of hhs. he revealed all that right up front, said, yes, i'm going to make money while i'm secretary of hhs. and yet on basic questions like can you just give us a list of the cases that you participated in? he says, no, i can't do that, which really makes you ask what on earth is he l hiding. he is dodging questions from the senate. he is contradicting himself, and he keeps changing his answers in

order to muddy the waters and really make it hard to understand what's going on. look, no one is fooled here. kennedy has said he will, quote, slam shut the revolving door, end quote, between government agencies and the companies they regulate. but what he won't agree to is cut off his own family's steady stream of money flowing in from lawsuits that he personally can directly effect while he is secretary of hhs. kennedy knows that these conflicts are serious, and that's why he scrambled to update his ethics agreement and to hand off his interest to his son in a desperate attempt to fix things. but that simply isn't good enough when millions of americans' lives are hanging in

the balance. don't take it just from me. take it from the "wall street journal" editorial board. they wrote, quote, robert f. kennedy jr. pledged during his confirmation hearing to root out corruption between industry and government. yet the man who wants to be the nation's secretary of health and human services refused to rule out personally making money from lawsuits against drugmakers. this ought to be disqualifying. "the wall street journal," this ought to be disqualifying. it's simple. if kennedy wants to prove that he was serious about, quote, slamming the revolving door between industry and people making money from their positions in government, i laid out a list of commitments that

he should make immediately. senator wyden, the ranking member on the finance committee, and i wrote, quote, one, if confirmed as secretary, you will recuse yourself from all vaccination-related communications and decisions. given the breadsth of your involvement in vaccine litigation, it would ensure you and kwour family do not benefit financially from official government actions that you will oversee and control. such recusal will also ensure vaccine-related policy making and communications are not inappropriately skewed by your personal views at the expense of scientific evidence. that was part one that we wanted. part two, if confirmed as secretary, you will recuse yourself from all matters related to hhs regulated

entities that are involved in cases or litigation that you or your family have an interest in. this will help ensure, for example, that you could not leverage your position as secretary by conditioning a company's request regarding an unrelated matter. so, for example, an fda approval, on such company agreeing to settle an antivaxx case in which you or your family have a financial interest. part three, if confirmed as secretary, you will not litigate cases involving vaccines, represent parties in vicp-related cases, or have a financial interest in such litigation or cases for at least four years after leaving office. as secretary, you would be in a position to influence future anti-vaccine cases and

litigation in ways that would benefit you personally after leaving hhs. for example, you could direct the cdc to remove a vaccine from the vaccine schedule, change vaccine labeling requirements or make procedures in special vaccine court more advantageous for the plaintiffs. then if you leave hhs and immediately return to litigating against vaccine makers, you would stand to profit from rules you reshape. this commitment would further mitigate the appearance of a conflict of interest while you are in office. these commitments will help ensure that you do not have a direct or indirect financial incentive to interfere with hhs's vaccine proceedings or other matters involving the

manufacturer of guardacil or any other hhs related entity. in other words, we laid out a path where he could avoid conflicts of interest. if he wants to serve his country and not his own pocketbook, we've shown him a way that he can do this. senator kaine and i followed up on this and wrote to kennedy, quote, at your senate confirmation hearing, you pledged to, quote, remove the financial conflicts of interest in hhs agencies, close quote. continuing back with our letter, you should start by mitigating your own conflicts of interest, including by, one, relinquishing your direct and indirect financial interest in matters over which you will have power at hhs. two, recusing yourself from matters involving your former

clients, former employers, or entities in which you have a financial interest. and, three, for at least four years after you leave office, committing to not lobbying hhs, litigating cases against pharmaceutical companies and manufacturers, or joining the industries or entities that you interact with at hhs. end quote. nerd, we showed you another way that you can get this done. and, look, this is just common sense. l and i would hope that my republican colleagues would agree, our hhs nominee should not have ongoing lucrative agreements that enable his immediate family to line their pockets while he influences health care decisions that impact millions of americans.

it's not just a tax on vaccines that we have to worry about from the trump administration. in the middle of the night last friday, donald trump announced deep cuts to the national institutes of health l funding, which powers the lifesaving research and medical breakthroughs at universities and medical institution the across the country. and especially in my home state of massachusetts. these trump cuts will stop research that is working to help cure diseases. it will force people who are working now to lose good jobs, and it will literally threaten people's lives. as head of hhs, kennedy would oversee the national institutes of health, and he would green-light trump's plan to cut -- gut the agency. and he has made no commitments

to protect the critical lifesaving research that nih funds and maybe that should be no surprise, given his years of attacking basic scientific facts. listen to what experts have had to say about what these cuts will mean for families across america. quote, people are not able to do their work if there isn't an infrastructure. this will have a huge impact on health research in this country. end quote. quote, we're all reeling. this would decimate medical research, end quote. quote, this is a sure-fire way to cripple lifesaving research and innovation. america's competitors will relish this self-inflicted wound. end quote. one expert said, quote, if

you're cancer patient in a clinical trial, it's not a theoretical undertaking. it's a treatment. for so many rare diseases and illnesses where research is already underfunded like childhood cancer, researchers have said, quote, if it's not federal funding, there's nowhere else to go. that's a real impact in the short term and the long term. i don't know how you make that up. these funding cuts are putting scientists in the position where they have to default on the promises they made, promises they made to people to join their studies, promises they made to other researchers to join them, promises they made to build up the labs and build up the work that would make a difference in our world. when the nih and nsf put out their solicitations, their asking for critical scientific

research to be done on behalf of the american people. that research cures diseases and saves lives. and the institutions who apply for these solicitations are saying enthusiastically, yes, we can do that. yes, we share that dream. yes, we believe that we can make a better product, that we can make a better medicine, that we can make a better treatment for people who are suffering, and we want to be part of that. and now, here we are in chaos and confusion, and the united states government is trying to break that contract. americans will suffer because of it. this is trump's plan for americans' health, and kennedy will be a rubber stamp for whatever donald trump wants to

do. let's talk just a little bit more about that covid vaccine. remember how in the dead of the pandemic hundreds of millions of americans were counting on that vaccine as the light at the end of the tunnel and how when we were shut away from our friends and family and trying to keep ourselves and our communities safe, that vaccine allowed us to come together again, how that vaccine saved countless more lives that otherwise would have been lost to covid? well, just make sure you know, kennedy tried to stop you and your family from having access to the covid vaccine. i'll just read a little portion of one of the articles from last month on this. quote, robert f. kennedy jr., president-elect donald trump's choice to lead the nation's health agencies, formally asked the food and drug administration to revoke authorization of

all -- all -- covid vaccines during a deadly phase of the pandemic, when thousands of americans were still dying every week. mr. kennedy filed a petition with the fda in may 2021 demanding that officials rescind authorization for the shots and refrain from approving any covid vaccine in the interim. just six months earlier, mr. trump had declared the covid vaccines a miracle. at the time mr. kennedy filed a petition, half of american adults were receiving their shots, schools were starting to reopen, and churches were filling. estimates had begun to show that the rapid rollout of covid vaccines had already saved 140,000 lives in the united states. the petition was filed on behalf of the nonprofit that mr. kennedy founded and led, children's health defense, which we've talked about earlier.

they claim the risk of vaccines wowed weighed the benefits and they weren't necessary because good treatments were available, including ivermectin and -- i just can't believe this -- high crock chlorquinine, which had already been deemed ineffective against the virus. the petition received little notice when it was filed. mr. kennedy was then on the fringes of the public health establishment, and the agency denied it within months. public health experts told about the filing said it was truly i want to underscore this one because mr. kennedy is saying now -- not only is he saying, he's not an anti-vaxxer, he's saying he wants you to still be able to vaccinate your children, if you want to do that. and yet look at mr. kennedy's own actions. mr. kennedy tried to stop all of

us, everyone in america, from getting access to the covid vaccine. he cites junk science. it was already known to be junk science at the time that he cites it. he cites junk science in order to say, not just that he doesn't want to take the vaccine or not just that he doesn't want to give it to his kids, but he didn't want anybody in america to get that. so that's the man that the republicans will be voting on to decide whether or not he makes health care policy in the united states, someone who is continuing to line his own pocket with lawsuits against vaccine manufacturers and someone who has tried to stop at least one vaccine from being distributed to anyone anywhere in america. look, when kennedy says he doesn't believe in vaccines, which he has said many times,

believe him. when his attempt at fixing his ethics issue is passing his stake to his son, believe him. when he says he will do whatever donald trump wants on abortion, believe him. don't say no one will let him go that far because they will let him go that far. republicans voting for kennedy know exactly who they are voting for, someone who spreads baseless conspiracy theories, someone who profits off making our kids sicker, someone who will do whatever donald trump tells him to do, whether it's cutting off cancer research funding or banning abortion medication. let us be very clear when it comes to your health and your well-being and the health and well-being of your friends, your

family, your community -- kennedy is disqualified, dangerous, and cannot be given the power to make critical health care decisions. i urge my colleagues to vote no on his nomination. and i see that senator kaine is here. senator kaine has been a tireless partner in the fight to help protect the nation's health care system, and i appreciate your being here tonight, senator kaine. thank you. mr. kaine: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from virginia. mr. kaine: mr. president, i rise and i'm so happy that i follow my colleague from massachusetts. i will build upon some of the points that she has made, but we have served as colleagues together on the health, education, labor, pension committee during earlier terms of congress, and you won't find a better champion for the health of the american public than senator warren.

i stand to continue the dialogue about robert f. kennedy jr. and his unfitness for the position that -- to which he's been nominated, secretary of health and human services. and i'll give you the punchline, mr. president, but then go into it in some detail. i don't believe mr. kennedy can separate fact from fiction. i don't believe wilmr. kennedy separate conspiracy from content. now, you wouldn't want someone suffering from that challenge in any position of leadership at any level of government -- local, state, or federal. but this particular position, the secretary of health and human services, one of the most important positions in the nation as it respects people's physical and mental health, is exactly the wrong kind of a position for wsomeone who can't tell fact or fiction or content from conspiracy.

because the american public need to be able to rely on hhs and other critical agencies for information that is not just about the state of their savings account or housing costs. this is about life and death. this is about life and death many. life and death. i want to talk about two elements of robert f. kennedy jr. my colleagues have been going into many of them -- that lead me to the conclusion that here's a guy that can't separate fact from fiction. the first was ably described by senator warren and that is mr. kennedy's skepticism about vaccines. now, i know many of my colleagues have tried this in their speeches today. so i'm not going to go into the breadth of his vaccine skepticism. i am going to talk about one vaccine in particular that is made in virginia -- gardasil. i represent the commonwealth of

virginia. there is a facility in the shenandoah valley near harrisonburg that makes gardasil, the vaccine that has been effective, significantly effective, in preventing and reducing the incidence of serving cal -- cervical cancer. vaccines do a lot of different things. but a vaccine that can prevent cancer is truly, truly revolutionary. cervical cancer and other associated cancers, very significant challenges to men and women. in the early 200's, the -- in the early 200 oas, the -- in the early 250 t-000's, the fda approved several pled since. a couple years ago back a as a member of the help committee, i went to the plant and talked to the workers and saw the pride

that they have in being abling to develop a product that has had such significant impact around the world. when i was governor of virginia with two republican houses, we acted to have a mandate around gardasil vaccination, around cervical cancer vaccination. there were other cancer vaccine manufacturers as well. by making it mandatory, we enabled people to access it for free. we allow any parent or student that doesn't want to receive the vaccine to opt out with no excuse. but we have made it widely available in virginia where one of three -- in virginia. we're one of three states to have done this and it has had a tremendous, positive benefit on folks's health. so this is a relatively new vaccine. it started and got approval and began to be deployed significantly about 15 years ago. and even in 15 years, the results have been remarkable. and i want to just share with my colleagues and with the public

some of the results of between 15 and 20 years of hpv conserve cal cancer -- cervical cancer vaccination. i will ashow you that this is nt a question of significant medical controversy. a publication that is one of the signature publications, health care publications, in england is called the lancet, and there was an article in the lancet in february of 2020 entitled "the impact of hpv vaccination on cervical cancer. this looked at data from 78 countries. the researchers that examined this data were from england, china, france, canada, and switzerland. and their research analyzing the data of hundreds of thousands of

patients in 78 countries concluded that, quote, high hpv vaccination coverage of girls can lead to cervical cancer elimination in most low-income and lower middle-income countries by the end of the century. fancy that. eliminating cancer with a vaccine. the data from 78 countries. the u.s. centers for disease control and prevention website, c cdc.gov, has a section, the impact of the hpv vaccine. quote, among teen girls, infections with hpv types that causes most hpv cancer and gental warts dropped 8% of the vaccine. there was an article published,

effects of hpv being a nation developed on hpv -- these are physicians who work in the clinical oncology area. this is what they reached, males vaccinated for hpv were at decreased odds for hpv cancers, females vaccinated with hpv vaccine had lower cases of hpv. the journal of the national cancer institute published a study, invasive cervical cancer incidents following the hpv vaccination, studying the health care results of people following vaccination. this was just studied last year, published last year and let me read you the quote. no cases of invasive cancer were recorded in women immunized at

12 or 13 years of age, irrespective of the number of doses, women vaccinated at 22 to 23 years of age showed a significant reduction in incidents compared with unvaccinated women. again, those first two words, no cases of invasive cancer were recorded in women who were vaccinated and studied in scotland in this study that came out in 2024. another article in the lancet, looked at not 78 countries, but looked amount the effect of hpv vaccinations in england. this was published in 2021. quote, the l -- hpv vaccination program in the u.k. has almost successfully eliminated cervical

cancer in women born since 1995. the elimination of cervical cancer, to cases of invasive cancer. there was a study done in australia in 2013 by bmc medicine, it was entitled population of an hpv program. this was relatively early in the mass vaccination because gardasil and the other vaccinations weren't used until the mid-200's. and here is the conclusion about the australians experience. they were the first to introduce a national hpv program commenced in 2007. it significantly reduced cervical abnormalities with the greatest vaccine effectiveness

observed in the youngest women. the new england journal of medicine, which is in many ways the gold standard of the united states, published a study in sweden. quote, among swedish girls and women hpv vaccination was natured with a substantially reduced risk of invasive cervical cancer at the population level. those are the studies by the researchers in the journals but i also wondered, i'm not a great scientist, i don't generally read health journals, what about those who provide health advice to everyday americans. i went to the website of the mayo clinic, here's what they say, hpv vaccine, who needs it, how it works, on their website, getting vaccinated against hpv helps prevent cancer in men and women, period, no qualification,

no waffling, no wobbling, that's the advice the mayo clinic gives to their patients and all to go to their clinic. the cleveland clinic, another nationally known cleveland clinic, the web site says as follows. the hpv vaccine is an injection that prevents infections of two types of human -- of the virus, it lowers your risk of getting the cancer. mdm international hospital -- nd anderson.orring -- organization, all males and me fails age -- females should get the vaccine it is a safe protection against

the hpv infection. i read a variety of researchers from a variety of countries all pointing to the effectiveness of hpv vaccinations that lead to cancer and other serious medical conditions. but what does robert f. kennedy jr. say? he has said that the vaccination is one of the most dangerous vaccines ever created. he has said it is dangerous and defective. in one of his website articles, he said that it is inescapable that gardasil kills girls. this prevents cervical cancer, robert f. kennedy jr. with no medical training or scientific research background, he claims otherwise, he cannot separate

content from conspiracy. now, is that just because his brain doesn't wrap itself around facts or is there something more serious? i needn't repeat at length what my colleague senator warren said, but she laid out the facts that robert f. kennedy jr. has a massive financial stake in lawsuits against the manufacturer of hpv vaccine. he disclosed it on his things form -- ethics if there are recoveries from hpv action nation in lawsuits, he's entitled to 10% of the recovery. in massive class action lawsuits. when we pressed him in the hearing, first he said he wasn't going to give up that 10% stake, but he eventually felt some pressure so he transferred it to his adult son. his family stands to gain significantly if these lawsuits

hit. as director of hhs, he would have the aeblt to have huge influence on the vaccine injury compensation program. vaccine manufacturers get an immunity from civil suit and telecases gone through the vaccine compensation court and that was put in place many years ago because the number of hpv manufacturers were in free fall because they were getting hit with big lawsuits. so there is a special court that focuses any arguments against vaccines in these courts, he would have significant ability to even remove immunity protection from the manufacturers of vaccines, and if you remove immunity protection, the value of lawsuits goes up, and the value of his family's 10% stake goes up. this should cause everyone serious concern about putting someone in who stands without any medical training against the

weight of medical evidence saying that vaccination against cervical cancer is a remarkable thing that should be done and has been successful since the m mid-2000's. i'm going to conclude in a minute because my able colleague from colorado is here, but i want to raise one more issue. i want to raise one more issue. this inability to tell the difference between fact and figures -- fact and fiction and content and conspiracy would be dangerous enough if it was just about vaccines, that should disqualify robert f. kennedy jr. from being hhs secretary. but this individual's inability to tell the difference fact and fiction and conspiracy and content is not limited just to

health. in july of 2024, when he was running for president of the united states, robert f. kennedy jr. tweeted this. my take on 9/11, it's hard to tell what is a conspiracy theory and what isn't, but conspiracy theoriys flourish when the government lies to the public. as president i won't take sides on 9/11 or any of the other debates. but i can promise is that i will open the files and usher in a new era of transparency. i won't take sides on 9/11. i represent the commonwealth of virginia. the pentagon was attacked on 9/11. the world trade center in new york was attacked on 9/11. a plane went down in a farm field in pennsylvania on 9/11. a lot of of virginia -- a lot of

virginia families lost loved ones that day. i know people who were in the pentagon on 9/11 who had race through a burning building who had to go to the child care center to medicare sure their -- to make sure their child was safe. i don't take it very well when someone says they won't take sides about 9/11, when someone admits it is hard to tell what is a conspiracy theory and what isn't. i asked robert f. kennedy jr., is this a common problem for you? that's kind of a candid thing to admit -- it's hard to what sw a conspiracy theory and what isn't. no it's not. it's not hard for virginians to understand what happened on 9/11. they lost loved ones. they went to funerals, their families members -- family members never came home and in the aftermath of 9/11, we were in 20 years of war where tens of thousands of virginians were

deployed to battle against autocracy, the perpetrators of 9/11, and many lost their lives then. i won't take sides on 9/11? well, what side is there? what side is he talking about? i mean, it's a bad thing. does he think it's a good thing? it was an attack by oh, -- osamn laden this is dated july 2024. it was 23 years after 9/11. 23 years after 9/11 for some reason on july 5, he just, well, why don't i just share with people that i won't take sides on 9/11. that i still can't tell 23 years later what is a conspiracy

theory and what isn't. if you cannot tell what happened on 9/11, if you decide to just freelance an opinion 23 years later and tell the american public, and he's running for president at the time, i will not take sides on 9/11, you should not have been nominated for this position in the first place. and i am finding it very hard to believe that my colleagues in this body, who i've sat with on the armed services committee, who i've sat with on the foreign relations committee, who have invested their time and energy in making investments to battle terrorism around the world, to battle al qaeda and the group that perpetrated the 9/11 attacks, many of my colleagues served in the military and were deployed in the war on terror in the aftermath of 9/11, they're now going to be okay with a guy

who says he won't take sides on 9/11, who says he can't tell the difference between a conspiracy theory and what isn't. this is a very, very dangerous vote that we will cast tomorrow. of any position in the federal government that needs somebody who can tell the difference between fact and fiction conspiracy and consent, hhs secretary is that position. and robert f. kennedy jr. so badly flunks the test of what is needed, careful, reasoned, information in a people can count on, that i urge my colleagues, even if you voted in a committee, even if you voted on a procedural resolution to move to this -- to move this to the floor, stop now. you can still stop now. don't hurt this country. don't hurt the health of this country by putting someone in

office who can't even understand what happened on 9/11. with that, mr. president, i yield the floor. mr. bennet: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from colorado. mr. bennet: thank you, mr. president. i would like to take the time to welcome the president to the u.s. senate. i haven't had a chance to do that as you sit in the chair. we're now going to get somebody else but thank you for being here. and i also want to thank my colleague from the commonwealth of virginia, senator kaine, for his heartfelt remarks. you know, it is -- i think we are through the looking glass in many ways, and there's a pattern here that is reflected in what you are talking about, this idea of being able to tell the difference between fact and fiction.