[Congressional Record Volume 168, Number 81 (Thursday, May 12, 2022)]
[Senate]
[Pages S2471-S2476]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]



                      Nomination of Mary T. Boyle

  Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Madam President, I rise in support today of Mary 
Boyle, the nominee to serve as Commissioner at the U.S. Consumer 
Product Safety Commission.
  Mary will bring to this role more than a decade of experience on the 
Consumer Product Safety Commission, where she previously served as 
general counsel and currently serves as the Executive Director. She is 
deeply knowledgeable about consumer product safety and the functioning 
of the CPSC. I have every confidence that she will be ready to lead on 
day one.
  But it is not just her professional background that makes her perfect 
for this role. As a mom who raised three kids, she knows firsthand how 
important it is for parents to be able to trust the products they use 
every day. She understands the stakes and the devastating consequences 
of unsafe products.
  Just yesterday, the Commerce Committee took an important step forward 
toward protecting kids and infants by passing the STURDY Act, which 
will prevent harmful and ultimately heartbreaking furniture tip-overs. 
Senators Casey and Blumenthal and I have been working on this for quite 
a while. It resulted in the largest furniture recall ever in the 
history of America with IKEA. But we need standards in place across the 
board. I know that we can count on Mary to be another critical partner 
in preventing unsafe products from hurting our kids.
  Mary is clear-eyed about the responsibility of the CPSC. In her 
words, it provides a safety net for the public, and in order to carry 
out that crucial task, it needs a full roster of Commissioners. 
Currently, four of the five slots are filled. To truly address pressing 
product safety issues, we have to fill that fifth seat. We can't afford 
to play politics here. This is about everything from the hazards posed 
by crib bumper pads to the use of toxic chemicals in everyday consumer 
products.
  I got involved in this way, way back before I was a Senator, when we 
had a young child swallow a charm that he got with a pair of tennis 
shoes. It was a giveaway. He didn't die because he choked on that 
charm; he died over a period of days because the lead in that charm, 
which was from a foreign country, got into his system, and he died in 
just a few days. That is how I got involved in the lead standards on 
foreign toys, that is how I started working with the Consumer Product 
Safety Commission, and that is when I saw the difference it can make.
  We passed a bipartisan bill named after Jim Baker's granddaughter--
the Virginia Graeme Baker pool safety bill--after a young kid named 
Abigail Taylor in Minnesota was in a kiddy swimming pool and her 
intestines were ripped out just sitting in the pool because there were 
so many faulty drains in this country.
  I went and visited her in the hospital, and she said: I don't want 
this to happen to any other kid.
  She lived for a year, and during that time, we worked together.
  Then Ted Stevens and I passed a much stronger pool safety bill. And I 
know that the last time I heard testimony from the Consumer Product 
Safety Commission, over a period of a decade, after we lost a number of 
kids every year, not one kid had died because of a simple change to how 
the pool drains worked. That is what the Consumer Product Safety 
Commission can do at its best--make sure it doesn't happen to any other 
kid again.
  The American people are counting on us to get this right, and with 
Mary, we have the opportunity to do just that.
  As Mary said in her testimony, consumers need to be able to go about 
their daily lives without worrying that products they interact with 
every day--washing machines, cell phones, batteries, toys, and 
treadmills, to name just a few--do not injure, maim, or kill them. 
Throughout her impressive career, Mary Boyle has shown that she is 
wholeheartedly dedicated to that mission.
  I am voting in support of her, and I urge my colleagues to do the 
same.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Utah.


                  Unanimous Consent Request--S. 1787.

  Mr. LEE. Madam President, the State Antitrust Enforcement Venue Act 
is a much needed reform that would put State attorneys general bringing 
antitrust suits under the Federal antitrust law on equal footing 
alongside Federal antitrust enforcement personnel by allowing them to 
avoid consolidation with private antitrust suits.
  This would shield these important antitrust actions from the 
inefficiencies of coordinating their litigation with their slower 
moving counterparts brought by private litigants, and it would also 
respect our federalist system of government and recognize the unique 
and essential role that States play specifically in enforcing our 
antitrust laws.
  No doubt, this is exactly why this bill is supported by 45 State 
attorneys general, including Utah, Minnesota, Illinois, Iowa, Texas, 
California, Vermont, South Carolina, Rhode Island, Delaware, Nebraska, 
Connecticut, Missouri, Hawaii, New Jersey, Arkansas, Louisiana, and 
North Carolina, representing the home States of almost every member of 
the Senate Judiciary Committee.
  My own reasons for introducing the legislation are simple. States are 
sovereign entities, and they are entitled to

[[Page S2472]]

pursue law enforcement actions in defense of their citizens in the 
venue and in the manner they think best, period.
  Allowing State antitrust enforcement actions to be consolidated with 
private lawsuits not only impinges upon State sovereignty, it also 
needlessly delays consumer redress for antitrust harm.
  For example, the case brought by 16 States in the Commonwealth of 
Puerto Rico alleging that Google's conduct in digital advertising has 
violated Federal antitrust laws was transferred from Texas, where that 
lawsuit was originally filed, to the Southern District of New York to 
be consolidated with other cases. The transfer was ordered in August of 
last year. Some 9 months later, discovery is still stayed, and no 
progress has been made. Had the case just remained in Texas, discovery 
would be well underway, and the trial was scheduled for next summer. 
Instead, the case is languishing, and potential remedies to consumer 
harm are being postponed. Google's delay tactics have been successful.

  We must eliminate this loophole--a loophole that allows monopolists 
to delay antitrust enforcement actions brought by State attorneys 
general. I therefore urge my colleagues to support this legislation.
  So, as in legislative session, I ask unanimous consent that the 
Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of Calendar No. 261, S. 
1787. I further ask that the Lee amendment at the desk be considered 
and agreed to; that the bill, as amended, be considered read a third 
time and passed; and that the motion to reconsider be considered made 
and laid upon the table.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  The Senator from Minnesota.
  Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Madam President, reserving the right to object, my 
friend and colleague Senator Lee is well aware that I am supportive of 
this bill. We worked together. I am a lead Democrat on this bill to get 
it through the committee.
  I simply believe that this bill must go hand in hand with another 
bill that would look at this issue in a much bigger way; that, yes, 
this is about allowing State attorneys general to do their jobs and 
enforce the law, and that is why he and I have joined forces on this 
bill. But it is also about putting some rules of the road in place on a 
Federal basis.
  We are very close to having a vote on Senator Grassley's and my bill, 
with a broad range of authors and support, which would be the only and 
first Federal competition response to tech monopolies since the advent 
of the internet.
  I have been watching this movie for way too long. We have hearings, 
we throw popcorn at CEOs, we get sound bites on TV, but we don't do 
anything on a Federal basis. We had the Facebook whistleblower come 
forward, tell of the horror, the American people are with us, and we 
dither and do nothing. This is actually the first time that we have a 
coalition across the aisle of people who are ready to move forward on a 
Federal response.
  So my view of this is that, as we work to get our enforcers more 
funds--that is a part of it; Senator Grassley and I have a merger fee 
bill that is moving as part of the competition bill, which is currently 
in conference committee--and as we work on Senator Lee's very worthy 
legislation to focus on allowing the State attorneys general to keep 
their cases in their own jurisdictions, we simply cannot pretend that 
we don't have some role in this.
  If Members don't know about it, maybe they have talked to one of the 
2,700 lobbyists whom the tech companies have hired or maybe they have 
been subject to the $70 million effort on the Federal level. And this 
is not Senator Lee that I am talking about; he is a true maverick and 
is willing to take on special interests. But what I believe is going on 
in this building is that there are a lot of people trying to wait this 
one out and hope we don't have a vote on this bill.
  I appreciate Senator Schumer working with me and leadership on the 
Democratic and Republican sides of the Judiciary Committee to make sure 
that we get this vote.
  So Senator Lee will have a vote on this bill. I would certainly not 
concede at this moment giving tech something they want in this bill 
when we can't even have a vote on the Federal legislation, but we will 
have a vote on Senator Lee's bill. I just believe they have to go hand 
in hand.
  I think he is well aware of Senators doing all kinds of things 
procedurally to be able to get votes, but I think it is really 
important that we don't have a State-only approach when it comes to 
what is going on with tech.
  To again remind my colleagues and those watching this, what our 
bill--this big, bipartisan, important bill--does, it doesn't tear apart 
the company. It doesn't even take on the fact that they are all 
monopolies--and they are monopolies. Google has a 90-percent market 
share. Apple and Google basically, when it comes to app stores, are 
duopolies in dominating the market.
  While Europe is set to vote on their own digital market bill on 
Monday and move this ahead--I was just speaking with them--while 
Australia has taken on the issue of the news organizations, while Great 
Britain is moving ahead, we sit back. It is time to at least take on 
one issue.
  As the Justice Department looks at what is a monopoly, is it a 
monopoly when you have 90 percent market share? The very least we can 
do is put some rules of the road in place.
  What Senator Grassley's and my bill does--and we have taken several 
comments from Members and made changes to that bill--what the bill 
simply does is it says: Hey, monopolies or gatekeeper companies, if you 
own your own companies--which they are increasingly doing--you can't 
use your monopoly status to self-preference your own products in front 
of other products.
  No. 2, you can't copy nonpublic data that you have because of the 
virtue of the fact that you are the gatekeeper and then rip it off and 
make your own products. That is exactly what Amazon did, as the Wall 
Street Journal reported, with a four-employee luggage organizer firm 
when they gave them the data. The next thing you know, it shows up on 
Amazon Basics.
  The third thing you can't do is make companies, small businesses, buy 
a bunch of stuff just to put yourself at the top of the platform.
  The American people are with us on this, poll after poll, including a 
poll that Google accidentally--accidentally--put out there before they 
were able to pull it back that showed 68 percent of people want to use 
the antitrust laws--68 percent of people in their own polling--to be 
able to rein in this problem.
  This is a uniquely American approach, but it must be done hand in 
hand with State enforcement.
  So, all I am asking my friend and colleague to do here--and we 
wouldn't be here if we could have reached an agreement on this--is, I 
will assure him that we will have a vote on his bill; but we must also 
have a vote and finally move ahead on what is only a slice of what we 
could be doing.
  We are not doing some of the things I would want to do, which is look 
back at some of these mergers, which is actually take that email that 
Mark Zuckerberg wrote that said I'd rather ``buy than compete'' and 
look at what they bought in their zest to be able to avoid competition. 
Right now, that is going on with the Justice Department and the FTC. 
But we are simply trying to set some rules of the road, and it is more 
than overdue after an 8-month investigation in the House of 
Representatives--an 8-month investigation.
  What Federal bills have we passed that would put any checks and 
balances on these companies? They just keep getting bigger and bigger 
and bigger. And I am so pleased that some of the State attorneys 
general are taking this on.
  I am eager to get Senator Lee's bill and my bill up for a vote, but 
it will come close to when the vote on the actual Federal rules takes 
place. For these reasons, I object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The objection is heard.
  The Senator from Utah.
  Mr. LEE. Madam President, I appreciate the insight and the enthusiasm 
for antitrust law and even for this legislation that has been expressed 
by my friend and distinguished colleague, the Senator from Minnesota. 
She and I have been partners on a number of things, including the fact 
that we have alternated back and forth as the chair

[[Page S2473]]

and ranking member of the Antitrust Subcommittee in the Senate for over 
a decade now.
  As she mentioned, she is the lead cosponsor with me on this bill. We 
have worked together on it.
  Look: I agree completely that we need to hold Big Tech accountable 
under antitrust laws. If you want to hold Big Tech accountable, pass 
this bill. Pass this bill today. There is not a reason to delay.
  No, I understand and appreciate her desire to pass the Klobuchar-
Grassley bill. I get that. It is a different proposal. It is not 
inconsistent with this one. There is no reason why this one couldn't 
pass and still allow the other one to move forward, nor is there any 
reason why this measure becoming law would, in any way, undermine that 
legislation or that legislative proposal.
  As to reaching a deal or not reaching a deal, we have been in 
conversations with the office of Senator Klobuchar for months--
literally, months--about it. We talked about different strategies for 
making sure that we could get it passed--what might have to change. We 
both discussed the fact that we preferred to keep the bill intact with 
the retroactivity provisions in there, but, if necessary, we could 
remove the retroactivity provisions if, by so doing, we could get it 
past the hotline. All of that has been done in consultation with the 
office of the Senator from Minnesota for months--literally months. So 
none of this is a surprise. This was done in tandem with Senator 
Klobuchar's office.
  Finally, I feel the need to push back against the notion that 
whenever something bigger could happen, nothing smaller in that area 
may be allowed to pass prior to that. This is a discreet, very specific 
fix to antitrust law that is desperately needed--urgently needed in 
order to hold Big Tech accountable under our antitrust laws. There is 
no good reason to delay this, and it is unfortunate today that we can't 
do that. I least expected it from the lead cosponsor of the 
legislation.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Minnesota.
  Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Again, I look forward to working with Senator Lee to 
pass this bill, and I also look forward to passing a bill on the 
Federal basis and not just deciding that this should be in the province 
of 50 different States, and I thoroughly plan to work with him to pass 
this bill, and I hope it will be soon.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. PAUL. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                 Unanimous Consent Request--S. Res. 631

  Mr. PAUL. Madam President, I rise today out of a desire to protect 
the rights and the health of the young men and women who serve the 
Senate as pages.
  I think we could all agree that the Senate wouldn't function well 
without pages. The very first Senate page was a 9-year-old boy named 
Grafton Hanson. He was appointed by Daniel Webster in 1829. In those 
days, the pages' jobs were to refill the inkwells and clean out 
spittoons. Fortunately, things have improved a bit for the pages. The 
work isn't quite as messy anymore, but it is still a high-pressure job 
for a high school student.
  When I was here on the floor voting last week, I noticed that the 
pages were all wearing masks, but none of my colleagues were. I 
threatened to come to the floor to seek unanimous consent to end the 
mask mandate, and the next day, the mandate ended. Coincidence? 
Perhaps.
  The new policy states, though, that the mask-wearing will become 
optional for pages who test negative. But once again, we see the masks 
on the floor.
  I urge my colleagues to look around. The pages are still wearing 
masks. The COVID policy for the Senate pages requires the reinstitution 
of a mask mandate if they have supposedly been exposed.
  Apparently, there are rules for the pages of the Senate, but not for 
the President of the Senate, Kamala Harris. When Vice President Harris 
was deemed potentially exposed to COVID, she not only presided over the 
Senate's confirmation vote of Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, but was 
also seen at the White House with the President, the First Lady, and 
the Justice without a mask. Rules for thee but not for me.
  Jen Psaki justified the Vice President's violation of the COVID 
guidelines by stating that it was an emotional day. I guess if you are 
feeling like it is an emotional day then you can do what you please, 
unless you are a page. The impressive thing about that absurd defense 
was that Psaki was able to say it with a straight--and maskless--face.
  But an unseasoned mask mandate is not all that is required of the 
pages. According to the guidelines: ``All pages are required to be 
fully vaccinated; if their initial vaccination series was completed at 
least five months ago, pages are required to obtain [a] booster 
[shot]'' to participate in the Page Program.
  From day one, our country's response to this pandemic has made the 
comfortable more comfortable, while the working class or kids or people 
with no power have to keep on working but have to obey rules that the 
adults don't have to themselves.
  Now in the halls of Congress we have created a privileged class that 
can choose whether to get vaccinated and an underclass that has to 
abide by dictate. It makes absolutely no sense to mandate COVID 
vaccinations for teenagers who are healthy. It makes even less sense to 
mandate a booster. There is no scientific evidence that boosters are 
valuable, and there is scientific evidence that boosters increase the 
risk of a heart inflammation for young adolescent males.
  A study published last month in the Journal of the American Medical 
Association Cardiology examined over 23 million people ages 12 and up 
across Denmark, Finland, Norway, and Sweden. It concluded that the risk 
of myocarditis, an inflation of the heart, ``was more pronounced'' 
after a second mRNA vaccine dose, ``and the risk was highest among 
males aged 16 to 24 years.''
  This is exactly why several European countries, including Germany, 
France, Finland, Sweden, Denmark, and Norway, all restrict the use of 
mRNA vaccines for COVID--particularly for adolescents, particularly for 
adolescent males. The policy of our pages does not address this issue 
at all and blindly commands boosters.
  In fact, if you read the policy, you could imagine an endless stream 
of boosters. Every 5 months that you haven't had another vaccine you 
would be required to get a booster.

  Last fall, the director and deputy director at the FDA's Office of 
Vaccines Research and Review both resigned. Realize who these people 
are. They are on the vaccine committee. They are pro-vaccine. Both of 
them are actually pro-vaccine mandate. Yet, they resigned from the 
Government, as reported, ``citing White House pressure to approve third 
doses for all adults and writing damning op-ed's critical of the FDA's 
subsequent decision to do so.''
  It became a political decision. The committee voted against extending 
boosters to kids, and then it was overruled by politicians at the White 
House. These two researchers, long esteemed, who have been on this 
committee for years, resigned in protest.
  One of the op-eds that ran in the Washington Post was coauthored by 
Dr. Paul Offitt, a professor of pediatrics and director of the Vaccine 
Education Center at Children's Hospital of Philadelphia.
  Once again--not an opponent of vaccines; a proponent of vaccines, a 
guy who has been on the vaccine committee for decades.
  As a Member of the FDA's advisory committee, Dr. Offitt, though, did 
not support widespread boosting when the committee met to consider 
boosters for all adults in September and October. He and the two former 
FDA officials wrote: ``A healthy young person with two mRNA doses is 
extremely unlikely to be hospitalized with COVID, so the case for 
risking any side effects,'' the case for forcing them to take a third 
vaccine when their risk of COVID after two vaccines is nearly, if not 
virtually, zero, he says--or they said that the case for risking any 
side effects--such as myocarditis--diminishes substantially.

[[Page S2474]]

  What happens is myocarditis is a rare event for vaccines, more common 
with young adolescent males. But you have to compare the risk of 
getting myocarditis with the vaccine to the risk of the disease. Young 
people who have been vaccinated twice--even without vaccines, young 
people, the death rate under 15 is 1 in 2.32 million. With the vaccine 
it is probably zero. We have studies of millions of people. We can't 
find kids that are dying or going to the hospital with two vaccines. 
And yet the policy for pages in this body is a booster--a mandated 
booster. It is actually malpractice. It is malpractice to give a 
booster, a third vaccine, to an adolescent male and probably to an 
adolescent female. There is no evidence it helps them.
  Then the other argument goes like this: Oh, we don't want them to 
transmit it to people. Guess what? We have done a study on that, too. 
Vaccinated versus unvaccinated: 25 percent of the household will 
transmit it. It is the same for both groups. The vaccine protects you 
from hospitalization and death. It does not prevent transmission.
  So we are going to vaccinate these kids to take care of the old folks 
in the Senate. It is not true. And they have already been vaccinated 
twice. The third vaccine--there is no scientific evidence. There is, 
however, evidence that it is a danger to them. And to ignore that 
danger, to be supportive of force I think is without question the wrong 
way to go.
  In January, a piece in The Atlantic cited Dr. Offitt--once again, a 
vaccine supporter who has been part of the vaccine committee with the 
FDA for decades--as saying this:

       Getting boosted would not be worth the risk for the average 
     healthy 17-year-old boy.

  This is coming from an advocate of vaccines--not a denier, not 
someone who hasn't been vaccinated. His son has been vaccinated, I 
believe, twice. But he said he wouldn't do it for a 17-year-old. In 
fact, he advised his son publicly, who is in his early 20s, not to get 
the third dose.
  What if I am wrong? What if Dr. Offitt is wrong? I don't know. What 
if it is a controversy? Wouldn't we allow it, maybe, in a free society, 
up to free individuals consulting with their parents whether you want 
to get them? But, no. Everything is about force. Everything is about 
mandates. Do as I am told, even when the science doesn't support it--
even when the science is arguable. Do it or we will fire you. Do it or 
we will send you home. I think it is a terrible example and, coming 
from the Senate, an awful precedent.
  The Chicago Thinker is a paper for the University of Chicago, and the 
students there put it in a January 11 editorial. These are the kids who 
are being forced to do boosters as well:

       If being ``boosted'' becomes a prerequisite for 
     participation in normal life, the vaccine's diminishing 
     efficacy means the booster campaign will never end.

  See, we know this. This is the truth of the matter. While the vaccine 
does help you to prevent hospitalization and death, we know it has 
diminishing efficacy, meaning that it wears off, so you have to keep 
getting boosted and boosted and boosted. But shouldn't we at least 
study it? Shouldn't we be honest with these kids in that their death 
rate is virtually zero with nothing? If you vaccinate them, it is zero, 
and then we have just got to keep vaccinating them. Just do as you are 
told. Submit to the State. Do whatever people tell you despite the 
science; despite three scientists from the FDA's vaccine committee 
saying it is not warranted; despite people arguing that it is actually 
malpractice and puts these young people at risk to make them get a 
third vaccine.
  In December, Dr. Marty Makary, a professor at the Johns Hopkins 
School of Medicine, wrote in the Wall Street Journal:

       The U.S. government is pushing Covid-19 vaccine boosters 
     for 16- and 17-year-olds without supporting clinical data. A 
     large Israeli population study, published in the New England 
     Journal of Medicine earlier this month, found that the risk 
     of COVID death in people under 30 with two vaccine shots was 
     zero.

  The risk of death is zero, and we are forcing them to get a third 
shot for which we know, from large, million-person studies, there is a 
side effect of heart inflammation.
  Even World Health Organization Chief Scientist Dr. Soumya Swaminathan 
said in January that there is no evidence right now that suggests 
healthy children and adolescents need booster shots.
  So most of Europe has actually said don't take it because of the risk 
of myocarditis, and the head of the WHO says there is no health reason 
for which to do it. Yet the Senate thinks it is smart enough to mandate 
these kids. God forbid one of them dies. God forbid one of them gets 
myocarditis.
  Dr. Martin Kulldorff, an epidemiologist from Harvard Medical School, 
says that mandating people who have already had COVID to still get 
vaccinated ``makes zero sense from a scientific point of view, and it 
makes zero sense from a public health point of view.''
  Furthermore, we now know the CDC released that, under age 11, 75 
percent of the kids have already had it. So, in the age category of the 
pages and a little older than that, we are looking at a 70- to 75-
percent chance they have already had it; they have already been 
vaccinated; their chance of death is zero. Yet it is not enough. They 
must submit--submit to the man; submit to the woman; submit to the 
State.
  The science isn't there. It is all about submission.
  Then we have weak lapdogs who just say: Go ahead and force them. We 
don't care. It is not very likely they will die. It is only a few out 
of 100,000 we may lose.
  A study in The Lancet last September supported this view, stating:

       Current evidence does not . . . appear to show a need for 
     boosting in the general population.

  This is not just in kids. This is in The Lancet, saying there isn't 
evidence for boosting in the general population.
  What has been accepted by most people is that boosting for those at 
risk--those of age, those with obesity, those with, you know, other 
risk factors--is not an unreasonable thing. For most of the people our 
age and older, the vaccine, without question, is safer than the 
disease, but the disease is so rare, so uneventful, and the death rate 
so low in children that you need a near-perfect vaccine to say: Take 
the vaccine versus the disease.
  Even then, wouldn't you want to know if they had had it? Wouldn't we 
want the CDC to release, if you have had COVID or if you have had COVID 
and have been vaccinated, what your chances are of going to the 
hospital?
  They actually did look at this for a large population study, and they 
found that, if you were vaccinated versus unvaccinated, you were 20 
times less likely to go to the hospital. I still believe that to be 
true, and I think it is for the overall population. It is probably not 
measurable for kids because kids aren't largely affected by this.
  Do you know what they also measured? They measured unvaccinated 
versus the unvaccinated who have had COVID--and guess what. You were 55 
times less likely to go to the hospital. The disease is an incredibly 
potent source of immunity. If you have been vaccinated and had the 
disease, I think you would calculate that in.
  Do you just blindly submit and just take 100 vaccines and take it 
every 6 months or would you want to talk to your doctor and say: Well, 
I had COVID in January, and I have had two vaccines. I am relatively 
thin and relatively healthy. What do you think?

  Wouldn't there be a decision-making process?
  When we are talking to children--the young men and women at the ages 
of 15 and 16 years old, many of whom have had COVID already and have 
already had vaccines--wouldn't we want them to be part of the decision 
making?
  Wouldn't we say: What do your parents think?
  Wouldn't we ask for parental consent?
  This is insane what we are doing. We have taken off on a tangent 
where things that were once private decisions are now the realm of the 
State.
  In the study in The Lancet, they stated that the ``[c]urrent evidence 
does not . . . appear to show a need for boosting in the general 
population, in which efficacy against severe disease remains high,'' 
and ``currently available evidence''--this is also from The Lancet--
``does not show the need for widespread use of booster vaccination in 
populations that have received an effective primary regimen.''

[[Page S2475]]

  So here we have a not insubstantial journal, The Lancet. Now, you can 
disagree. You can disagree with the New England Journal of Medicine. 
You can disagree with The Lancet, but for goodness' sake, wouldn't you 
at least admit that it is an argument and that when there is an 
argument that has valid facts on both sides of it that maybe the 
individual ought to get to decide?
  The Lancet says:

       Currently available evidence does not show the need for 
     widespread booster vaccination in populations that have 
     received an effective primary vaccination regimen.

  There is absolutely no clinical data to support other than a bunch of 
bureaucrats who want to command you. There is no clinical data to say 
that 15- and 16-year-olds ought to get a booster--zero.
  When we consider the rules for pages, we ought to ask: Will these 
policies be expected to continue indefinitely? And, if so, to what end? 
based on what data? When will they change?
  We have got them in here wearing masks. The Vice President doesn't 
wear a mask when she is exposed. Look across all the pages of the news. 
Everybody has been exposed. I think we have had 8 to 10 Senators who 
have had COVID in the last couple of weeks. Do you think everybody who 
ran into them wore a mask for 2 weeks? No, nobody is doing it. Nobody 
is paying any attention to these people, but the pages are stuck under 
the thumb of these public health czars.
  When we consider the rules, we ought to ask: When will this end?
  When it comes to vaccines, though, they can benefit the vaccinated 
person, but it doesn't stop transmission. The best data we have comes 
from Denmark, where vaccines were not shown to have any impact on 
household viral transmission or the secondary attack rate. In other 
words, whether vaccinated or unvaccinated, they both transmitted the 
disease equally.
  It is no coincidence that the Scandinavian countries have moved on to 
a targeted testing and treatment regime. They are no longer just saying 
for everybody to submit and for everybody to do the same thing. They 
are targeting the disease and those who are at risk. They don't expect 
people to live in a state of constant fear under an endless public 
health emergency. Instead, public health officials issue 
recommendations about how those at risk can protect themselves. They 
give advice.
  There was a time in the history of our country when public health 
officials gave advice, not dictates or mandates. Realize the policy we 
are adhering to is the same policy that Dr. Fauci espouses, and you 
know what his response was.
  When the court struck down the mask mandate on planes, do you know 
what Dr. Fauci had the audacity to say? He said: How dare the courts 
involve themselves in public health. We are not smart enough. Nobody 
outside the realm of Dr. Fauci is smart enough, but how dare the courts 
or the Constitution adjudicate what is individual liberty, what is the 
responsibility of government, and whether the CDC has the power to have 
mask mandates--none of this.
  How dare they? That was his response.
  Some offered a different approach. Some offered a more targeted 
approach to this. It is what Dr. Scott Atlas called for when he was at 
the White House in the last administration, but his voice was 
deliberately drowned out by Dr. Fauci and others who attempted to 
govern by stick rather than carrot.
  Public health measures should be backed up with proof that the 
benefits outweigh the burdens. There is no evidence of that when it 
comes to vaccination mandates, especially for teenagers, who as a group 
are less vulnerable to this virus than any Senator. That is why I am 
asking unanimous consent that the Senate pass my resolution to end all 
COVID mandates for pages and respect their privacy, their rights, their 
medical freedom, and their health for the young men and women who serve 
in this Chamber.
  Madam President, as in legislative session, I ask unanimous consent 
the Senate proceed to the consideration of S. Res. 631, which is at the 
desk. I further ask that the resolution be agreed to and that the 
motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table with no 
intervening action or debate.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  The Senator from Missouri.
  Mr. BLUNT. Madam President, in reserving the right to object, my 
colleague Senator Paul is well-intended in this recommendation, and I 
listened to it carefully, as I am sure others did.
  The Page Program, which has been in effect since 1829, has become a 
program of both opportunity and education and is a program that the 
Page Board, the Senate Page Board, has responsibility for.
  I would say, in looking at the immediate future, the pages who are 
here now, the pages who have agreed to be pages in the summer, and the 
pages, I think, who are in line to be pages in the fall--and their 
families--have all looked at these recommendations. They have all 
decided they are recommendations they would be able to meet. Maybe more 
importantly, they also have decided to make that family decision for 
their children to be here and be pages as high school juniors, perhaps, 
because of the standards that have been set that they are well aware 
of.
  I would hope that Senator Paul would continue to talk to the Page 
Board. I think the Page Board has a very important job to do. They 
accept an incredible responsibility of the relationships that they have 
decided to enter into between the pages, their families, and the Page 
Board in representing the Senate.
  That Board has some oversight from the Rules Committee, and I yield 
to the chairman of the Rules Committee.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Minnesota.
  Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Madam President, I thank Senator Blunt for his 
statement.
  I join him in opposing this resolution.
  As chair of the Rules Committee, with oversight of the Sergeant at 
Arms who helps manage the Senate Page Program, I know, like Senator 
Blunt does and everyone here does--I see Senator Leahy is here, the 
Presiding Officer, and Senator Paul--how hard the dedicated pages, who 
come from States across the country, work to help us do our jobs here 
on the Senate floor. We are so excited when we have someone from our 
States come and join us as a page. They are, too, as are their 
families.
  As we continue to reopen the Capitol, which I strongly support, we 
must also take into account the health and safety of everyone who works 
and visits here, including our pages. This resolution would reverse the 
Page Program's--as Senator Blunt noted--current policy and prohibit any 
requirement for pages to be vaccinated against COVID-19.
  It would also prohibit requiring pages to undergo COVID testing or 
wear a mask regardless of guidance from the Office of the Attending 
Physician or the CDC. This includes reversing the policy that all pages 
must wear a mask if one tests positive--a commonplace rule to protect 
healthy pages, who all live in the same dormitory, which, I think, is 
the defining part of this.
  In light of recent events, we know that staff, Senators, as well as 
pages, have tested positive in the past few weeks. In light of these 
recent events, the Attending Physician, Dr. Monahan, has recommended 
that all pages wear masks. I believe in science. I believe we should 
listen to Dr. Monahan. Local public health officials have also decided, 
by the way, to require vaccines for certain eligible students in 
Washington, DC, including those attending our page school here in the 
Senate.
  I agree with Senator Blunt in that the Page Program needs flexibility 
to set its own policies to protect the health and safety of pages. We 
should not put these young people who have come here to work in the 
heart of our democracy at risk unnecessarily.
  We all know that the vaccine helps greatly if someone gets sick. I 
know that because my husband got really sick before there was a 
vaccine. He is healthy, and he ended up in the hospital for a week on 
oxygen. That might shape my response here, but I believe that if he had 
had the vaccine, we wouldn't have come that close to losing him.

  I believe in science. And so I join Senator Blunt in this objection. 
And we look forward to seeing these pages and many pages serve us well 
in the coming years; therefore, I object.

[[Page S2476]]

  Thank you.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.