Sens. Bernie Sanders and Peter Welch grills RFK Jr. on vaccines in confirmation hearings
Democratic Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders pressed President Donald Trump's Health Secretary nominee Robert F. Kennedy Jr. on his vaccine views Thursday, calling his response 'troubling.'
One of Trump's most divisive Cabinet picks, Kennedy has vowed to 'Make America Healthy Again.' However, critics have pointed to his history of opposition to vaccines and belief in conspiracy theories like that Wi-Fi causes cancer.
Sanders joined other members of the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions committee who grilled Robert F. Kennedy Jr. over his stance on vaccines, healthcare, and general qualifications to be the head of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.
Thursday's hearing was the second in Kennedy's confirmation hearings. On Wednesday, Sanders and fellow Democratic Vermont Sen. Peter Welch questioned Kennedy on his priorities and anti-vaccine baby onesies.
At the hearing Thursday, both Republican and Democratic senators questioned Kennedy on his views on vaccines.
'There have been, as I understand it, dozens of studies done all over the world that make it very clear that vaccines do not cause autism. Now you just said, if I heard correctly, 'Well, if the evidence is there' — The evidence is there,' Sanders said. 'Vaccines do not cause autism. Do you agree with that?'
Kennedy responded by repeating what he had told Chair Sen. Bill Cassidy, R-LA: that if the data is brought to him, he will apologize for his previous statements that 'misled people otherwise.' In response to another question from Sanders later, Kennedy said he didn't know whether the COVID vaccine was successful in saving lives.
Sanders called the responses 'problematic.'
'The studies are there," Sanders said. "Your job was to have looked at those studies as an applicant for this job."
Sanders also brought up the other issues he wants addressed, like universal healthcare and guaranteed paid family and medical lead.
"I'm not quite sure how we can move to making America healthy again, unless we have the guts to take on the insurance companies and drug companies and guarantee health care for all people," Sanders said.
Sanders' questioning followed the Senate Finance committee hearing Wednesday, when he had criticized Kennedy for baby onesies sold from the group he founded, the Children's Health Defense, that said 'No Vax, No Problem' and 'unvaxxed unafraid.'
Welch said Wednesday that Kennedy's confirmation was not just 'a debate about vaccines,' but about the 'the qualifications, experience, and priorities as to the person that will head Health and Human Services.'
He said he was concerned over Kennedy's lack of experience managing a large organization and lack of experience in government in general.
He also took issue with Kennedy's priorities.
'I've seen nothing coming out of the Trump Administration–and I've seen nothing coming out of your advocacy–that is going after what is a rampant abuse by the insurance companies and overcharging people and not doing the job,' said Welch.
Kennedy said he has never defended insurance companies and pledged to uphold the Constitution.
With widespread opposition from Democrats and potential objections from some Republicans, Kennedy is one of Trump's weaker Cabinet nominees.
However, it is unclear yet how all the senators will vote. 51 senators would be needed to reject Kennedy's position.
(This story was updated to correct the spelling of a name)
This article originally appeared on Burlington Free Press: Bernie Sanders, Peter Welch grill RFK Jr on vaccines and MAHA rhetoric
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
26 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Iran, Israel trade fresh air attacks as Trump weighs US involvement
By Steve Holland, Parisa Hafezi and Alexander Cornwell WASHINGTON/DUBAI/JERUSALEM (Reuters) -Iran and Israel traded further air attacks on Thursday as President Donald Trump kept the world guessing about whether the United States would join Israel's bombardment of Iranian nuclear and missile facilities. A week of Israeli air and missile strikes against its major rival has wiped out the top echelon of Iran's military command, damaged its nuclear capabilities and killed hundreds of people, while Iranian retaliatory strikes have killed two dozen civilians in Israel. The worst-ever conflict between the two regional powers has raised fears that it will draw in world powers and deliver another blow to the Middle East, where the spillover effects of the Gaza war have undermined stability. Speaking to reporters outside the White House on Wednesday, Trump declined to say if he had made any decision on whether to join Israel's air campaign. "I may do it. I may not do it. I mean, nobody knows what I'm going to do," he said. Trump in later remarks said Iranian officials wanted to come to Washington for a meeting. "We may do that" he said, adding "it's a little late" for such talks. Iranian Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei rebuked Trump's earlier call for Iran to surrender in a recorded speech played on television, his first appearance since Friday. "Any U.S. military intervention will undoubtedly be accompanied by irreparable damage," he said. "The Iranian nation will not surrender." Iran denies it is seeking nuclear weapons and says its program is for peaceful purposes only. The International Atomic Energy Agency said last week Tehran was in breach of its non-proliferation obligations for the first time in 20 years. The foreign ministers of Germany, France and Britain plan to hold nuclear talks with their Iranian counterpart on Friday in Geneva to urge Iran to return to the negotiating table, a German diplomatic source told Reuters. But while diplomatic efforts continue, some residents of Tehran, a city of 10 million people, on Wednesday jammed highways out of the city. Arezou, a 31-year-old Tehran resident, told Reuters by phone that she had made it to the nearby resort town of Lavasan. "My friend's house in Tehran was attacked and her brother was injured. They are civilians," she said. "Why are we paying the price for the regime's decision to pursue a nuclear programme?' A source familiar with internal discussions said Trump and his team were considering options that included joining Israel in strikes against Iranian nuclear installations. But the prospect of a U.S. strike against Iran has exposed divisions in the coalition of supporters that brought Trump to power, with some of his base urging him not to get the country involved in a new Middle East war. Senior U.S. Senate Democrats urged Trump to prioritise diplomacy and seek a binding agreement to prevent Iran from attaining nuclear weapons, while expressing concern about his administration's approach. "We are alarmed by the Trump administration's failure to provide answers to fundamental questions. By law, the president must consult Congress and seek authorization if he is considering taking the country to war," they said in a statement. "He owes Congress and the American people a strategy for U.S. engagement in the region." DRONE ATTACKS On Thursday morning, a missile warning was issued by Israel's military and explosions were heard over Tel Aviv and Jerusalem. The Israeli military said several civilian areas, including a hospital, were hit by Iranian missile strikes. In Iran, the ISNA news agency reported that an area near the heavy water facility of the Khondab nuclear facility was targeted by Israel. Earlier, air defences were activated in Tehran, intercepting drones on the outskirts of the capital, the semi-official SNN news agency reported. Iranian news agencies also reported it had arrested 18 "enemy agents" who were building drones for Israeli attacks in the northeastern city of Mashhad. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, in a video released by his office on Wednesday, said Israel was "progressing step by step" towards eliminating threats posed by Iran's nuclear sites and ballistic missile arsenal. "We are hitting the nuclear sites, the missiles, the headquarters, the symbols of the regime," Netanyahu said. Israel, which is not a party to the international Non-Proliferation Treaty, is the only country in the Middle East believed to have nuclear weapons. Israel does not deny or confirm that. Netanyahu also thanked Trump, "a great friend of the state of Israel," for standing by its side in the conflict, saying the two were in continuous contact. Trump has veered from proposing a swift diplomatic end to the war to suggesting the United States might join it. In social media posts on Tuesday, he mused about killing Khamenei. Russian President Vladimir Putin, asked what his reaction would be if Israel did kill Iran's Supreme Leader with the assistance of the United States, said on Thursday: "I do not even want to discuss this possibility. I do not want to." Putin said all sides should look for ways to end hostilities in a way that ensured both Iran's right to peaceful nuclear power and Israel's right to the unconditional security of the Jewish state. Since Friday, Iran has fired around 400 missiles at Israel, some 40 of which have pierced air defences, killing 24 people, all of them civilians, according to Israeli authorities. The Iranian missile salvoes mark the first time in decades of shadow war and proxy conflict that a significant number of projectiles fired from Iran have penetrated defences, killing Israelis in their homes. Iran has reported at least 224 deaths in Israeli attacks, mostly civilians, but has not updated that toll for days. U.S.-based Iranian activist news agency HRANA said 639 people had been killed in the Israeli attacks and 1,329 injured as of June 18. Reuters could not independently verify the report.
Yahoo
34 minutes ago
- Yahoo
We Need to Fix the So-Called GENIUS Bill
A bipartisan majority in the Senate has just passed the GENIUS Act to provide a regulatory framework for stablecoins. A similar bill, the STABLE Act, is working its way through the House. President Trump wants to sign a stablecoin bill into law this year, so it looks like we are well on our way to a long overdue regulatory regime for stablecoins. Or are we? We shouldn't count our chickens before they hatch. The proposed legislation is flawed and can and should be fixed promptly to eliminate needless duplication that will impose excess costs on the industry and the taxpayer. Fortunately, the legislation can easily be fixed. The House and Senate bills, although broadly similar, have some differences, and the two chambers will have to come to an agreement. Will the resulting bill be known as the STABLE GENIUS Act? There is still time to avoid problems like the choice of 55 different regulators, or keeping interest-bearing stablecoins out of the regulatory framework. The problems in our obsolete regulatory framework have contributed to the sorry state of crypto regulation in the U.S. We have literally hundreds of different financial regulatory agencies at the state and federal levels, and they don't play nicely together. The regulators engage in turf battles to extend their domains, while other important issues fall into the neglected cracks. FTX was regulated by state money transmitter regulators, of all people. Whose bright idea was that? This fragmentation of our regulatory system was one of the contributing factors to the financial crisis of 2008. Congress's response in the Dodd-Frank legislation was to add yet another layer of bureaucracy, the Financial Stability Oversight Council (FSOC). The idea behind the FSOC is that the dukes and earls in charge of the regulatory fiefdoms would get together in a committee and cooperate more than they had before. Congress is about to repeat this mistake by requiring joint rulemaking from the alphabet soup agencies. This byzantine bureaucracy has slowed a sound approach to digital assets. A case in point is the battle over whether a particular digital asset is a Security under the infamous Howey test, and thus subject to the whims of the SEC, or a Something Else, and thus subject to the different dictates of the Something Else Regulators (CFTC? CFPB? state banking or money transmitter regulator?). We are all familiar with the contortions that issuers of digital assets have gone through to avoid the Kafka-esque SEC experience. Even TradFi issuers of securities do their best to take advantage of the many exceptions to SEC registration whenever they can. SEC oversight is an overly expensive and cumbersome process, especially for newer and smaller companies. The SEC has been spectacularly unsuccessful over the years in properly scaling registration requirements to the size of scope of newer and smaller enterprises. The proposed bills would permit issuers to choose from 55 different regulators by establishing themselves in the right jurisdiction with the right kind of charter. In addition to the alphabet soup at the federal level (FDIC, OCC, Fed, NCUA, and, for security-stablecoins, the SEC), stablecoin issuers could also choose a state regulator. With a choice of 55 different regulators, what could go wrong? Lots of things. First, there is the danger of a race to the bottom. Stablecoin issuers will be tempted to choose the regulator with the laxest and least costly oversight. This increases the chances that the regulators will miss something important. To remedy this, the bills require that the Secretary of the Treasury certify that a state's regulation is 'substantially similar' to the federal regulation. If it is 'substantially similar,' why bother with such redundancy? Also, the Secretary of the Treasury has to go through a formal rulemaking process to come up with principles for establishing substantial similarity. Talk about a duplicative waste of resources! But wait, like in a good infomercial, there is more! More waste and redundancy, that is. The House bill requires the OCC, FDIC, and Fed to engage in a joint rulemaking in consultation with the state regulators on capital requirements for stablecoins. Any veteran of joint rulemaking can attest to what a long and painful process it is for different federal agencies to work together on a joint rulemaking. Joint rulemakings proceed very slowly as getting agreement between agencies is a long, slow, and often contentious process. One survivor of such joint rulemaking related to me an incident in which a shouting match between staffers in the different agencies almost led to a fist fight. Congress can set deadlines for rulemaking, but there is usually no punishment if an agency dawdles for years past a deadline. Speaking of turf battles, stablecoins that pay interest are not covered. Who regulates those? A stablecoin that is a 'security' is also not covered by the bills. Such coins are presumably regulated by the SEC. We can expect regulators and the courts to wrangle incessantly over whether a future stablecoin-like product is regulated by one of the 55 stablecoin regulators, or by the SEC or CFTC, or CFPB or someone else. At a time when the DOGE administration is eviscerating government agencies in its bungling attempts to eliminate waste and redundancy, constructing a regulatory regime in which overlapping regulators jockey for position and duel in joint rulemakings is an absurd contradiction. Congress needs to pick a single regulator and get rid of the joint rulemakings and state loopholes. Of course, before we talk about who and how we should regulate stablecoins, we need to be clear about why we are regulating stablecoins. This will help to figure out the best approach to regulating stablecoins. In general, financial regulation has some common-sense objectives: The economy won't die when something bad happens. Customers are protected when an intermediary fails. The economy can grow and be stable. Market participants have the information they need to make good decisions. Fraudsters aren't selling bogus instruments. Intermediaries who hold customer assets can be trusted. Prices are fair and not manipulated. Stablecoins are an important innovation in the global payment system. They help to cement the role of the dollar in the global economy. They are likely to grow substantially from their current size and become systemically important. The failure of a very large stablecoin could transmit distress throughout the economy. Those losing funds in such a failure could in turn default on their obligations, threatening to bring down still other entities with no direct holdings of stablecoins. A run on a stablecoin would cause it to dump its holdings of U.S. Treasuries, causing distress in the Treasury market. This is the epitome of systemic risk, and it needs to be monitored and managed by our de facto systemic risk regulator, the Fed. Congress can and should fix the flaws in the STABLE GENIUS bills. Congress should pick the Fed as the single regulator for stablecoins. Interest-bearing stablecoins should be brought into the stablecoin regulatory regime. These fixes can be done simply and promptly to the existing texts. Congress should also begin giving serious thought to how to later fix our dysfunctional regulatory structure. A more intelligent and nimble regulatory structure would have more quickly grasped the many benefits of blockchain technology and come up with appropriate ways to promote innovation safely and ensure American leadership. We need to begin the discussion on how best to do this. Financial technology will continue to evolve, and our obsolete regulatory structure will hamper that innovation unless we fix it and soon.
Yahoo
39 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Budget Director Claps Back At GOP Critics Of Tax Cut Cost Estimates: ‘I Am A Republican!'
WASHINGTON – The director of the Congressional Budget Office pushed back against Republican criticism in a rare interview on Monday. Republicans have claimed the CBO gets things wrong and that its cost estimates of GOP tax and spending cuts are biased in favor of Democrats because the budget office is run by Democrats. It's not. 'I am a Republican,' CBO Director Phillip Swagel said on CNBC. 'This is a nonpartisan organization, and we work for the entire Congress.' It's unusual for a CBO director to come out and defend his agency against critics, but the budget office has been the subject of an unusual amount of bad-faith criticism over its analysis of Republicans' so-called Big Beautiful Bill. Just doing its job, the CBO has pointed out that the tax cuts in the bill are way bigger than the spending cuts, meaning the legislation would enlarge federal budget deficits and add to the national debt. That's embarrassing for Republicans, since they style themselves as champions of fiscal responsibility and haters of debt, so they've been relentlessly attacking the messenger. 'They are historically totally unreliable,' House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) said earlier this month. 'It's run by Democrats. Eighty-four percent of the number crunchers over there are donors to big Democrats. They don't have our best interests in mind, and they've always been off.' White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt also claimed this month that the CBO's staffers are Democratic donors, while President Donald Trump has said the office is controlled by Democrats. It's not clear where Johnson came up with his 84% figure. A Washington Post analysis of federal campaign spending data showed that only 16 people who'd worked for the CBO have made political donations since 2015, all to Democrats. The agency has more than 270 employees, however, and Swagel, who was appointed to his position on a bipartisan basis, once donated $1,000 to a Republican candidate for governor. Republicans' main arguments against the CBO's credibility have been that it fails to account for how economic growth resulting from tax cuts will increase tax receipts, offsetting revenue loss from the cuts, and that the CBO underestimated revenue following Republican tax cuts in 2017. Swagel pointed out Monday that its revenue forecast was correct for 2018 and 2019, and that the 2020 coronavirus pandemic sparked higher government spending and inflation. 'There's very high inflation starting in March of 2021, and that inflated revenues as well,' Swagel said. He also pointed to higher immigration and capital gains revenue resulting from the Federal Reserve's efforts to boost asset prices. He suggested it was weird to fault CBO for not foreseeing cataclysmic global events as part of its cost estimate for a tax bill. 'There are things that the CBO certainly did not predict,' he said. As for the economic feedback on the tax cuts, Swagel said this week the CBO will put out a so-called dynamic score, a cost estimate that accounts for how the bill's macroeconomic effects could juice revenue, though it will likely still disappoint Republicans. Even the conservative Tax Foundation has found that a dynamic score doesn't erase the giant gap between spending and revenue envisioned by Republicans' bill. The CBO has found that the One Big Beautiful Bill Act, which uses $1 trillion in Medicaid and food aid cuts to partially finance nearly $4 trillion in tax cuts,would add $2.4 trillion to the deficit over a decade and that the tax and spending cuts would favor households with higher incomes. Swagel first defended himself from the barrage of Republican criticism earlier this month in an interview with The Wall Street Journal. 'The attacks are coming from so many directions and the kind of misleading talking points have been picked up so widely,' he said. A handful of Republicans, including former White House adviser Elon Musk, have faulted their colleagues for supporting legislation that would worsen the government's fiscal situation. Rep. Thomas Massie (R-Ky.), who voted against the House version of the One Big Beautiful Bill Act last month, told HuffPost he challenged his colleagues to remove Swagel from his position if they thought he was so bad. 'We can go up there today and pass a resolution and remove him from his post,' Massie said. 'If you all are upset and think he's made that big of a math error, he's obviously in the wrong job, let's take him out.' There's been no effort by Republicans to remove Swagel. In February, before the GOP legislation had taken shape, Johnson had trumpeted the CBO's long-term analysis of the country's fiscal situation, in which the office reported annual deficits would reach $2.6 trillion if Congress didn't take action. 'At a time of soaring deficits, high inflation, and sky-rocketing national debt, the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office's new economic projections confirm the hard truths about the looming fiscal challenges facing our nation,' Johnson said at the time. Trump's Big Bill Will Cut Taxes By $3.7T And Add $2.4T To Deficit, Budget Office Says Senate GOP Strips Contempt Provision From Tax Bill — But Still Lets Trump Be King After Voting For Trillions In Debt, House Republicans Approve A $9 Billion Cut
