No Taxation Without Congressional Consent Act

Madam Speaker, we have just been engaged in presenting to the public the Violence Against Women Act. But all of it stands on the shoulders of the equal rights amendment, which has been long overdue.

What an amazing journey that this legislation has taken, and how sad it is to acknowledge that we are one of only a few nations that does not have an equal rights amendment in its constitution.

I remember going to Afghanistan and working with the women of Afghanistan to include the rights of women in their Constitution. I want to say that again: To include the rights of women in their Constitution.

So let me speak clearly to vital points of this resolution. This is not an abortion bill. However, we realize that the right to choose is embedded in the Constitution in the Ninth Amendment. But this is not that.

It is a bill that says that women have a right, as Alice Paul said so many years ago, to be able to have rights of equality under this flag, under this Constitution. Are we suggesting that that should not be?

In addition, let it be very clear that any court decision that was issued, the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, that is, the Commonwealth of Virginia v. Ferriero, we can explain that case, because the Court said the only authority to extend the deadline was Congress, and here we are. Congress is now intending to extend that deadline.

Nothing in the Constitution prohibits that. It is not embedded in the amendment. And by Article V, we are able to deal with deadlines. Deadlines are a simple process of statutory authority, and that is what we are doing today.

I don't think my friends on the other side of the aisle want to leave without recognizing the fact that women make 80 cents for every $1 a man earns, and that they are treated unfairly in the workplace.

If you want equal dignity, if you want the rights of women to be promoted, vote for the ERA.

Madam Speaker, I strongly support H.J. Res. 17. H.J. Res. 17, introduced by Representative Jackie Speier with 209 co-sponsors, would take a critical step towards ensuring that the Equal Rights Amendment, or ``ERA'', becomes part of the Constitution.

The resolution provides that notwithstanding the ratification deadline of 1979 that Congress set for the ERA and later extended to 1982, the ERA ``shall be valid to all intents and purposes as part of the Constitution whenever ratified by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several States.''

The purpose of the ERA is simple and fundamental: It ensures that everyone is treated equally under the law, regardless of sex or gender. Almost one hundred years ago, Alice Paul, who helped lead the campaign to secure women's right to vote, proposed the first version of the ERA.

She and her fellow suffragists knew that if women were to achieve true equality, our Nation's founding document needed to be amended to reflect that core principle. Nearly a century later, it is long past time to make that dream a reality.

In 1971 and 1972, the House and Senate, respectively, passed the ERA by well more than the constitutionally-mandated two-thirds majority in each chamber.

It contained these simple words: ``Equality of rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex.'' In the years that quickly followed, dozens of States ratified the ERA through their legislatures.

By the end of the 1970s, the ERA was just a few States short of full ratification. But then progress slowed, and the deadline Congress had set for ratification passed. A well-organized counter-movement scared the American people into thinking that a guarantee of equality would somehow harm women who stay at home to raise their children or would erode American families. What had started as a matter of broad consensus became another divisive wedge in the culture wars.

Today we know better. We know that in the year 2021, it is unacceptable that women still make only 80 cents for every dollar men earn. We know that when women are treated with equal dignity and respect in the workplace, in the home, by our institutions of government, and in our society at large, all of the American people stand to benefit. And we know that a simple but fundamental guarantee of equality should be welcomed rather than feared.

Thankfully, the momentum for ERA ratification has picked back up. Nevada ratified the ERA in 2017, and Illinois followed suit the next year. Then, in January 2020, Virginia made history and became the 38th State to pass a resolution ratifying the ERA. So long as these last three ratifications are valid, the ERA will become law.

Unfortunately, a federal district court ruled two weeks ago that these states were too late because the ratification deadline that Congress set had expired already in 1982.

Importantly, that court affirmed that Congress has the power to set ratifications deadlines, as Article V of the Constitution, which governs the constitutional amendment process, does not itself provide for ratification deadlines of any kind. Of course, the power to set deadlines necessarily includes the power to remove those deadlines.

By removing the ratification deadline that Congress set previously, H.J. Res. 17 ensures that the recent ratifications by Nevada, Illinois, and Virginia are counted and that the ERA becomes part of our Constitution.

We are on the verge of a breakthrough for equality in this country, despite all the obstacles in our current political and social climate. This resolution will ensure that no deadline stands in the way. Therefore, I strongly support H.J. Res. 17 and urge its passage by the House.

Madam Speaker, I include the following letters of endorsement for H.R. 1620, the Violence Against Women's Act (VAWA) into the Record.

Letters are from: The National Coalition Against Domestic Violence, National Resource Center on Domestic Violence, The National Center on Violence Against Women in the Black Community, YWCA, End Sexual Violence, National Coalition Against Domestic Violence, National Congress of American Indians, LegalMomentum: The Women's Legal Defense and Education Fund, JWI, and Casa de Esperanza.

March 8, 2021.

Hon. Sheila Jackson Lee,

Hon. Brian Fitzpatrick,

House of Representatives,

Washington, DC.

Hon. Jerrold Nadler,

House of Representatives,

Washington, DC.

Dear Chairwoman Jackson Lee, Representative Fitzpatrick,

and Chairman Nadler: The National Coalition Against Domestic

Violence, (NCADV) applauds you for introducing the Violence

Against Women Reauthorization Act of 2021. The Violence

Against Women Act (VAWA) is one of the three pillars of the

Federal response to domestic violence. First passed in 1994

under the leadership of then-Senator Biden, VAWA has been

reauthorized three times since then, most recently in 2013.

VAWA's authorization lapsed in 2018.

Every reauthorization included critical updates to enhance

America's response to domestic violence and other forms of

gender-based violence. These enhancements reflect the

evolution of our understanding of the dynamics of violence

and the needs of impacted communities. The Violence Against

Women Reauthorization Act of 2021 is the successor bill to

these previous reauthorizations and is a slightly updated

version of the H.R. 1585/S. 2843, the Violence Against Women

Reauthorization Act of 2019, which passed the House of

Representatives with strong bipartisan support before dying

in the Senate.

Like its predecessor, the updated 2021 bill invests in

prevention; keeps guns out of the hands of adjudicated dating

abusers and stalkers; promotes survivors' economic stability;

ends impunity for non Natives who commit gender-based

violence on Tribal lands by expanding special tribal criminal

jurisdiction beyond domestic violence; and increases

survivors' access to safe housing. The Violence Against Women

Reauthorization Act of 2021 also recognizes the disparate

impact of gender-based violence on communities of color due

to systemic racism and increases funding for culturally

specific organizations serving these communities. The

Violence Against Women Reauthorization Act of 2021 expands

VAWA's life-saving provisions to increase access to safety

and justice for all survivors.

It is particularly critical to reauthorize and improve VAWA

as we continue to battle the COVID-19 pandemic. In a recent

survey of domestic violence programs, 84% reported that

intimate partner violence has increased in their community

during the pandemic. Fifty percent reported the use of

firearms. against intimate partners has increased, and one-

third reported intimate partner homicides have increased in

their communities. The Violence Against Women Reauthorization

Act of 2021 responds to the needs of survivors and supports

the programs that serve them.

We thank you, again, for your leadership, and we urge the

House to pass the Violence Against Women Reauthorization Act

of 2021 as a matter of upmost urgency.

Sincerely,

The National Coalition Against Domestic Violence.

Madam Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 1620, the ``Violence Against Women Act of 2021,'' that will reauthorize the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) of 1994.

The Violence Against Women Act is landmark legislation first enacted in 1994 and signed into law by President Bill Clinton which has-- through policy reforms, interstate cooperation and grant allocation-- been pivotal in providing a national response to protecting half of the population.

Equally important, it has ushered in a seismic transformation on how society perceives violence against women.

VAWA was enacted in response to the prevalence of domestic and sexual violence, and the significant impact of such violence on the lives of women.

I remember those days well because I was serving on the board of the Houston Area Women's Center (HAWC), at that time the sole shelter in the Houston area offering sanctuary to victims and women at risk of domestic violence.

Despite its import, VAWA has been expired since September 30, 2018, and we as a body are now called upon by survivors to reauthorize it.

VAWA has a proven success record--in the quarter-century since it passed, domestic violence has decreased by approximately two-thirds, and intimate partner homicides decreased by approximately one-third.

However, despite these gains, domestic violence and sexual assault cases I have rapidly increased during this COVID-19 crisis, where perpetrators are spending significant amount of time at home with their victims.

This landmark, transformative legislation is needed now more than ever.

Police departments around the country have reported increases in domestic violence: 18 percent increase in San Antonio; 22 percent increase in Portland, Oregon; 10 percent increase in New York City.

A recent meta-analysis of 18 different studies concerning domestic violence during the pandemic found that domestic violence cases have increased an average of over 8 percent across the country.

In the United States, an estimated 10 million people experience domestic violence every year, and more than 15 million children are exposed to this violence annually.

According to the National Coalition Against Domestic Violence, about 20 people per minute are physically abused by an intimate partner.

About 1 in 4 women and 1 in 9 men experience severe intimate partner physical violence, sexual violence, and/or partner stalking with injury.

Today, in Texas, 35.10 percent of women and 34.5 percent of men are subjected to domestic violence.

We cannot forget the victims of domestic violence like Yashica Fontenot, who was murdered in Harris County, Texas, by her husband just one day after Christmas last year while she was trying to escape her relationship.

Nor can we forget Debra Seidenfaden, who was murdered by her husband in Houston after an argument.

Nor can we forget the Houston woman who was tied up and sexually assaulted in her own home just last week; or the Houston woman who was shot multiple times by her husband at a medical office this month; or the Houston mother and grandmother who was murdered by her son-in law while she attempted to protect her daughter and grandchildren.

There are countless stories like this throughout this country, which is why it is imperative to reauthorize VAWA by passing H.R. 1620.

The stories of these women remind us of the urgency to protect survivors now, before it is too late, because many of these deaths are preventable.

Since VAWA's codification in 1994, more victims report episodes of domestic violence to the police and the rate of non-fatal intimate partner violence against women has decreased by almost two-thirds.

VAWA has also led to a significant increase in the reporting of sexual assault.

From 1994 to 2015, the rate of women murdered by men in single victim/single offender incidents dropped 29 percent.

In the first 15 years of VAWA's validity, rates of serious intimate partner violence declined by 72 percent for women and 64 percent for men.

Research suggests that referring a victim to a domestic violence or sexual assault advocate has been linked to an increased willingness to file a police report--survivors with an advocate filed a report with law enforcement 59 percent of the time, versus 41 percent for individuals not referred to a victim advocate.

Prior to VAWA, law enforcement lacked the resources and tools to respond effectively to domestic violence and sexual assault, and this progress cannot be allowed to stop.

Congress must continue sending the clear message that violence against women is unacceptable.

VAWA has been reauthorized three times--in 2000, 2005, and 2013--with strong bipartisan approval and overwhelming support from Congress, states, and local communities.

Each reauthorization of VAWA has improved protections for women and men, while helping to change the culture and reduce the tolerance for these crimes.

H.R. 1620 continues that tradition, and therefore, is intended to make modifications, as Congress has done in the past to all previous reauthorizations of VAWA.

H.R. 1620 is a bipartisan bill, reflecting a reasonable and compromise approach to reauthorize grant programs under the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA).

These moderate enhancements will address the many growing and unmet needs of victims and survivors of domestic violence, dating violence, sexual assault, and stalking.

H.R. 1620 addresses the needs of sex trafficking victims while creating a demonstration program on trauma-informed training for law enforcement.

H.R. 1620 increases access to grant programs for culturally specific organizations and ensure culturally specific organizations are included in the development and implementation of service, education, training, and other grants.

H.R. 1620 adds a purpose area to assist communities in developing alternatives to housing ordinances that punish survivors for seeking law enforcement intervention.

H.R. 1620 expands protections for vulnerable populations such as youth, survivors without shelter, Native American women, and LGBTQ persons.

H.R. 1620 ensures Deaf people are included in grants relating to people with disabilities.

VAWA is central to our nation's effort to fight the epidemic of domestic, sexual, and

dating violence and stalking, and we as a body are now called upon by survivors to reauthorize it.

It is important to note that H.R. 1620 did not happen on its own.

It was the product of a collaborative effort of stakeholders, including victim advocates.

It was the product of those willing to share their stories of the abuse suffered at the hands of those who were entrusted to love, but instead harmed.

The courage, strength, and resilience displayed by survivors has reminded all that we must continue to foster an environment for victims of violence to come forward and expose episodes of violence against women.

Having listened to concerned stakeholders from all pockets of the country, we have put pen to paper and produced a bill that is endorsed by the bipartisan National Task Force to End Sexual and Domestic Violence (NTF), which is a national collaboration comprising a large and diverse group of 35 national, tribal, state, territorial, and local organizations, advocates, and individuals that focus on the development, passage and implementation of effective public policy to address domestic violence, dating violence, sexual assault, and stalking.

This bill recognizes the urgency and dire need faced by the victims and survivors throughout this country during a significant moment of ongoing domestic violence caused by this pandemic and experienced by both women and men.

The love for a spouse, the comfort of a mother and the best wishes for a sister know no political allegiance.

I am determined to work with my colleagues and others to complete the mission I accepted in the 115th Congress when the House passed the VAWA legislation I authored, H.R. 1585, the Violence Against Women Reauthorization Act of 2018, all the way this time through passage by the Senate and to presentment for signature to President Biden, a strong supporter of the bill and the original creator of VAWA.

Mr. President, last week, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit issued an emergency stay on President Biden's sweeping vaccine mandate. The court granted the stay, citing ``grave statutory and constitutional issues'' with the mandate. The 22-page order is persuasive and compelling in explaining the grave effects the mandate will have on businesses and individuals alike throughout the United States.

The order also explains that the limited nature of the Federal Government under the Constitution simply doesn't allow for sweeping mandates of this nature, generally, but it certainly doesn't allow for sweeping mandates like this one without an act of Congress. You see, our powers within the Federal Government are carefully circumscribed; they are carefully constrained. The Constitution brings about a balancing, a limitation on powers that operate along two axes. The vertical constraint is called federalism, and the horizontal constraint is something we refer to as the separation of powers.

The Federal Government's powers are, as James Madison described them in Federalist No. 45, ``few and defined,'' while those reserved to the States are ``numerous and indefinite.'' Likewise, within the three branches, we have these protections in place to make sure that no one person can exercise what power the Federal Government does have exclusively; you can't accumulate too much power. So the President of the United States, under our constitutional system, isn't a King and may not rule by decree. He is not free to just do things because he thinks they are a good idea.

The judges also, refreshingly, asserted the commerce clause of the Constitution and brought up the commerce clause as the source of the claimed authority for Federal action under this circumstance, noting that, even under broad interpretations of the commerce clause that we have seen from the Federal court system since 1937, the commerce clause is not unlimited in the scope of the authority that it provides to the Federal Government, and in this case, it certainly doesn't authorize the Occupational Safety and Health Administration to issue a sweeping vaccine mandate on all companies with more than 99 employees nor does the commerce clause even authorize Congress to undertake such an action, which, of course, Congress has not undertaken.

We have erred dangerously, over many decades, from the true application of the Constitution's limits. In many respects, we have lost sight even of the fact that this is a government of limited powers, and now that lack of those limits--the lack of respect for those limits within those who operate the Federal Government--is placing millions of Americans at risk of not only becoming unemployed but, in many cases, unemployable. Some in Congress are, today, taking it even further in asking the President of the United States to impose a vaccine or a test mandate as a condition precedent for interstate travel.

Now, I have heard from hundreds of Utahns who are at risk of losing their jobs because of this now, thankfully, halted mandate. These are not bad people. To the contrary, they are good people. They are our neighbors and our friends. They are everyday Americans who are all too often just trying to get by to provide for their families. They are not our enemies, and it is troubling to think that the President of the United States said--on national television no less--that he is ``losing [his] patience'' with them. What does that even mean? In fact, recent polling numbers show that, if anything, it appears to be the other way around. We are losing patience with him and with his broad assertions of authority that he doesn't even have.

I have come to the Senate floor about 15 times now to oppose this vaccine mandate. I have offered a dozen bills to limit, clarify, or otherwise counteract the vaccine mandate. Each time, one or another of my colleagues from the other side of the aisle has objected to what should be uncontroversial bills. Let's review each of these that we have gone through so far.

Now, this started back on September 28 with S. 2850. This bill, S. 2850, would have provided exemptions for those with religious or moral objections to the vaccine mandate. President Biden, significantly, had promised these exemptions would be in the mandate, but for some reason--for some reason that I struggle to understand--Senate Democrats, nonetheless, objected to the passage of that bill.

So then I came back, and I offered up S. 2840, the Don't Jab Me Act, a bill that would require that the Federal Government make those who suffer from the vaccine mandate financially whole. The Democrats rejected that bill too.

Next, I offered S. 2843, the No Taxation Without Congressional Consent Act, a bill that would require congressional authorization before the fines associated with the mandate could be charged to businesses. Notwithstanding the fact that the Constitution is very clear about where taxes need to originate within our system of government, the Democrats objected to that bill as well.

So then I came back with another bill. This time it was S. 2848, the Your Health Comes First Act. This is a bill that would offer exemptions from the mandate to those who have preexisting medical or other health concerns about the vaccine. This is also another exemption that President Biden himself promised in his speech when first announcing the vaccine mandate, but it is an exemption that the Senate Democrats, apparently, didn't feel worthy of codifying with legislation, and so they objected to that one too. This one was particularly surprising because if, in fact, President Biden himself felt comfortable with those exemptions, one would think that there wouldn't be discomfort with codifying what he himself said should be the law.

So then, in response to that, I returned to this Chamber on another day, and I offered up S. 2846, the Natural Immunity is Real Act. This bill would require that the Federal vaccine mandate recognize natural immunity. Countries across the world recognize this immunity for the powerful protection that it, in fact, provides, a protection that, according to some studies, may be as much as 27 times stronger than that offered by the vaccine alone. Unfortunately, President Biden's mandate wasn't so generous on that point.

This bill, too, was rejected by the Democrats, disregarding science's showing the very real impact of natural immunity.

So I came back, and I offered up S. 2847, the Let Me Travel America Act. Now, this bill would prohibit the requirement of vaccination before citizens could travel between the States. Apparently, the Democrats want to leave that option open because they objected to that one too. Well, that one is not in the vaccine mandate. It is feared, as I mentioned a few minutes ago, that that might be on the table. Apparently, it still is because people were unwilling to codify what should be a natural conclusion for most Americans to reach, which is that our right to travel from one State to another without permission from the Federal Government ought not be interfered with and that it is fundamental that we shouldn't mess with it. That is why it was unfortunate that this one, too, drew an objection.

So I returned. I hoped that this body could give some assurance and some respect to the brave men and women of our military who are at risk of losing benefits and losing the right to serve over this vaccine mandate. So my bill that I offered that day, S. 2842, the Respecting Our Servicemembers Act, would protect servicemembers from losing their livelihoods and their benefits--that they have accrued and earned through their valiant service--as a result of the mandate. The Democrats objected to this one too. That is particularly sad. These are heroes. These are people on whom we rely to keep us safe. We ought to give them more trust than that. We ought to not put them in a position in which many of them are facing a difficult decision.

So I offered another bill. I returned to this body, and I offered a bill that should be one of the least controversial measures that we have ever considered, not just about the vaccine mandate but about anything. That bill, the Parental Consent for Vaccination Act, would have simply required that parental consent be provided before COVID-19 vaccines were given to children. The Democrats objected to that as well.

So I came back, and I offered the Transparency in COVID-19 Vaccination Act. This bill would have provided information regarding vaccine side effects to the public. It would have just made sure that the American people had access to that information. I thought information would build confidence in the vaccines. The Democrats disagreed, and they objected. Apparently, that was too much. I don't know why people wouldn't want more information. I actually think that would have built confidence in the vaccine, but, apparently, they didn't see it that way or maybe they just didn't want people to have access to the information. I don't know. I can't speak for them. I just know they objected.

So I came back for the 10th time. I offered up the Transparency in COVID-19 Research Act. This bill would have provided research and information drawn from that research--that the American taxpayers are paying for--to the public, that should be available to the public. We pay for that research. We ought to know what the findings are. The government shouldn't have anything to hide and wouldn't have anything to hide here, but the Democrats disagreed, and they objected to that one as well.

So I tried again. I came back, and I offered up S. 2851, the Transparency in COVID-19 Expenditures Act. This bill is just a good housekeeping measure. It is a commonsense measure. It is not something that should have been either liberal or conservative or thought of as Republican or Democratic. It is just a good housekeeping matter. You know, I think it is strange that it would be controversial, given the simplicity of what it would do. It would simply call for an audit regarding how our COVID-19 funds have been spent. I thought the information would be helpful to us as we make policy moving forward, and yet the Democrats objected to that one.

So I tried again. I offered a 12th bill that would simply end the mandate. The No Forced Vaccination for COVID-19 Act would clarify that Federal law does not authorize OSHA or any other Federal Agency to implement a general vaccine mandate, but the Democrats objected to that one too.

Twelve times--twelve bills. Some were simpler than others. Some should have involved no controversy whatsoever. Some just inserted good principles of lawmaking or constitutionalism generally or federalism in particular. Each one was rejected, one right after the other after the other, repeated 12 times.

Thankfully, while some in this body have floundered, judges on the Fifth Circuit fulfilled their duty to the American people and their oaths to the Constitution. That does not mean, however, that this fight is anywhere near over. It will continue in the courts, where the States and the Biden administration will each be able to make their case. But I am also going to continue this fight here. I will stand for those Utahns and those Americans who are at risk specifically because of this mandate.

It is also important for us to remember that separate and apart from what the courts might do, we have an independent obligation, having each taken an oath to uphold and protect and defend the Constitution of the United States in the fulfillment of our duties. We need to make sure that before authority is exercised--especially authority operating in such a personal manner on such a personal issue as this--that power isn't being taken from those to whom it belongs. The power in our system of government belongs to the people, and in the absence of a delegation of power to the Federal Government, that power is retained by the States respectively or by the people.

So we ought to be looking at this carefully and closely, analyzing it on our own. We can't assume that the Federal courts will save us from our own unconstitutional actions.

I have been critical of Presidents of both political parties when they have taken actions that exceed the scope of their authority as President of the United States or of actions enacted by the legislative branch under the direction of either political party that exceed the power of the Federal Government. This is an issue that is not Republican or Democratic. It is not liberal. It is not conservative. It is simply an American issue. It is a constitutional issue. We ought to be debating it, discussing these things here, and not waiting for the courts to act.

One of the profound frustrations that I have encountered over the years is that sometimes people will conflate the issue of constitutionality with litigation. They will assume that constitutional issues are those that have to be addressed in the courts and only in the courts.

Fortunately, we have the courts to adjudicate disputes and the meaning of statutes and provisions of the Constitution, but that doesn't excuse us of our responsibility to provide an independent check and balance to make sure that authority isn't being exercised where it should not. It is especially important where, as here, we are dealing with a fundamentally misguided and, I believe, immoral proposition; that is, that individual Americans, hard-working moms and dads throughout this country, ought ever to be put into a position by their government to choose between, on the one hand, receiving a medical procedure that they may not want or to which they may have religious or other moral objections or which they might have a specific health concern, for example--they ought not ever be put in a position where they have to choose between that unwanted medical procedure on the one hand and on the other hand, the ability to put bread on the table for their children. That is not right. The American people know it, and deep down, they know something is terribly wrong whenever one person can, with the stroke of the Executive pen, issue so broad, so deep, and so immoral a mandate.

I am not going to stand for this. I will be back. I will be back tomorrow. I will be back the next day. I will be back as often as it takes, as long as it takes. I am not going to stop until we win this fight.

Thank you.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Madam President, as if in legislative session, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on HELP be discharged from further consideration of S. 2843 and the Senate proceed to its immediate consideration. I ask unanimous consent that the bill be considered read a third time and passed, and that the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table.

Madam President, immunizations are nothing new. To a degree, immunization requirements might not be new, but sweeping immunization mandates issued by a single individual within the Federal Government-- that is, the President of the United States--are entirely new, entirely unprecedented, entirely unfounded, and dangerous to our constitutional order, to say nothing of its tendency to discourage those who have been reluctant to get the vaccine from getting one.

So I have returned to the Senate floor today, for the third time this week, to express my profound objections to that sweeping mandate--to President Biden's sweeping, promised, and still inchoate vaccine mandate--and to offer legislation that this body could have passed right now; that it could have passed in order to protect countless Americans from this Federal intrusion.

Now, look, the Federal Government has no legitimate role mandating COVID-19 vaccination for all Americans. In fact, the President of the United States has acknowledged that. It doesn't have that role. It doesn't belong to this government. Yes, there have been vaccine mandates in the past. They have never been from the Federal Government, directed at the entire country.

During a really difficult time, economically and otherwise, in which inflation and the jobs market are causing a whole lot of businesses around the country to have to close their doors, President Biden has announced that he is going to enforce this mandate with a really hefty fine. Each incidence of a business not fulfilling the mandate could cost a business $14,000. President Biden, under the threat of massive punishment, is co-opting businesses to enforce his mandate. They will have to police their workforce's personal medical decisions and order the receipt of a vaccination or, alternatively, be forced into bankruptcy.

Now, some on the other side of the aisle think that the President's punishment doesn't go far enough. In fact, in the reconciliation bill draft currently being circulated on the other end of the Capitol in the House of Representatives, Democrats are pushing to increase the fine to $70,000 per violation.

Look, unvaccinated Americans are not the enemy; they are not the virus; and they are certainly not the enemy. Some are frontline doctors and nurses and other healthcare professionals who worked overtime throughout the pandemic, throughout the darkest of the dark hours of the pandemic, treating patients and saving lives.

Others are workers whose industries were deemed essential and who showed up to work to ensure Americans kept having access to food and electricity and other essential items and services. Others still are simply neighbors, family members, and other loved ones who

have supported friends, families, and entire communities as Americans as a whole struggled through quarantines, shutdowns, financial difficulties, and social isolation.

Let me reiterate, as I have said many times before and I will continue to repeat: I believe the vaccine's development is nothing short of a miracle. It is an answered prayer. I have been fully vaccinated, as has every member of my family, with my encouragement. But we certainly should not be forcing employers, through the Federal Government, without congressional authorization or constitutional authority, putting employers in a position where they have to fire some of their most valuable and now increasingly hard-to-find workers.

We shouldn't be threatening business owners with closure simply because they don't have any desire to police their workforce's personal medical decisions. That is not who we are as a country. I don't care whether you are a Democrat or a Republican or an Independent or a Libertarian; Americans, as a whole, don't believe that that is who we are. We are not into that kind of draconian micromanagement associated with a nanny state, nor are we into the excessive accumulation of power in the hands of a few or, even worse, in the hands of one person. Many simply cannot incur the cost of this enforcement--certainly not in this economy.

Additionally, this fine really amounts to a tax. It is government revenue collected from the American people, and the Constitution has a thing or two to say about how revenue bills must be enacted. The Constitution does not vest any taxing or, for that matter, any other revenue raising or fining authorities in the President alone--no. This is a power that is reserved to the people's representatives in Congress who are charged with precisely that responsibility. We have exclusively that authority, and that authority is not to be exercised by the President of the United States.

It is no accident that the Founding Fathers, through the Constitution, put this power in the hands of those people occupying positions in the branch of government most accountable to the people at the most regular intervals and in no one else within our government.

President Biden's mandate would impose really significant costs on Americans and on American businesses and on our Nation's economy that is already in some really rough times.

Look, it is unconstitutional. It hasn't been passed by Congress. It is wrong for America. And that is why, today, as I did yesterday and the day before, I came here to offer a proposal that, if enacted, as we could have enacted it today, it would protect Americans from some of the most disastrous effects of the mandate.

While I believe the mandate will, I am quite certain, eventually be invalidated in court, it is going to take some time for us to get there because right now we don't even have the mandate itself; we just have the threat of the mandate. And it is the imminent apprehension of the mandate's eventual issuance that is causing HR departments and general counsel's offices in corporate America throughout this country today to scurry to try to get ahead of the curve, develop their own policy, so that they are in compliance as of day one when the mandate hits.

But, in the meantime, there is nothing to sue. There is no one to sue because there is no final Agency action. There is no order in place. There is just the threat of it.

This, I fear, is a feature, not a bug, because by the time we actually have something on which to sue and by the time lawsuits are brought, by the time that litigation works its way to its natural conclusion--which, I believe, inevitably, culminates in a finding that it is invalid; it is unconstitutional; it is not warranted by law-- months, if not years, will have elapsed, and a lot of the damage will be done.

So, until that day--until that day I consider inevitable when a court rules that this is unlawful--these bills like the one that I have offered today can provide businesses and the American people with the certainty that they need to make their own decisions.

My bill that I have offered up today, the No Taxation Without Congressional Consent Act, would prohibit OSHA and other executive branch Agencies in the Federal Government from imposing fines, fees, or taxes with respect to these mandates. It would protect our constitutional order by requiring that revenue measures be voted on by Congress, the branch of government most accountable to the people and the only branch of government empowered to enact such policies. The other two branches cannot.

As I mentioned yesterday, the people concerned about this mandate are everyday Americans. I have now heard from 158 Utahns who are at risk of losing their jobs due to the mandate, and that number continues to grow every day. They are not our enemies; they are our neighbors. Many of them have been advised by board-certified doctors that they ought to not receive the vaccine. We shouldn't be punishing them or forcing them into second-class status.

So today we have a choice. I hope that, at some point, my colleagues on the other side of the aisle will allow us to provide this certainty and peace of mind to those individuals and businesses at risk of suffering under the mandate.

We can defend Congress's role as the branch of government that determines how and from whom revenue is to be raised. Not only can we do that, but we have an obligation to do that. We have all sworn an oath to uphold and protect and defend the Constitution of the United States, and that document doesn't give the President this power. In fact, that document precludes, it prohibits the President from exercising this power in the absence of congressional authorization, which we have not provided.

So this bill, one of a dozen that I have submitted, could have passed this body today. I wish, for the sake of millions of concerned Americans, that it had, but regardless of this result today and of the objection that precluded it from passing the Senate today, I am going to continue to fight. I will keep coming back for as long as it takes in order to end this egregious and legally baseless and unconstitutional mandate.

I find it interesting that my friend and colleague, the distinguished Senator from the State of Washington, referred to this as ``outrageous,'' as outrageous that we would be attempting to put in place protections for those Americans who are going to be victimized by the vaccine, who are going to have to choose between, on the one hand, receiving a medical procedure that they don't want and, on the other hand, being fired. Nobody should have to choose between submission and financial ruin. They especially shouldn't have to do that under the direction of an invalid, unconstitutional directive by the Federal Government.

She also referred to what she described as ``our efforts,'' ``our efforts to end this pandemic.'' This isn't about whether we want to end the pandemic. There is not a single person--Democrat, Republican, Independent--in this Chamber or in the other Chamber--I am not sure I know a single American anywhere who wouldn't want to end this pandemic. This is not the pandemic. This is not going to end the pandemic. If anything, this will cause more people to be more reluctant to get the very vaccine that they are wanting to encourage others to provide.

This is not about that. The minute we lose control of the government that is supposed to work for us, the minute we start to erode, willfully, even for those who might be convinced that it is good policy--and I would disagree with them on that. The minute we decide to give this power to the President of the United States and stand silently as he usurps authority that under article I, section 7, and article I, section 8, plainly belongs only to Congress, to the extent we have any business operating in this area to begin with as a Federal Government, which we do not--then we have simultaneously undermined both the vertical protection that we call federalism and the horizontal protection we call separation of powers.

Now, lest anyone might be left with the impression that this would be an esoteric or academic exercise or that that is not something that affects their freedom--there are those who would make that suggestion-- they are sorely mistaken. You see, because anyone, anywhere can have a Bill of Rights.

In fact, as the late Justice Antonin Scalia used to point out, any ``tin horn

dictator'' around the world can have a Bill of Rights. And most of them do. Many of those Bills of Rights are scintillating documents; they are glowing in terms of their expression of individuality and the right of each human to exist and flourish. They will articulate a list of rights that is, in some cases, comparable to, if not even more protective of, individual liberty than our own Bill of Rights.

Yet, as Justice Scalia continued, whether or not that Bill of Rights or any Bill of Rights is worth more than the paper that it is printed on ultimately rests on whether there are protections in place that guard against the dangerous accumulation of power in the hands of the few. That is what makes that difference.

So if we allow a President today to adopt whether you want to call it a tax or a fine or whatever revenue-raising tool that you choose to identify this as being, the President doesn't have the power to impose that. That is a legislative function.

Article 1, section 7 is very clear: You cannot enact legislation, including any legislation collecting revenue from the citizenry without passage in the House, passage in the Senate, and presentment to the President of the United States. He can't do it alone.

That is what this is about. This is about so much more than just this vaccine mandate. But this vaccine mandate in and of itself is wrong. It is unconstitutional. It is harmful, and it has a tendency to undermine the very interest the President purports to be advancing.

Mr. President, earlier today, President Biden announced his new, revised, supposedly curtailed, social spending plan for America. It seems that the depressing economic numbers, the soaring costs of goods, mounting data that government spending is to blame, or perhaps some more moderate voices within the Democratic conference forced him to walk this latest monstrosity back.

Democrats, who won control with the slimmest of majorities, feel that they have a mandate to change more about American society and spend more money than any group of elected officials in American history.

The White House Chief of Staff tweeted today, bragging that this deal is still twice as big as the New Deal in real dollars.

Be it at $3.5 trillion or a little less, we have lost almost all sense of what money means, at least when it comes to money being spent by Washington--by public officials who congratulate themselves, each other, and, in return, are congratulated by many in the media for spending other people's money or spending money we don't have, money that ends up, effectively, being printed.

Our Founding Fathers entrusted Congress with the power of the purse because they expected Congress, which is the branch of government most accountable to the people at the most regular intervals, to be most likely to jealously guard the funds of those who sent us here.

Understanding that as every Member of the House is required to stand for election every 2 years, and one-third of the Members of this body are required to stand for election every 2 years, that ought to have an effect. It ought to have precisely the effect that we remember: that it is not our money; it is the people's money, and that when we run out of it, we can't just pretend that we have more. When you do that, it causes problems--especially for the poor and the middle class.

The Framers assumed that Congress would be the most responsible branch in managing our Nation's finances--again, because we are the branch most accountable to the people. But in this respect we failed. We failed in every sense. We failed dismally, miserably.

Americans work for months out of every single year just to pay their Federal taxes. Yet our Nation is still barreling toward $30 trillion of national debt. We are now reaching devastating debt-to-GDP ratios that we have never contemplated during peacetime in America. And Americans are feeling the pain--real Americans, everyday Americans.

Inflation is at its highest rate in decades. Everything from gas to groceries, from housing to healthcare--it is all more expensive and getting more expensive every single day. We know from sad experience that this isn't going to go away anytime soon. Prices, once they go up, tend to stick.

Meanwhile, President Biden, apparently, is not satisfied with only making things more expensive, but he is also making it harder and in some cases impossible for many Americans to work. His still-unpublished vaccine mandate is causing millions of Americans to be at risk of losing their employment or, alternatively, acquiescing to Federal medical extortion. These are everyday Americans, all too often struggling just to get by. They are not bad people. They are not people whom we should shun. No. These are mothers and fathers. Some are first responders, and others are military heroes. They are our neighbors, friends, and fellow citizens. They deserve the respect and autonomy to make this decision for themselves.

And the Constitution, when properly followed, protects Americans from precisely this type of Federal intrusion, especially this type of Federal intrusion wielded by one man, one person, in one office.

I have heard now from over 300 Utahans just in the last few weeks who are at risk of losing their livelihoods due to the President's mandate. These are just the ones I have heard from. For every one I have heard from, there are many, many others who are being affected. Their stories are moving, and they are as moving as they are tragic. And we must do something to help.

Allow me to be very clear. While I am very much against the mandate, I am for the vaccine. I have been vaccinated. My entire family has been vaccinated. I have encouraged other people to get vaccinated. These vaccines are helping to protect many, many millions of Americans against the harmful effects of COVID-19.

That does not, however, excuse the heavy-handed, nanny state approach of forcing this decision on Americans, of threatening Americans, coercing them, extorting them into doing the will of the President of the United States. This is not only an action not backed up by law or consistent with the constitutional separation of powers, but it is immoral. And it is mean to tell a mom or a dad you are not going to be able to put food on the table for your children if you don't get a medical procedure that we want you to get but that you don't want to get, for whatever reason: a religious reason, a particular medical condition that you have been warned about from your doctor, or whatever else it may be. People shouldn't have to choose between the ability to make a living and the coerced receipt of an unwanted medical procedure.

This is why I have come to the Senate floor 11 times now to fight against the mandate and why I am going to keep coming. Today, I am offering what should be an incredibly uncontroversial bill. My Transparency in COVID-19 Expenditures Act, which is cosponsored by Senators Braun, Lummis, Sullivan, and Tuberville, would simply require an audit of COVID-19 relief funding. It would allow Congress to determine what spending in this pandemic worked and what spending did not. It would help us return a little bit of financial oversight and sanity and responsibility and accountability to Congress and to our government.

This information would also allow taxpayers to see how their dollars are being spent and whether they are being spent wisely. It is that simple. And I encourage my colleagues to support the bill.

I would like now to yield time to my friend and distinguished colleague, the Senator from Wyoming.

Mr. President, as if in legislative session, I ask unanimous consent that the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee be discharged from further consideration of S. 2851 and that the Senate proceed to its immediate consideration. I further ask that the bill be considered read a third time and passed and that the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table.

Mr. President, I appreciate the insight from my friend, colleague, and distinguished Senator from Michigan. I appreciate his willingness to look out for making sure that there isn't duplication in government.

I also think it is important that at a time when we are spending an unprecedented amount of money, that we are on the side of redoubling efforts to audit, to oversee.

There has never been a time in American history when we have brought in more money than we have brought in in the year 2020. We brought in over $3 trillion. But there has never been a time when we have spent nearly as much money in total dollars or as far as a number of dollars relative to what we brought in.

I mean, we spent $6.6 trillion last year. This is an enormous amount of money. We are spending a comparable amount again this year--again, trillions of dollars more than we are bringing in. We are doing it ostensibly because of the COVID pandemic. And for that reason, it is good that we make sure that we know where we are spending that money, where it is going. If it can make our efforts more effective and more efficient, if this is about protecting and sustaining life, then why wouldn't we want to make sure that it is being done in the most effective, efficient way possible?

We work for the people. They deserve to know where the money is being spent.

Madam Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 233, I call up the joint resolution (H.J. Res. 17) removing the deadline for the ratification of the equal rights amendment, and ask for its immediate consideration.

Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and insert extraneous material on H.J. Res. 17.

Madam Speaker, I yield myself 3 minutes.

Madam Speaker, H.J. Res. 17 is long-overdue legislation to ensure that the equal rights amendment can finally become the 28th Amendment to the United States Constitution. The House passed identical legislation last Congress on a bipartisan basis, and I hope it will do so again today.

Madam Speaker, in 1923, Alice Paul first introduced an amendment to the Constitution to guarantee full equal protection for women. The text of the amendment is simple and clear: ``Equality of rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex.''

That amendment passed with overwhelming bipartisan majorities in the House and Senate in 1972.

Unfortunately, it fell just short of being ratified by the requisite number of States before the arbitrary deadline imposed by Congress ran out in 1982. In the 40 years since, we have made great strides in this country to ensure equality. Women have secured the right to vote, protection against workplace discrimination, and through case law decided under the 14th Amendment, many other critical protections denied them for too long on the basis of sex.

Without the ERA, millions of women have still had to march in support of their rights, their healthcare, their reproductive freedom and abortion access, and their dignity as equal citizens. Through the Me Too movement, we have had long-overdue, and sometimes painful, conversations about the violence and harassment that women and others experience--whether in the workplace, at homes, or in schools and universities.

But still, to this day, the Constitution does not explicitly recognize and guarantee that no one can be denied equal protection of the laws on the basis of sex. The ERA would enshrine those principles and take the final, critical step of ensuring that laws disadvantaging women and gender minorities are subject to the most rigorous form of scrutiny.

Last year, Virginia became the 38th and last necessary State to ratify the ERA, and, today, in passing H.J. Res. 17, we will be one step closer to enshrining it into law. This resolution removes a previous deadline Congress set in the amendment's proposing clause for ratifying the ERA, and will, therefore, ensure that recent ratifications by Nevada, Illinois, and Virginia are given full effect.

We are on the brink of making history, and no deadline should stand in the way. The Constitution itself places no deadlines on the process for ratifying amendments. Congress, just as clearly, has the authority to extend or remove any deadlines that it previously chose to set in the first place.

The recent ruling by the United States District Court for the District of Columbia refusing to recognize the recent State ratifications makes it even more imperative that Congress act now in removing this deadline. We must make it absolutely clear that Congress does not want language put in the proposing clause of a resolution 40 years ago to stand in the way of full equality now.

Madam Speaker, I thank Representative Speier for introducing this resolution, which takes that important step. This resolution will ensure, at long last, that the equal rights amendment can take its rightful place as part of our Nation's Constitution.

Madam Speaker, I urge all Members to support it, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, the gentlewoman errs, the deadline for ratification is not part of the amendment, it is part of the resolution proposing the amendment. And if Congress can propose a deadline, it can revoke that proposal since it is not part of the amendment at all.

Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Speier).

Madam Speaker, I am glad the gentleman recognizes that equality includes the right of each woman and man to make their own decision about their reproductive choices. There can be no equality of the sexes when one class of people is denied the ability to control their own bodies.

Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentlewoman from Georgia (Mrs. McBath).

Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Cohen).

Madam Speaker, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Cohen) that he may control that time.

Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentlewoman from California (Ms. Chu).

Madam Speaker, every amendment since the 22nd, except for the 27th, has had a deadline for ratification inserted in the resolution. But if you look at the Constitution, Madam Speaker, you won't find the deadline. That is because the deadline is part of the congressional resolution proposing the amendment, not part of the amendment itself.

What Congress can propose, Congress can alter, which is all we are proposing to do today.

Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi).

Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from Georgia (Mrs. McBath) to control the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. Cicilline).

Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Garcia).

Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Massachusetts (Mrs. Trahan).

Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Michigan (Mrs. Lawrence).

Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Wasserman Schultz).

Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro).

Madam Speaker, we are prepared to close.

Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Madam Speaker, Alice Paul's equal rights amendment was introduced in both Houses of Congress way back in 1923. But 96 years later, the United States Constitution still does not explicitly declare that women have equal rights under the law.

We are the only western democracy without such a clause in its Constitution. Today, we have an opportunity to rectify that glaring omission.

The arbitrary deadline for ratification that Congress imposed, and later extended, can be just as easily removed, and that is all this legislation does. It can be just as easily removed, because it is not part of the amendment, as some of our Republican friends said.

Every amendment since the 22nd Amendment, except for the 27th, has had such a clause. And if you look at the text of the Constitution, it is not there. That is because the deadline is part of the resolution proposing the constitutional amendment, not part of the constitutional amendment. If Congress can establish a deadline by resolution, it can certainly, by resolution, extend or change the deadline. That is all this resolution does.

Adopting the ERA would bring our country closer to truly fulfilling values of inclusion and equal opportunity for all people. Adopting this legislation would help make this a reality.

I urge all Members to support this resolution.

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee).

(Ms. JACKSON LEE asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.