Biden Can't Force Me Act

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.

Mr. President, I rise today to express my deep concern with President Biden's disregard for American freedom. President Biden's strong-arm push to force Americans to choose between their health and decisions affecting their health, on the one hand, and providing for their families, on the other hand, is wrong.

I simply do not believe the Federal Government has any business mandating the COVID-19 vaccination for all Americans.

Now, let me be clear. I believe that vaccines, broadly speaking, have provided immense benefits to society, nearly eradicating measles, polio, smallpox, and more in the United States.

I have personally received the COVID-19 vaccination, as has my entire family, and I view the rapid development of effective COVID-19 vaccines as a miracle; one that safeguards the vulnerable from severe illness and from hospitalization.

I believe that the FDA's expedited approval process is effective at efficiently reviewing and producing generally safe drugs and devices for Americans' use.

Additionally, I believe the emergency use authorization can make drugs available to Americans more quickly, which, in some cases, can mean the difference between life and death.

So even with the speed by which COVID-19 vaccines were developed and made available, I very much believe that they are generally safe. However, receiving the vaccine is a decision that Americans should make with all the facts in front of them, in consultation with their doctors, and with full consideration of their own current health circumstances.

However, President Biden made his intentions clear when announcing his Federal mandate saying: ``This is not about freedom or personal choice.''

Look, we have got to remember that anytime someone, someone who is serving as the President of the United States, while issuing a sweeping Federal mandate, insists that this is not about freedom or personal choice, it is. It necessarily is. It unavoidably is.

The fact that he made this statement is troubling. The statement highlights the fact that the President does not understand the key relationship between citizens and government under our Constitution.

Every mandate, regulation, tax, or any other government imposition comes necessarily at the cost of freedom and personal choice of Americans. It is a tradeoff we make with government. Use of overwhelming government power, without even considering the implications on freedom, is precisely why our Founders thought the Declaration of Independence, a revolution, and our Constitution were necessary.

I have heard from many Utahans who are at risk of being unemployed if they choose not to get the vaccine. In fact, within the last week alone, my office has heard from no fewer than 144 Utahns in distress for this very reason.

Allow me to share just a few of their stories:

A young woman in Utah has two autoimmune diseases. She was told by her doctor that she should not get vaccinated because of her existing health conditions. Yet her employer has informed her that, contrary to her doctor's recommendations, she must get the vaccine or be fired. Get the vaccine or be fired, those are the only two options she is left with.

A soon-to-be-mother, who has been advised not to get the vaccine because of her pregnancy, has been told by her employer that she must choose between receiving the vaccine and receiving a paycheck. Without her job, she will not have the means to care for her child.

A disabled veteran, who now spends his time working for the VA because he loves helping his fellow veterans, has been informed that he must be fully vaccinated within the next 75 days or lose his employment. This ultimatum imposed by President Biden is making him choose between receiving an unwanted medical procedure, on the one hand, while, on the other hand, being unable to provide for his pregnant wife and their child.

After businesses have weathered the economic impacts of COVID-19 and the corresponding shutdowns that have led to so many closures and bankruptcies, President Biden now wants to force employers to act as a sort of medical police force. They must impose a vaccine mandate on their workforce or be forced to pay a heavy fine.

This mandate is constitutionally dubious--and that is putting it mildly--and it is not reasonable and it neglects the interests of business owners, families, and individuals alike.

Look, threatening the employment of millions of Americans and making employers become enforcers is not how our country will return to normal. It is not even how you will make more people decide to get the vaccine. These steps will only erode meaningful relationships that Americans have with one another.

The utility of such a sweeping mandate is also in question. In fact, a recent study from three hospitals in Israel shows that natural immunity was ``27 times more effective than vaccinated immunity in preventing symptomatic infections.''

This mandate completely ignores existing evidence-based data lending credibility to the reality that millions of Americans may not need to be vaccinated because they have acquired natural immunity from previous COVID-19 illness. Further, the mandate dismisses the reality that there are outstanding questions regarding the COVID-19 vaccine's safe administration to those who are immunocompromised or have certain other health-related concerns or how to accommodate any who may have objections rooted in religious or other sincerely held beliefs.

The decision to engage in a medical procedure, you see, is personal. It is

deeply personal, and even the idea that it can be forced upon citizens by the Federal Government is offensive. If particular American citizens do not feel that the receipt of the COVID-19 vaccine is the right decision for them or their children, then they are entitled to that belief.

A mandate by the Biden administration to be vaccinated against COVID- 19 under threat of unemployment will not quell Americans' concerns; instead, it will likely further erode the little trust that may currently exist.

Now, I don't believe that the Federal Government has been as transparent as it must. In its effort to get as many people vaccinated as possible, it has neglected the responsibility to inform Americans of any adverse effects that some may have experienced. These unfortunate instances of harm following the administration of COVID-19 vaccines must be acknowledged even if they are rare.

The fact that instances of adverse reactions to the COVID-19 vaccines are not being shared with the public or even, in many cases, the medical community, causes me grave, grave concern. It has left those who have been adversely harmed with almost nowhere to turn. It has caused distrust in the unvaccinated that the government may have something to hide.

When openly and transparently informed, I believe that each and every American is able to handle the responsibility of weighing the risks of getting vaccinated or not getting vaccinated. I honestly believe that most Americans, after speaking to their doctors, will make the decision that is best for themselves, for their families, and for our country.

Finally, while I have not seen the final regulation for President Biden's COVID-19 vaccine mandate, nor do I know definitively even what statute he is claiming provides him with this sweeping authority, I highly doubt that this unilateral action is constitutional. But, frankly, I don't think the President cares. President Biden knows the effects his announcement and even a temporary regulation will have, even if it is later ruled unconstitutional. Even if the mandate is never fully or ever implemented, it still could get him what he wants.

Businesses across the Nation are yielding before the awesome might of the Federal Government in complying with this Executive mandate before it has even legally been drafted, let alone enforced.

According to the vague outline that President Biden's speech provided, a business would risk going under if even a small percentage of its workforce were unvaccinated at the time enforcement begins. This is a scare tactic--a scare tactic of the absolute worst sort--and it is working. People are scared, and I am here to defend them.

Today, in this bill, the Senate has the opportunity to protect those in the minority, those Americans who sincerely believe, due to religious conviction or otherwise, that they should not receive the COVID-19 vaccine.

This bill would not prevent businesses from imposing their own mandates or establishing rules for their own workplaces. All this bill would do is to ensure that the Federal vaccine mandate provides an exemption for Americans whose sincere beliefs prevent them from receiving the vaccine.

Furthermore, nothing in Federal law provides President Biden the authority to institute the vaccine mandate on private-sector employers or on the public at large, and today Congress has the opportunity to rectify this situation for the American people.

Now, I want to be clear. This is not the end of my discussion here. I have 12 of these bills. I will be back tomorrow and the next day, for as long as it takes to win the fight against this sweeping mandate.

So, Mr. President, as if in legislative session, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions be discharged from further consideration of S. 2850 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.

Mr. President, I want to be very clear about something. There are no exemptions built into the mandate because the mandate doesn't yet exist.

As far as I can tell, this may be a feature and not a bug, you see, because he gave a speech--he gave a speech--talking about the fact that he was going to issue the mandate. He didn't release any legally operative documents, didn't even disclose his precise source of authority to do this--authority which I highly doubt even exists. So there is no document to challenge. No one can sue to challenge the document because the document doesn't exist.

But businesses everywhere fear and, indeed, know that it is coming, and so their general counsel's offices, their human resources departments for employers with more than 99 employees in this country are scrambling to get ahead of it. Many are even adopting and some, I am told, are moving forward with enforcing or preparing to enforce those same policies. So what will happen is that those employees who have these sincerely held objections will be without recourse.

Now, my friend and colleague from Washington makes the point that these exemptions are already there. That is a legal and factual impossibility because the mandate does not yet exist. The document isn't in there, which begs the question: If it already exists, then what would be her objection or anyone's objection to merely adopting a measure that says any such mandate, if and when it is issued, must contain such an exemption--an objection that my friend and colleague from Washington assures us already exists. It is difficult for me to understand how this would be objectionable.

Without these protections, you see, President Biden is telling many religious minorities in the country that they need not apply for a job, and if they have got a job already, that that job is in jeopardy.

Freedom to make one's own medical decisions is fundamental to our system of liberty. The economic impact of the mandate is going to hamper our economic recovery as workers are forced to make hard decisions.

Here we are talking specifically about objections rooted in religious or other sincerely held personal beliefs. If, in fact, that exemption already exists, that protection is already there, which it isn't because it can't be because the document itself doesn't exist, then why not embrace it? Why not accept it? Why not acknowledge it in law?

I struggle to imagine what harm could come from protecting religious minorities in this country, and I find it very discouraging and very distressing that this body, the U.S. Senate, wouldn't want to do everything we possibly could to make that happen.

Another word about the fact that it doesn't yet exist; the mandate isn't there. Because it is not there, employers with more than 99 employees around the country are being forced to

guess as to what it might mean, and a whole lot of them are already preparing their own policies--in some cases, already adopting them and enforcing them based on their own anticipation of what the mandate may be. What it means as a practical matter is, you can't sue anyone. You can't sue any administrator in the Biden administration or elsewhere in the Federal Government who is going to be enforcing this because you don't know what they are going to be enforcing. There isn't a dispute ripe for adjudication in any court anywhere because we don't know what that is.

For many people, this entire exercise could be rendered moot in the meantime, not just moot in the sense that the court would lack article III jurisdiction to entertain the dispute in question, but moot in the sense that they might lose their job, moot in the sense that they are going to have to face this awful Hobson's choice between maintaining their ability to provide for their family, on the one hand, and, on the other hand, receiving a medical procedure that they would deem harmful and objectionable based on their religious or other sincerely held beliefs. This is not America; this is not acceptable; and this is not and cannot possibly be constitutional.

We should be able to do this.

I am going to be back tomorrow, the next day, and as long as it takes to keep addressing this issue. Freedom matters, and the Constitution matters. President Biden has ignored them both. Thank you.

Mr. President, reserving the right to object, this unnecessary bill will undermine our efforts to end a pandemic that has killed over 685,000 people and counting.

We are fighting a highly contagious virus. If people don't get vaccinated, variants like Delta will continue to spread, undermine our economy, and take lives. Getting people vaccinated is one of the most important things we can do to stop COVID-19.

And let's be clear. Immunization requirements are nothing new in this country. State and local governments and school districts have required vaccination against diseases like polio and measles for over a century. Taking similar steps against COVID is just commonsense.

Tailored exemptions for legitimate religious and medical considerations already exist in current law and are included in President Biden's policy.

This bill could undermine existing protections and create a massive loophole that would lead to more unnecessary and preventable deaths.

It is so frustrating to know how scared people are of this virus, to know how many people it has killed, to know how hard people are trying to do the right thing and how eager they are for this to end, only to have Republicans offer ideas that would create political division, prolong this crisis, and cost more lives, so I object.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.