Transparency in COVID–19 Expenditures 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, 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.

Mr. President, I thank the gentleman from Utah.

I wish to address the subject of the President's overreaching vaccine mandates. First, we all recognize the devastation caused by the COVID- 19 pandemic spread from Wuhan, China, throughout the world. This virus has taken too many lives: more than 4.7 million around the globe and over 686,000 here in the United States. Each death is a tragedy. My heart goes out to the families who have lost loved ones and suffered from this terrible disease.

Many of those families in Wyoming have reached out to me. I have heard from thousands of constituents concerned about the vaccine, pro and con, but mostly about confusing guidance and particularly about masking--most notably in our schools.

Our response to this pandemic should have been unifying, but, instead, it has sown discord and distrust across our country, and that discord is exacerbated by the Federal Government's extreme overreach.

I want to be clear. I support individuals getting the COVID vaccine. I am vaccinated. I got vaccinated to protect myself because I have no natural immunity. I haven't had COVID. I have no underlying health concerns. I was not advised by a physician not to get it. It made sense for me making that decision for myself.

Scientists have been researching and working for decades to make the emergency treatments that we have all had access to in 2021 available to us. However, I do not support the government mandating--mandating-- matters that come between a patient and their conscience, a patient and their healthcare provider, a patient and their own care decisions.

And the recent mandates from the Biden administration do just that. I believe they are far-reaching and burdensome, as do my constituents, including those who have been vaccinated. They will not achieve the desired result. They will not convince millions of Americans on the fence about the vaccine to suddenly get it. They cause people to dig in. They further politicize

our healthcare system. They compound our unemployment problems.

Don't take my word for it. Look at the Federal Government itself. Even unions are opposed to a vaccine mandate, with the American Postal Workers Union, the Federal Law Enforcement Officers Association, and the American Federation of Teachers coming out in opposition not to the vaccine but to the mandate.

The pandemic does not make the Constitution irrelevant or put our rights as private citizens up for discussion. We are a nation of liberties, not mandates. We respect individuals.

That is why I am cosponsoring several different bills that would protect our citizens from this overreach. One bill, S. 2849, clarifies that Federal Agencies do not have the power to mandate COVID-19 vaccines. While this should be self-evident, sadly, many in Washington, DC, have forgotten about America's founding principles.

Another bill, S. 2843, blocks Federal Agencies from fining anyone who violates the COVID-19 mandates.

Further, the bill that Senator Lee is offering today, S. 2851, audits COVID funding so the American people know where their tax dollars went over the past year and a half, so we can evaluate what has worked and what has not, as Senator Lee has said.

The Biden administration should work to bring us together, not drive us further apart through politicized Executive actions. No matter what President Biden decides to do, an individual's right to be in charge of their own healthcare is sacrosanct, and I believe Senator Lee's bills are a step in the right direction.

Thank you.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I reserve the right to object. I certainly welcome the Senator from Utah's interest in oversight of coronavirus emergency relief funds. There is no question Americans deserve to know where their hard-earned tax dollars are going and how these critical relief funds are being used to help communities all across our country in the wake of this public health crisis, especially for those who need it the most.

I am also thankful that my colleague agreed with the importance of conducting thorough oversight of these programs and supported the creation of the Pandemic Response Accountability Committee when we passed the CARES Act. These oversight requirements, based on the successful oversight model of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, ensure that we have strong oversight of all coronavirus relief dollars through regular, detailed reports and recommendations from the PRAC, the GAO, and the inspector general.

Following guidance from the Office of Management and Budget, all COVID-19 relief funding from the legislation that the Senator has identified is already being tracked on USASpending.gov. Anyone-- anyone--can go to the website right now and see the figures.

As of August 31, Congress has provided $4.7 trillion in relief spending. The administration has committed $3.9 trillion of those funds to helping communities, and $3.4 trillion in assistance has already reached those who need help through this crisis.

I would also urge the Senator to consult the more than 1,300 oversight reports that the PRAC has already completed related to the pandemic response, in addition to the more than 100 reports that the GAO has also issued on this topic, rather than creating additional and redundant work for the GAO at taxpayer expense.

The Senator's proposal is duplicative and unnecessary, and for that reason I object.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent for the legislative activities report of the Committee on Rules and Administration during the 116th Congress be printed in the Congressional Record.