Floor Statements

Mr. President, I would like to call up S. Res. 134, as amended, my resolution urging the President to bring negotiations on a free-trade agreement between the United States and the United Kingdom to a mutually advantageous conclusion.

I have been working on the Senate floor and behind the scenes for several years now trying to get this measure adopted and a trade deal signed. Things are finally moving. The message to the President, if approved with unanimous consent of the Senate, could not be any more timely.

President Biden recently announced that after a delay of more than a year, we are finally going to resume trade negotiations with the United Kingdom. It is not often these days that I am really excited about all the news coming from the White House, but this one is absolutely thrilling to hear. I am very pleased with it.

For more than 100 years, throughout times of great change, tumult, and uncertainty, our partnership between the United States and the United Kingdom--sometimes referred to as the ``special relationship''-- has been constant. Through two world wars and the Cold War, through centuries of economic partnership that have forged the world's single- largest bilateral trade and investment relationship, the UK has been our staunchest and our most loyal ally.

Now, with the UK's newfound ability to negotiate independent free- trade deals and the President's commitment to resume negotiations on that front, the stars are aligned, and we have the opportunity to grow that relationship even further. This Senate resolution is the next step, calling on the President to bring those negotiations to the finish line. What could be better for American jobs, American prosperity, and American security than securing such a deal? This is what our country needs. This is what my home State of Utah needs.

Let me tell you a little bit about what that relationship means for the people back in my State, back in Utah. Almost 11,000 Utahns are employed directly by UK companies and their subsidiaries, and nearly 40,000 jobs are supported by exports from Utah to the United Kingdom. The United Kingdom is our largest export market, and we sent over $9 billion worth of exports just in 2019 alone.

Our credit and financial services industries also thrive from our trade relationships with the UK. Imagine what it would do for Utah and for the rest of the country if we made that trade even easier.

In this age of great power competition with China, we need to work closely with our allies renewing old friendships and crafting new ones.

As we have seen, our supply chains are in a precarious position, and they need to be redoubled and reinforced before we face the next calamity. Whatever you might have heard, trade is one of the best ways to reinforce our supply chains, and so what we need is a proliferation of free-trade agreements with countries around the globe. The United Kingdom would certainly be on that list, and, in fact, it should be chief among them.

So now I ask my colleagues to join me, using the full voice and the authority of the U.S. Senate, to urge the President to proceed full steam ahead on a deal. Throughout history, the partnership between our countries has steadied the world through some of its greatest perils, and it can continue to do so today if only we let it. The American and British peoples have the opportunity to once again join forces and emerge from the challenges we face today and to do so stronger than ever for the benefit of our countries and nations across the globe.

To that end, Mr. President, as if in legislative session, I ask unanimous consent that the Finance Committee be discharged from further consideration and the Senate now proceed to S. Res. 134. I further ask that the Lee substitute amendment to the resolution be considered and agreed to; the resolution, as amended, be agreed to; the Lee amendment to the preamble be considered and agreed to; the preamble, as amended, be agreed to; that the Lee amendment to the title be considered and agreed to; the title, as amended, be agreed to; and that the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table.

Mr. President.

I appreciate the insights shared by my friend and distinguished colleague, the Senator from Connecticut, with whom I enjoy working on countless issues, but I want to offer a little bit of additional context here.

Senator Menendez and I have worked together for some time now to address how any such trade agreement with the United Kingdom might take into account the obligations we have to Ireland under the Good Friday Agreement.

Just to be very clear, our resolution does not make any statement on elements of the transatlantic relationship outside the jurisdiction of U.S. sovereignty. So this shouldn't affect that. Those two things shouldn't be tied together.

Brexit and the debate surrounding the Northern Ireland Protocol are issues exclusively between the UK and the EU. This resolution is interested only, exclusively, in making a statement on working closely with a longstanding and stalwart ally and trade

partner. So we certainly would welcome a similar resolution on U.S.-EU trade, and I would be happy to work collaboratively with my friend from Connecticut or with any other colleague on either side of the aisle on that project.

If there are additional concerns here, I would love to know what those are immediately so that we can resolve this expeditiously. As I said earlier, I have been working on this resolution for at least 2 years now, and I would hate to see it blocked because of a quibble that we have already worked with the Foreign Relations Committee, the staff across the aisle on that committee, to address. I mentioned that this is important to my State of Utah. It is also important to Connecticut.

In Connecticut, the United Kingdom is directly responsible for over 22,000 jobs, and it supports another 12,000 through Connecticut goods and services that cross between those two countries.

So I think this would be good for Connecticut. It would be good for Utah. It would be good for the entire country, and I hope we can get it done. I am disappointed we weren't able get it done today. I am going to keep moving ahead on this because it needs to happen.

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

Madam 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. 2988 and that the Senate proceed to its immediate consideration. I further 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, I am here on the Senate floor today, for the eighth time now, to oppose President Biden's sweeping vaccine mandate. I have introduced a dozen bills to, one way or another, limit, clarify, or counteract this still unpublished mandate.

Now, make no mistake. I am opposed to the mandate categorically. I strongly dispute even the contention that one man--the President of the United States--has the authority to do this. He doesn't. I also fundamentally push back on the idea, the basic moral premise, that it is acceptable to put people in this position--to tell people that they have to choose between having a job and being able to put bread on the table for their children, on the one hand, or, on the other hand, accepting a medical procedure that they don't want either because of a religious objection or a specific medical condition or otherwise.

I am categorically opposed to this being done. It shouldn't be done through the Federal Government. It certainly shouldn't be done by one person, the President of the United States, who doesn't have the authority to do that.

And to highlight how concerned I am about this, I am coming down to the floor day after day to offer a different legislative proposal that, at a minimum, would make some of the effects of the mandate less severe, less painful, less cruel, less draconian.

Each time I have come to ask the Senate to pass what would, frankly, be uncontroversial measures--that should be uncontroversial--and each time I have done that, one of my colleagues or another from the other side of the aisle has objected.

This is unfortunate for a number of reasons. His mandate--which is still unavailable to be examined by the public, by the way--is already showing the terrible power that even the threat of a government-imposed vaccine mandate wields.

Businesses across the country are suspending, punishing, or firing employees who haven't had the COVID shot. Even without government enforcement, the mere threat, the mere talk of the possibility of a threat of the mandate is making it harder for everyday American families to put food on the table in increasingly difficult economic times, times fraught with uncertainty.

This isn't fair. This isn't right. Deep down, we know it.

Now, lest anyone try to dismiss the victims of this misguided and ill-founded effort, these aren't people you can just otherize. These aren't people you could just imagine to be someone you don't like, no.

These are mothers and fathers. They are our neighbors. They are people who, like far too many Americans these days, are just trying to get by. I am going to continue to fight this for them. I am going to continue to push back on this unlawful, misguided effort for them.

And, you know, in the meantime, it is important that we be very clear and that we be very consistent. In this effort, I have been supremely clear. I am not, in any way, shape, or form against the COVID-19 vaccine. I have been fully vaccinated. Every member of my family has been fully vaccinated with my encouragement. I encourage people all the time, and I repeat that encouragement this very moment from the U.S. Senate floor, that I encourage people to get vaccinated.

I see the development of these vaccines as a miracle; one that is helping, and has already helped, countless Americans to avoid the harms of COVID-19.

That doesn't undercut the fact that this mandate is pushing government and government control far beyond constitutional limits and into distinctively private decisions, decisions that belong to the American people and not to their government. It is why I am fighting against the mandate, and that is why I have come to the Senate floor eight times now, to help.

So, today, I offered up a bill that should have itself been supremely uncontroversial. It is a reaffirmation of parental rights that our government has respected and honored from the very beginning.

My Parental Consent for Vaccination Act would simply require that any COVID-19 vaccine mandate issued by the Federal Government must include a requirement that informed parental consent be provided before the shot is administered to a minor.

What would be controversial about that? On what planet would we not want to have parents involved in that decision? On what planet would it be OK to administer a shot to a child without parental notification and consent?

Allow me to put this in some context. Parental consent is required for field trips. Your child is going to the zoo or the park or anywhere else for a field trip, parental consent form. Parental consent forms are familiar to every parent and every child and every teacher in America. It is what we do. You are going to go on a field trip? You have got to have your consent form. No parental consent form, no field trip.

Parental consent is required for extracurricular activities, for sports, student government, club activities, all sorts of things.

Parental consent is required before most schools can administer a Tylenol to a child; and that is, after all, the right approach.

Despite what some candidates have said in recent political campaigns, parents are people who should be informed, and they should be involved in their children's education and in their health decisions.

There is good reason for this. Through thousands of years of human civilization, we have come to an understanding, quite appropriately, that parents are simply better equipped to make these decisions than are other people; certainly better than the impersonal arm of a government.

Parents are people who know their children. Parents are people who know their children's medical history. Parents also love their children. Parents have their children's best interests at heart when they make decisions regarding involving or affecting them.

Government cannot do any of these things like parents can--not in any way, shape, or form.

There is a good reason for this, and it is because government doesn't love their children. It is not that government categorically always means them harm. That is not it. Government isn't a person. It is not a being. Government doesn't have arms with which to embrace or shelter or protect their children. Government doesn't have a heart with which to love their children.

Government, when reduced to its core, when we really break it down to what it is, government is simply force--politically permissible, officially sanctioned, coercive force. It is violence or the threatened use of violence with a badge under the cover of official authority.

Now, we need government--we need government to protect life, liberty, and property. We need government to protect people from harm. But we have got to use it carefully. When we misapprehend what government is and we lose sight of this relationship between the people and the government, with the understanding that the government is there to serve the people and not the other way around, when we lose sight of the fact that government is just the official use of coercive force, when we start to revere it as some sort of benevolent, omnipotent, omniscient presence, bad things happen.

Because government, while necessary, is also dangerous; no less so than other things that are necessary, like water and like fire, like electricity, like wind, like oxygen. All these things, if not controlled, if not managed in one way or another, if not accounted for, can become dangerous and inevitably can prove deadly.

So thank Heaven above that Almighty God assigned primary care of children to parents and not to government. And thank Heaven above that Almighty God endowed each and every human being with these inalienable rights and with the understanding that government is there to serve and protect them and not the other way around.

Unfortunately, in some places, like right here in our Nation's Capital, the government seems almost to have completely lost the plot.

Right here in the District of Columbia, the DC Public Schools system is one in which minors can receive medical procedures without the school obtaining the consent of the parents or even informing the parents.

In other places across the Nation, this slippery slope is already leading governments to consider life-changing, school-provided medical procedures without parental notice or consent.

As a parent and, for that matter, as a human being, as a citizen of this country, this thought sends shivers down my spine, and not at all in a good way.

You see, while the Federal Government has almost no legitimate role in making decisions in our primary and secondary education systems, these are to be left for States and local governments. Very, very little role for the Federal Government to play in that area at all. It is an area that should be left to parents and students and teachers; and where government is involved, it nearly always is supposed to be State and local officials, not Federal ones.

With this bill, we make sure that the Federal Government doesn't endorse or, Heaven forbid, mandate this dangerous approach to medical decisions for minors. It is not something that we should do.

And so that is why I came here, to ask precisely that. I came here to ask that we provide assurances for parents and for children--once again, make no mistake, I am for the vaccine. I am categorically against the mandate. The mandate should not happen. The mandate is wrong. The mandate is without legal foundation. It is constitutionally indefensible, especially when exercised by one person at a level of government not equipped to deal with these things who are constitutionally authorized to do so.

But more than anything, the mandate is itself immoral. It is telling American moms and dads that they have to choose between getting a vaccine--even if to do so would cause significant problems for them because of a unique health condition, a religious objection or otherwise, they have got to choose between getting that unwanted vaccine on the one hand and losing their job on the other.

Are we really going to tell them that to honor their own personal autonomy, their own ability to decide what is best for them, we are going to order their employer to fire them, rendering them unemployed, for the time being unemployable?

And in some cases, because of the way some of these companies--in anticipation of the yet-to-be-announced mandate, some of these companies that have already started firing people are actually putting them on unpaid administrative leave, such that they can't even collect unemployment.

This is just mean. It is mean-spirited. So when you peel back all the layers of all the constitutional arguments, of which there are many, you are left with some policy arguments. But more than anything else, we are left with some basic moral arguments, arguments involving fundamental fairness. This is not who we are.

Look, when we disagree, we can be--we should be able to disagree without getting someone fired. But we should certainly be able to disagree without subjecting potentially hundreds of millions of people to unemployment based on a personal medical decision, one that may have profound health consequences or religious consequences to them personally.

I didn't think any of these things were all that controversial. I still don't believe they are. If any of us could talk to people at random from our home States, whether they are from communities or families or households that lean left or right or somewhere else, most people have a basic sense of fairness that transcends political ideology and partisan affiliation.

That basic shared sense of fundamental fairness is utterly at odds with doing this. We are better than this.

President Biden, you are better than this. President Biden, you and I don't agree on everything, but I know that you know, President Biden, that this isn't fair. Let's not do this to the people.

So all I was asking today in trying to pass this legislation is that we reaffirm our commitment to supporting parents in making decisions for their children. I tried to pass that uncontroversial measure, and it is a source of great disappointment and even some surprise that we couldn't even pass that. There has got to be something that is a bare minimum.

I appreciate the insights provided by my friend and distinguished colleague, the Senator from Washington, who, in objecting to the passage of this measure, shared her thoughts on why she opposes it. But I don't agree with her. Among the arguments she raised was a suggestion that under existing State laws, there are already ways of figuring out when, whether, and in what circumstances parental consent might be required. Now, this is--this is great.

I love federalism arguments. I am happy anytime someone raises a federalism argument. I think that is the kind of argument that doesn't get made nearly enough around here because it is kind of a watershed structural issue within the Constitution, one that outlines the difference between Federal power and State power.

You see, our constitutional Republic is one in which multiple layers of sovereignty exist. States and their subdivisions enjoy what we call general police powers, the power to enact legislation, generally, as States and their subdivisions deem appropriate for the protection of health, safety, and welfare. States, in the absence of an expressed U.S. constitutional prohibition or in the absence of some restriction in their State constitution--States are presumed to have general police powers. They may enact legislation as they deem fit to benefit their citizens.

We, as lawmakers in the Federal Government, have a narrower view. We have a narrower task. We have a narrower area of authority. We can't just enact something as Federal law simply because we think it is a good idea. We have to connect it to one of the enumerated powers made Federal by the Constitution. Most of those powers--not all of them but most of them--can be found in one portion of the Constitution written in relatively plain English nearly two and a half centuries ago, still easy to read today, still makes sense today--article I, section 8 makes that clear. We are in charge of national defense, regulating trade or commerce between the States and with foreign nations and with the Tribes; trademarks, copyrights and patents, bankruptcy laws, immigration laws, naturalization laws. There are a few others, but that is the basic gist of it--things that are distinctively national and designated as such by the Constitution. That is within our power. And everything else, as the 10th amendment reaffirms, stating again what the original Constitution made clear implicitly and was made explicitly in the 10th amendment, that powers not made Federal by the Constitution and not prohibited to the States by the Constitution ``are reserved [for] the States respectively, or to the people.''

That is no accident that they put that phrase in there in the 10th amendment, ``or to the people.''

When you reserve power to the States, you are, in a sense, reserving it for the people, and the people are the ultimate sovereigns. We are authorized to act as a Federal sovereign only in those narrow areas.

So I get back to the argument that my friend and distinguished colleague, the Senator from Washington, made moments ago. She referred to the existence of State laws delineating circumstances in which parental consent for a medical procedure, including a vaccine, might be acceptable or appropriate. I appreciate the federalism argument. We ought to have more of those. There are far too few of them here. The great irony here is that this focuses on the fact that we shouldn't be operating in this space in the first place.

To the degree that she is right, as she absolutely is to be focusing on the distinction between State power and Federal power, that same principle argues a fortiori in favor of us not deciding this on a national level. In other words, if it is true, as it is, that we ought to be focused on State law and what State law requires or allows or contemplates or permits, heavens, yes, let State law apply.

But you can't have it both ways. If you are going to make this Federal, as the President of the United States has purported to do, even though it isn't, then we not only may, I believe, we must weigh in. We must weigh in as the people's elected lawmakers. It is our job to make policy, and it is our job to decide when, whether, and to what extent Federal policy is unacceptable and needs to be curtailed. So, absolutely, the Senator from Washington

is absolutely right that we should be concerned about what State law says. And State law should be the beginning and the end of the inquiry here.

You see, this is what is different between this vaccine mandate and others that have been mandated in the past. We have never seen one that is Federal--not applied to the American population as a whole, not as to the general public. We have never seen one done federally, and there are good reasons for this. It isn't a Federal beast.

So my friend from Washington has expressed concern for not trampling on those laws. She couldn't be more right in the fact that we should respect State sovereignty and the sovereignty of the people. That is all the more reason why we should have passed S. 2988 today.

S. 2988 is yet another example of a simple modification, that if-- if--we are going to go down this road of a Federal vaccine mandate-- which we should not, but if we were going to, at bare minimum, we ought to be making this a decision that has to be done in consultation and with the approval of--not just the notice but also the consent of parents. That is not too much to ask.

The American people have been asked over and over again, especially over the last 18 months with the COVID-19 pandemic, they have been asked to settle. They have been asked to settle for this brooding omnipresence in Washington that tells them what to do. They have been asked to settle for multitrillion-dollar annual deficits. They have been asked to settle for limited freedoms.

The American people shouldn't have to settle for those things. They certainly shouldn't have to settle for a Federal Government acting without authority through one person who has the ability to take away one of the most sacred, one of the most fundamental, one of the most cherished God-given rights, which is the right to make decisions involving and uniquely affecting their own children.

For anyone within the sound of my voice or reading this, I implore you, don't settle--don't. Don't settle for multitrillion-dollar annual deficits. Expect Congress to start to care about the inflation that it is causing through reckless spending.

Don't settle for this brooding omnipresence of a Federal Government that is purporting to have the ability to dictate every aspect of your lives. No. Expect a government that operates within the space carved out by the Constitution. Don't settle for a government that knows no boundaries around its authority. Expect the government to respect its own limitations. It is time to expect more, and it is time to expect freedom.

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

Mr. President, our Armed Forces have been asked to work miracles over the last 18 months, and they have performed. During a global pandemic, in the face of natural disasters, facing dangerous missions, our men and women in uniform have risen dutifully, faithfully to the challenge. Many of our servicemembers have contracted--and then recovered from--COVID-19 over the last 18 months. Now these same heroes are being placed in a corner by this administration.

President Biden's COVID-19 vaccine requirement for the Armed Forces does not grant our soldiers, sailors, and marines the respect they deserve, and it could pose a challenge to recruitment and even to military readiness.

This mandate, tied with President Biden's more sweeping general vaccine mandate, has put millions of Americans in difficult positions. In most cases, these are just everyday Americans. They are mothers and fathers, husbands and wives just trying to put food on the table during what has, for many, been a difficult time.

These still unwritten but very much efficacious mandates are forcing millions of our fellow citizens into a sort of second-class, unemployable status, placing countless of our neighbors on the economic and social fringes of our society.

I have heard from almost 300 Utahans in recent days who were worried about losing their jobs due to the mandates. Some of these individuals are heroic members of our military. These servicemembers were rightly praised for serving during a pandemic and for dangerous missions, but now are being forced out, possibly with limited or no retirement benefits because of the President's mandate.

Let me just share with you a few of their stories. One soldier who reached out to me recently has served for 10 years in the military. He never received a single reprimand, whether written or verbal. He honorably and proudly served his Nation. He has been informed, despite his years of successful Active-Duty service, that he will not receive an honorable discharge if he doesn't comply with the vaccine requirement. Accordingly, he asked to resign from the military. His commanders made clear that he would be barred from resignation. Then he sought a personal religious exemption. He was summarily told that his exemption request would be denied.

Of his situation, he said:

To be backed into a corner with two very bad options is

both disheartening and sad, especially with what I have

sacrificed and what my family has sacrificed on behalf of the

military.

Another soldier told me his story. He has been in the Army for 18 years. All along, he was planning on retiring upon reaching two decades of service. He is about 18 months shy of reaching that point--just 18 months from that retirement point that he has been working toward for nearly two decades. Now, because of the vaccine mandate, he is at risk of losing his benefits and not receiving an honorable discharge.

Regarding his situation, he said:

This will cause a substantial loss in pay and quality of

life for myself and a large number of others I know.

A third soldier reached out to my office in a similar retirement situation. This soldier has children who experienced complications with receiving the vaccine. The soldier also has a child with significant learning disabilities, whom he is worried about providing for.

He said:

This really could be a life-changing event for my family,

and I feel strongly enough about it that I will risk all my

benefits not to take [the vaccine]. I just wish I had a

choice.

Now, these stories just barely scratch the surface of the hundreds of stories that I have heard from people across my State, including many who are servicemembers. These people, like millions of other Americans, deserve a better option. They have earned that. That is why, today, I am asking that the Senate pass my Respecting our Servicemembers Act. This bill would simply prohibit the Secretary of Defense from requiring COVID-19 vaccination for our military. I am grateful to my colleagues Senators Braun and Tuberville for joining me as cosponsors.

This is now the seventh time I have come to the Senate floor, asking that the Federal Government take a more temperate, reasoned approach. As I have said each time before, I am not anti-vaccine. In fact, I believe the development of the COVID-19 vaccine is a miracle. I have been vaccinated, and I have encouraged every member of my family to be vaccinated, and they have done so. I think the vaccine is a good thing. These mandates are simply the wrong way of getting it done.

Look, when we look at the employer vaccine mandate generally, the President doesn't have the authority. In fact, the Federal Government doesn't have that authority. This is not a power that belongs to the Federal Government to begin with. You know, even if it did, we haven't authorized the President to do this unilaterally. Even if we had or even if we were now considering a measure that would give him that authority, it is worth noting here that there are so many other better, more reasoned ways to encourage vaccination.

That is why I am here today, and that is why I will be back for as long as it takes to address these mandates, which are causing pain and suffering to hard-working moms and dads who don't want to have to be making a gut-wrenching choice between, on the one hand, receiving medical treatment that they don't want, whether for religious reasons or a health-related reason related to what their doctors have advised them or some other compelling personal reason or otherwise--they shouldn't have to choose between receiving medical treatment they don't want and forfeiting their ability to put bread on the table for their children. It is un-American, it is unfair, and it is immoral.

So, Mr. President, as if in legislative session, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Armed Services be discharged from further consideration of S. 2842 and that the Senate proceed to its immediate consideration. I further 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 will be speaking in a moment. I had planned to deliver my remarks prior to making a unanimous consent request, but in deference to my friend and colleague from Washington, I will be making the consent request first, and then proceed to my prepared remarks.

Unanimous Consent Request--S. 2847

Mr. President, as if in legislative session, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation be discharged from further consideration of S. 2847, and that the Senate proceed to its immediate consideration. Further, 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 have come here to the Senate floor six times now to oppose President Biden's unconstitutional actions, using the Federal Government and using the Oval Office, in particular, in order to force Americans to get the COVID-19 vaccine.

Now, as I have said before, as I have said each and every time I have spoken on this issue, I am not opposed to the COVID-19 vaccine. I have been fully vaccinated, as has every member of my family, with my encouragement. I encouraged my family, I have encouraged friends, everyone I know, to get vaccinated.

I think the vaccine is a blessing, and it is one that has helped a lot of people. And I think it is one for which society, as a whole, has benefited.

I have had and recovered from COVID-19 before I got vaccinated, and I can tell you that contracting COVID is not an experience that I would like to repeat, and it is not an experience that I want others to have. That is why I have had the vaccine and why I have encouraged others to do the same.

I, nonetheless, raise my hand in this very Chamber each time I have been sworn into the office. Pursuant to the Constitution, I stood right there on those steps and I swore an oath to uphold and protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.

That inspired document limits the powers of government. It does so because government power is sacred. Government power is dangerous. Government power always involves the actual or threatened use of coercive force. It is what government is--the ability and the authority to use coercive force and to do so on an official basis through law. It is for that reason that the Constitution carefully contains the power of government and does so in a way that reflects its immense capacity for harm.

There are lots of other things that are useful that we have to be careful when handling. You know, fire, electricity, oxygen, water, these are all things that are necessary, that we depend upon, that we need; and things that, if left uncontrolled, can inflict all sorts of harm, can hurt people, can kill people, can destroy life and property.

So that is why the Constitution goes to great lengths to draw boundaries and assign authority not only to different branches of government, but also different levels of government. In fact, every single provision of the U.S. Constitution is itself a form of limitation on government power.

These protections were designed to prevent government from excessively burdening the American people, because we have seen over time the tendency of governments to abuse that power and, in particular, the tendency of governments to become abusive when there is a dangerous accumulation of power at the hands of a few.

Tragically, and under the direction of Senates and Houses of Representatives and White Houses of every conceivable partisan combination, we have strayed far from the design of our government--the design put in place by the Constitution, the very same Constitution to which we have all sworn an oath.

And as a result of that, Americans are now forced to work many months out of every year just to pay their Federal tax obligations only to be told after the fact, by the way, that is not nearly enough because we are now nearly $30 trillion in debt in closing.

The monetary printing presses are pumping out tsunamis of fiat currency that eats away at Americans' savings and earnings. Government regulations cost trillions of dollars a year as a hidden back door, invisible, and highly regressive tax on American productivity and on American development.

And this is a tax that is borne disproportionately by poor and middle-class Americans who find that everything they buy--goods and services alike--become more expensive. And we find that they also pay for it with diminished wages, unemployment, and underemployment.

Almost every aspect of American life is now inappropriately restricted, directed, or taxed by the Federal Government. President Biden's recent mandate adds yet another roadblock to millions of Americans just trying to get by, forcing them to choose between getting vaccinated on the one hand and having a job on the other hand.

What it is doing is it is saying: Look, you don't agree with the government position on this? Fine. You are going to lose your job. You are going to pay. You are going to lose your job. You are going to be rendered unemployed and effectively unemployable. Not only that, but we are going to do it in a way that many instances will render it basically impossible for you to recover unemployment benefits.

One of the things that is particularly devious about this one is that the mandate itself hasn't been issued, and yet it has been now a month and a half or so since President Biden gave the speech announcing his intention to create it.

Had he created it, we would at least know what we were dealing with. We would know the precise source of authority in the law that he was claiming. We would know the contours of how it would be enforced. We would know the contours of any exceptions to the mandate.

And because we would have an order, there would be something that people could challenge in court, where necessary. But as of right now, we have none of those things. We have only this Damoclean sword hanging over the American people, who are forced to guess.

And in the meantime, we have corporate America--we have employers with more than 99 workers, understandably, scrambling in an effort to get ahead of this thing because they know that the penalties for noncompliance with this are likely to be significant. So many of them are trying to get ahead of it so they are not caught flat-footed and unable to comply.

As a result, many of these have just tried to guess at what the mandate will say and adopted those policies, sometimes knowing that their policies might be more aggressive than what the Federal Government will require.

But in the meantime, this leaves no one accountable. The corporations have the Federal Government to blame. And the Federal Government responds by saying there is no policy yet; there is nothing to sue on yet; there is nothing for the Federal courts to enjoin as unlawful, as unconstitutional, as an improper exercise of Federal power generally-- keeping in mind that the Federal Government is one of few and defined powers, as James Madison described them in Federalist No. 45. The powers reserved for the States are numerous and indefinite. We flipped that on its head here. There is nothing that gives the Federal Government this power.

My friend and colleague from Washington moments ago made the argument that vaccines are nothing new and that vaccine requirements are nothing new. Well, you know, they are new when it comes to a general mandate issued by the Federal Government to do this. Yes, there have been mandates in the past, but insofar as they deal with the general population as opposed to military personnel or certain government workers. These are not Federal law issues. These have been State law issues. The Federal Government has no general police powers.

Even if there were power within the Federal Government to do this, which I assure you there is not, we know for certain that one person acting alone--even if that person is the President of the United States--has not the power to do this.

This is, I believe, perhaps the most egregious example of Presidential overreach, the most shameless executive branch power grab since President Harry Truman seized all steel mills in the United States in the 1950s in order to support the Korean war effort.

Now, President Truman did not get away with that. The Supreme Court appropriately struck that down as well outside Presidential powers. You see, nothing in the Constitution and nothing in Federal statute gave President Truman the power to seize steel mills simply because he deemed them an important part of the war effort.

Here, that hasn't happened. Here, that can't happen--at least not yet because we don't have an order. The President, after making this announcement about 6 weeks ago, hasn't had the decency to even tell us what the source of his authority is.

And I will let you in on a secret: He has none. He has not a single scintilla, not a shred of authority--not statutorily, not constitutionally--to do this. He does haven't the power to do it.

Now, lest you be deceived into thinking that this is an academic infringement of some esoteric liberty, it is not. Let's be honest about what we are doing here. We are telling hard-working American moms and dads: If you do not succumb, if you do not heel, if you don't obey the Presidential dictate at issue here, you are going to lose your job.

We are making them decide between getting a vaccine to which they may have a medical or a religious or some other legitimate exemption on the one hand and on the other hand becoming unemployed and unemployable. And in many instances, they are unable to even attain unemployment benefits because you know what a lot of these companies are doing--again, in order to get ahead of the mandate--they are adopting their own draconian and aggressive policies. They are already firing people. In some cases, they are not firing them. They are putting them on unpaid administrative leave, making it impossible for them to get unemployment. Is that really what we want to do?

Look, I understand the COVID-19 vaccine is a good thing. I consider it a medical miracle of sorts. What do you say to somebody whose religious beliefs make this an unacceptable choice for them? What do you say to someone with a genuinely serious medical condition, someone who has been told by his or her board-certified medical doctor, ``Don't get this vaccine. You, in your case, you shouldn't get it because of medical condition X, Y, or Z''? What do you say to that person? Do you really want to tell that person that them being brought to heel with the Federal directive issued by one person, in the absence of any statutory or constitutional authority to do that, that is more important; that is so compelling, that they have to be rendered unemployed, unemployable and ineligible, in many instances, even to collect unemployment? Is that really what we have sunk to? I hope not. I don't believe we have.

The American people know better. They know that is not how we resolve disputes in this country. It is certainly not how we treat religious minorities or people with medical conditions that make them have a different set of concerns than other people. That is not how we act.

By the way, it is also a good reason why we don't make law in this country through one person because, of course, Mr. President, a law like that would never pass. It would never pass here in the Senate or in the House of Representatives. It couldn't withstand that kind of scrutiny, not the way it has been laid out--not a chance.

Deep down, the President of the United States perhaps knows this. I can only assume--of course, I can't read another human being's subjective mindset--but I can only assume that he would have brought it to Congress and given us the opportunity to consider it and adopt it. He cut out the people's elected representatives, the people's elected lawmakers whose constitutional obligation and authority it is to make the law so we can only make assumptions from them.

But it is not as though he didn't have time to do it. Six weeks have elapsed since he made the announcement. Meanwhile, I am hearing from countless people across America, including 300 or so people from the State of Utah who are themselves being put in impossible positions.

Now, look, mind you, for most people, this isn't a big deal. Most people in America have chosen to get the vaccine, and I am glad they have, but there are a lot of people whose stories are heart-wrenching.

Just this week, I heard from a flight attendant who works with a major U.S. airline. She has religious beliefs that make her opposed to getting this vaccine or any vaccine. She is a hard-working employee. She has been a faithful flight attendant, and it is a job that she has loved and she has enjoyed throughout her entire adult professional career. It is a job that has benefited her and her family, allowed her to make a living, put food on the table. She is now being faced with this awful choice between, on the one hand, betraying her religious beliefs--which she is unwilling to do--and, on the other hand, losing a job which is her only means of earning a living, of feeding her family. How is this fair? How is this just? How is this constitutional? It is not.

Troublingly, there are now signs that the White House isn't satisfied with just making Americans who haven't received the vaccine unemployed and unemployable. The administration is reportedly also considering a medical mandate for interstate travel. Such a move would be deeply constitutionally concerning, but it would also revoke yet another freedom and make yet another group of American citizens solidly second class.

The privileges and immunities clause of the 14th Amendment, of course, protects the right to interstate travel. There is no precedent in our Nation's history of a requirement of this nature for interstate travel.

Even if those considerations were somehow untrue--they are not, but even if they were--Congress has certainly not granted such authority to the President of the United States to act unilaterally, nor would we ever.

A mandate requiring people to get the COVID-19 vaccine in order to have the privilege, the benefit, which is actually just a right, one that the American people ought to be able to rely on to travel interstate within the United States, is truly unthinkable.

But many of the Federal Government's actions over the last year have

shown Americans the real threat it poses to freedom and simply to common sense. Remember, this is the administration that has forced our 2-year-olds to wear masks for hours at a time on airplanes, buses, trains, and in bus depots, train stations, and airports--2-year-olds. For any parent out there or for anyone who has ever actually interacted with a 2-year-old human, you can certainly understand how absurd this is, especially when our peer nations have recognized there is no need to mask a 2-year-old.

But back to the mandate for a minute. If we think through this disturbing possibility of forced medical treatment as a condition precedent for visiting family in another State or traveling for business reasons or traveling for any reason at all from one State to another, the impacts are clear, and they are devastating. Businesses already hard-hit by the pandemic--the travel and hospitality sectors-- would, of course, be further strained; collateral damage, I suppose, on the part of those who would push such an oppressive move.

Individuals could be marooned in States or they couldn't work, couldn't go to restaurants, and couldn't leave. And the social capital built from face-to-face interactions would be further set back.

I believe vaccines are generally safe, and they help protect people from the harms of contracting COVID-19. I have in the past and I still now continue to encourage people to get the vaccine, but we must ask what ends this administration is willing to go to to cudgel Americans to this state-sponsored health edict.

I am personally uncomfortable with such sweeping mandates, but, more importantly, I am required by my oath to protect the Constitution of the United States to oppose this action. That is why I brought forward my latest iteration of my efforts against this unlawful, unconstitutional, and still inchoate mandate. My Let Me Travel America Act would clarify the law and prohibit the Federal Government from mandating that Americans receive shots against COVID-19 as a prerequisite for interstate travel.

I am grateful that my colleagues, Senators Tuberville, Braun, and Sullivan, have joined me as cosponsors of this bill.

This is a commonsense, practical, reasonable bill, one that would simply provide assurance and protection to millions of Americans whose rights are under attack.

Moments ago, I came here, and I asked unanimous consent that we pass this bill today with the understanding that I am going to continue to come back day after day, as long as it takes, to address what the President is doing.

The Senate had a chance to protect the American people from yet another unconstitutional overreach. It is disappointing to me, really, that my friend and colleague, the Senator from Washington, chose to object to its adoption.

This shouldn't be controversial. It is really not controversial among the American people. I guarantee you, you take a poll asking people should the Federal Government ever be able to tell you that you can't travel interstate unless you receive a particular medical treatment, there is no way the American people would think that is a good idea because it is not, because it is absurd, and because it violates everything that we believe in.

Now, my friend and colleague, the distinguished Senator from Washington, made the point that such measures can't be enacted because, according to her, they supposedly undermine vaccine efforts. Do you know what undermines the vaccine effort? What undermines the vaccine effort is when you try to use the overpowering cudgel of coercive force, a type and a level of coercive force that no other entity on planet Earth can wield more strongly than the Federal Government--you use that cudgel to tell people who haven't gotten it yet: You must get this.

Look, a lot of people have been getting the vaccine. Yes, there are some holdouts, and they have their reasons for being holdouts. There are a lot of ways that you can convince someone to do something that they don't currently want to do. One of the things that is going to make it far less likely that they get the vaccine is for them to be told that they are being threatened with their jobs. It is not how you win. Even if it were that we could somehow chalk this up as a win here, that is not who we are; that is not how we play.

And this is unprecedented. Make no mistake, the Federal Government has never undertaken anything like this. States and political subdivisions of States--meaning cities, towns, counties, so forth-- States and their subdivisions have general police powers, meaning broad power to protect health, safety, and welfare; to protect life, liberty, and property in whatever manner they deem appropriate, subject, of course, to such limitations as may be placed on them either by their State Constitution or by the U.S. Constitution.

But States and their subdivisions have the ability to enact legislation like this--health, safety, welfare legislation--in a way that the Federal Government doesn't. We have to act pursuant to one of the enumerated powers in the Constitution.

I challenge anyone to identify what source of authority can fairly be said to give the Federal Government this kind of power. It doesn't exist. We have never exercised this power with respect to the U.S. population at large. It is a different thing entirely to point to vaccine requirements that we have had for certain Federal personnel, including our military servicemembers. We have never done anything like this. If we were to ever consider something like this at a Federal level, I would have grave concerns with it because I don't think it is the prerogative of the Federal Government.

But I can tell you one thing, I am darn certain we would never give one person the authority to impose such a mandate. No, that is not how our constitutional system works. There are a lot of reasons why we no longer fly the Union Jack. A lot of them had to do with what happens when you have a dangerous accumulation of power in the hands of a few. That is one of the reasons why we put in place a rigid set of requirements saying that before you change the legal status quo, before you pass a law, you have to run it through Congress. Any Federal law, assuming it is acting in an area within the Federal Government's power and authority and jurisdiction, it can't become law, Federal law, until you run it through the House, run the same language through the Senate. Then you present it to the President for an opportunity for veto, signature, or acquiescence. Without going through that process, you have not made a Federal law.

Look, Harry Truman's effort to seize the entire steel industry in the United States was unlawful. It was unconstitutional. And, mercifully, the courts were able to dispense of that in a relatively short period of time.

We don't even have the luxury of going to court in this instance because the President hasn't had the decency to show us his work, to tell us what he is actually doing.

Meanwhile, he is bullying corporate America to do his dirty work for him. Corporate America is dutifully complying in some cases, perhaps out of allegiance or a desire to appear compliant with the President's wishes; in other instances, just for more practical reasons. They don't want to be stuck with the heavy fines that may be levied against them if they are caught flat-footed and unprepared for what may be coming. So they are doing the President's dirty work for him. They are doing the firing, rendering people unemployed, unemployable, and in some cases ineligible even to receive unemployment.

Shame on him and shame on us if we don't call this out for what it is, which is an aggressive, unconstitutional, baseless power grab.

My friend and distinguished colleague, the Senator from Washington, also pointed to what she referred to as tailored exemptions to the vaccine mandate.

What exemptions?

There is no mandate. There are no exemptions. Yeah, he has spoken in aspirational terms about certain exemptions that would be available, but corporate America doesn't know what they are. And so corporate America, acting on the advice of counsel, is understandably being very aggressive, erring on the side of firing more people and rendering more people unemployed and unemployable, and in many cases rendering them incapable of receiving unemployment.

So, no. No. Don't tell me these are tailored exemptions, when there aren't even exemptions. In order for it to be an exemption, you have got to have a mandate. There is no mandate. There is just the threatened use of the mandate that is making corporate America decide that it is in its best interest to do the President's dirty work for him, and in a way that protects him from being questioned on legal, meritorious grounds in court.

And if we can't muster the legislative will to defend that power which is rightfully ours--not ours in the sense that we personally own it, but it has been given to the people, the power to make sure that laws are passed only by their elected Representatives and Senators--we can't stand up for this, shame on us.

And if we can't stand up for even a further encroachment on that power and on the corresponding right that the American people have long come to depend upon, to be able to travel interstate without undue hindrance or interference from their government, it is a sad outcome, one that I can't countenance. That is why I am going to be back day after day, as long as it takes. The American people expect more. The American people deserve better.

Mr. President, President Biden announced his vague, still- unwritten mandate for the vaccine just almost a month ago. He said then, at the time of his announcement, that his ``patience was wearing thin.'' Those are his words, not mine. Yet, oddly, President Biden's administration is now in no particular rush to implement the rule. So almost a month has now elapsed, but there is still no rule and therefore no implementation of the rule. Perhaps President Biden and those who work with him are realizing what countless Americans already know: that the mandate was not well thought out.

First, neither the President of the United States specifically nor the Federal Government generally has the authority to issue a sweeping vaccine mandate of this nature. The Constitution doesn't empower the Federal Government and certainly not the President individually, acting in isolation, with the right, the authority, or the power to broadly dictate personal medical decisions for all Americans with the stroke of the Executive pen.

I spoke earlier this week and I also spoke last week about individuals with religious, moral, and medical reasons to forgo vaccinations. The President's mandate ignores their concerns and their rights.

Much of corporate America is already starting to fire unvaccinated workers despite the legitimate religious, moral, or health concerns that those workers might have. Some are even being charged fees for being married to an unvaccinated spouse. So it is not just their decisions but that of their spouses that are causing them to confront adverse action from their employer, all as a result of this mandate--a mandate which doesn't yet exist. Even though time was of the essence a month ago when it was issued, there is still no rule and still nothing to enforce, but people are starting to enforce what they think will be in the rule if and when it ever does get promulgated.

In recent days, I have heard from over 200 Utahns who are at risk of losing their jobs due to this mandate. They are scared of becoming not just unemployed but unemployable--unemployable, second-class outcasts due to the President's order.

Have we lost compassion? Have we lost all reason? Troublingly, it seems that these mandates aren't based in reason. The mandate completely ignores the millions of Americans who have previously contracted and recovered from COVID-19. These people have antibodies against the virus.

In other countries where significant research on natural immunity has been conducted, the results are compelling. A study conducted in Italy shows that natural immunity is more effective than vaccines at reducing risk of future infection. Another study of half a million people in Denmark has shown that natural immunity provides significant, lasting protection against infection. Finally, a study from three separate hospitals in Israel found that natural immunity from a previous COVID infection was ``27 times more effective than vaccinated immunity in preventing symptomatic infections.'' But the President's mandate announcement makes no mention of natural immunity--no mention whatsoever. Our entire national health apparatus seems to disregard the significant protection individuals have if they previously had and recovered from COVID.

Now, I believe the vaccines are generally safe and effective. I have been vaccinated. Every member of my family has been vaccinated, with my encouragement. I see these vaccines as a miracle, one that is helping to protect millions and millions of Americans--hundreds of millions of Americans, for that matter. But I also recognize that millions of Americans are already protected by their natural defenses because they contracted COVID, before the vaccines were available in many instances, and they have recovered and therefore have natural immunity. The science shows that this immunity is strong, that it is effective, and that it is widespread in America.

So I, today, am offering a bill that would require Federal Agencies to recognize, accept, truthfully characterize, and include natural immunity in any regulation. This bill does not say that vaccines are bad or unhelpful; it merely asks the Federal Government to respect widely available science.

I am glad to be joined in this effort by Senators Braun, Tuberville, and Sullivan as cosponsors.

The bill would allow us to keep Americans employed and help us beat

the pandemic in a smart way, in a reasoned, rational way, and in a compassionate way.

Now, I believe--in fact, I am quite confident that the mandate in its entirety will be struck down as unconstitutional, as having been issued outside the authority of the President of the United States. This simple bill wouldn't undo the whole thing, as I believe the courts are certain ultimately to do. This simple bill is narrow, and it would simply give peace of mind to Americans and employers by recognizing and upholding evidence-based realities concerning our natural defense to COVID. It is a commonsense proposal, and I urge my colleagues to support it.

So, Mr. President, as if in legislative session, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on HELP be discharged from further consideration of S. 2846 and that 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 appreciate the insight and the thoughtful attention paid to this matter by my friend and distinguished colleague, the Senator from Washington.

I respectfully submit that we are not dealing with theatrics when it comes to hard-working Americans, including the more than 200 Utahns whom I have heard from just in the last 2 weeks, who are losing their jobs or are at immediate risk for doing so based on a decision forced upon them by an action that has been threatened but not taken and in no way legally articulated by the President of the United States.

These are not theatrics for those who are losing their jobs. That is just not an accurate portrayal, and it really is disrespectful to those who are enduring that. To them, these are not theatrics. To them, this is their ability to make a living.

As far as the characterization that these claims of natural immunity are one off, I have yet to see any study that refutes the studies I referenced a moment ago--not the one from Denmark, not the one from Italy, and not the one from Israel that shows the significant immunity benefits conferred by a previous COVID infection, one from which a person has fully recovered. In the case of at least two of those studies--the one from Italy and the one from Israel--the immunity is as strong if not stronger. In fact, the one from Israel concluded that it is 27 times more protective.

Yet we continue to hear efforts like this one today characterized as ``theatrics,'' characterized as ``nonsense ideas like this bill''-- bills that try, in the case of the bill that we are talking about today, to protect the employment rights and the personal decisions of Americans who have natural immunity or, as in previous bills, those who have a legitimate medical concern, especially where that concern is one that has been taken on the advice of a board-certified physician who has advised them, based on a preexisting medical condition, not to get it.

I also heard that the President has indicated that there would be exceptions. We don't know what those exceptions are. Many of those exceptions are not being honored by those segments of corporate America already moving to implement and enforce this vaccine mandate.

What is happening is that HR departments and general counsel's offices in large corporations--those with more than 99 employees--are understandably trying to get ahead of this so that they are not behind when the rule actually issues, so they won't run any risk of the aggressive, heavy fines with which they have already been threatened. So for that reason, many of them are trying to get ahead of it, and many of them are now using President Biden's speech about the yet-to- exist rule, and they are either threatening to fire or preparing to fire or in some cases already have fired people regardless of any exceptions that they think they ought to be entitled to. It is easier for the corporation, in some instances, perhaps, or maybe more convenient or maybe more in conformity with the liking of the individuals making the decision to do that, but it is not fair to the workers. It is especially not fair in light of the fact that all of these actions are being undertaken in response to a yet-to-exist rule promulgated by an executive branch Agency that has yet to act at the behest of the President of the United States--one person without statutory authority and without constitutional authority to do this. That is tragic.

Because he doesn't have the authority to do this, it shouldn't happen at all. At a minimum, we, as the lawmaking body within the Federal Government, have an obligation to take it down. Even if we can't take it all down or to stop it, we at least have an obligation to try to make its effects less draconian, less hurtful, and less harmful to individuals who, by no choice of their own and no fault of their own, aren't in a position to get this, whether because of religious convictions, natural immunity, or a health condition or something else.

It is tragic. We are better than this. We should be acting to protect Americans, not make them more vulnerable.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Will the gentleman yield for a question?

Senator Paul, when you and I were both elected to the Senate back in 2010, I remember the national debt was an issue then. It was becoming large enough that people were concerned about it. As it mounted, sometimes we had conversations about how long it might continue--how long it might continue to spiral upward.

Are you surprised to see that here we are, 11 year later, 11 years after you and I arrived here, and where it has gone since then?

If the gentleman would yield for a question again, I believe it was during that summer that a number of people started focusing on emerging economic research, including research proposed by Professors Rogoff and Reinhart at Stanford University suggesting that whenever the debt-to-GDP ratio exceeds a certain level, exceeds roughly 100 percent, 1-to-1, certain things start to happen, and economic growth becomes more elusive.

As I recall, we were nowhere close, yet, to the 1-to-1 ratio. Now that we have blown past that, what do you think that ought to tell us about the fact that, even as we have blown past that point, we are now being asked to raise the debt ceiling by larger and larger amounts or as sometimes----

For a time period without any reform.

Now, we have seen, with--our status as the United States having the world's reserve currency, the U.S. dollar, has given us some flexibility in that area, flexibility that other countries like Greece haven't had.

Do you think there is some risk of becoming overly confident in that world reserve currency status? In other words, could we be jeopardizing the very thing that we fought so hard to achieve and that so few nations ever achieve?

In an economy where currency and circulation isn't backed up by any tangible object and where the government has effectively the ability to just print more money, even if that currency happens to be the world's reserve currency, at some point after you keep printing money, doesn't that cause problems?

Mr. President, we have a debt ceiling for a reason. It is not completely arbitrary. It is not just made up. It is not something that someone came up with for their own amusement. No. When the sheer numeric volume, the quantity, the amount of our national debt ceases to cause panic; when the principle of jeopardizing our children's future loses effect; when the sacrifice it would cost taxpayers to pay the debt becomes laughably large; when all else fails, Congress sets a cap and says: Here, here, here. We have to think about this. We have to think about this debt problem.

There is a reason why we have that. They are sound reasons rooted in logic, rooted in mathematics, rooted in the inevitability of our own future if we don't control the way that the Federal Government spends money. Now, nearly half of the Members of this entire body--almost the entirety of the Senate Republican conference--wrote a letter almost 2 months ago, saying that we would not raise the debt limit. We committed that we were finally going to make a change for the sake of families back home and generations still unborn. We were going to make a change to rein in reckless spending.

Now we are faced with more spending and more debt than our country has ever seen before. Our debt-to-GDP ratio has now reached a staggering level of 125 percent.

The national debt is rushing toward $30 trillion, and far too quickly, this body is signaling a willingness and, I might dare say, an eagerness to sign on

the dotted line without thinking through the consequences or at least without thinking through the consequences of everyone outside this building, without thinking through the consequences of those who are wealthy and well connected and will probably fare just fine regardless of the Federal Government's reckless practice of effectively just printing more money.

Let me tell you why that is such a problem and why I think it is so dangerous. First of all, as I mentioned a moment ago in my exchange with the Senator from Kentucky, once we pass this 1-to-1 debt-to-GDP ratio, economists have scoured the landscape and looked at economies all over the world throughout human history, throughout periods of time in which any records have been kept at all, and they have concluded that this 100 percent debt-to-GDP ratio is tragic; it is dangerous; it is perilous. Once you cross that Rubicon, you are in some very, very tough positions. Economic growth starts to sputter. It staggers. It becomes more and more difficult to get out of the death spiral.

You see, in the past, even as our national debt has been on the rise, we have been OK insofar as it has increased, more or less, to a degree commensurate with the size of our economy. Economic growth has been such that it remained, more or less, constant--less constant lately, but it has remained somewhat proportional to the size of our economy. Economic growth has propelled that, but that is the problem. It is the goose that laid the golden egg. And we know what happens when you get rid of that goose or when you meaningfully impair its ability to lay those golden eggs.

Once we reach that point, we pass the 100 percent debt-to-GDP ratio, we know that our economic growth will stall, and it will become far more difficult to pay off. We also know that it matters on a very personal level, for reasons I will get into more in just a moment, for poor and middle-class American families everywhere, throughout Utah and across America. People who are living paycheck to paycheck or otherwise on a fixed income or fixed budget, like most American families, find that when the government just prints more money--as it tends to do when we start to borrow and then spend trillions of dollars at a time more than the Federal Government is bringing in--that brings about inflation. It is as though there are a basket of goods that the economy is capable of faithfully, consistently producing from one year to another. The basket of goods might grow or shrink a little bit from year to year, but it is going to tend to fluctuate mostly at the margins. The big picture is going to look fairly consistent.

So what happens when the government just prints more money and puts that into circulation? The purchasing power of each dollar is diminished. Now, this tends to work out fine. In fact, it can work out really well for wealthy and well-connected individuals. The rich usually figure out a way to get even richer off of this dynamic. They can hedge against it. They can figure out a way to benefit in one way or another from the chaos and sometimes even from the government spending. But where does that leave everyone else? Well, for most people--and by ``most people'' I mean 99 percent of Americans--it is not going to make them wealthier. It is going to make them poorer because most people are still living with more or less the same income, more or less the same resources. They have still got more or less the same basket of goods in the economy, but when you have got more dollars in the American economy because we are effectively printing more, each dollar matters less. It buys less--everything from gas to groceries, from housing to healthcare. Poor and middle-class American families suffer while the wealthy and well connected might benefit. And a small handful of politicians receive a pat on the back, thanking them, congratulating them as they congratulate themselves and each other for what they characterize as a job well done.

Sure, they will always be able to point to someone who benefits from the programs they are sponsoring that they are creating. Some of those people won't be wealthy and well-connected interests. Some of them will be deserving families, some of them, poor and middle-class American families. But, you know, most families are just made poorer as government expands its footprint.

Let's look at what happened last year alone. During the last few years before the pandemic, we were bringing in about $3 trillion a year in tax revenue. We were spending about $4 trillion--a massive, embarrassing, disgraceful, indefensible deficit, an annual deficit of about a trillion dollars a year. It was inexcusable, especially at the height--at the peak--of an economic cycle.

Then the pandemic hit. Last year, we still brought in about $3 trillion in tax revenue, just as we had expected, just as we had during the previous 2 years. Only this time we didn't spend $4 trillion. We spent $6.6 trillion. We brought in $3 trillion, and we spent $6.6 trillion. We spent more than double what we brought in. We spent more money that was borrowed than the money that was paid into the Treasury.

What did that do? Well, it dramatically increased the money supply-- abruptly, in a way that hurts poor and middle-class American families. It is a predictable, foreseeable result.

Look, if you are playing Monopoly and all of a sudden you decide to just double the amount of money that everyone gets in the game, it doesn't make everybody better off; it just increases the prices that are paid.

What happens when that is real money and those are real people, when it is not just plastic game pieces at stake, but it is hungry mouths that need to be fed and sheltered and cared for? That is where it hurts. And that is what is so tragic when the Government colludes with itself, with a small handful of people on the outside encouraging it to do so, some whispering in the ears of the politicians, telling them that they will be doing so many great things; that the expenditures and the expansion of government is worth the investment.

They are not doing it with their own money. No, they are doing it with the money of America's poor and middle class. It is really a sort of reverse Robin Hood sort of thing. We are stealing from the poor to give to the rich and the well connected and to give good headlines to a small handful of politicians. Shame on us. Shame on us all. Shame on this institution as we have done that.

Look, I came to the U.S. Senate 11 years ago, committed to reducing the size, the scope, the reach, the cost, and the overall footprint of the Federal Government and its impact on the lives of everyday citizens. I did so based on the understanding and based on the indisputable fact that whenever government expands its reach, it does so at the expense of individual liberty and individual prosperity.

It doesn't mean that government doesn't have a place. It doesn't mean that we don't need government; quite the contrary, we do. But it just means that there is always a balancing that has to be taken into account. You can't expand government without hurting average, everyday people who are subject to those things.

Unfortunately, 11 years later, that same government is larger, more expensive, and more burdensome than ever before. In a farcically futile system, Americans now work for months out of every year just to pay their Federal taxes. Then, after all that is done, they are insultingly demeaned and told that it is not enough; in fact, it hasn't been enough for a long time.

Even though some of you who are now taxpayers and now voters have now worked months--at least weeks, maybe months--out of every year just to pay your Federal taxes, and even though a lot of this debt may have been accumulated before some of you were old enough to vote or some of you were even born, no matter. You have got to pay it. This is making that worse. We are making it worse for present living Americans, those who are of voting age, working age, taxpaying age, and those who are not. And it is also adding burdens to those who have not even been born, whose parents have yet to meet. The regulatory state is growing ever more costly in terms of its economic impact.

I have been studying the cost of the Federal regulatory system for about 25 years. I first started thinking about it while I was in law school. I remember a guest speaker came to speak at our

law school, and he explained that the Federal regulatory system adds what he characterized as sort of a backdoor, invisible, de facto tax on poor and middle-class Americans. He explained that it is a backdoor invisible tax, it is regressive, and that it affects everyone and disproportionately the poor and middle class because of the fact that nowhere is any consumer able to identify the precise cost to them. In fact, most of them don't even know that it exists because unlike their tax bill, there is no return at the end of the year. Unlike their sales tax that typically will show up on someone's receipt or a property tax or anything else, there is no written indication of it that tells any one taxpayer or citizen what it is costing them every year. But it is there.

Anyway, back in I think 1996 or 1997, he explained that the Federal regulatory system was imposing this backdoor, invisible, highly regressive tax on Americans to the tune of $3 or $400 billion a year. I remember thinking, this is staggering, because that is a lot of money. It is a lot of money that could otherwise go toward other priorities, whether in the government, you know, shoring up Social Security or Medicare; or some other program providing for soldiers, sailors, airmen, and marines with what they need; or in the lives of families, providing for housing, education, for nourishment or other needs of our children. It just goes into the cost of complying with Federal regulations.

So, yes, Americans do pay for that, we explained; they just pay for it in a way that they can't quite see. There is no single bill that tallies the size of the expense for it, but they do pay for it nonetheless. They pay for it with higher prices on goods and services, everything they buy, and they also pay for it with diminished wages, unemployment, and underemployment.

So here we are 25 years later. No one knows for sure what the Federal regulatory system costs, but most estimates I have seen of late put the number at about $2 trillion a year--$2 trillion. That is the backdoor, invisible tax that Americans pay through higher prices on goods and services, diminished wages, unemployment, and underemployment, due to what it costs to comply with Federal regulations.

Most people don't even think much about Federal regulations, and with good reason. People have other, better things to do. Those who do think about them are perhaps inclined to think--maybe because they have been taught to think or because they have never been taught otherwise--that these costs are borne by billionaires; that they are borne by big, blue chip corporations or a type of industrial tycoon whom you would associate with a Monopoly game piece perhaps. But they are, in fact, borne by poor and middle-class Americans everywhere. That is money they can't get back, on top of the money they had to pay after working weeks or months out of every year just to pay their Federal taxes, and then being told: By the way, after the $2 trillion that you as a people were required to pay through this backdoor, invisible, highly regressive regulatory tax, so to speak, and on top of the $3 trillion that you paid on your taxes, it is still not enough because we are now nearly $29 trillion in debt. It is sad. It is insulting. It is discouraging.

I mentioned inflation a minute ago, and I want to get back to that for a moment. It is the natural, foreseeable consequence of a government that really knows no limits on what it is there to do and knows essentially no limits on what it can spend. These days, if the Federal Government can dream it, if politicians can desire it, they can fund it.

There has never been an institution on planet Earth that had access to more capital than the Federal Government does. There has never been a government in the existence of planet Earth that has had the ability to produce the amount of wealth that this Nation has and the ability of its people to produce that wealth and the ability of the government to spend that amount of money. Because of that, this government also has tremendous bargaining power, and it has correspondingly tremendous borrowing power that goes along with that.

In other words, because the American economy has been strong and because the U.S. dollar has been the world's reserve currency of choice, that has given us this ability. It might make it seem like money, while not growing on trees technically, can be sort of printed into existence, just taken out of thin air, and that we won't feel the consequence for it.

Now, you can get away with that a little bit longer when you have the world's reserve currency and in an economy as large as ours, with credit that has been relatively good compared to that of other sovereign nations, but it does have limits, and we are seeing those limits now. We are seeing them in ways that we haven't seen yet. I was worried about this, scared to death of it 10, 11 years ago when I first got here, but it is so much worse now. It is so much worse now because we have behaved in a way that has made it worse. You can't hide it for that long. The piper eventually has to be paid, and the consequences can eventually make themselves known. It is finally starting to harm American families by reducing their real earnings and undercutting their purchasing power.

In new research that we just released this week, the Joint Economic Committee, Republicans--and I am the ranking Republican on that committee--found that these rising prices are brought about as a result of a mix of two types of inflation: transitory inflation and more lasting inflation brought about by runaway government spending. We found that government stimulus measures have ignited more lasting and more systemic inflation. These inflationary pressures are building on transitory inflation, and they are pushing prices higher.

That is why I am really concerned that, over a year after the recession officially ended, Congress continues undaunted, unhindered, and seemingly more eager than ever in its desire to pursue new massive government spending measures, including a $3.5 trillion budget resolution--the single largest spending package in history.

If Congress continues to pursue spending packages that boost consumer demand while at the same time depressing employment and investment, which is exactly what we are doing, then government-induced inflation will increase even further, with even more drastic, painful consequences for us all but especially for America's poor and middle class. The wealthy and well connected will do just fine. The wealthiest among us will probably get richer as a result. The politicians among us who vote for these things will probably be patted on the back, congratulated by a compliant, dutiful news media, and, most importantly, congratulated by each other, while poor and middle-class Americans will be left silently carrying the bill and bearing the pain of what they are doing to them.

Congress should consider the inflationary risks of this pattern of unfettered, unrestrained government spending. My colleagues should be aware that the costs go beyond the simple sticker price of new spending.

The American people will be better served by policies that are geared toward returning Americans to work and removing barriers to business investment in American workers. But we are not doing that. We are going in the opposite direction of where we should, and as a result, Americans are paying the price, especially poor and middle-class Americans.

It is certainly affecting people in my home State of Utah. Eighty- five percent of Utahans who were polled recently said that they were concerned about inflation, and they have reason to be. We have data from all over the country. Look, nationwide, overall, prices are up 5.3 percent over last year, just in 1 year alone--5.3 percent overall nationwide. In some areas of the economy, it is particularly acute. You see it in meat prices, which are up 8 percent overall from last year. Beef is an astounding 12 percent more expensive than last year. Milk is 10 percent more expensive. Gasoline costs 50 percent more than it did a year ago. In the Salt Lake City area, home prices are up 26 percent above where they were last year. So everything from gas to groceries and from housing to healthcare--they are all going up in like fashion.

Global supply chains, quite frankly, can't keep up. Warnings are already being raised about holiday shortages and huge price increases as there just

aren't enough goods in the entire economy to meet demand, because, again, you just add more money to it. It doesn't make it more affordable; it makes it less affordable. More spending and therefore more money chasing fewer goods will only cause prices to rise even more. That hurts the poorest Americans the most.

The Federal Government prioritizes those who are already wealthy and well connected with its spending, and its politicians right here in this Chamber congratulate themselves and each other and are congratulated by a compliant mainstream news media that for whatever reason always wants to praise the expansion of the Federal Government even when it hurts America's poor and middle class, which it does.

Americans are paying the price. Poor and middle-class Americans are paying the price--those least able to do anything about it. Yes, we are causing that. Those we prioritize, helping the wealthy and well connected with this kind of spending--those Americans who don't have paid lobbyists are left in the dust, holding the bags and harmed the most.

We aren't cold or calloused for rejecting more spending--no, no. We are considering those who end up paying the price for this Monopoly money ploy to spend without end. The everyday Americans, the hard- working Americans shouldn't be harmed like this. Yet they are going to be. They are already feeling that. It is indefensible.

So we are nearing the point of nearly $29 trillion in our national debt. It is the highest debt in our Nation's history. The debt-to-GDP ratio is now over 125 percent. As I mentioned a few minutes ago, debt- to-GDP ratio, where economic growth around the world throughout human history--growth tends to stall out once we cross that 100 percent debt- to-GDP ratio. Just a couple of years ago, we were still in the 80- percent range, and now we are at about 125 percent.

Politicians have promised to deal with the national debt for decades. They promised it over and over and over again, and now the argument has shifted. Some on the other side of the aisle are saying that debt doesn't matter or that it might even be good. In fact, they are saying that it is so necessary that if we don't add to it, if we don't augment it, if we don't feed this beast, then we are somehow going to cause an economic catastrophe.

Now, look, it may be good for their socialist makeover of America. It is disastrous for the people back home, especially those who they claim will be benefitting from it. The debt has reached absolutely unimaginable levels. It is almost $230,000 per taxpayer, nearing $87,000 per citizen.

Meanwhile, businesses across the country are struggling to keep their doors open among labor shortages, skyrocketing prices, heavy regulation, vaccine and other mandates, and people losing their jobs.

Because the President of the United States is using authority he doesn't have through an order he is unwilling to even share with us, they are going to choose, in some cases, between getting a vaccine that in some cases might be hazardous to their health based on unique circumstances and the judgment of their own doctor--yet they have to choose between getting the vaccine and losing their job.

Many businesses are barely inching along. So, no, they don't need more government spending. In fact, talking to countless business owners in Utah, more spending is the last thing they need. But it is certainly the last thing that poor and middle-class Americans need. What happens when we do that is they all get poorer, even as we are congratulated and we congratulate each other for expanding government yet again.

I have had recent conversations with a number of businessowners who, because of the heavy hand, the heavy spending practices of government, have been unable to keep themselves even in business.

I spoke to one of many restaurant owners recently who explained his inability, even after increasing repeatedly the offering price, offering huge, huge sign-in bonuses--$15, then $16, then $18, then $19, then $20 an hour on top of that hiring bonus just to hire people to work in his restaurant in a college town with a lot of young people who are usually willing to work in restaurants. They couldn't do it because of government interference. The government was competing with them. The government was paying people more to not work than they could be paid to work. This is only compounding the problem.

None of this would be possible if we weren't effectively operating this government with a printing press that makes the American people poorer.

So, yes, I signed that letter 2 months ago, along with 46 Republican Senators, almost the entire Senate Republican Conference. I signed that not just because the letter looked neat, not because it would get praise--I know we would get the opposite of that in the press--but because of the people we represent, especially the poor and middle class we represent, who will be made poorer and less secure every single time we do this.

I can't vote to raise this debt ceiling, not right now, especially given the plans at play to increase spending immediately by another $3.5 trillion, which according to some is only as low as $3.5 trillion because of creative accounting. But the real number might be more than $5 trillion. Regardless, we can't do that. We can't afford that.

It is not that the government can't physically do it--we know its ability to do it--but we also know that when it exercises that ability to do that, poor and middle-class Americans suffer.

I can't do this to them, neither should any of us.

Thank you.

Mr. President, we had a number of Senators come to the floor over the last couple of hours talking about some of the problems that we face as a country. They are real, they are serious, and they are being made more severe still and more severe than they need to be by virtue of the step that the Senate is, I fear, about to take.

When we extend the debt limit without any plan as to how you are not going to be back in the same position in just a few more months and you are raising it or, as we have been doing it lately, just suspending the debt limit, you are creating sort of a debt limit Mardi Gras, an era in which any amount of additional borrowing is permitted during that period.

It becomes especially dangerous during times like this one, where we are spending not just to the tune of billions, not just to the tune of hundreds of billions, not just to the tune of a trillion more than we take in, but to the tune of many trillions more than we take in each and every year. That is what is hurting poor and middle-class American families. It is a reverse Robin Hood that is so perverse. It is a reverse Robin Hood effect. We are effectively borrowing--stealing from the poor and giving it to the rich and well connected, and we are giving the praise that accompanies it to the politicians who clamor for attention as a result of other people spending other people's money that other people will have to work for to earn back and to pay it back. Some of those people aren't old enough to vote yet; some of them have not been born; and some will be born years from now to parents who have not met.

It is not fair for us to do that, and that is why this isn't just another debt ceiling debate. It is not just another debt limit discussion. This one is so much bigger than it has been in the past. The effects are being felt so much more directly than they have at any other time in the past when we have raised this.

I know that this can come across to a lot of people as an intensely partisan place. I understand how people can think that. In some ways it is. Everything about it reminds people of that, especially the visual images that they see. You know, we have got 100 desks in here; 50 of them are on that side of the aisle, and 50 of them are on this side of the aisle. And there are a number of issues on which there is a division of thought, a set of pretty deep disagreements that sometimes lead to votes that break down more or less along partisan lines. There is a lot of that.

In my view, it doesn't reflect a petulant desire to disagree for the sake of being disagreeable. It tends to reflect something a little deeper, a little more heartfelt, and, more than anything, it reflects a genuine difference of opinion among the people we represent.

We don't like to disagree around here. In fact, I like agreeing. I don't like being disagreeable with those on the other side of the aisle. Many of my very favorite people in the U.S. Senate are people who don't share my party affiliation and who are at the opposite end of the ideological spectrum for me. It makes it that much more fun to work with them because there are a number of areas where we can and where we do agree.

So there are ways in which this place is portrayed in the entertainment media and in the news media that are accurate, insofar as they show this sometimes heated debate that occurs across party lines. There is some of that that occurs. It is an incomplete picture because there are a lot of areas where we agree, where we reach conclusions that are good, and we reach them together.

There is another feature of that, though, that is very seldom portrayed in the news media, in the entertainment media, or elsewhere in our society and in our culture, and it worries me. And that is about the areas where there is bipartisanship--a bipartisanship that maybe is good for people in this Chamber, but leaves a lot of people out in the cold. It is good for politicians whether they have an R or a D after their name, but it is bad for everyone else, especially the poor and middle class. That part concerns me. It worries me a lot. You know, we didn't get to this point, going into the pandemic at the peak of an economic cycle, where we were spending a trillion dollars a year more than we were taking in--we didn't get to that point without a lot of bipartisanship.

We didn't get to the point of trillion-dollar annual deficits without a whole lot of Republicans and a whole lot of Democrats agreeing together to spend a trillion dollars more each year than we were taking in with record-low unemployment, with strong economic growth. We were still borrowing that much. Twenty-five percent--$1 out of every $4 spent by the government--was borrowed. There is a lot of bipartisanship in that, but not all bipartisanship is equal and not all bipartisanship is good for hard-working poor and middle-class Americans. Some of it is downright harmful.

We didn't get to the point where we spent last year more than double what we brought in. We brought in $3 trillion, miraculously, during the height of the pandemic, and yet we spent $6.6 trillion last year. We didn't get to that point without a whole lot of bipartisanship and without a whole lot of Republicans agreeing with a whole lot of Democrats to spend that much more than we had.

We didn't get to be almost $30 trillion in debt without a whole lot of bipartisanship. That was a whole lot of Republicans and a whole lot of Democrats

agreeing to do something that might have felt good in the moment--might have done a lot of good in the moment--but didn't take into account the forgotten man and the forgotten woman in the picture. The poor and middle-class family that finds it harder to get by, to buy everything from housing to healthcare, from gas to groceries, it didn't take them into account. So, no, not all bipartisanship makes sense. Not all bipartisanship has the best interests of the American people at heart.

Sometimes you need someone in the room to express hesitation, to express reluctance. Sometimes it is one or two, and sometimes it is half. That is why I was elated. I was pleased when a few months ago nearly every Member of the Senate Republican conference, 46 out of the 50 of us, signed a letter.

Now, the letter explained a few things, a few things that I think are pretty important to remember. It explained, for example, that we don't ever want to see the Federal Government default on its debt, pointing out that not raising the debt limit is a different decision than a decision to default on the debt. We bring in more than enough money every month and every year to meet the debt service obligations of every month and every year--a significant amount more, in fact.

Sometimes changing the prioritization of spending can allow us to borrow less than we would otherwise. So nearly every Member of the Republican Senate conference signed this letter acknowledging that we don't want to default. And we do find ourselves in an untenable position in which Democrats are wanting to pass a $3.5 trillion bill that really, according to the nonpartisan Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, would end up costing more like $5 trillion. And we don't think it is right in that circumstance to just suspend the debt ceiling and that we are not going to do it.

So we signed this letter. We said, we, the undersigned Republican Senators are letting Senate Democrats know and the American public know that we will not vote to increase the debt ceiling, whether that comes through a stand-alone bill, a continuing resolution, or any other vehicle. This is a problem created by Democratic spending, and Democrats will have to accept sole responsibility for facilitating.

I want to be clear. It is not saying that the underlying problem was created entirely by Democrats. But it is saying that what the Democrats were about to do and are still planning to do is the driving reason why we are unwilling to just suspend the debt ceiling. Remember, when we are suspending it, we are not just raising it by a certain amount. We are creating a period of debt ceiling Mardi Gras, a period in which any amount of additional borrowing is allowed under the law. And when you have got one party that wants to add to the tune of many trillions of dollars to our already out-of-control debt, one that is now in the range of about 125 percent of our GDP, that is a problem. It was not unreasonable for us to make that commitment. It would have been unreasonable for us not to make that commitment. Sometimes you need someone who is willing to say: Maybe this isn't such a good idea.

I commend those who signed the letter. I implore all who signed it to remember that commitment, to remember it to their voters. I don't think it helps for us to just suspend the debt ceiling anyway, and I don't think it helps to dismiss this simply as a cloture vote.

The point of the letter was that the Democrats have the ability to do this on their own through the reconciliation process. If they want to do it, they should use that process. They haven't used that process. In light of that, we have no business facilitating it.

I see we have an additional colleague here who is interested in speaking. In deference to him, I am going to let him proceed.

Before I do so, Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Congressional Record a copy of that letter, dated August 10, 2021, signed by 46 Republican Senators.

Thank you.

Mr. President, reserving the right to object. One hundred years ago, not many people could have imagined, certainly not predicted within a degree of accuracy, the kinds of technological advances that we have seen over the last century that have allowed us all to have lights in our own homes; to have televisions, cell phones, all manner of conveniences; and that these things would be widely available to rich and poor alike, urban and rural alike.

These are conveniences that are now so common that they are easy to take for granted. But they don't come about automatically. They didn't just happen. They have been brought to us as a result of labor and innovation and dedication of individuals who took chances and created something new.

Today, I stand opposed to the nomination of Shalanda Baker because she openly opposes the economic system that has brought so much fortune to our country. Regarding capitalism, free markets, Ms. Baker stated the following:

As we move into this new future, we must also remember that

a just transformation of our energy system requires a careful

interrogation of the racist, capitalist politics that

currently drive it. We must expose, and then eradicate, these

underpinnings.

Ms. Baker, in addition to having made statements like that one, advocates for a cap-and-floor model for electric utility pricing, one in which high-income individuals would pay a minimum--not a maximum, but a minimum of 6 percent of their entire household income on electricity; and then other households who are less wealthy--the least wealthy would pay no more than 3 or 4 percent of household income.

Look, I, too, want to make sure that our poorest citizens and our poorest communities have access to resources and are able to be lifted out of poverty, but placing obstacles in the way of competitive markets and denigrating the very concept of the competitive markets that have made electricity and so many other developments so available to so many people, rich and poor alike, would I fear; would I firmly believe; would I, am certain, end up preventing technological advances that benefit everyone in our society.

For these reasons, I oppose Ms. Baker's nomination, and I object.

Mr. President, reserving the right to object, article II of the Constitution gives this body some important responsibilities, including the responsibility to provide advice and consent on Officers of the United States. We have to confirm people after they have been nominated by the President.

As a Member of the Senate, I take this responsibility seriously, and I do my due diligence once a nominee has been submitted by the President and consideration by the Senate. I have done that here.

And in the process of that due diligence process with this nominee, I submitted a number of written questions to Ms. Hedlund in order to develop a better understanding of how she would respond to certain issues that are directly relevant to the position for which she is seeking confirmation from the Surface Transportation Board.

Specifically, I asked her how she would approach: 1, cost-benefit analysis in proposed regulations; 2, the

scope of the SBT's rulemaking authority; 3, how she would approach consideration of rate regulation, rate caps, or price controls; 4, her definition of the public interest, which is a key term that comes up as used in STB proceedings; 5, how she would balance Amtrak access to the freight rail network with reliable freight service; and, 6, how she would approach the carrying out of the NEPA process, including the definitions behind the key regulatory terms at issue.

These are all issues that are really relevant to the STB, and these are the kinds of questions that deal with the kinds of things she would do if confirmed as a member of the STB.

Needless to say, I was disappointed with my responses. Some of the answers avoided answering my questions; some answers appeared to be purposely vague; and some refused even directly to answer the question.

So for these reasons, I voted against Ms. Hedlund's nomination before the Commerce Committee, and my position has not changed since that vote took place. I am not comfortable granting my consent today, and I will not be, until I have the information and more thorough, responsive answers to my reasonable questions. And so for these reasons, I object.

Mr. President, last week, I came to the Senate floor no fewer than three times and invited my colleagues to pass bills to protect millions of Americans at risk of losing their jobs, their livelihoods, due to President Biden's COVID-19 vaccine mandate.

Unfortunately, due to objections from the other side of the aisle, these bills were not adopted. But I committed then, as I do again today, that I will be back with additional proposals for as long as it takes to beat this sweeping mandate.

Since I began this effort against the mandate, there has been a massive outpouring of support from across the country. I have heard from Americans in countless sectors, from multiple States, who are at risk of losing their jobs. These Americans just want to make their own medical decisions--a right that has always been afforded and not challenged since the beginning of our Nation.

In Utah alone, I have heard from no fewer than 184 people who are at risk of losing their livelihoods. They and so many others, those who share the same concerns, are our neighbors; they are everyday Americans, and they have legitimate medical concerns about getting the vaccine.

But President Biden doesn't care. He said simply, ``This isn't about freedom or personal choice.''

Well, to the millions of Americans who face the punishment of being made unemployable if they do not succumb to the President's will, this very much is about freedom and personal choice. There must be a more reasonable answer. There must be a more compassionate answer.

The COVID-19 vaccine has been deemed generally safe. I don't dispute that. In fact, I, along with my entire family, have been vaccinated. I see the development of these vaccines as a miracle and a blessing. But there are some people with preexisting conditions or complications. Many of these individuals have been advised by their trusted, board- certified doctors that they should not receive the vaccine. These Americans, they deserve to be able to make their own medical decisions, and they should not be forced by the President of the United States to go against the advice of their doctors.

Now let's look down the road at what will necessarily follow this vaccine mandate. Countless Americans who follow the recommendations of their doctors would lose their jobs in an already troubled economy. These individuals and families would not be just unemployed; the President of the United States would deem them unemployable, second- class pariahs. Businesses that dare to employ the unvaccinated would be subject to crippling fines and risk closure.

The President of the United States, unilaterally, without any say from the people's Representatives in Congress, is set on imposing financial destruction on many American families and businesses. He is even targeting those with complicated medical conditions and forcibly removing them from the economy and much of broader society.

So today, I am offering the Senate an option to take a more compassionate, reasonable approach. My bill, the Your Health Comes First Act, would exempt from the President's mandate individuals with personal health concerns related to the vaccine.

Simply put, Americans who are worried about how the vaccine would interact with or compound their existing medical difficulties would not be obligated to get it. Those who have been advised by their doctors not to get the vaccine due to preexisting medical conditions would not be forced to go against the recommendations of their doctor.

This bill is a reasonable and a compassionate solution to allow concerned Americans the dignity and autonomy we all deserve.

This isn't the only flaw with the mandate. As I have said before, the President lacks authority to do this. Neither the Federal Government, in general, nor the President of the United States, in particular, has the power under the Constitution to implement a broad mandate of this sort.

Whether you think government ought to be mandating it or not, whether you think government ought to force people out of their jobs if they refuse to get it or not, that is a different, analytically distinct question in our constitutional system from whether the Federal Government has the authority, generally, or the President, in particular, has the authority. It doesn't, and he does not.

These arguments need to remain at the forefront of the conversation: questions regarding the constitutionality and the constitutional authority to issue this in the first place.

I will be back tomorrow with another proposal, and I will be at this for as long as it takes to end this unconstitutional and uncompassionate mandate.

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. 2848, and that 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 appreciate the insight from my friend and distinguished colleague, the Senator from Connecticut.

I want to be very clear: The limited focus of this bill--the bill that I offered up for passage in the Senate today--is narrow.

It has one purpose: For those Americans who have a medical concern and who have been advised by their doctor, based on some condition associated with their health, that they should not get it, they shouldn't have to choose between getting vaccinated and losing their job.

My friend from Connecticut goes so far, I think, as to implicitly acknowledge that there ought to be an exception made for those people. One, he says, President Biden's vaccine mandate accommodates them.

Well, there is a problem with that. President Biden hasn't issued anything. He has suggested, along with members of his administration, that there might be a somewhat accommodation for them. I am not sure what that means, neither is corporate America. A lot of corporate America, acting on the advice of legal counsel and human resources departments, tends to be adopting rules already. Some of them take exceptions like these into account; others do not.

Look, it is really not too much to ask. I suggest that if you are going to impose a sweeping mandate like this, that you ought to have some protection for people with complicating medical conditions, who, on the advice of a board-certified physician, choose not to get it.

Now, again, this does not mean that I am OK with the rest of the mandate; I am not. And I respectfully, but very strongly, disagree with my friend's characterization that this is just fine for the Federal Government to do.

The Federal Government lacks general police powers. The lion's share of the authority within government in our system lies with the States and their political subdivisions.

Our national government is in charge of just a few basic and distinctively national matters: national defense, a uniformed system of weights and measures, trademarks, copyrights, and patents, regulating trade or commerce between the States with foreign nations and with the Indian Tribes.

There are a number of others, but there is no power in there that just refers to providing generally for laws that make the American people safe and healthy.

Those powers exist in America; they just aren't vested in this government. It doesn't mean that States and localities will always exercise that power wisely or prudently or compassionately, but it means insofar as you are going to act through government, that is the appropriate place and not this one.

Now, my friend from Connecticut then responds by saying, ``Yeah, but the power is still there anyway.''

Even if I were to assume his point that the power of the Federal Government somehow extends to an individual vaccine mandate, which it doesn't--and I would challenge him or anyone else to cite what provision of the U.S. Constitution it is that that provides that authority--but even if we were to accept the premise, just for purposes of discussion, that the Federal Government may exercise such authority, the President may not exercise that authority alone.

The very first clause of the first article--in the first section of the first article of that Constitution says: ``All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in our Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives.''

Article I, section 7 then makes clear that in order to pass a law, a Federal law in the United States--that is, in order to adopt a policy of the Federal Government, enforceable through the overpowering force that is the Federal Government--you have to follow the article I, section 7 formula, which means you have to take a legislative proposal--a bill--you have to pass it in the House, and you have to pass it in the Senate with the same language--and it has to be submitted to the President for signature, veto, or acquiescence.

If you don't undertake that process at all, there is no authority in the executive to do anything like what they are describing. What President Biden has done is to arrogate to himself powers that he not only characterizes as Federal, but, really, are legislative powers that he doesn't possess.

The President of the United States is the chief executive. He is not a lawmaker. And he certainly is not the entire legislative branch. And so that, really, is quite beside the point.

It doesn't make a difference with his Federal authority. The fact that Federal authority is asserted to exist, which it is not, and we can't identify a single clause of article I, section 8, or another part of the Constitution that can fairly be read, especially against the backdrop of its original public meaning, to convey that power--but even if you concede that point, there is no reasonable, plausible, defensible argument that would say the President of the United States may wield this authority unilaterally.

That is what despots and tyrants would have the power to do. And if there is one thing that is very consistent and uniform in our constitutional structure it is that no one person, no one group of people, is ever supposed to be able to accumulate dangerous degrees of power and that the President of the United States is neither a lawmaker nor the entire legislative branch. He may not step into those shoes.

As to the assertion about science, my friend and colleague referred to this as somehow a war on science. It is not a war on science to suggest that the President lacks authority to do something unilaterally. I would call that a war on the Constitution, frankly.

It is not a war on science to say that whenever a government acts, it ought to do so out of an abundance of caution and out of respect for the people to provide reasonable accommodations to individuals who have medical conditions that make them uniquely vulnerable to what the government is inclined to require.

Again, this mandate is unconstitutional. It doesn't make the vaccine bad. In fact, the vaccine is a blessing, and I think the American people have been made safer as a result of it.

That doesn't mean every American must get it. It certainly doesn't mean that it is any of the Federal Government's business to tell people that they have to choose between getting the vaccine and losing their job, especially with regard to individuals who have preexisting medical conditions that would make it dangerous for them to do so in the judgment of their board-certified medical physician. That is wrong. That is absolutely wrong.

Now, look, COVID-19 has imposed a lot of tragedies, and it is heartbreaking. A number of people we have lost, including the individuals who have died in the last month at Tallahassee Memorial Hospital, who he mentioned--every one of those lives is of infinite eternal value. Those are unrepeatable lives lost to a deadly pandemic. My heart goes out to each one of those souls who has departed, along with their families.

We are reminded of the lives that have tragically been lost to COVID- 19 by an exhibit that has been up on the Mall, up around the Washington Monument. It is beautiful, really. There are little flags--small flags--each of them white, each one representing one of the Americans who has been lost to COVID-19 since it broke out just over a year and a half ago. There are about 700,000 of those around the Washington Monument. From a distance, it looks a little like snow.

I come from a State where there is usually snow at the top of mountains. It looks familiar to me when I see what looks like snow from a distance, but it is somber as I remember what they actually represent.

If we want to talk about the loss of human life, we have to talk about the loss of all human life, and we also have to talk about the right of each individual to live and to continue living and to follow the advice of medical doctors based on the individuals' own medical conditions.

I sometimes find staggering the accusations that those who have concerns with this are somehow committing a war on science. Against which science? Who exactly is it that is against science--the science that tells us that unborn human life can experience and respond to pain in the womb in 15 or 20 weeks of gestational development?

What would it look like if we had a separate memorial with little red flags instead of little white ones, each representing one of the human lives lost every single year to abortion?

You see, every single year we lose about the same number of human lives to abortion as we have lost to COVID since it first broke out. If for the last 50 years we had a little red flag, each marking one of those human lives lost, there would be a sea of red. It would take up not just the grass all around the Washington Monument, which is large, it would probably take up all the grass between the Capitol, the Washington Monument, and the Lincoln Memorial. It would be a sea of red.

So, no, no, you can't say that this is a war on science to be concerned about individuals being able to make their own decision about whether to get this vaccine.

If you want to accuse people on the other side of the aisle of doing something, you have to stop and think about other decisions that we make--other decisions that some are willing to defend, decisions that involve a whole lot of human suffering and a whole lot of loss of a whole lot of human lives.

I get that a lot of people disagree on these things, but the fact that we disagree on them doesn't mean that they don't exist. It certainly doesn't mean that we can stand by and watch as if a vestigial legislative organ--as one single man steps into the shoes of 435 Representatives or 100 Senators--makes, as it were, a law that, on its own, fails even to accommodate good-faith medical concerns backed up by medical science.

It is too bad that we couldn't pass this simple law today. We could have; we should have; I wish we would have. I will be back. This issue isn't going away. Neither am I.

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, back in 1987, a 23-year-old mill worker named George Alexander struck a tree spike--a tree spike like this one--in the log that he was processing. His sawblade shattered, and it caused a wound

stretching from his eye all the way down to his chin. His teeth were smashed, and his jaw was brutally dashed in half. The incident made national news.

Just 2 years later, Tracy Stone-Manning rented a typewriter to disguise her identity. She then typed and sent a letter to the U.S. Forest Service on behalf of an ecoterrorist group. She conspired to spike trees with spikes just like this one--hundreds and hundreds of pounds of spikes just like this one. In so doing, endangered the lives of foresters, of loggers, and of firefighters. She ended the letter with the following words:

You bastards go in there anyway and a lot of people could

get hurt.

Unfortunately, it wasn't until after her nomination hearing that we learned of her work with the ecoterrorist organization EarthFirst!. It wasn't until after her hearing that we learned that she had been issued a target letter by a Federal grand jury and had hired an attorney to negotiate an immunity deal prior to testifying in the tree-spiking case.

It wasn't until after her hearing that we read her words in a newspaper saying that she ``could have been charged with conspiracy were it not for her agreement with the U.S. attorney.'' It wasn't until after her hearing that we learned that she was compelled by that same Federal grand jury to submit fingerprints, writing samples, and hair samples.

Now, beyond her involvement with the ecoterrorist group, since her hearing, we learned of public statements she made just months ago calling for homes to burn in forest fires. We learned of statements she made saying grazing is destroying the West and calling for population control measures and even labeling children as environmental hazards.

After all of this, a White House official called her nomination a ``massive vetting failure.'' It was that, but it is so much worse than that. She was and is a radical. She supported a criminal conspiracy to engage in ecoterrorism.

Our committee asked her if she had ever been the subject of a criminal investigation. She, in a sworn statement, lied. Our committee never had the opportunity to ask her about these shameful acts. Her past actions, her positions, her statements, and her goals would each, individually, disqualify her from service. But combined, they make her a, frankly, offensive candidate to the countless people in Utah and throughout the West and beyond who rely on Bureau of Land Management cooperation for their livelihoods and for their way of life.

Now, inexplicably, President Biden has not withdrawn this nomination, though Ms. Stone-Manning has seemingly gone into hiding. She has left unanswered dozens of questions formally posed to her by me and by my colleagues. If confirmed, she will lack the credibility with constituents throughout the Nation that she would otherwise need to perform this job. She just won't have it. And any accomplishments made by the Biden administration to steward our lands will be overshadowed by her specter of deceit.

The Bureau of Land Management controls 42 percent of the land in Utah. In fact, the BLM controls more land in Utah than Utahns do--a lot more.

So I speak for a lot of people back home today, people who are insulted by President Biden's nomination of Tracy Stone-Manning to run the Bureau of Land Management. Her confirmation would be bad for Utah, bad for the Bureau of Land Management, and bad for honesty and accountability in government.

Needless to say, she will not receive my vote. It defies logic, reason, and the greatest traditions of this body to think that we would confirm her today. I urge my colleagues to reject this nomination.

Madam President, I rise again today to express my objection to President Biden's sweeping vaccine mandate and to offer legislation that would protect Americans from this Federal intrusion.

As I said yesterday, the Federal Government has no business mandating COVID-19 vaccination for all Americans. Unfortunately, at least some of my colleagues disagree. The President of the United States said, while announcing the mandate, ``This isn't about freedom or personal choice.''

``This isn't about freedom or personal choice.'' It stuns me to think that a sweeping Federal mandate could be about anything other than freedom or personal choice. It is like robbing a bank and then saying it is not about the money.

Our Constitution was designed to protect the liberties of the people of the United States. But now, the government is being used by the Executive to force Americans to be vaccinated or to be terminated.

Yesterday, I came to the floor to speak about those Americans with sincerely held beliefs, whether religious or otherwise. My bill yesterday would have simply required that any mandate of this sort contain an exemption for those individuals.

Now, I don't believe that such an exception would be sufficient to resolve the constitutional and the policy problems with such a mandate. But there are millions of Americans who would be able to live according to their beliefs if, in fact, such an exemption were included by law, which it should be.

Lamentably, my colleague the senior Senator from Washington objected. So I pledged to come back again today and tomorrow, for as long as it takes, to win the fight against this egregious mandate.

Today, I am providing another opportunity for this body to protect Americans.

This mandate poses a real threat to the well-being of millions. Those who choose not to be vaccinated are at risk of losing their jobs. My office has been in contact with 144 Utahns who are concerned about this very issue. I shared some of their stories yesterday.

Despite what many on the other side of this debate would have you believe, these are, in fact, everyday Americans: people with preexisting medical conditions, like autoimmune disorders. These are people who are just wanting to provide for their families and not to be able to expect that. These are pregnant mothers who are concerned about the safety of their own health and that of their unborn children.

Some of these people are the heroes of yesterday. They are first responders; they are medical professionals and essential workers who sacrificed to carry our Nation through the hardest days of this pandemic. And they are still heroes today. These Americans are not the enemy.

President Biden and those who support this effort are grasping for solutions they believe can bolster their political position and shift blame on the status of the pandemic. Those paying the price are the people back home, including many of the people I just described.

So today, I offer another proposal. This bill would provide those Americans harmed by this mandate with a means of recourse. Under this bill, those who lose employment or lose their livelihoods due to this mandate may sue the United States for relief. The bill would make these very Americans whole after the President of the United States made working impossible for them.

This bill is only one of many that I have introduced to combat this unconstitutional, unwarranted, indefensible mandate. While I believe this mandate will eventually be invalidated in court--I am quite confident that it will--until that day comes, these bills can provide businesses and the American people with the certainty that they need to make their own decisions. We will be protecting their God-given and constitutionally protected right to make medical decisions for themselves.

So, Madam President, I am here today and I will be back tomorrow and fighting against this mandate for as long as it takes.

Madam President, as if in legislative session, I ask unanimous consent that the Judiciary Committee be discharged from further consideration of S. 2840, and that the Senate proceed to its immediate consideration. Further, 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, I appreciate the insight provided by my friend and distinguished colleague, the senior Senator from Illinois and the assistant majority leader.

I respectfully submit that this is about allowing people to obtain redress for, among other things, the awful Hobson's choice people are facing and are increasingly going to be facing as this mandate kicks in. It hasn't been issued yet. We still don't know what is in it. We still don't know his precise basis for the authority. We assume that he would have told us his precise basis for the authority if, in fact, it existed.

I have scoured the U.S. Code looking for authority for the President of the United States to implement this unilaterally, and I have found none. So it is very significant, therefore, that when you are going to put this kind of a Hobson's choice in front of the people, you ought to be able to at least have the decency to tell them what your source of authority is. He still hasn't done it.

If we assume that he is going to come up with one and that he is going to issue a mandate, that mandate is going to put a whole lot of people in a terrible position, forcing them to choose between getting a vaccine that, for whatever reason, they don't want and termination-- between submission and poverty. That is unfair.

Now, look, I get the fact that a lot of us were and are enthusiastic and grateful for the vaccine. I have received the vaccine, as has every member of my family. I think the vaccine is a good thing. I also understand that there are people who feel differently. In some cases, there are people who have been advised by board-certified medical doctors not to get the vaccine based on the existence of one or more autoimmune diseases, past personal or family history, and their idiosyncratic reactions to other vaccines or to this vaccine. There are other people who might have religious or other sincerely held personal beliefs that might make this choice a really unfair one for the Federal Government to force upon them.

So, yeah, I am glad we have got the vaccine. I think the vaccine is good. I think the vaccine is helping a lot of people. But to tell every American that he or she must get this under penalty of losing a job, and then for the President, after acknowledging that he doesn't have authority, to mandate this for every American turns America's employers--all those with more than 99 employees--into the COVID-19 vaccine police for the entire country.

It is unjustifiable, even at a policy level, before we get to the obvious constitutional defects and the lack of any semblance of any statutory authority. So I am disappointed that we can't pass this one today. I will be back again tomorrow. I will continue to come back for weeks to come because the American people deserve better than this. They deserve not to have people in Washington, DC, purporting to make very personal healthcare decisions for them and conditioning their own private-sector employment on compliance with the dictate of one man in Washington, DC.

Mr. President, during this pandemic, the people of the United States have seen the Federal Government intrude into their lives more frequently and more completely than ever before. President Biden didn't make any pretense about this. He didn't mince any words. He didn't sugarcoat it. He didn't even try to hide behind any veneer when he spoke to the American people. He said: ``Our patience is wearing thin.''

This five-word expose of the President's thinking is deeply troubling. It is not the kind of sentiment you ever want expressed within a Free Republic, not from the Chief Executive.

To say ``our patience is wearing thin'' might be something that you say of a foreign adversary. It might be something you say of a subordinate within government, someone who reports up to the President. It is not something you say of the people--the people who, in our system, collectively, are the sovereign.

It is only by the consent of the governed that our government has its legitimacy, and to denigrate the American people that way is not consistent with who we are. It is not consistent with our form of government.

So I find that five-worded mission of how he views the American people worrying in its own right. But I find it nothing short of horrifying that he--as if acting as some sort of omnipresent nanny state disciplinarian executive is now set to plunge even more deeply into everyday lives of the American people.

We are here today to remove one of the options from the unconstitutional buffet of strong-armed Executive tactics used by President Biden in connection with COVID-19. Requiring proof of vaccination for interstate travel would create millions of second-class Americans. And it would make all Americans subject to a form of government and a type of power to which we are not accustomed. And that is really ill-suited for our Constitution structure.

The Constitution itself protects Americans from this type of action. The Privileges and Immunities Clause and the Fourteenth Amendment grants Americans the right to freely travel between the States. There is no precedent for the Federal Government requiring anything like vaccination before traveling domestically. There is no precedent because there is no legitimate Federal power in this area to begin with.

It is important to remember that the Federal Government doesn't have what we call general police powers. These are the basic powers of government that are there to protect life, liberty, and property and to focus on things like health, safety, and welfare.

You see, State governments retain this general police power. Remember that James Madison, in Federalist No. 45, described the powers given to Congress as few and defined and those reserved to the States as numerous and indefinite.

The Founding Fathers understood what general police powers were. They deliberately, consciously, intentionally, and with very good reason did not give those powers to the Federal Government.

So as a result, the Federal Government doesn't possess, under the Constitution, the ability to pass laws or regulations of this sort. No, in our system of government--our national government--this Federal Government has to pass only those laws that are within these powers that are few and defined, those enumerated in the Constitution.

The President of the United States, under our Constitution, does not, moreover, have any kind of unilateral lawmaking authority whatsoever. So the power is not Federal in the first place. And even if it were a proper Federal power, which it is not, it is a legislative power that he is trying to wield here. Only we can give him that. Only we can enact legislation.

Article I, section 7, makes it very clear that if you are going to change the legal status quo, if you are going to establish policy at the Federal level that will carry the force of generally applicable Federal law, you have to be acting within one of Congress's enumerated powers.

But more importantly here, under article I, section 7, you have to have passage in the House; you have to have passage in the Senate of the same legislative vehicle, followed by presentment to the President of the United States. That formula hasn't been followed here. We have no Federal law on this as a result of that. We, thankfully, got rid of a King back in 1776. We have never gone back--never looked back and longed for the Union Jack. We shouldn't be anxious to convert the Presidency into a type of monarchy, even if it is a mini monarchy.

Beyond the constitutional problems, requiring vaccine passports for domestic travel within the United States would place a huge burden on not only the American people, but also on airlines and on other businesses that are already hard hit by the pandemic. Multiple major airlines have already expressed their concerns with a vaccine passport mandate.

Look, the last thing the American people need is more mandates and restrictions preventing them from making their own reasonable decisions. Americans deserve to be able to make a living and to be able to engage in interstate commerce and to travel interstate without mandates making them choose between providing for their families and undergoing a medical procedure against their will.

That is why I am fighting President Biden's existing mandate and fighting against future intrusions by the executive branch into the lives of Americans.

The bill offered by my friend and colleague, the Senator from Florida, would ensure that Federal Agencies cannot attempt to impose vaccine requirements for interstate travel or commerce. I am proud to be here in support of this bill. I am proud to defend Americans and their constitutional rights. I hope we can protect millions of our fellow citizens and the American way of life by passing this bill.