Floor Statements

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the following interns from my office be granted floor privileges until June 30, 2023: Maddie Jackson, Joseph Thoburn, Maddalena Wasinger, Brett Logsdon, and Mary Kate Barbee.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak for up to 10 minutes prior to the scheduled rollcall vote on my amendment No. 79.

Firefighting and emergency medical services are some of the most important and most inherently local services that people rely on. The men and women who show up when the call for help goes out are everyday heroes in communities across America.

City governments have predominantly decided to provide fire services at taxpayer expense with local taxes, while in rural areas, volunteer fire departments are still prevalent. Many localities have decided to provide medical services as well. Although hospitals still are the primary EMS providers in a lot of locations, private companies are playing an increasing role in this space as well. But no matter who provides the services--government employees, volunteers, or private entities, these are local needs best met by local providers and best paid for with local taxes.

For the first 225 years of our country's history, this is just what happened, until 2000, when the Federal Government had its first budget surplus in almost 50 years--a surplus that disappeared the very next year, by the way. Congress, in the year 2000, decided to spend a bit of that surplus to create a new subsidy for local firefighters.

This first year, the program was authorized at a total of $110 million for government and volunteer fire departments; however, the bill before us today now authorizes $2.3 billion per year for these subsidies. That's right, in the 30 years for this program, Federal subsidies for these important, but inherently local, programs have increased 18-fold.

In that same time, our government has gone from an annual surplus of about $86 billion to perpetual deficits of over $1 trillion a year. The national debt has grown from less than $6 trillion to over $32 trillion.

Despite the reality of our fiscal condition, this bill makes no reforms. It doesn't limit the grants to departments that can't raise money on their own. It doesn't ask local governments to invest more of their own funds. The only thing this bill accomplishes, really, is to increase spending by 25 percent.

The unsustainable increases in spending with no attempt to rein-in future costs or make offsetting cuts elsewhere in the budget is concerning. I am glad to see we have an amendment, though, to pay for the bill by reallocating unspent COVID funds that are still in existence and haven't already been allocated and could be used for this program. So we will have an amendment to pay for this program. We will see if anyone on the other side is actually interested in paying for a program.

The other major problem with this bill is it rewards governments-- local governments that chose to trample on the freedom of firefighters and medics to speak their own minds and make their own medical decisions. One purpose of the grant in this bill is to increase staffing for fire departments. Over the last few years, even as these grants were awarded, firefighters around the country found themselves with a choice: submit to COVID vaccine mandates or lose your livelihood.

This was no idle threat. In New York, L.A., and Seattle, among other places, firefighters lost their jobs simply because they insisted upon living according to their own conscience.

One of those firefighters who was terminated is Joseph Kimball, who served in Salt River, AZ, and has six children. His wife is a stay-at- home mom, but this didn't stop local officials from firing him for not getting a COVID vaccine.

It seems bizarre and contradictory to provide financial support to increase fire department staffing to departments that are firing people for not being vaccinated--firefighters that were trained and effective and there was no good reason to fire them, particularly when we had shortages of firefighters as reported throughout the country.

Firefighters tend to be young and fit. They are the very people who have the least to worry about with COVID-19. They also tend to be male, and young males are the group most likely to suffer the vaccine-related injury of myocarditis. Firemen and EMTs who chose not to be vaccinated were never a threat to anyone, never a threat to their communities. On the contrary, these firefighters served their communities bravely and made their neighbors safe. They served throughout an entire year when there was no vaccine. Many of these firefighters contracted COVID and have naturally acquired immunity.

What was being done to them? What was done to them through firing them for making their own medical decisions, what was done to the police and to doctors and to nurses, what was done to first responders was shameful. And we should stand together to make sure it never happens again.

To that end, I offer an amendment that will restore sanity and compassion to this government program. My amendment would make grants provided for by this bill unavailable to fire departments that dismissed firefighters for not getting a vaccine. This would bring some sense of justice to this program. And fire departments would only be eligible for these grants if they reinstated the firefighters. So this amendment would actually serve to allow some of the firefighters that were unfairly dismissed to get their jobs back.

It turns out--and we all know this now--the vaccine didn't protect anybody from getting infected. It showed some efficacy of increasing your immunity to resist infection, but there was never any medical reason to mandate people to be vaccinated. And no one ever offered to these firefighters: Well, you can be tested. If you have had COVID and we know you have immunity, you don't have to be vaccinated. There was never any alternatives. Many of them weren't even given religious or philosophical or medical alternatives to being forced to be vaccinated.

So if you want to support firefighters, if you want to support your communities, if you want to support safety, you should support my amendment that says that fire departments are eligible only if they reinstate the firefighters they unfairly dismissed.

Mr. President, I call up my amendment No. 79 and ask that it be reported by number.

Mr. President.

There is a longstanding tradition in our country when we dispense Federal money to localities to have rules. We don't let you discriminate based on your sex or race or ethnicity. We also should not let localities discriminate against people who refuse to be vaccinated, particularly people who have already had COVID.

There is no science behind saying you need to be vaccinated if you already had it. In fact, the studies show this: They show that if had you had the disease you are 57 times less likely to contract it again, whereas the vaccine makes you about 19 times less. So infection does work and it should be part of the criteria, and we should restrict funds to any agency that fired people unfairly for not getting a vaccine.

Vote on Amendment No. 79

I ask for the yeas and nays.

Reserving the right to object, there are two main reasons why we might not want to do this. The one would be the First Amendment to the Constitution. Speech is protected, whether you like it or not. The second reason would be that the Constitution actually prohibits bills of attainder. You are not allowed to have a specific bill against a person or a company. So this fails on two egregious points, pretty obvious points. I think we ought to think about that.

I think we should be aware of those who peddle fear. I think we should be aware of those who use fear to coax Americans to relinquish our liberties, to regulate and limit our First Amendment rights.

Every accusation of data-gathering that has been attributed to TikTok could also be attributed to domestic big tech companies. In fact, one of the bills they are looking at doing is broad enough that the President will be given the power to designate whatever country he sees fit to be an adversary and whatever company underneath that definition. It would basically be a limitless authority for the President to ban speech.

If Republicans want to continuously lose elections for a generation, they

should pass this bill to ban TikTok, a social media app used by 150 million people, primarily young Americans. This brilliant strategy comes while polls indicate that 71 percent of young women and 53 percent of young men voted for a Democrat candidate for Congress.

Admittedly, many Democrats have joined Republicans in calling for this ban, but, like most issues, the blame will stick to Republicans more.

The Republican strategy to ban TikTok comes simultaneously with GOP complaints of domestic social media companies canceling and censoring conservatives. Without a hint of irony, many of these same conservatives now rail against censorship while advocating for censorship against social media apps they worry are influenced by the Chinese.

Before banning TikTok, these censors might want to discover that China already bans TikTok. Do we really want to emulate Chinese speech bans? Aren't we the ones who say it is wrong for China to ban speech? So we are going to be just like China and ban speech we are afraid of?

The vice president of FreedomWorks, John Tamny, perhaps described this situation best:

Nauseating Harassment of TikTok Presumes Americans Will Be

Saved From Chinese Authoritarianism If U.S. Politicians Act

Like Chinese Authoritarians.

We are going to be saved from speech if we ban it in our country. My goodness. Could we think of anything more antithetical to the freedom of speech?

Go to the app. They say the app is full of propaganda, and your young people will be dancing into communism. Go to the app and search for Falun Gong, the anti-communist religious sect that is persecuted in China. Go to TikTok and search for videos advocating Taiwan's independence; criticism of Chinese President Xi Jinping. Videos are all over TikTok that are critical of official Chinese positions. That is why TikTok is banned in China. Do we want to follow China's lead in banning speech?

We should not let fear of communism cause us to ignore our First Amendment protections of free speech.

This legislation violates not only the First Amendment rights of those who own TikTok--many of whom are actually Americans, not Chinese--but it also violates the First Amendment rights of the millions of young Americans who use this social media app.

I ask the American people: Do you want Joe Biden to be your censor? Do you want to give unlimited power to any President, regardless of party, to decide who is our adversary and which countries and then which companies? There is not even a list of what percentage. What if the Chinese own 1 percent of a company or 10 percent of a company?

One of the bills before us would allow the Department of Commerce to decide--there are five countries they list that are adversaries; these are big countries that have a lot of interactions with our country already--decide which country in addition to the five.

The Department of Commerce can designate a country as an adversary, but then they can designate a company. But there are no specifics. Do the new people who are designated to be an adversary have to own 100 percent of the company? 50 percent of the company? 1 percent of the company?

This is a crazy gift of power to one person. I don't care which party they are in; it is a huge mistake.

Doctors Mueller and Farhat of Georgia Tech write:

If nationalist fears about Chinese influence operations

lead to a departure from American constitutional principles

supporting free and open political discourse, we will have

succeeded in undermining our system of government more

effectively than any Chinese propaganda.

Throughout the 20th century, millions of people were fed communist propaganda every day for their entire lives. When the regimes collapsed, the people celebrated. They danced on the Berlin Wall and on the grave of communism.

Have faith. Have faith that Americans are smart enough to hear bad ideas and reject those ideas. Have faith that our desire for freedom is strong enough to survive a few dance videos. Have some faith in freedom.

We don't ban things that are unpopular in the United States. Our Constitution even allows a Communist Party.

The previous speaker said, and I quote, ``There is no . . . First Amendment carve-out for communists.'' Well, actually, there is. In our society, you can be a communist. I don't advocate it. I think it is a terrible idea, and almost no Americans choose it. But there is a Communist Party here. We actually had a former CIA Director who said he voted for the Communist candidate in 1976--someone I don't advise you appoint to be the head of your CIA. But this is a free country. You can actually have terrible ideas, and you can broadcast them. That is what freedom of speech is about. It is not about saying: You know, I love Mother Teresa. It is not about saying things uncontroversial. It is about the ability to say things that people don't like.

Have some faith in freedom.

Our Constitution does protect even despicable speech, even the Communist Party. It operates today. Nobody wants to join the Communist Party, but you still can if you wish. America is a country that celebrates free expression, that cherishes free association, that is confident in the cause of liberty.

If you want to address the evils of Big Tech, it is not the Chinese Government you have to fear but your own. In June 2021, Newsweek reported that Big Tech complied with 85 percent of government requests to hand over your personal data. So you are worried about the Chinese Government? Your government has all of your data, and they are sucking it up from all of Big Tech. So the thing is, is your next step to ban Big Tech in our country?

There are some people who are promoting banning TikTok, and their next step is Facebook. This is on both sides of the aisle. This contagion is infecting the whole country--both parties.

Realize that this means--with 85 percent of government requests to Big Tech being honored, this means that Facebook, Google, Apple, Microsoft, once presented with a subpoena or a warrant, routinely hand over the contents of emails, text messages, photos, documents, calendars, contact lists, and more to your government. Big Tech puts up virtually no legal fight to protect your privacy. They could go to court to stop this. Instead, there is a big cable that runs from Big Tech to the government, and they snoop on every bit of our information. If you want to protect privacy, why don't we start by protecting our own privacy in this country?

To those who are worried that the Chinese Government might somehow now have access to millions of American teenagers' information, realize that all social media sucks up personal data that people voluntarily provide. If you are going to ban TikTok, what is next?

Arguably, several domestic apps censor conservatives more than TikTok. I know this because I have been censored and I have been banned. I have had speeches on the Senate floor that are protected by the Constitution banned and kicked off of YouTube. I despise these people, but I am not going to vote to ban them because I realize that intellectually, in a free country, I don't have the right to tell the New York Times to publish my op-ed or YouTube to publish my speech. I don't like what they do.

Quit using them. That is what happens in a free country. If you don't like TikTok, quit using them. But don't disenfranchise 150 million Americans who are using a social media app and just say it is no big deal. This is the First Amendment right of 150 million Americans.

I have a host of complaints about domestic social media platforms. They cancel conservatives. But I am not in favor of banning one of them or regulating their speech or telling them who can post and who can't post. That is what the First Amendment is about. If you don't like TikTok or Facebook or YouTube, don't use them, but don't think that any interpretation of the Constitution gives you the right to ban them.

TikTok's mission appears to be like most other companies: to make money and lots of it. TikTok is actually cooperating with our government. There is something called the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States--CFIUS--and TikTok has agreed to put all their data in Oracle's

Cloud, and they have agreed to work with the U.S. Government. Because they so much want to make money, they will do anything to try to get rid of this accusation that they are somehow part of the Communist Party, which is not true. It is a company that is owned--probably the majority of it--by Americans and Europeans and other Asians outside of China. Less than 50 percent of it is owned by any Chinese. There is no Chinese Government of the American TikTok.

Even that being said, they are willing to put all of it under the Oracle Cloud. They are willing to have U.S. regulators be given access to it, all because they want to continue to make money. They don't want to be shut down by the censors.

The First Amendment isn't necessary to protect speech that everybody accepts. The First Amendment exists to protect speech that might be unpopular or might be controversial.

U.S. courts have already struck down the Trump ban on TikTok. It amazes me now that the other side that was so horrified by the idea of President Trump banning something has now jumped on board to ban it themselves.

I hope saner minds will reflect on which is more dangerous: videos of teenagers dancing or the precedent of the U.S. Government banning speech. For me, it is an easy answer. I will defend the Bill of Rights against all comers--even, if need be, from members of my own party.

I object.

I object.

Reserving the right to object. I am unlikely to take First Amendment advice from someone who believes that the First Amendment doesn't protect the Communist Party. You will find no greater foe of Communism, no greater critic. I have been a longstanding critic of, really, the funding of research in Wuhan that led to the virus. And yet I still want to protect the basic Bill of Rights, the First Amendment that protects speech, whether we like it or not. And if someone doesn't understand that Communism actually is included in the First Amendment, that terrible speech we object to is included under that--this is something we should be very wary of.

We should beware of people who peddle fear. We should beware of people who peddle half-truths. Almost everything that has been said about collecting data is, in all likelihood, true. All the social media companies collect data. They devise algorithms. Some of the domestic ones have psychological experiments that might horrify you to see what they have all the young kids thinking and doing and trying to get them to click on different pictures or trying to get them.

This is a marketing strategy, and they all do it. And they all want to make money, and they all want to get clicks.

The difference is this: Many people on the right--in fact, some on the left--they are horrified by Big Tech in our country; they are consistent in being horrified by the abuses of Big Tech here and also TikTok.

But look at their legislative proposals, many of them would actually ban Big Tech here as well or put it under the thumb of government or set up government agencies or panels to determine what speech would be acceptable. And if you are not putting enough conservatives on there, by golly, we are going to have a government commission that is going to determine what kind of content gets on there.

These are scary ideas. Don't succumb to fear. Don't give up our freedoms. Don't say that, oh, my goodness, we are going to ban 150 million Americans. This isn't just about the company; this is about the rights of 150 million Americans to get their content.

You are restricting what they can do, and you are restricting what they can use, all with innuendo. Everything that has been said about, oh, this is a channel and a funnel to the Chinese Government--these are all conjecture. These are all things they are saying happened. As far as the sale of the company, I don't think we should force them to sell, but I do believe, in a heartbeat, they could be sold.

They are located in the Cayman Islands. They are incorporated in the Cayman Islands, and they can be sold at any minute. I don't think we should force them to sell. The majority of the shareholders are not Chinese; the two engineers that developed it are, but to say that the algorithm has to reside in China and is in one tiny place and isn't anywhere else is a simplistic notion of the way technology works.

The company has bent over backwards to work with our government to try to set up something that would be reasonable, including more government oversight. So I, for one, will say that I will continue to defend the First Amendment. And those who believe that the First Amendment doesn't protect the speech are in the wrong, and they will find that out when the Supreme Court rules on this.

I object.

Madam President, today, the Senate debates removing the authority of the President to wage war in Iraq. Momentous as such debate might be, it is largely rendered symbolic by the fact that the war in Iraq has been over for more than a decade.

Were this body serious about debating the authority of the President to wage war across Africa and the Middle East, we would today be repealing the 2001 Authorization for the Use of Military Force.

Presidential administrations of both parties have used the 9/11 authorization to justify war in over 20 countries, from Afghanistan to Libya to Syria to Somalia to Yemen. In fact, both parties have essentially argued that the 9/11 AUMF has no temporal or geographic limits at all.

Repealing the Iraq war authorization will end no wars and save no lives.

The bill before us ignores the pervasive, seemingly limitless 9/11 proclamation, and it seeks, instead, to repeal the 1991 and 2002 authorizations to make war against Saddam Hussein's Iraq--a regime that no longer exists.

So we are missing the point here. We are going to repeal the one authorization they no longer use and leave the

one in place that authorizes war everywhere, all the time.

The public is told to celebrate the boldness of a Senate that will today end a war that has been over for over a decade, while ignoring an authorization of war that is really the only pertinent current authorization.

Now, it is true that some unreconstructed neoconservatives still advocate for the 2002 authorization to make war against Saddam Hussein's Iraq, but no serious scholars believe that the Iraq war resolution has any bearing at all in a world where the current Government of Iraq is an ally, at least ostensibly, of the United States.

Even more insensibly, some of these neocon throwbacks argue that a 20-year-old authorization to counter Saddam Hussein's Iraq somehow has something to do with authorizing military force against Iran. It is nonsensical. The very argument is so strained that ordinarily one wouldn't even bother countering such a frivolous case except for the fact that many Senators insist on making it.

We voted to go to war against Saddam Hussein's Iraq. He is dead and gone. His government is gone. The new government is an ally. The authorization means absolutely nothing. But yet some people argue on the floor: Oh, we have to have this in case we want to attack Iran.

Have they ever heard of coming back here and asking for permission?

Have they ever heard of saying we hold this power given to us by the Constitution and that we should be the ones to bestow the declaration of war to the President?

The 2002 AUMF doesn't mention Iran. President Bush's March 2003 speech to the Nation announcing his decision to invade Iraq does not mention Iran, and Iran and Iraq were enemies for over two decades prior to the invasion. In fact, the House report accompanying the 2002 AUMF refers to Iran but only as a victim of Saddam Hussein's aggression. Nothing--absolutely nothing--in the Iraq war authorization justifies hostilities against Iran.

One would think that these brave ``armchair'' generals would relish the thought of actually debating a war and putting their vote, their imprimatur, their stamp of approval on their very own war. And yet they want to leave it to a previous generation and have no debate should we decide that we need to go to war with Iran. Instead, this plucky crowd of war advocates want a permanent authorization of war on the books so as not to be troubled with the tedium of debating new wars or waiting possibly 24 hours for the consent of Congress.

It wasn't always so. While Henry Clay was not always the greatest opponent of war, he did find his voice when his son Henry Junior, was killed in the unnecessary Mexican-American War. In the spring of 1844, after hearing of Henry Junior's death at the battle of Buena Vista, Henry Clay put into words what every Founding Father had previously explained. He spoke these words in Lexington, KY:

A declaration of war is the highest and most awful exercise

of sovereignty. The Convention, which framed our federal

constitution, had learned from the pages of history that it

had been often and greatly abused. It had seen that war had

often been commenced upon the most trifling of pretexts . . .

that such a vast and tremendous power ought not to be

confided to the perilous exercise of one single man. The

Convention, therefore, resolved to guard the war-making power

against these great abuses. . . . Whenever called upon to

determine upon the solemn question of peace and war, Congress

must consider and deliberate and decide upon the motives,

objects and causes of the war.

That was Henry Clay in 1884.

And yet, today, the best the present Congress can muster is to propose to end a war that ended long ago. In fact, we are told precisely that it is OK to repeal this particular authorization because the President isn't really using it.

If you ask President Biden if we take away the 9/11 authorization, he would say: Oh, no, no. We are still using that one in about 20 different countries.

So we are going to repeal the one authorization he no longer cares about, and we are going to leave into place one that virtually-- Presidents of both parties have virtually said is unlimited in scope.

It wasn't intended to be. If you read the authorization from 9/11, you will find that it is very specific.

But today don't worry that we actually might rein in Presidential authority for war. Don't worry that today's repeal will actually end any current war anywhere. Don't worry. Don't worry about continuing to send our soldiers to the Middle East. Don't worry about continuing to send our soldiers to Somalia and Syria and Iraq.

The argument for repeal is that, like most debates in Congress, the victory will be Pyrrhic and ignored and war will go on. The armament industry spread throughout the United States will continue to prosper.

Don't worry. The vote today is easy. The vote today is mere symbolism.

I will support that symbolism, but I will not pretend that it is brave or meaningful or that one American soldier's life will be saved. I will support the symbolism because that is all the bravery that this particular Senate considers to be possible. But I won't celebrate today's vote as anything more than symbolism.

If there exists any desire to end America's forever wars, Congress should today strike a blow for peace by repealing the 2001 authorization for war. After all, the 9/11 AUMF never intended to authorize worldwide war, all the time, everywhere, forever.

The wording of the 9/11 AUMF was debated in 2001, a generation ago, and was precisely worded to authorize the President to make war on those who attacked us on 9/11 and those who harbored them--not a word about making war on associated forces, not a word about making war on their descendants, not a word about making worldwide war on religious extremism. But that is exactly what the 9/11 2001 AUMF has become--a catchall for a permanent war, everywhere, all the time.

So if anyone in the Senate is really serious about regaining the power to declare war, about informing Presidents of both parties that the Constitution exclusively gave the power to declare war to Congress, I offer an amendment today that might actually bring an American soldier home, an amendment that might actually save an American soldier's life, an amendment that sends an actual signal to the President that congressional authority and resolve actually lives and breathes and will resist Presidential aggrandizement.

Some Senators will argue that a vote to repeal the 9/11 military force proclamation for war--but they say: Well, we could do it, but only if we simultaneously replace it with another sweeping transfer of war-making power to future Presidents.

Really? Is there not one defender of Congress's exclusive power to declare war?

Is there no one else who will reject the abdication of Congress to constitutional responsibilities?

Is there not anyone who will defend the notion that absenting perpetual authorization for war, we could survive on just the Constitution alone?

For most of American history, for 225 years, we lived without a perpetual authorization of war. We addressed it as it arose and Congress voted--not a generation ago's Congress, the people currently elected would debate on one of the most important debates we ever have, whether to go to war. But most people here will say, no, we need to keep a proclamation from 9/11 that has nothing to do with the world today and nothing to do with the attack on 9/11. We need to keep it in place just in case so we could have troops everywhere.

For most of our history, we survived without such a perpetual authorization. The Republic survived under the notion that America is reticent to make war; that we are a merchant nation conscious of the great prosperity economic freedom has brought us in the world and also conscious of the devastation and famine and brutality and the despair of war but also quite outspoken in our history that America won't be trifled with; that once awakened, once attacked, America can and will bring that mighty economic engine to life--the engine that defeated Hitler, the engine that defeated the Japanese Empire, and the engine that after 9/11 showed that America will not countenance, for any reason, an attack on our people.

Couldn't we live under the Constitution again? Couldn't we show the confidence in our people, in our Congress, in our own individual self- worth to let

the world know that we don't want perpetual war; we don't want to be the policemen of the world; we don't want our Army stationed across the globe. But provoke us, attack us, and you will discover that we cherish our freedom, and we will fight for it; that our fight will be a constitutional one.

When America was attacked at Pearl Harbor, the Congress reacted constitutionally within days to declare war. When America was attacked on 9/11, once again, Congress acted in a nearly unanimous fashion to declare war. Couldn't we obey the Constitution and declare war when necessary and not keep on the books a perpetual authorization of war?

Only by eliminating these perpetual authorizations for war will Congress regain its constitutional prerogative to declare war. One generation should not bind another generation to war. The Congress that voted for the war in 2001 is no longer constituted, and many of those Members are no longer even living. Many of our soldiers were not even born when Congress authorized that war.

So, today, I will offer the U.S. Senate a chance to repeal the 9/11/ 2001 authorization for war, to reclaim our constitutional power, and send a message to the world that we are a nation of peace; that when provoked to war, the gentle giant that is America will respond lawfully according to the Constitution; that when war is absolutely necessary, America will obey the Constitution, which requires us to debate and vote upon war and not hide beneath another generation's deliberations.

Today, we should rise above symbolism and repeal the 9/11 authorization for war and show our respect for the Constitution, our fealty to the rule of law, and our sincere desire that peace, not perpetual war, be our legacy.

Madam President, I call up my amendment No. 2, and I ask that it be reported by number.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the following interns in my office be granted floor privileges until May 5, 2023: Andrew Jarocki, Nicholas Sierco, Leon Kamenev, and Henry Beck.

Mr. President, I rise today to honor the life of Quincy Ramon Nelson-Sweatt of Rineyville, KY, who passed away Friday, September 2, 2022, at his home, surrounded by his closest family and covered in love.

Quincy was born 9 years ago today, on February 1, 2014, to Timothy Sweatt and Natalie Nelson in Elizabethtown, KY. He was a student at Rineyville Elementary School, where he was in the third grade. He chose to be extraordinarily positive in the midst of the most challenging time, bravely facing diffuse midline glioma, a terminal cancer of the brain and spinal cord.

He never lost his sweet smile that could put anyone at ease--or the way his copper-brown eyes could light up the whole room. He always took such pride in his appearance. From his haircuts and sun-kissed curls to his outfits, he always loved to look his best. Quincy was truly beautiful both inside and out.

Before the date of diagnosis, November 11, 2021, he was a perfectly healthy, active, fun-loving little boy. Within 10 months, he underwent emergency surgery to try to remove the tumor, which was unsuccessful and left him a quadriplegic; he also had 55 rounds of radiation to his brain and spinal cord, along with trying multiple chemotherapy drugs.

He endured the toughest days with grace and positivity that was unmatched. He exhibited such joy, which was undeniably shared with anyone in his presence. Whether he was singing and dancing to his favorite songs or snuggling with his mama or his cats, Sprinkles and Peaches, he knew how to savor the time he had.

His love for life is indescribable. His list of loves was long and as big as his heart. He loved cars, trampoline jumping, singing to his jams, dancing, playing with his cousins that were like siblings, farming, running outside, and time with his family and friends. His favorite hobbies were singing and listening to music, baseball, go-cart riding, swimming, and playing outside. He was passionate about it all.

Quincy was an empathetic and intuitive old soul that made everyone around him feel special and loved. If you ever need inspiration, meditate for just a minute on his life and the love he shared and choose to live with love.

Quincy was preceded in death by his paternal grandmother Gwendolyn Sweatt. Quincy is survived by his parents, Timothy Sweatt and Natalie Nelson; paternal grandparent, Timothy Buckler; maternal grandparents, Byron and Mary Nelson; aunt and uncles on his father's side, Frederick Sweatt, Freda Sweatt, and Stephen Buckler; on his mother's side aunt and uncles Erin Riffle (Jason) and Clint Nelson; his cousins on his mother's side Ava, Caleb, Hudson, and Charlotte Riffle; and his cousins on his father's side Dallas, Rashaud, and Nia Sweatt.

Quincy will live in the hearts of his family and will be missed more than words could ever describe. Happy Birthday, Quincy.

Mr. President, I rise today to recognize officers Cody Woolston and Eric Goldschmidt for their heroic actions on Monday, October 31, 2022.

On that day, Officers Woolston and Goldschmidt responded to calls of a woman attempting to jump off an overpass on Breckinridge Lane, which runs over a local interstate. When the two officers arrived at the scene, they found a woman standing on top of the barrier and looking over the highway. Officers Woolston and Goldschmidt tried to talk with the woman, but she was wearing headphones and not responding.

When she started to lean more towards the drop, Officer Woolston bravely grabbed her from the barrier, saving her life. The officers then took her to a local hospital to receive help. Upon arrival, she was hesitant to go inside, but Officer Woolston calmly reassured her and took her hand as they walked in together.

As a result of his quick actions that saved a life, Officer Woolston was nominated for a 2023 Rise Award. Officers Woolston and Goldschmidt were also nominated for the Louisville Metro Police Department's lifesaving award.

Officers Woolston and Goldschmidt are brave servants to the city of Louisville and a true testament to the hard-working Louisville Metro Police Department. I am proud to salute both officers and have no doubt they will continue to be an incredible asset to the citizens of Louisville.

Madam President, as ranking member of the Senate Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship, each week I recognize an outstanding Kentucky small business that exemplifies the American entrepreneurial spirit. This week, it is my privilege to recognize Just For You Boutique of Frankfort, KY, as the Senate Small Business of the Week.

Across the country you will not find two small businesses with the same origin story. In most cases, the tale behind how one gets started is just as unique as the business itself. Such is the story of Nicole Boyd's business, Just For You Boutique. Nicole, a native of the Bluegrass State, was driving through its capital when she found herself stopped at a red light. As she gazed out the window towards an empty storefront, she couldn't help but notice a big ``Available for Sale or Rent'' sign in the window. It was in that moment that Nicole decided that she would open her own clothing store, right there in that location. Sometimes, all it takes is a self-starting individual to make their dream a reality, as is the case with Nicole. Not long after that fateful stop in Frankfort traffic, Just For You Boutique opened up on March 8, 2016.

As an active member of the community, Nicole's favorite aspect of owning her own business is that it enables her to really engage with the people of Frankfort, as she is constantly seeing

friends and neighbors walk through her doors. Moreover, Nicole understands that successful businesses put their community first. She often collaborates with other small businesses around Frankfort to offer products and experiences that are unique to Kentucky and to Frankfort specifically. Nicole offers a wide variety of goods in her store, from fashion-forward apparel and jewelry to everyday home goods that could liven up any living space. Nicole pays special mind to feature homegrown Kentucky products, between coffee grinds made by local brewers and handcrafted artisanal soaps from local companies, Nicole makes Kentucky vendors her merchandise mainstay. Given the wide variety of goods she keeps in store, it would only make sense that Nicole would choose to name her boutique Just For You as it is a place where anyone, whether shopping for a gift or for themselves, can find something that is uniquely for them.

Part of what makes Just For You Boutique so special is that Nicole understands that strength often comes in numbers. She jumps at every opportunity to amplify her store by collaborating with other small businesses around the State capital, thereby growing the customer base for businesses across Main Street. Just this past Halloween, Nicole participated in a ``Trunk-or-Treat'' trunk show where small businesses all around Frankfort came together in a local park to brave the autumn rain and sell their goods. The Halloween trunk show was just one of many community events that Just For You participates in, as they also enjoy vending their goods at other Frankfort festivals and events. Nicole has even offered a unique promotion where customers can show their receipts from other local businesses to receive 10 percent off their purchase from Just For You Boutique. As an entrepreneur, it is clear the Nicole looks beyond the success of her own storefront and works to support those operating around her.

Not only does Nicole do her best to support other small businesses around Frankfort, she runs her store with a charitable heart. When a young lady around Frankfort was diagnosed with breast cancer, Nicole jumped into action. Suzanna, who had spent a lot of time inside Just For You Boutique, designed shirts emblazoned with a pink cancer ribbon with the hashtag #SuzannaStrong. In a show of support for Suzanna, Nicole printed shirt with her design and began selling them in her store, with all proceeds from the sales going towards the cost of Suzanna's medical treatment. It is acts of kindness such as these that sets Just For You Boutique apart from other businesses, as Nicole keeps her finger on the pulse of developments around the community and always keeps an ear out for those in need. I want to commend Nicole on making her dream of owning her own a store a reality and thank her for all that she does to support small businesses. Congratulations to Nicole Boyd along with the entire team at Just For Your Boutique. I look forward to seeing your continued growth and success in Kentucky.

Reserving the right to object, we all agree that racial discrimination is not only wrong but illegal. The Civil Rights Act of 1964 and other Federal statutes prohibit discrimination on the basis of race, color, or national origin.

The Supreme Court found in the 1973 case McDonnell Douglas Corporation v. Green that using a pretextual reason as cover for discrimination is a violation of Federal civil rights law. Subsequently, the protections sought by this bill are already provided for in Federal law. Using hairstyle as a pretext for racial discrimination is already illegal.

But there is reason to believe that this bill is not ready for enactment. When the House Judiciary Committee considered this legislation, some Members questioned whether this legislation would prevent certain hairstyles and lengths out of concern that they may hinder workplace safety or the ability to perform certain critical functions of the job. For example, employers may require certain hairstyles so that personal protective equipment properly protects the wearer.

Many questions remain unanswered about whether this bill would prevent employers from imposing race-neutral standards, such as maintaining a hairstyle that makes it difficult to become caught in machinery on a factory floor or the ability to properly wear a helmet at a construction site.

This bill would make workers less safe, make it more difficult to start a business and provide jobs, and almost certainly result in expensive litigation and overburdened courts.

I object.

Mr. President, in reserving the right to object, the proponents of antitrust laws are famously zealous in their desire to eradicate the curse of bigness. To them, big is always bad except, of course, when it comes to the size and scope of government. The same people who supposedly fear the concentration of power in the marketplace celebrate the concentration of power in the State--a State that asserts itself into and nullifies private contracts, breaks up companies it deems too large, and inflicts punishment on those who succeed in the competition for customers. In short, antitrust seeks to cap the amount of success any company or business can enjoy and the benefits reaped by customers.

As economist Yale Brozen wrote, antitrust law seems to say that firms should compete but should not win; firms should be efficient enough to survive but should not share the fruits of greater efficiency with their customers.

And that is the fatal defect of antitrust policy.

Antitrust fails to accept the lessons of economic history that voluntary exchange is a win-win proposition and that consumers are incredibly powerful in a free market system. A company that continues to reward its customers with superior products and innovations will, in turn, be rewarded with greater market share--with more--and will do better than their competitors and they will grow in size. Size is not necessarily a bad thing. The size of a business reflects its ability to please its consumers.

But no company can achieve a strong position in the market and rest on its laurels. Consumers are too demanding, and competitors will arise to steal customers away from any firm that ceases to treat its clients well. Unlike players in the marketplace who must take note of consumer trends to survive, antitrust enforcers often fail to see what it is that is right in front of their faces.

Just take the issue of video services. In 2005, when Netflix was already several years old and growing in popularity, the FTC--believe it or not--busied itself in blocking a merger between Blockbuster and Hollywood Video. So this is the inside of government. Netflix is beginning to take off, and the antitrust busters--the trust busters-- are breaking up VCR companies and DVD companies. They are going after Blockbuster. This is the incompetence of government, and we should not encourage this. Blockbuster and Hollywood Video no longer exist. Even now, Netflix is one they are worried about. So Netflix was the competitor that put Blockbuster out of business. They wanted to get Blockbuster in order to forbid them from merging. It makes no sense at all.

No such fear exists today, though, that Netflix will be a monopoly since they are competing with Hulu, Peacock, Amazon Prime Video, Disney+, HBO Max, Apple TV, Paramount+, and others, but 5 or 6 years ago, you might have thought: Netflix is going to take over the world, that we have got to break them up. No. If companies please their consumers, let them get bigger. Bigger means they are giving their customers something they want.

We didn't need government to break up Netflix. We didn't need government to interfere to ensure competition and innovation. All we needed to do was to let the marketplace work, but standing in the way of the benefits of the market are the antitrust zealots. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce has pointed out that enacting this bill would stymie legitimate business transactions between sectors and industries, create needless new bureaucracy, and spur unwarranted litigation.

The package is even more nefarious than that. It will take money out of the productive sector--the private sector--and give it to bureaucrats in Washington. As Americans for Tax Reform correctly points out, this legislation would give the Biden administration hundreds of millions of dollars in new funds to pursue a progressive social agenda. They are talking about critical race theory and all of this craziness and injecting this into whether a company can merge or not. This is not something we need to give them more money to do; we need to give them less money.

The package of bills here is just the first step to reinvigorating antitrust law. There is no lack of bills designed to empower government control over the marketplace. Take just one bill called the Competition and Antitrust Law Enforcement Reform Act, which would presume that any merger of a certain size violates the law and shifts the burden of proof to the merging parties. The government doesn't have to prove that your merging and becoming bigger is bad; you have to prove that your merging is somehow a benefit. People merge--they get bigger--to provide a lower cost and gain market share to gain profit for the consumers. That is what capitalism is based on. That is what Adam Smith really wrote about.

According to Robert Bork, Jr., the antitrust bill would enact so many potential ways to prosecute, abuse, and torment companies that government would, in essence, become the real board of directors, and every major company would be ruled by the Federal Government.

That is what is coming. That is what they are proposing. This bill today is a small step in that direction, but what they have in the pipeline is more government control of business. The package today is a mere precursor to designating the Department of Justice and the FTC as the central planners of the American economy. This bill seeks to take the power out of the hands of the consumers and hand it to the antitrust bureaucrats.

Therefore, I object.

Mr. President, as ranking member of the Senate Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship, each week I recognize an outstanding Kentucky small business that exemplifies the American entrepreneurial spirit. This week, it is my privilege to recognize Napier Brothers Clothing of Lancaster, KY, as the Senate Small Business of the Week.

Mr. Lonnie Napier is a lifelong resident of Garrard County, KY, and he remembers when the county did not look quite like it does today. Mr. Napier grew up in a rural part of Garrard County, and as a boy, he did not know the comforts of running water, telephones, electricity, and in-door plumbing. However, as Mr. Napier grew older, he continued to leave his mark on the community. In 1966, at the age of 26 years old, Mr. Napier was elected to the Garrard County Fiscal Court, the youngest man to ever be elected to such group. From that day forward, Mr. Napier would continue his involvement with local government, even as he began his career in the clothing business.

Lonnie Napier opened Napier Brothers Clothing back in 1990, and he has been working at the same location in Lancaster square ever since, making it the oldest small business on the town square. As one might gather from the store's name, Lonnie's business is a family business, having named the store after his two sons, both of which worked in the store during their youth. Today, the store sells all sorts of clothing, ranging from casual wear to clothes suited for working outside, and shoes, ranging from men's and ladies' footwear to work boots suitable for outdoor conditions. According to Lonnie Napier, the most popular item that his store sells is blue jeans, which is no wonder considering the wide selection of blue jeans Mr. Napier keeps stocked in his collection of shelves along the store's wall. Mr. Napier ensures that all products in his store are top quality and that the customer service of Napier Brothers Clothing far exceeds that of his corporate competitors.

Given Garrard County's location within central Kentucky, agriculture enjoys a large influence on their surrounding communities. Large businesses such as Tractor Supply directly compete with Mr. Napier's customer base, but corporations simply cannot match the sense of familiarity and geniality that a customer feels when walking into Napier Brothers Clothing. Mr. Napier has a knack for taking care of his customers, always answering their questions and hearing whatever concerns they may have. His amiability as a business owner is one of the many traits that led him to find success in local governance. A highlight of Mr. Napier's political career occurred back in 1984 when he was running for a seat in the Kentucky House of Representatives. Initially thinking it was a prank, Mr. Napier finally paid a phone call to a telephone number his friends kept insisting he dial. That phone call led to Lonnie Napier receiving an in-person campaign endorsement from then President Ronald Reagan. In addition to having met former President Reagan, Mr. Napier also had the pleasure of meeting former Presidents George Bush, Sr., and Bill Clinton.

Though he occasionally rubbed shoulders with politicians in the big leagues, Mr. Napier never lost sight of his mission to run the best small business in Lancaster. From a country-born boy who grew up having to walk 5 miles to school each day, to a successful Main Street entrepreneur who has consistently looked out for the citizens of Lancaster, Mr. Napier has enjoyed a long and fruitful career in his corner of Kentucky. Congratulations to Lonnie Napier and to the whole team at Napier Brothers Clothing. I look forward to seeing their continued growth and success in Kentucky.

Mr. President, almost 1 year ago, on December 10, 2021, multiple tornadoes touched down all throughout western Kentucky, including one historic supercell tornado that affected multiple States and ended in Kentucky. Lives were upended as homes, businesses, and towns were completely destroyed. In many places, the destruction was total and absolute. At a time when families were to be preparing for a joyous holiday season, they were instead greeted by sorrow and loss, while being surrounded by an uneasy reality of wreckage and despair.

Immediately, local citizens, Kentuckians around the Commonwealth, and people from across the country converged on western Kentucky to help in any way they could. Disaster relief teams sprang into action to meet the needs of those who were impacted and who had lost everything. I am grateful that Kentuckians rose up in the face of this crisis to do whatever was necessary to help and to provide care for our neighbors.

While outside organizations and ministries provided essential services, the real heroes of the story are the communities themselves that were destroyed by the tornado. Through this historic crisis, the men and women of western Kentucky have demonstrated resilience and compassion as they care for the communities they call home. From

the first responders to the local officials to each man, woman, and child involved, there was remarkable strength demonstrated in the face of adversity. Communities have grieved together, served together, hoped together, and rebuilt together. Today, almost 1 year later, we look back on what has been lost, but also resolve to look forward to what can be achieved together.

As we pause to reflect on the destruction of December 10, 2021, we can see the hope that now shines through as towns are rebuilt and communities regain shape. Even in tragedy, Kentucky has shown itself to be resilient and unified. We will continue to press forward and care for our communities.

Mr. President, as ranking member of the Senate Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship, each week I recognize an outstanding Kentucky small business that exemplifies the American entrepreneurial spirit. This week, it is my privilege to recognize Slainte Public House of Georgetown, KY, as the Senate Small Business of the Week.

The dream behind Slainte Public House was born thousands of miles away from its home in the Blue Grass State, dating back to 2015 when owners Matt and Ashley Nunn traveled to Ireland in celebration of their 10th wedding anniversary. Upon their arrival in the Old Country, the Nunns witnessed how pubs across Ireland offered a space where communities could gather. The couple was struck by how these businesses were so entrenched in their communities, serving a purpose far greater than the stated goals of a typical American bar. Thus, upon their return to their home State, the Nunns decided to try their hand at emulating the communal attraction of the Irish pubs they enjoyed and, in the spring of 2016, opened Slainte Public House.

Matt and Ashley's goal for Slainte Public House, or ``The Pub'' as regulars like to call it, is for their community to be strengthened by friendships made onsite. The Nunns sought to create a space that offers its patrons something more profound than just food or drink, but a place where lively discussion is encouraged, hearty laughter is unavoidable, and a tear can be shed every now and then. Today, 6 years after opening, you can ask any Georgetown local, and they will tell you that the Nunns have succeeded in their goal. However, the story of its' Irish inspiration is not the only notable fact about Slainte Public House's creation. In opening Slainte Public House, Matt and Ashley Nunn opened the first licensed bar to operate in Scott County since the days of Prohibition, when the purchase and consumption of alcohol was outlawed. Therefore, the Pub's 6 years in operation makes Slainte Public House the oldest operating licensed bar in Georgetown, KY, a title the Nunns are proud to bare.

Though the pub has been operating less than a decade, the building in which the pub is housed has a history of its own. Constructed in 1793, the building once served as the home of George Algair, who resided there in the 1850s. As chairman of the Independent Ticket, Algair represented a group who opposed efforts to outlaw alcohol in Georgetown. Ann Bevin, a Scott County historian, uncovered a quote from Algair that reads ``Give `em license, for they drink with or without it.'' Perhaps Mr. Algair had a talent for clairvoyance as his former residence now gladly serves as the local watering hole for the good citizens of Georgetown.

Following Scott County's transformation from a ``dry county'' to a ``wet county'' in 2009, there were many Georgetown citizens who were apprehensive about the opening of Slainte Public House 7 short years later in 2016. Though Matt had long dreamed of owning his own bar, his wife Ashley initially was not on board with the idea. However, when the two traveled across the Atlantic, Ashley finally understood what her husband had been dreaming about. A new convert to the idea, the Nunns took special care in making Slainte Public House a place that could foster the style of fellowship they witnessed in the Irish pubs. Walking into Slainte Public House today, you will find overstuffed chairs, conversation nooks, and tables for board games and cards. Overall, the pub has an atmosphere that is warmed by its regular patrons and the kindness of a tightknit community that has embraced Slainte Public House as a beloved fixture of Georgetown.

The Nunns understand that their role in the community extends beyond the walls of Slainte Public House, therefore, the couple has opened their doors to many charitable organizations and causes. Today, the pub sponsors the Finley 5K, Kaden's Cause, Scott County Youth Baseball, the Gathering Place Mission, the Amen House, and Elizabeth's Village. They also have a Charity of the Month Program where donations to different charities are made through sample sales and customer donations. The Nunn's also host fundraisers for various nonprofits, and their pub serves as a meeting place for various local groups, including Scott County firefighters and Bible study groups. In recognizing their contributions to the community Slainte Public House was awarded the 2017 New Business of the Year award by the Georgetown-Scott County Chamber of Commerce. Needless to say, the Nunns' dream of giving back to their community what they witnessed in Ireland has come true, as Slainte Public House has become a beloved institution of Georgetown. Congratulations to Matt and Ashley Nunn along with the entire team at Slainte Public House. I look forward to seeing your continued growth and success in Kentucky.

Mr. President, as ranking member of the Senate Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship, each week I recognize an outstanding Kentucky small business that exemplifies the American entrepreneurial spirit. This week, it is my privilege to recognize Rolf Monument Company of Newport, KY, as the Senate Small Business of the Week.

All across America's Main Streets, one will find small businesses that offer a product or service more valuable than that which is offered by their corporate competitors. Rolf Monument Company is one of those businesses. Established in 1895, Rolf Monument Co is the oldest business in Newport. The secret behind this main street mainstay is their respectful customer service and high-quality products, which are often sought by customers that are going through some of life's toughest moments. Rolf Monument Company is a premier craftsman of custom memorials, and the owner Tim Rolf takes great pride in providing his customers with products that showcase an unparalleled attention to detail and dignified artistry.

Being only the fourth person to run the business since its founding, owner Tim Rolf took the helm of Rolf Monument Company in 1984, and he takes special care in continuing to steward the family company into the modern age. Though his family may not be famous by their name, the work of Rolf Monument Co is well known throughout the tri-state area. Some of the company's most notable works around Newport include the 9/11 Memorial at the World Peace Bell, the Riverwalk plaques, the Northern Kentucky Firefighters Memorial, and the Beverly Hills Supper Club Memorial, which the company is currently designing and building. Perhaps the company's most famous work was a piece commissioned by a movie producer who was then in the production of ``Rain Man''. With the movie being filmed in northern Kentucky, the production crew largely depended on businesses in the northern part of the State to service whatever needs arose while filming. Therefore, Rolf Monument Co was tapped to design the headstones for the fictional parents of the characters played by Tom Cruise and Dustin Hoffman. These movie-famous monuments are on display today at Rolf Monument Company, serving as a reminder of the company's work featured in the hit 1988 movie.

In addition to his reputation for providing top-quality products to all his customers, Tim Rolf has been recognized for his service outside of his leadership of Rolf Monument Company. This year, Mr. Rolf was inducted into the Kentucky Veterans Hall of Fame, a group that honors Kentucky military veterans and educates the community about their accomplishments. Mr. Rolf comes from a family that understands the importance of serving our country; he and his three brothers and one sister all having served in the U.S. military. However, the Kentucky Veterans Hall of Fame not only recognized Mr. Rolf for his contributions during his time in uniform, his induction paid tribute to the fine work he and his company have

done to honor many of our fallen soldiers and servicemen. Memorials that are commissioned for veterans often display additional markings and features not usually featured on the average headstone, such as Bronze Stars and Purple Hearts. In a display of gratitude for their service to our country, whenever Rolf Monument Co receives a commission for one of these specially crafted veterans' headstones, Mr. Rolf adds the additional service-specific features free of charge.

Of the many services this company offers, the most popular is the creation of memorials for families who have recently lost loved ones. Mr. Rolf understands that these monuments often embody the final step in the grieving process, and Rolf Monument Company takes special care to streamline this process and ensure the family of the bereaved is treated with the utmost dignity and respect. Moreover, this same level of dignity is displayed in all the collaboration Rolf Monument Co participates in within the veteran community. Tim Rolf's company often works with AMVETS, Veterans of Foreign Wars, and Vietnam veterans groups. Not only does his company play an important part in the transition of life for Kentucky citizens, but they work tirelessly to pay tribute to the men and women who fought to keep our country free. I want to thank Mr. Rolf for his fine work done on behalf of our Nation's veterans and congratulate him and to the entire team at Rolf Monument Company. I look forward to seeing their continued growth and success in Kentucky.

Madam President, the Constitution is the guarantor of our liberties. So it should come as no surprise that those who crave power to rule over their fellow men always seek to suspend the Constitution by declaring and perpetuating emergencies. This is the trick that always seems to work: Declare an emergency, and exempt yourself from the constitutional restraints on power that are necessary for the preservation of a free society. It is a strategy that has existed since antiquity.

As our Founders enshrined in the Constitution a system of checks and balances, so too did the founders of the Roman Republic. But when the crisis emerged, the Romans dissolved the restraints on power. That is how the Roman Republic died and how Caesar became dictator for life.

There is a touch of Caesarism in the COVID national emergency. The President told us that the pandemic is over, yet the national emergency remains.

When the Senate last voted to terminate the COVID national emergency in March, the White House issued a veto threat. At the time, the White House said: Although we have made tremendous progress in combating the virus, the virus continues to pose a risk to the American people and our healthcare system.

Caesar could not have said it better himself. The administration demands credit for how it wielded extraordinary powers, but it can never claim total success, for doing so would rob the administration of the power it so craves.

Have we forgotten what emergency powers look like? They look like lockdowns, where livelihoods and lives are destroyed. They look like a travel mask mandate. They look like robbing children of a full education. They look like the closure of places of worship. They look like a vaccine mandate for those working in large companies and the military. They look like an eviction moratorium in which the CDC claims the power to destroy contracts and effectively seize private property.

When was the last time you heard the President tell the country it was time to relax emergency powers?

His actions validate the argument made in Robert Higgs' classic work ``Crisis and Leviathan.'' Higgs demonstrated that governments justify the exercise of extraordinary powers during an emergency; but when the crisis ends, even if government gives back some of the powers, it will never voluntarily relinquish all its newfound authorities.

We are free from these monstrous policies only because the courts forced the President to abide by the Constitution. In restoring the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment, the Supreme Court held that ``even in a pandemic, the Constitution cannot be put away and forgotten.'' It bears repeating.

The Constitution doesn't go away. We don't dissolve the Constitution just because there is an infection out. The rights you were granted under the Constitution, the rights that are guaranteed by the Constitution, remain in place even in a pandemic.

When the Supreme Court ended Biden's eviction moratorium, it found that ``[T]he C.D.C. has imposed a nationwide moratorium on evictions in reliance on a decades-old statute that authorizes it to implement measures like fumigation and pest extermination. It strains credulity to believe that this statute grants the C.D.C. the sweeping authority that it asserts.''

The Supreme Court further concluded that our system does not permit

agencies to act unlawfully. And when the Court struck down the vaccine mandate, the Court stated:

This is no ``everyday exercise of federal power.'' It is .

. . a significant encroachment into the lives--and health--of

vast number[s] of employees of Federal power.

When the courts restored the people's liberty, you could count on the Biden administration to express disappointment and claim that disaster was just around the corner. But the administration, time and time again, was proven wrong; and, now, even the President himself acknowledges what is plain to see for anyone willing to recognize what is in front of one's own face. We are learning to live with COVID.

The one thing he does not seem to acknowledge is that the time for emergency measures has long since passed. A President should not be able to unilaterally aggrandize his powers by saying a magic word. If he will not terminate the national emergency himself, it falls to us, the people's representatives in Congress, to act and, in the wise words of one court, remind President Biden that ``there is no pandemic exception to the Constitution.''

Let us end this national emergency and restore the Constitution.