Mike Lee

Mr. LEE

Mr. LEE. Mr. President, this isn't about whether we are against the virus; we are. It is not about whether we are for the vaccine; we are. It is about the fact that only 14 percent of Americans believe that it is fair, just, and proper to fire someone because they refuse to get the vaccine. It is not appropriate for the President of the United States or this government to be ordering everyone to be fired, removing someone from their ability to put bread on the table for their children. It is immoral. It is wrong. It is without foundation and law. It is contrary to the constitutional word. This is shameful. I will be back and I won't stop until we are finished.

Mr. LEE. So today I am offering a bill that would help with this situation. My No Forced Vaccination for COVID-19 Act would prevent the President of the United States or any executive branch agency from issuing a general vaccine mandate, including a mandate that requires an individual to be vaccinated or undergo periodic testing. It would end this extraordinary nightmare for millions of Americans and key businesses. It would put this sorry, mean, cruel saga to an end. The people of Utah and the United States will rest easy if this bill passes. We would be able to focus on encouraging vaccination in reasonable, acceptable, and constitutional ways. I think this is what we all want. Ultimately, I believe in these vaccines. I am fully vaccinated. I have encouraged everyone around me to be vaccinated. I believe these vaccines are helping to protect millions of Americans from the harms of COVID. What is not helping Americans is President Biden's mandate. We can fix that today. That is why I am encouraging my colleagues to support this bill. To that end, Mr. President, as if in legislative session, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of S. 3170, which is at the desk. I ask further 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 with no intervening action or debate.

Mr. LEE. Mr. President, I have introduced 12 bills against President Biden's vaccine mandate. Most of these bills should have been supremely noncontroversial. Some of the bills would have made sure that the exemptions President Biden announced were actually efficacious in the final mandate. Another bill would have made sure that the government didn't vaccinate children without the consent of their parents. Yet another would have provided transparency to the American people on exactly how their tax dollars are being used in this area. Lamentably, each time I asked that one of these bills pass this body, one of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle objected. They determined that legislation protecting religious, medical, and moral exceptions to the mandate were not helpful. They decided that the American people do not deserve to understand how their tax dollars are funding research or COVID relief. They declared that laws protecting parents' rights to make the best decisions for their kids were somehow unnecessary. On each of these issues, the American people, of course, begged significantly to differ. Americans don't appreciate it when their government takes decisions out of their hands. As elections this week showed, parents want a voice in their children's education, and they certainly want to be respected when it comes to medical decisions involving and affecting their children as directly as this one does. Crippling inflation and polling data on Americans' economic outlook show that people want government to be more responsible and more transparent in how it oversees their tax dollars and how it spends them. Those on the other side of the aisle who have objected perhaps aren't getting that particular message. And how tragic that is. I have heard from hundreds of Utahns in recent days who are at risk of losing their livelihoods under the mandate. Many of these individuals are military servicemembers and first responders. Others are key workers. Many have legitimate medical or religious reasons not to be vaccinated. But each one of them is an everyday American. These are mothers and fathers. They live in our communities. They are people we call friends and neighbors. In today's economy, all too many of them are struggling just to get by. Forcing them out of work will put an unimaginable strain on their families and on our economy at a time when they can't afford to face additional strains, certainly not one imposed by the Federal Government. Additionally, I have heard from countless businesses that are worried about keeping their doors open should the mandate require them to fire key members of their workforce, that this just isn't tolerable. These businesses are already under tremendous strain due to the supply chain crisis and inflation and the labor shortage. They fear that they will be unable to operate should the mandate take effect. Every American-- every single American--would suffer if these key industries were to shut down. Now, some might say these impacts are far away. Others still might claim that because the mandate has not yet taken effect, these impacts aren't real or worth worrying about today. I don't think that is true. In fact, nothing could be further from the truth. Now, it is true that President Biden's vaccine mandate is yet to be officially published in the Federal Register. However, it will be tomorrow. The unpublished version of the mandate can now be found, as of a few hours ago, and here is some of what it entails: If employers have 100 or more employees, they must ensure that their workers are either fully vaccinated against COVID-19 by December 5 or that workers test negative for COVID at least once a week by January 4. If an employer has an employee who has yet to be vaccinated, President Biden is requiring the employer to pay workers for the time it takes to get vaccinated and provide sick leave for workers to recover from any side effects. What happens if businesses don't comply? Well, President Biden has threatened them with a nearly $14,000 fine per violation, per person, per day. This is an administrative nightmare and nothing short of it. If employees don't want to be vaccinated against COVID-19, then they must pay for the testing. American workers will be on the hook, and it is not something most Americans can afford. Mr. President, seeing that we have a vote approaching, I ask unanimous consent that Senator Peters and I be able to speak for a period of time not to exceed an additional 5 minutes to complete our remarks.

Mr. LEE

Mr. LEE. Mr. President, the United States is facing economic challenges that we haven't experienced in this country for decades. The supply chain crunch is leading to backlogged ports, and that, in turn, is spilling over into empty shelves. Inflation is exacting a punishing toll on American families; on their budgets, on their quality of life. And it is not the well-off families that are being most harmed by it, no. It is those who are least prepared to endure that. It is America's poor and middle class; those who are working hard to survive from day to day, trying to reach that American dream, trying to ascend the economic ladder that the American dream has long enabled. Now, each of these problems, in its own right, would be a really serious and vexing primary concern for most people and most businesses, even during normal economic times. But these are far from normal economic times. In fact, when businesses are polled, their primary concern isn't about any of these things. It is the labor shortage. Businesses are struggling to find workers. The Joint Economic Committee Republicans released a report recently explaining that Americans have lost many vital connections to work. Government policies and social pressures are leading to a lower labor force participation rate than at any time in decades. This trend is worrying not only because work helps Americans put food on the table--and it does, and it is necessary to do that--but also because work often provides a sense of accomplishment and belonging and self-worth. Work is a social good in its own right. But businesses across the country are struggling to find workers, and that is leading to more of these same problems, leading to higher prices on things that people need to buy. All this is making everything else more complicated, more difficult for America's poor and middle class. I have spoken to businessowners in Utah, who are closing their doors for days each week because they can't find workers. Some businesses are offering extremely generous salaries and signing bonuses for those who are willing to work. Nonetheless, they are still struggling to find employees. Now, work is often the primary connection Americans have with peers. Work provides a sense of involvement, taxpayer responsibility, and community with others. Work is also the way we get things done. It is how we manufacture, farm, mine, and build. Work is a requisite for prosperity at any level, in any form. Unfortunately, President Biden is making work more difficult and less enticing, increasingly less possible. Raising taxes on Americans gives them less incentive to work, and as the Penn Wharton Budget Model shows, the Democrats' trimmed-down plan would cost almost $4 trillion over 10 years and cost American taxpayers $1.5 trillion in new taxes. Through his unconstitutional and sweeping vaccine mandate, President Biden is forcing countless American workers out of a job and preventing others from joining or rejoining the workforce. This is far from a mere abstract constitutional transgression. This is a constitutional violation that goes far beyond the text of a document that extends deeply into the lives of the American people, especially the poor and the middle class. I have now heard from over 300 Utahans who are at risk of losing their livelihoods due to this mandate. Their stories are gut-wrenching. Their stories are tragic. Their stories remind me of how indefensible and inexcusable and immoral this vaccine mandate truly is. These are ordinary, everyday, hard-working Americans who all too often are just trying to make ends meet, put food on the table, provide for their families, and otherwise get by. Many of them have legitimate medical, moral, or religious objections. Many of them work for employers who have no desire to implement the mandate and who themselves are worried about their ability to keep their businesses open. Now, I have heard from a number of Utah businesses whose management and ownership have expressed these exact same feelings, and I have heard from Utah workers who have expressed these feelings over and over and over again. Let me tell you about a few people I have heard from who have described this awful situation. Now, one Utah business in the high-tech space has expressed concern about losing valuable employees due to the mandate. The business that I am referring to at the moment has implemented policies to encourage vaccination and recognizes, of course, the value that vaccination can bring to the workforce. Nonetheless, the businessowners are uncomfortable with making these decisions for their employees. The business's management said: ``We feel strongly that it is not the government's right to require vaccination.'' They are absolutely right. A growing Utah food manufacturer with 350 employees is very worried about the mandate's impact on that company's ability to keep product moving. This business plays an important role in food supply chains in Utah, throughout the Western United States, and throughout the country. Leaders of this business said: ``This mandate is government overreach, is outside the scope and purpose of OSHA, and will have dire consequences on our company and our economy in this extremely tight labor market.'' They know that some of their workforce would quit if the mandate were enforced. Another Utah business is similarly worried. This larger operation's leadership said: ``We are in a difficult labor situation. It is a daily struggle to be fully staffed and produce the products our customers expect. Some of our employees have stated they will quit if forced to be vaccinated. Any disruption in our labor force will be critical to our operations, and a disruption in our labor force not only means some of our customers may not receive product they expect, it may mean local, time-sensitive supply would not get processed. That disruption would be devastating.'' Now, it is important here that I not be misunderstood. I am against the mandate, but I support the vaccine. I have been vaccinated. I have encouraged others to be vaccinated. These vaccines are helping countless people avoid the harms associated with COVID-19. But this mandate is already doing serious harm to our economy and to people who want the right, the basic human right, to make their own medical decisions. That is why I, along with my colleague, the Senator from Kansas, Dr. Marshall--Senator Marshall and I have sent a letter directly to the majority leader, Senator Schumer. We have advised him, months before the current spending period ends in December, that we will oppose any funding legislation that enables the enforcement of President Biden's employer vaccine mandate. It is essential to remember here that Congress, the branch of government most accountable to the people at the most regular intervals, this is where the Constitution places the power of the purse. This is where the Constitution places the power to pass legislation. Congress, not the President, has the authority to decide how Federal funds are spent. Now, we believe our funds would be misspent in this way or any endeavor that would harm Utahans and Kansans and all Americans, would worsen our difficult economic situation, or would take away fundamental medical freedoms. This now marks the thirteenth day that I have come to the Senate floor to oppose the mandate. I am going to continue to do so for as long as it takes to beat the mandate. I encourage all of my colleagues to join me in this effort. And when I say that, I want to be clear. I am not speaking to one side of the aisle or the other. I invite all to join me in this cause. Why? Well, because Americans overwhelmingly--regardless of whether they live in a red State or a blue State or a purple State, Americans overwhelmingly oppose this mandate. According to a poll recently reported on in Axios--hardly a rightwing publication--revealed that 14 percent--just 14 percent--of Americans believe that the response to someone not receiving the vaccine should involve them losing their job. Just 14 percent of Americans agree with President Biden that you should have to choose between keeping your job and getting a vaccine that might go against your religious beliefs or that might worsen a preexisting medical condition that has caused your doctor to advise you to be cautious in getting the vaccine. These decisions are not those of the President of the United States to make. You see, he doesn't have that power. My copy of the Constitution says that the power to make law rests in this branch of government, the legislative branch, the Congress. And my copy of the Constitution says that he can't make law, which he essentially did when he purported to have and purported to plan to exercise the power unilaterally, acting alone, to require every worker at every employer that has more than 100 employees--more than 99 employees to get the vaccine or be fired. This isn't right. Deep down, the American people know it isn't right. Deep down they know that this is not a partisan issue. This is an unabashed power grab by the President of the United States. It is not one that is of the sort that the American people will accept kindly. I have said before, I am not sure I can think of a more egregious example of a President exercising power that is not his own in many decades. This is, in some ways, reminiscent of President Harry Truman's decision to seize every steel mill in America in order to make sure that the output could be dedicated to the Korean war effort. The American people didn't smile upon that one. Neither did the Supreme Court of the United States, which, within weeks of President Truman's action on April 8, 1952, decided that he didn't have that authority. Some may ask: Well, if it is so unconstitutional here, why hasn't the Supreme Court acted? I will tell you why. Because President Biden hasn't had the basic decency to issue an order explaining a basis for his authority and providing a basis for someone to challenge the legitimacy of his authority to order every business with more than 99 employees--to force its entire workforce to get vaccinated. He hasn't had the decency to do that. Consequently, no one can sue yet. Consequently, employers everywhere with more than 99 employees are forced to guess as to what it would look like. And in the meantime, their lawyers with good reason and their risk management departments and their human resources departments are understandably saying: We don't want to get caught flatfooted, especially because we have been threatened as employers with $70,000 per day, per person, mounting civil monetary penalties. This would be crippling to any business. So what are they doing? Well, they are getting ahead of it. They are guessing as to what the most extreme version of the OSHA mandate might look like, and then they are exceeding that. And they are already in the process of threatening termination and, in some ways, in some cases, imposing it. In many cases, they are not even having the decency to fire them. They are, instead, putting them on unpaid administrative leave. This is especially cruel because it renders them completely ineligible for unemployment. So, Mr. President, I ask you: Is this moral? Is this just? Setting aside for a moment the question of whether this is constitutional--and I assure you, unequivocally, it is not. But even setting aside that question, is it moral? Is it proper? Is it acceptable to do this to America's poor and middle class? It is not. I yield the floor.

Mr. LEE

Mr. LEE. Madam President, I have now come to the Senate floor 12 times to speak against President Biden's unconstitutional and unwise vaccine mandate. I have introduced 12 bills to counter and limit the mandate. Each time I have asked for one of these bills--each of which should be uncontroversial--and tried to get the Senate to pass them, one Senator or another from across the aisle has objected. Some of these bills have required only transparency. Other bills would have ensured that religious and medical exemptions be honored. Others still would simply require parental consent before vaccinating children. While far from the right answer of empowering Americans with all the information to make the decision themselves on when, whether, and under what circumstances to receive the COVID-19 vaccine, these commonsense bills would make the situation better. Each one of them would make it better. Each one of them is and properly should be uncontroversial. Now, throughout the process, I have been criticized by those on the other side of the aisle. I have been accused of attacking science and our institutions and somehow perpetuating the virus. Nothing could be further from the truth--nothing. I am for the vaccine. I have been vaccinated. Every member of my family has been vaccinated. I have encouraged others to be vaccinated all along. Nevertheless, Madam President, my support for the vaccine cannot, must not, and will never supersede my sworn oath to uphold, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States; nor can it supersede the rights of Americans who should, in any free society, in any fair society, be at liberty to make their own properly informed medical decisions. This right has been recognized and it has been rightly celebrated throughout American history. Another principle deeply enshrined, embedded, built into our Constitution that has been wholly ignored in implementing this mandate and countless other infringements of the rights and freedoms of Americans is the separation of powers. Checks and balances require that all ministers, consuls, and officers of the United States be confirmed by the advice and consent of the Senate. Some of us take that responsibility very seriously. Any commissioned officer in the military being promoted to O-4 rank or higher requires Senate confirmation. That, of course, is the equivalent of a major in the Army. In other areas of government, positions such as members of the Advisory Board for Cuba Broadcasting, the board of the African Development Foundation, members of the National Councils on the Arts and Humanities, members of the National Science Board, and board members of the Corporation for National and Community Service all require Senate confirmation--every one of them. Oddly, one position that has exerted huge power over the American people, particularly in recent years, does not require Senate confirmation. The Director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention manages over 10,000 employees and has requested over $15 billion for the Centers' fiscal year 2022 budget. The CDC, in recent months, has suspended property rights nationwide. It has provided capricious recommendations that local and State officials have used to strictly limit freedoms across the country. The CDC has shown through its own actions and the effects of those actions just how powerful it is. The sheer immensity of the CDC's power has been demonstrated over and over and over again on wide public, very prominent display for the American people to see and witness and experience. We can and we should debate the authorities of the CDC here in Congress because Congress is, of course, the branch of government most accountable to the people at the most regular intervals. That is why the most dangerous powers, really, are lodged here, is because of the fact that we stand accountable to the people at the most regular intervals. Every Member of the House stands for election every 2 years. A third of the Senate stands for reelection every 2 years. So we should debate and discuss the authorities of the CDC here in Congress for that very reason. I look forward to that discussion, which we need to have more of, but the matter at hand today is much simpler. We must consider whether the CDC Director ought to be confirmed by the U.S. Senate. Now, it is absurd to think that someone so powerful can assume this office with no say whatsoever from the legislative branch. It is even more absurd to say that the Senate confirms members of an advisory board on broadcasting in Cuba to protect the interests of the American people-- those we represent and those who elected us--but that it has no business confirming someone to be the Director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. My bill would fix that problem. The Restoring Trust in Public Health Act would require that the CDC Director be confirmed by the Senate. This bill is cosponsored by Senators Blackburn, Tuberville, Sullivan, Braun, Tillis, and Scott of Florida. I appreciate their support for this long-past-due measure. In order to increase trust in the vaccine and trust in government, we must return transparency and accountability to the process. This bill, in the spirit of the Constitution, would provide an important check on government power and give the people a say in the CDC. Now, today, I had planned to ask the Senate to pass this bill by unanimous consent. However, just in the last few hours, I have learned that negotiations are now underway and a deal may well be struck in order to make this proposal or something very similar to it law. In light of that development, I will withhold my live UC request for today. But I will note here that if progress isn't made on such a deal, I will be back soon--certainly before the end of the year--to ask this body to immediately take up and pass S. 2734. Thank you. I yield the floor.

Mr. LEE

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

Mr. LEE. Mr. President, I appreciate the insight from my friend, colleague, and distinguished Senator from Michigan. I appreciate his willingness to look out for making sure that there isn't duplication in government. I also think it is important that at a time when we are spending an unprecedented amount of money, that we are on the side of redoubling efforts to audit, to oversee. There has never been a time in American history when we have brought in more money than we have brought in in the year 2020. We brought in over $3 trillion. But there has never been a time when we have spent nearly as much money in total dollars or as far as a number of dollars relative to what we brought in. I mean, we spent $6.6 trillion last year. This is an enormous amount of money. We are spending a comparable amount again this year--again, trillions of dollars more than we are bringing in. We are doing it ostensibly because of the COVID pandemic. And for that reason, it is good that we make sure that we know where we are spending that money, where it is going. If it can make our efforts more effective and more efficient, if this is about protecting and sustaining life, then why wouldn't we want to make sure that it is being done in the most effective, efficient way possible? We work for the people. They deserve to know where the money is being spent.

Mr. LEE. Mr. President, earlier today, President Biden announced his new, revised, supposedly curtailed, social spending plan for America. It seems that the depressing economic numbers, the soaring costs of goods, mounting data that government spending is to blame, or perhaps some more moderate voices within the Democratic conference forced him to walk this latest monstrosity back. Democrats, who won control with the slimmest of majorities, feel that they have a mandate to change more about American society and spend more money than any group of elected officials in American history. The White House Chief of Staff tweeted today, bragging that this deal is still twice as big as the New Deal in real dollars. Be it at $3.5 trillion or a little less, we have lost almost all sense of what money means, at least when it comes to money being spent by Washington--by public officials who congratulate themselves, each other, and, in return, are congratulated by many in the media for spending other people's money or spending money we don't have, money that ends up, effectively, being printed. Our Founding Fathers entrusted Congress with the power of the purse because they expected Congress, which is the branch of government most accountable to the people at the most regular intervals, to be most likely to jealously guard the funds of those who sent us here. Understanding that as every Member of the House is required to stand for election every 2 years, and one-third of the Members of this body are required to stand for election every 2 years, that ought to have an effect. It ought to have precisely the effect that we remember: that it is not our money; it is the people's money, and that when we run out of it, we can't just pretend that we have more. When you do that, it causes problems--especially for the poor and the middle class. The Framers assumed that Congress would be the most responsible branch in managing our Nation's finances--again, because we are the branch most accountable to the people. But in this respect we failed. We failed in every sense. We failed dismally, miserably. Americans work for months out of every single year just to pay their Federal taxes. Yet our Nation is still barreling toward $30 trillion of national debt. We are now reaching devastating debt-to-GDP ratios that we have never contemplated during peacetime in America. And Americans are feeling the pain--real Americans, everyday Americans. Inflation is at its highest rate in decades. Everything from gas to groceries, from housing to healthcare--it is all more expensive and getting more expensive every single day. We know from sad experience that this isn't going to go away anytime soon. Prices, once they go up, tend to stick. Meanwhile, President Biden, apparently, is not satisfied with only making things more expensive, but he is also making it harder and in some cases impossible for many Americans to work. His still-unpublished vaccine mandate is causing millions of Americans to be at risk of losing their employment or, alternatively, acquiescing to Federal medical extortion. These are everyday Americans, all too often struggling just to get by. They are not bad people. They are not people whom we should shun. No. These are mothers and fathers. Some are first responders, and others are military heroes. They are our neighbors, friends, and fellow citizens. They deserve the respect and autonomy to make this decision for themselves. And the Constitution, when properly followed, protects Americans from precisely this type of Federal intrusion, especially this type of Federal intrusion wielded by one man, one person, in one office. I have heard now from over 300 Utahans just in the last few weeks who are at risk of losing their livelihoods due to the President's mandate. These are just the ones I have heard from. For every one I have heard from, there are many, many others who are being affected. Their stories are moving, and they are as moving as they are tragic. And we must do something to help. Allow me to be very clear. While I am very much against the mandate, I am for the vaccine. I have been vaccinated. My entire family has been vaccinated. I have encouraged other people to get vaccinated. These vaccines are helping to protect many, many millions of Americans against the harmful effects of COVID-19. That does not, however, excuse the heavy-handed, nanny state approach of forcing this decision on Americans, of threatening Americans, coercing them, extorting them into doing the will of the President of the United States. This is not only an action not backed up by law or consistent with the constitutional separation of powers, but it is immoral. And it is mean to tell a mom or a dad you are not going to be able to put food on the table for your children if you don't get a medical procedure that we want you to get but that you don't want to get, for whatever reason: a religious reason, a particular medical condition that you have been warned about from your doctor, or whatever else it may be. People shouldn't have to choose between the ability to make a living and the coerced receipt of an unwanted medical procedure. This is why I have come to the Senate floor 11 times now to fight against the mandate and why I am going to keep coming. Today, I am offering what should be an incredibly uncontroversial bill. My Transparency in COVID-19 Expenditures Act, which is cosponsored by Senators Braun, Lummis, Sullivan, and Tuberville, would simply require an audit of COVID-19 relief funding. It would allow Congress to determine what spending in this pandemic worked and what spending did not. It would help us return a little bit of financial oversight and sanity and responsibility and accountability to Congress and to our government. This information would also allow taxpayers to see how their dollars are being spent and whether they are being spent wisely. It is that simple. And I encourage my colleagues to support the bill. I would like now to yield time to my friend and distinguished colleague, the Senator from Wyoming.

Mr. LEE

Mr. LEE. Madam President, in politics, on television, on social media, and pretty much everywhere, it seems that people are decrying the surge of ``misinformation.'' False information and dangerous ideas exist, but the cure to factions of falsehood and the kinds of harms coming from them was something that was prescribed in the very early days of our Republic. James Madison wrote in Federalist No. 10 of the value that our large Union would always possess in defeating self-interested and dangerous ideas and philosophies and specifically factions. The answer is simple: Our free society, with free exchange of ideas, allows for a multiplicity of viewpoints, perspectives, and opinions to be heard, and then the true, correct, and useful ideas tend to rise to the top. Madison wrote: The increased variety of parties comprised within the Union, increase . . . security. At this point, I would add that the definition of ``parties'' here is best understood to encompass information, ideas, and opinions--all things that tend to unify people around one faction or another, one party or another, one group of people or another. But, oh, how many have lost their way since then. Be it through mandates, censorship, cancel culture, or something else, it seems that this dialogue of ideas and information is being rejected by many segments of our society. What a shame that is. It is an even greater shame that, often, this is the result of government action. Yesterday, I came to the Senate floor with one of my dozen bills to try to counteract President Biden's vaccine mandate. This bill that I offered up yesterday required only that the Secretary of Health and Human Services provide the information the Department already has on adverse COVID-19 vaccine effects to the public. We have already got this information. We just wanted them to share it with the public, with the American taxpayer--those who have been footing the bill all along. Regrettably, the senior Senator from Washington objected to the bill and described it as a waste of time and one that would somehow undermine trust. My response to that is simple: Why would we ever want the Federal Government to hide any health information from Americans? If we want to build confidence in these vaccines, and we do--I certainly do--then the Federal Government must get out of its own way and build trust and confidence with concerned Americans by sharing information. Allow me to be abundantly clear. I am very much against the vaccine mandate, but I am for the vaccine. I have been vaccinated. I have encouraged others, including my family, to be vaccinated, and they have done so. I believe these vaccines are miracles. They are helping many millions of Americans to avoid the harms of COVID-19. But there are many Americans who are deeply concerned with the vaccine. They are not going to be people who are simply convinced by cruelty or by extortion. I have heard from over 300 Utahns who are at risk of losing their livelihoods due to this damaging, senseless, and immoral mandate. These are not our enemies. They are mothers and fathers. They are neighbors. They are military servicemembers. They are our friends. They deserve more respect than being fired, brushed aside, and permanently relegated to unemployable, outcast status, which is the inevitable consequence of this mandate. This is where it naturally leads. Now, many of these people would appreciate more information from the COVID research that their taxpayer dollars are already paying for. One would expect that the amount of research should be pretty darn extensive considering that as of May 31, 2021, just a few months ago, Congress had supplemented the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services with approximately $484 billion in COVID-19 funds. That is a lot of money. That is almost half a trillion dollars. Keep in mind that a trillion dollars represents, last I checked, roughly $3,000 for every man, woman, and child in America--not every taxpayer; not every worker; but every man, woman, and child in America. This is roughly half a trillion, so we are talking somewhere in the neighborhood of $1,500 for every man, woman, and child in America. This is their money. These are their funds. This is money that they worked really hard to produce. So it should be their information that they have access to. But, lamentably, as recent news has shown, the National Institutes of Health often feels the need to hide information about its activities from the public. So, today, I have come to the Senate floor for now the 10th time on the vaccine mandate with a solution that should be entirely noncontroversial. My bill, the Transparency in COVID-19 Research Act, would simply require that the Secretary of Health and Human Services publish all the studies and findings that the Department has supported regarding COVID- 19. The bill provides for the privacy of researchers and study participants. The bill would better inform Americans about the COVID-19 vaccines. The American people deserve to have this information. After all, they have paid for it, and after all, they are now routinely being subjected to it whether they want it or not. Again, this whole exercise should be about building trust and confidence in the COVID-19 vaccine. That is, after all, what we want. You are never going to get that through threat, intimidation, extortion. In any event, it is immoral action. That is not something we can justify. That is not the way to treat our friends, our neighbors, our servicemembers. I am grateful to my colleagues, Senators Braun, Lummis, and Tuberville, who agree and have joined me as cosponsors of the bill. Look, if we want the American people to be comfortable with the COVID-19 vaccines, we should be more than comfortable providing the research that led to their development and their approval. If we want Americans to trust their government, we should be clear that it does not hide important health and research information from them. If we want our Republic to function properly, just like James Madison hoped for, then we need to have an open dialogue with all the information. The bill would be a positive step toward each of these ends, and I encourage my colleagues to support it. So, 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. 2844 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. LEE. Madam President, it is disappointing that we weren't able to take this step today to restore trust and confidence with the American people in research that they have now spent half a trillion dollars conducting. I understand the impulse to--as my friend and colleague, the distinguished Senator from Virginia, put it--to let scientists handle science. That doesn't mean, that shouldn't mean, that must never mean that we exclude the American people from the right to access the findings of their own government--a government that has used their own taxpayer dollars to the tune of half a trillion dollars just through HHS and through trillions more on other COVID-19-related efforts. We should be able to trust the American people to access that information, and when we hide it, it erodes trust and confidence in the very vaccine that President Biden is trying to force on all Americans, even at the pain of losing their jobs.

Mr. LEE

Mr. LEE. Mr. President, in recent years, particularly those on the other side of the aisle have called for, declared, and demanded that we rebuild what they call trust in government. While I believe that Americans must have a healthy distrust of the idea of government and any expansion of the necessarily limited powers of the Federal Government, that does not exempt government from the obligation of being trustworthy. That is why I find the position that so many of my colleagues across the aisle are taking to be so confusing: trust, but verify; trust your neighbor, count the cards. People need information with which to analyze the faithfulness of government and to accept the facts as they deem appropriate. Now they claim that Americans must be forced, coerced, prodded, cajoled, threatened into making the government-approved medical decision. But heaven forbid if someone resists, objects due to moral or religious beliefs, or opts out of being vaccinated due to specific unique health concerns, she is derided and ignored, and--if the current Presidential administration has its way--forced out of her job. All of this is supposed to build a safer and more trusting society? This argument is totalitarian, and it is wrong. The United States is an open society, and the only way by which government can build trust with the American people is to earn it. The government will earn that trust only through transparency. I have come to the Senate floor now nine times to oppose President Biden's immoral, unwise, and damaging vaccine mandate. I am committed to keep this going for as long as it takes to beat the mandate. I have introduced, now, a dozen bills to counteract, restrict, or limit the mandate. I do all this because I have heard from over 300 Utahans from one end of the State to the other, who are at risk of losing their livelihoods due to this aggressive government overreach. Overreach of the government is staggering in here. It is an overreach the likes of which we haven't seen in this country in a long time; the likes of which we arguably haven't seen since April 8, 1952, when President Harry Truman seized every steel mill in America in order to support the Korean war effort. Fortunately, within a couple of months, the Supreme Court of the United States acted and invalidated that maneuver as unlawful, unconstitutional, which, of course, it was. In this instance, that hasn't happened because, with respect to the OSHA mandate, the employer mandate--one saying all employers with more than 99 employees have to comply, have to fire people who aren't vaccinated--there is nothing there because the authority doesn't exist. But, in the meantime, corporate America is picking up the slack and doing the President's dirty work for him. But it is a government overreach, and it is an overreach that is harming good people, people who are not enemies of the United States. No, they are not enemies to anyone. They are our neighbors, our fellow citizens, and our friends. Their stories are as tragic as they are moving, yet this administration seems bent on assuming that they have no voice, on giving them no voice. Don't get me wrong, I am not against the mandate--I am against the mandate. I am not against the vaccine, not in any way. I am fully vaccinated. My entire family has been vaccinated. I have encouraged people to get vaccinated for the specific reason that I see the vaccines as miracles and miracles that are protecting many, many millions of Americans from the harms of COVID-19. But if government is trying to encourage Americans to get vaccinated, hiding information about their concerns with the vaccine is the worst possible way to build trust. It has the exact opposite of what they claim they are trying to do. Existing concerns, make no mistake, are not just going to evaporate if they are ignored. And the government's lack of transparency should be just as concerning to Americans who aren't worried about the vaccine as it is to those who are. Government should never be in the business of hiding information about the adverse effects and risks involved, no matter how infrequent or uncommon they might be. And the government has--let's face it--been less than forthright with information about vaccine complications. Adverse reactions to the vaccine have been documented since the COVID-19 shot became available. The administration's message has been: Get the vaccine; it is safe, period. If individuals pose questions about possible risks, about its interactions with other medical treatments, or about rare reactions seen directly after its administration, they are often pushed aside, denied proper care, or deemed crazy conspiracy theorists for trying to scare the public away from the vaccine. Sadly, this breeds distrust and it threatens the ability of those who experience rare vaccine injuries, the ability to access the proper treatment, care, and respect they deserve. We should all be able to agree this type of governmental deception has no place in the United States. That is why today I came to the floor to offer the Transparency in COVID-19 Vaccination Act. This bill would require the Secretary of Health and Human Services to publicly disclose all information regarding adverse effects of the COVID-19 vaccines. This sunshine would help clear the air and allow individuals and the medical community the opportunity to make informed decisions. This clarity would also be an important step toward building trust with the American public. Americans have the best, most accurate information when they make medical decisions--at least they try to. They deserve to have the best and most accurate information when they make medical decisions. This bill would ensure that happens. That is why I came to the floor to offer it today, offer that we pass it and offer the protections. My friend and distinguished colleague, the Senator from Washington, regrettably objected to it. In doing so, she argued that it is not necessary because, according to the Senator from Washington, all the information that they need is now available. In many instances, it is not. This bill would require that be made available--all of it. The CDC does collect information on it, but the American people don't have full access to that information, and they should. That begs the question: Why? Why would anyone want to do that? I don't know why. To me, it doesn't make sense, especially if one wants to increase the number of people getting the vaccine as I do. I would like to see more people getting vaccinated because I think the vaccine is something of a medical miracle and it is protecting many, many millions of Americans from the harmful effects of COVID-19. That is a good thing. We want them to be protected. To be protected, we want them to get vaccinated. It doesn't mean government should force it on them, and it certainly doesn't mean that government should be perceived in any way as being less than forthcoming with information that it gains access to. That is all this bill would require. It is not hard. There is nothing wrong with doing that. In fact, my colleague from Washington insists that it is already done. If that is the case, what is wrong with putting that into law? There isn't anything. We should do it. I will be back on this and other topics related to the COVID-19 vaccine mandates. All this is unfortunate. No one is happy about the fact that COVID-19 has touched our country in the way that it has. It has been painful. It is devastating. The 730,000 Americans who have died with COVID are tragedies, each and every one of them. There is nothing about government overreach that will bring them back. There is certainly not anything about government overreach that is going to have a proper influence than the American people. There is certainly not anything about government hiding the ball when it comes to data that the American people deserve and want to have access to that is going to make people better. We want more people to get vaccinated. Because of that, we want them to have the facts. We should do that.

Mr. LEE. Mr. President, I will be delivering remarks in a moment regarding the unanimous consent request that I am about to make. In deference and as a courtesy to my colleague from Washington, I will make the request first rather than speaking first. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent, as if in legislative session, that the Committee on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions be discharged from further consideration of S. 2841 and the Senate proceed to its immediate consideration. Further, I ask unanimous consent that the bill be read a third time and passed and that the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table.

Mr. LEE

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

Mr. LEE

Mr. LEE. Mr. President.

Mr. LEE. 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. LEE. 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.

Mr. LEE

Mr. LEE. 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.

Mr. LEE. 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. LEE

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

Mr. LEE

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

Mr. LEE

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

Mr. LEE

Mr. LEE. 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. LEE

Mr. LEE. 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. LEE. 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. LEE

Mr. LEE. 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?