Mike Lee

Mr. LEE

Mr. LEE. Mr. President, it is not helpful to American families to threaten the breadwinner--the mom or the dad or, maybe, both of them in some cases--with being rendered unemployed and unemployable and unable to put bread on the table. This is not about being anti-vaccine. I am not that, and neither are any of the Senators who are supporting this effort. This is about supporting American families. It is not supporting them to order them fired. Vote on Amendment No. 4989

Mr. LEE

Mr. LEE. Madam President, it is unfortunate that we are not able to vote on this. It is a simple measure, and contrary to the characterization by my friend and distinguished colleague, the Senator from Michigan, this is a simple transparency measure. Look, the fact that there are people within the Postal Service reviewing the contracts doesn't solve the underlying problem. What we want is transparency. What we want to know is that the Postal Service isn't setting up contracts that are sweetheart deals to some companies, allowing them to be enriched on the backs of the American taxpayer and the consumer who uses the Postal Service. It is not too much to ask. So it is unfortunate that we can't. All I want is a vote on that. We ought to be able to vote on it. It makes me wonder: What are they afraid of? What is the Postal Service so afraid of? What is the harm that can come from the American people knowing how these things operate? What is the harm that can come from striking a provision that is vague and ripe with opportunities for abuse--strike that and replace it with transparency provisions? We would all be better off. So that is unfortunate. I do think we ought to consider that and also another amendment. Unanimous Consent Request--Amendment No. 4937 Madam President, to that end, I ask unanimous consent to set aside the pending amendment and call up amendment No. 4937; further, that the amendment be reported by number, that there be 2 minutes of debate equally divided on the amendment, and that the Senate then vote on adoption of the amendment with no intervening action or debate.

Mr. LEE. Madam President, here again is an amendment. The Senate has to get back to the practice of amending bills. I understand not everybody is inclined to agree on it. I understand the abortion issue is tough for a lot of people. They don't want to talk about it. But, look, until a few months ago, these weren't available through the mail system anyway. They still shouldn't be. I believe those who made that decision to allow that over the last few months were overlooking the health and safety concerns that had previously prohibited those things from happening. Regardless, it really is unfortunate we can't even vote on this. I understand not everybody agrees on the substance of the amendment, but what previously made the Senate the world's greatest deliberative legislative body was the ability of any one Member to bring up an amendment and have it voted on. I think that is unfortunate.

Mr. LEE. Madam President, the U.S. Postal Service is in dire trouble. The Government Accountability Office has listed its financial viability as high risk, and it has been in that status since 2009. From 2007 until 2020, the Postal Service had losses of $86 billion and over $188 billion in unfunded liabilities and debt. From October to December of last year alone--just a few months--it lost $1.3 billion. I think it is a mistake to rush postal reform now, when Congress should instead debate and consider the country's response to and role in the Ukraine-Russia situation. We could be responding to skyrocketing energy prices. Nevertheless, I do very much support dealing with the post office and reforming the post office. We have to do this. Unfortunately, this bill falls far short in much more than just its timing. It does nearly nothing to make the Postal Service solvent. I have offered 12 amendments. Sadly, my efforts, along with those of my Republican colleagues, have been blocked. But I can't just step aside without trying to make the bill better. Today, I would like to briefly speak about just 2 of the 12 amendments I have filed, just two of them in particular, and ask that they be called up and voted on. The first strikes a provision in the bill that would require the Postal Service to ``maintain an integrated network for the delivery'' of postal products and would require the disclosure of the rates that the USPS charges private companies for the last mile delivery of packages. The term ``integrated network'' isn't defined in the bill, and it could be easily used to bundle or combine expenses, which would in turn allow the USPS to further disguise serious costs and make a proper accounting of certain products difficult or even impossible. The simple idea of an ``integrated delivery network'' may seem benign--and the term itself sounds friendly enough--but words do matter. Words in context and their meaning, these are things that matter. This particular legislative text with no clear definition is ripe for abuse. Because the Postal Service is required to deliver to every American, even on unprofitable routes, the Postal Service may be charging lower than market rates in its service contracts with private companies. This may not only shortchange the Postal Service, making further taxpayer bailouts likely, but it could also distort competition in the package delivery market. The American public deserves a proper accounting of Postal Service rates, and my amendment will ensure this disclosure is provided in a fully transparent manner. My second amendment prohibits the Postal Service from shipping any ``abortion inducing drug.'' Chemical abortions have four times the complication rate of surgical abortions and are far more likely to send women to the emergency room. Unfortunately, in December of 2021--just a few months ago--the Food and Drug Administration permanently rescinded a longstanding regulation that required healthcare professionals to dispense chemical abortion pills to patients in person, allowing them to be sent through the mail without even basic precautions to protect the life and health of the mother. Not only does this policy change threaten the lives and the health of women, but it raises the disturbing possibility that perpetrators of sexual abuse may be further enabled to hide their crimes from legal authorities and health professionals through mail-order abortion. Furthermore, because taxpayer dollars--particularly, over the last few years--have funded the Postal Service's operations, American taxpayer resources are funding abortion and putting women at risk. Congress must put an end to this and exercise its authority to ensure that the U.S. Government does not encourage or facilitate the use of these dangerous and lethal abortion drugs. I also support the efforts of my many colleagues. Senator Scott's amendment would alleviate some of the financial burdens that this bill would impose on taxpayers and the Medicare Program by forcing the Postal Service to reimburse Medicare for all of the additional costs that would be created by requiring future postal retirees to enroll in Medicare. Congress and the Postal Service have historically made bad policy and business decisions, and now, instead of fixing those or otherwise meaningfully addressing them, it is simply shifting millions of workers from coverage historically provided by an independent Federal Agency onto taxpayers more broadly. The Postal Service and the American people deserve a thoughtful bill, one that reforms its key challenges, setting the Agency up for long- term success. But without any amendments to change the trajectory, this bill only kicks the can down the road without making the serious changes that are needed today. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to set aside the pending amendment and call up my amendment No. 4936. Further, I ask that the amendment be reported by number, that there be 2 minutes of debate equally divided on the amendment, and that the Senate then vote on adoption of the amendment with no intervening action or debate.

Mr. LEE

Mr. LEE. Madam President, as you saw at the State of the Union Address last night, a number of pandemic restrictions in Congress have seemingly ended, thanks to the CDC's convenient decision to update its guidance on mask wearing and social distancing earlier this week. Some Democratic politicians in the room were cheering, chanting, embracing, and crowding. Though many of them continue to publicly condemn those who have chosen not to wear masks or socially distance, they were maskless and were not distanced themselves. So why the immediate change? Well, perhaps it is because they simply could not waste the political opportunity for partisan theater with which they could raise the curtain on their Big Government aspirational new normal. Sure, President Biden can attempt to hide behind CDC guidance, the very same CDC guidance that crafted a complex system to provisionally grant Americans permission to live as free citizens, but he fell into a perpetual pitfall of the left. He forgot that Americans are a lot smarter, perhaps, than he thinks they are. Americans can see through the transparent political theater and the constructive convenient timing. They see the hypocrisy. They know that the only science that has changed is the political science. They saw the powerful elite gather to praise their own playacted benevolence, foresight, and leadership, all while countless Americans who are suffering from the real failures of President Biden and his party are losing their jobs because of draconian Federal vaccine mandates. What a sorry state of affairs and what a sad set of conditions. Americans see and feel the hypocrisy. The people of Utah and the United States do not want the false freedom pushed by a political class that refuses to relinquish control over citizens' lives. They want real freedom, the kind promised by the Declaration of Independence and protected by the Constitution. They want to be able to live their lives, raise their families, and make their own medical decisions without a ``Mother, may I'' from President Biden or the vast throngs of nameless, faceless, unelected, unaccountable Federal bureaucrats. They want to be able to provide for their families without the threat of being fired if they don't submit to a medical procedure that they don't want. I am honored to join my friend and colleague, Senator Marshall, in standing for American workers. Today, we stand for the millions of healthcare workers that were some of the heroes of this pandemic. They came to work and cared for the sick before vaccines were even available. They should not be forced to submit to a procedure or risk their livelihoods. This isn't our first effort to end these Federal mandates. I have tried dozens of bills dozens of times to end this draconian overreach. I am proud to continue this fight. We will not stop until freedom is restored. We will not stop until American moms and dads can provide for their families without kowtowing to President Biden's vaccine mandates and without submitting to Presidential medical orthodoxy in this or any future administration.

Mr. LEE

Mr. LEE. Mr. President, the American people do not want a Federal vaccine mandate. The American people just want to be able to go about doing their jobs. They want to be able to go work. They don't want to be told by someone who lacks the authority that they have to choose between an unwanted medical procedure on the one hand and on the other hand, losing their ability to put bread on the table. It is not just illegal; it is not just immoral; it is wrong. We all know it is wrong, and we know that it is time to end this. Please vote yes on my amendment.

Mr. LEE. Mr. President, vaccine mandates are morally wrong and widely unpopular. Millions of Americans are still required by this Federal mandate to be vaccinated or lose their job. The people's elected lawmakers here in Congress haven't instituted these mandates. No, there is no Federal law putting them in place. President Biden and his bureaucrats are just treading deeply into the personal medical choices of Americans without an act of Congress authorizing them to do so. Now, Congress has the chance to make these millions of voices across America be heard. That is, after all, our job. Our sole job is to make Federal law, to give voice to those who elected us. We can state clearly, boldly, decisively today that Federal vaccine mandates do not belong in the United States of America. We can stand for millions of vulnerable Americans who just want to go to work so that they have the chance simply to put food on the table for their families. That is not too much to ask. The pandemic is waning, but it is waning just as our economic problems are just beginning. If we want to control the high price of everything, the lack of availability that comes with the related supply chain crisis, and keep the American economy moving, we must stand against these illegal, immoral, and unconstitutional mandates. Look, the American people are sick and tired of the Federal Government micromanaging every minute detail of their lives. They are exhausted from the mandates and from the bureaucrats who they didn't vote for and never could vote for and never would vote for. The brave men and women of our military, the Federal workers, the Federal contractors, people who work for Federal contractors--even a subdivision of a Federal contractor that doesn't actually provide any Federal contract work--along with medical professionals--all these workers across every part of our great land who are sucked up into this mandate, they all deserve better than pink slips and boots out the door, simply for making their own medical choices. So I implore my colleagues with all the urgency I am capable of communicating, to stand up for American workers, stand up for our economy, stand up for freedom, and vote to withhold funding from these unconstitutional mandates. It is quite significant that the very first clause of the very first section of the very first article of the Constitution says that ``all legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in the Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and a House of Representatives.'' It matters that this clause comes first, before everything else. And the reason it matters is because it is there to remind us of something. The most dangerous power within our Federal Government is not with the judiciary, it is not with the executive branch; it is right here in this branch because we have the power to prescribe law. We have the power within our Federal Government to provide what should be, what the law says, what people have to do. That is why the Founding Fathers were careful not to entrust it to any branch of government other than this one, not because those who would occupy these positions would necessarily be any wiser or any brighter or inherently more cautious than everyone else, except in one critical respect: This is the Federal branch most accountable to the people at the most regular intervals. You can fire every Member of the House every 2 years. You can fire one- third of us every 2 years. We are the branch that is accountable. That is why we have been given the most dangerous power within government, the power to make Federal law. How then does this relate to illegal, unconstitutional, immoral, and wildly unpopular vaccine mandates? Well, it matters because that is an exercise of Federal law. It is an exercise of Federal law that Congress never enacted. They have arrogated to themselves within the executive branch an authority that they do not have based on a contrivance, based on a tortured, butchered manipulation of statutory text that doesn't tell people that they have got to choose between getting an unwanted medical procedure and unemployment, unemployment in a context that it is likely to lead to unemployability. And, indeed, it was designed to do that. We know that because those who put these policies in place have told us as much. Look, everybody has been through a lot in the last 2 years-- Democrats, Republicans alike. This virus has been no respecter of persons, of red States and of blue States. Just the same, the American people understand that we are ready to move on. We are ready to not have government dictating every aspect of our lives. COVID is no excuse for a government to do something that is categorically immoral. It is no excuse to do something that we all know is wrong. We would never justify anyone in rendering a threat against their friend, their neighbor, their employee, that if you don't bow, if you don't defer to Presidential medical orthodoxy, I am going to make you lose your job and make it impossible for you to put bread on the table for your children. No sane, moral, decent person would do that. We must not allow them to do that. We must never allow the executive branch of government to exercise authority that they don't have because we didn't give it to them and they could never have it because the Constitution doesn't allow it. We have got the chance right now to bring together red States and blue States alike, because, remember, it is not just red States anymore that are ditching these kind of draconian measures within their own State government systems. No. It is blue States left and right-- Michigan, New York, New Jersey, Illinois. Many, many more blue States are joining the number of red States that have made this decision. Enough is enough. It is time for us to live our lives. I encourage my colleagues to vote yes on my amendment, No. 4929, and let America work again.

Mr. LEE. I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. LEE. Mr. President, I call up my amendment No. 4929, and ask that it be reported by number.

Mr. LEE

Mr. LEE. Madam President, I have a couple of points, and I don't think we are far off in where we are on this. It is true that it is not an expansive land that is as big as some other land transfers we see--1 square mile. On the one hand, a lot of people would regard that as large--640 acres. It is the acreage equivalent of 1 square mile. I would note here that I wouldn't call it a federalism argument in that we have to allow this. There are Federal implications to this that extend far beyond what a local unit of government might want to do. What happens is, when you transfer it into the Federal estate, we do incur additional obligations to make sure that that land is maintained and managed appropriately. It does cost money, and it takes an expense off the books of those who would otherwise be maintaining it. So it is not without any consequence at all. In other words, it is a matter of a simple operation of federalism to say that we should allow this in this circumstance. I would note, moreover, that we have come closer on this. The amendment that I offered a moment ago that my friend and colleague, the Senator from Colorado, objected to is one that would allow this to happen but would require an offset to be made by the appropriate Federal land managers within 1 year of the transfer of this land. There is nothing about that that strikes me as being particularly objectionable, particularly given the fact that the Federal Government owns and manages about 30 percent of the land mass in the United States. In my State and in Colorado, it is much more than that. There is nothing about that that should be particularly objectionable. With that said, the Senator from Colorado has shaped this legislation in a meaningful way, and because I have a desire to honor those victims of this horrific event in American history and the Senator from Colorado has offered up a separate solution, one that would involve donation rather than acquisition by the Federal Government, although that also raises some concerns--over time, I think we have to watch this because the more we enhance the Federal land footprint, the more difficult it will be for the Federal Government to keep up with the maintenance backlog. But given that this doesn't directly impact concerns quite the way those same concerns might be implicated if we were having to purchase it at the outset, I would be inclined, if my friend from Colorado were interested in offering that amendment, to withhold any objection from that while noting that it is my hope and expectation that, in moving forward, we could be more aware of these issues and that, as we see the Federal land footprint increasing, we can take steps as a body to make sure that there is some natural stopping point even before we turn to what I believe we have still got to turn to, which is the commitment made at statehood that still needs to be honored.

Mr. LEE. Madam President, on February 19, 1942--and that will be 80 years ago this coming Saturday--President Franklin D. Roosevelt issued Executive Order 9066, authorizing the blatantly racist mass incarceration of essentially all Japanese Americans inside the United States at the time. This was an indefensible move--one that resulted in locking up about 120,000 decent, hard-working, innocent people based on nothing other than their race. Two years later, in one of the most shameful moments in America's judicial history, the U.S. Supreme Court deferred to the Roosevelt administration's blatantly racist and equally unconstitutional imprisonment of Japanese Americans. Writing for the majority in a case called Korematsu v. United States, Associate Justice Hugo Black, a Justice with a history of bigotry, unconscionably glossed over the countless constitutional violations built into the race-based interment of innocent American citizens, who the Court acknowledged ``were loyal to this country overwhelmingly,'' based on the fact that ``[t]here was evidence of disloyalty on the part of some'' Japanese Americans and ``military authorities considered that the need for action was great.'' In a moment one might expect from someone like Justice Black, who had a history of bigotry, he cavalierly dismissed the blatant racism inherent in this action, reasoning that ``[t]o cast this case into outlines of racial prejudice, without reference to the real military dangers which were presented, merely confuses the issue.'' Tragically, Justice Black, blinded perhaps by his own intolerance and bigotry or perhaps by his loyalty to the President who had appointed him just a few years earlier, missed the obvious point: Racial prejudice was the issue. That was the whole point. I agree with the characterization later provided by now-Chief Justice Roberts, just a few years ago, in 2018, when he noted that ``Korematsu was gravely wrong the day it was decided, [and] has been overruled in the court of history, and--to be clear--'has no place in the law under the Constitution.''' No person should ever be in prison solely due to their race. It shouldn't be even a factor in anyone's imprisonment--certainly not in the United States of America. Japanese internment is one of the very worst examples--one of the very worst examples--of our government rejecting its founding principles. It is something that should be remembered so that it can never be repeated. Despite this mistreatment by government, Japanese Americans served faithfully in many capacities during World War II and have continued to serve our Nation and their communities in irreplaceable ways. Their contributions are worthy of remembrance and celebration. Regrettably, the United States has failed to meet other, admittedly, far less fundamental obligations it has made to individuals and to States. One of those obligations is relevant here, ironically arising in the context of an effort to honor victims of FDR's internment of Japanese Americans. The Federal Government has neglected commitments made by Congress to Western States at the time of their admission to dispose of large swaths of Federal land. Similar promises had been made to most States that were admitted into the Union ever since the Louisiana Purchase. But for the fact that Congress honored such promises with respect to a lot of these States, including States like Illinois and Missouri, the Federal Government would still, to this day, own around 90 percent of those States. The same could be said of many, many others. Although Utah received such assurances from Congress prior to its admission into the Union in 1896, using essentially identical language, Utah is still waiting for the Federal Government to honor its end of the bargain. However, unlike States like Illinois and Missouri, which received the benefit of the Federal bargain, Utah did not. The Federal Government still owns more than two-thirds of all the land in my State, resulting in an extraordinary amount of environmental, economic, and educational consequences that hurt Utahns, particularly those Utahns in poor and rural communities. In fact, in a blatant insult to the people whose families settled and developed much of the rural West and their communities, the Federal Government continues to limit and restrict access, commerce, mining, drilling, and grazing on land it had promised to relinquish. Rural farms, industries, and communities are shrinking and dying because of this continually broken promise. To add insult to injury, the Feds routinely fail to care properly for the land in their portfolio. The maintenance backlog in the National Park System is years long and $12 billion in the hole. The Bureau of Land Management controls vast swaths of the Western United States, and it controls them from Washington, DC, with little interest or regard for the people whose livelihoods and way of life depend on that land. This relationship remains a vexing problem for everyday life in Utah. Businesses are shuttered because the Federal Government capriciously halts mineral extraction authority. Ranches go bankrupt because the Bureau of Land Management ends grazing rights in areas where families have raised cattle for generations. And just last week, Federal land managers damaged an exquisite collection of dinosaur fossils and would have continued doing so but for the intervention of a noble citizen named Jeremy Roberts, who was willing to call them out on it. At a time when the Federal Government already owns far more land than it can manage, Congress should be really cautious about decreasing Federal land holdings. It should be going out of its way to decrease its Federal land holdings and doing that rather than increasing them. Recognition of sites like the Amache camp deserve better than Federal management. However, if those representing the State of Colorado think the Federal Government can do better or, for whatever reason, just want it to be under the National Park's jurisdiction rather than subject to local control, then I am not inclined to argue with them. What I would like to ask is that this land not continue to be acquired by the Federal Government with no plan in sight for dealing with the size of the Federal footprint. It is the size of the overall Federal land estate that worries me because the Federal Government has not proven a good steward of what it has got. So if we keep adding to that, it is only going to perpetuate some of these problems. Now, I have been wrongfully portrayed by some in the media as being somehow against this historical recognition and against commemorating, as a warning to future generations and to honor the victims of the past, one of this Nation's and its government's most tragic missteps. I continue to negotiate in good faith to find a way forward with this bill. I have been in communication with the lead sponsor in the House, and I think there are ways that we can address this--to address both goals at issue. I think we need to be able to commemorate these events and we also need to do so in a way that won't lead to the unfettered expansion of the Federal land footprint. So, Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of Calendar No. 255, H.R. 2497. I further ask that the Lee amendment at the desk be considered and agreed to; that the committee-reported amendments be agreed to; that the bill, as amended, be considered read a third time and passed; and that the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table.

Mr. LEE

Mr. LEE. Mr. President, one of the aims of American foreign aid is to assist countries in times of need. This spirit exemplifies a trait Americans and Utahns rightfully value, that of giving to those in need. Yet, for many years, our foreign aid dollars in support of abortion have been used to impose violent cultural imperialism. Instead of helping to preserve, strengthen, and sustain the lives of women and children abroad, our taxpayer dollars have been used to harm women's lives and to end the lives of their unborn children, especially baby girls. In some of these countries, girls are disproportionately aborted precisely because they are female. U.S. aid is used not to affirm the equal dignity of women but to violently deny it. In some of these countries, abortion is forced on women who don't even want abortions, women in countries like Vietnam and Peru, for instance, who were forced to endure the coercive abortion and sterilization campaigns of the 1990s, just to name a couple of examples. What kind of aid does violence to women and girls? What kind of help is it to impose U.S. abortion extremism on countries that culturally and democratically reject it or contribute to international organizations that allow regimes to use abortion as a tool of oppression? What kind of progress is it to encourage sex-selective abortion and the denigration of human dignity for both the baby and the mother? U.S. advocacy abroad for the taking of innocent, unborn life is not pro-woman, it is not pro-child, and it is not pro-healthcare. It is pro-sexism. It is pro-violence. And we must end it. According to recent polling, the American people overwhelmingly agree. Nearly 60 percent of Americans oppose using tax dollars to pay for abortions, and more than 75 percent of Americans oppose using tax dollars to support abortions in other countries. Thankfully, President Ronald Reagan took steps to reverse this support, starting in 1984, instituting the Mexico City policy to prohibit foreign aid from going to organizations that provide or promote abortions or that advocate to change abortion laws in a foreign country. Since then, the policy has, unfortunately, been rescinded and reinstated again and again, repeating this cycle between changing administrations. Another policy that used to have lasting support is the Hyde amendment. This legal provision prohibited the use of Federal funds to pay for abortion with a set of exceptions. Recently, Democrats have abandoned this bipartisan position and have placed the Hyde amendment under threat. It, too, could become a back-and-forth, ping pong policy, depending on who holds majorities within the two Houses of Congress. The lives of babies and the dignity of women and girls are not political footballs. Women and unborn children everywhere have immeasurable dignity and eternal worth regardless of where they are from, and they are entitled to the right to life and protection from harm regardless of who happens to be in office from one moment to the next. The Protecting Life in Foreign Assistance Act affirms this truth. This bill would permanently stop the use of our foreign aid money from funding or promoting abortions overseas. In our laws and through our lives, we must uphold the dignity of each and every human person regardless of race, regardless of sex, and regardless of appearance, abilities, or age. The measure before us today does just that, and I urge my colleagues to support it. The lives of millions of women and children, born and unborn, depend on it. So, Mr. President, as if in legislative session, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Foreign Relations be discharged from further consideration of S. 137 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 have tremendous respect for my friend and colleague, the distinguished Senator from Connecticut. He and I both acknowledge that the policy we are arguing--the nature of the policy is one in which we have seen something of a tug-of-war, a ping pong match over the years. The Republican legislation will put in place or restore the so-called Mexico City policy, prohibiting U.S. foreign aid from going to organizations that perform or advocate for abortion overseas. It is backed by an estimated 75 percent of Americans who don't believe that we should be using U.S. taxpayer dollars especially to further the cause of conducting or advocating for abortions overseas. He and I both agree that President Biden has rescinded that. I think where we disagree can be highlighted and traced back to the fact that we call it by different names. He refers to this as the gag rule, a gag rule. Now, normally when we think of a gag rule, we think of something that tells someone who is otherwise free to speak that they may not speak. It is, in fact, what happens when we don't allow people to live. It is what happens to all these baby girls who are never allowed to be born precisely because they are female. And make no mistake, when we fund abortions overseas, that is what is happening. It happens a lot in countries that receive our aid in the absence of the Mexico City policy. Some of that goes to these organizations that perform abortions. In many of these countries, sex-selective abortions are not only tolerated culturally, they are commonplace. They are excessive. As a result, these baby girls never get to be born. They never get to become women. They never get to speak in the first place. That is a form of gagging. That is not OK. Regardless of how you feel about abortion, regardless of whether you think that is a baby, a human life, or whether you think it is something else--I am not sure what else it could be. When someone becomes pregnant, we know that is the potential of what will one day be a human being. Absent a death--whether a natural death or a death brought about by someone's actions or by the operation of a disease or medical condition or surgical intervention in the case of abortion--it is a person. We shouldn't lose sight of that. I have difficulty accepting the premise that the only solution to this is continuing to fund organizations that perform or advocate for abortions overseas. I reject the premise that anything we do in this area to withhold those funds will necessarily result in more abortions. As far as the suggestion that organizations could receive these funds and still perform abortions and that not translate into U.S. dollars being used to perform abortions, I reject that premise as well for the same reason that I reject the premise that Planned Parenthood isn't using taxpayer dollars to perform abortions. It is. It is spent differently. It is a matter of accounting, but it sustains and supports an organization that itself advocates for and performs many abortions. These are, in fact, human lives, and the American people are, in fact, very uncomfortable with the idea that we are funding abortions with their taxpayer dollars, and we are doing it overseas. We shouldn't do that. This shouldn't be controversial. I look forward to the day when it is not.

Mr. LEE. Mr. President.

Mr. LEE

Mr. LEE. Madam President, the Senate is, indeed, a peculiar institution. Despite what some might expect, and despite how it might be portrayed from the outside, Senators genuinely strive to be collegial, even when--especially when--they hold strong political and policy disagreements. In fact, the Senate rules have strict prohibitions on insulting the character of another Member or a State. That is because debate is a fundamental part of the Senate. I mean, it is part of our culture in this institution. That is how this institution earned the moniker as the world's greatest deliberative body. Some in this body, unfortunately, want to change all that. They seek to trample over more than two centuries of precedent, procedure, and politeness. They are attempting to break the rules that require a two- thirds supermajority--67 votes--to change the rules. They want to ignore that requirement and stiff-arm this historic institution in a way that would obliterate the requirement that those in the majority hear the voices of and work with those in the minority. That requirement--sometimes colloquially referred to as the filibuster--is one of the most powerful constraints or checks on human nature, not only in the Senate but in the entirety of the U.S. Government. If the filibuster were removed, everything from regulatory structures to tax rates, the size of the Supreme Court, the makeup of the military, the criminal code, and much, much more could change drastically every few years. Keeping track of the law and its fluctuating requirements would be impossible for the most capable of lawyers, let alone the average American subject to all those laws. Our business landscape would be obliterated under the ever-changing commands of the Federal Government. Americans would be worse off in almost every sense I can think of. In countless ways, the American people would be harmed by this unfortunate decision. Our system is designed specifically to control those whims and those passions, to make sure that their impact on the law doesn't cause the law to become this ever-changing, ever-fluctuating creature that can't be anticipated. Our Constitution was designed to protect the rights, the voices, and the influence of those not in the majority. Laws that significantly impact the lives of hundreds of millions of people should, in fact, be difficult to pass. In fact, the Senate has applied these principles into almost every mechanism of the institution. Most laws pass by unanimous consent or by simple voice vote after hearty consideration and frequent amendments through a process known as the hotline. That would essentially cease to function if the minority had no significant influence. Opportunities for amending these often smaller and somewhat less controversial bills would be foreclosed, crippling the careful consideration needed. Bills would have to be forced through often on party-line votes over the objection, suspicion, or protest of the minority. But beyond building consensus and maintaining the function of the Senate, the filibuster serves as the keel on a very large ship. It prevents the waves and passions of each new election from drastically changing the laws of the country. It is a stabilizer of sorts, one that prevents our Nation's course from being jerked around to oscillating extremes. I was asked recently if the Senate is broken. I responded by saying that the only sense in which I think the Senate is significantly broken, or at least undermined in the way that it is supposed to operate, is in its neglect of substantive debate and opportunities for amendments for each individual Member. The filibuster protects the remaining debate, amendment, and consideration available to Members of this body, whether those Members are of the majority party or of the minority party. So removing the filibuster, on the other hand, would irreparably render the Senate beyond recognition. The partisan vitriol and disregard for opposing Senators would eat away at this place, at our norms, our customs, and, ultimately, our Republic. Now, at least until recently, many Senate Democrats--most, in fact-- held these beliefs as well. In 2017, 27 of them, including now-Vice President Harris, signed a letter urging the preservation of the filibuster. Many of those Members still serve today, and I encourage them to consider their past advice. By the way, that was a letter I signed, along with nearly every Member of the Senate from the Republican Party. We signed on to that notwithstanding the fact that Republicans held majorities in the Senate and in the House and a Republican President was serving in the White House. We did so because even though some short-term gain could have been achieved by nuking the filibuster then, we all understood what I think we still all understand today, which is that it would inflict irreparable harm on the Senate, and even more than the Senate, on those represented here. It would irreparably harm the American people to do away with it. Senator Schumer, the leader of this destructive current effort, has himself in the past given grave, dire warnings about what this tactic-- making the filibuster a thing of the past--would mean. We heard many quotes today, and in one that sticks out in my mind in particular, he said that attempts like that to nuke the filibuster are ``what we call abuse of power.'' He also said in that same quote that even if you have 51 percent of the vote, you still don't get your way 100 percent of the time. He is absolutely right. That describes the Senate, it describes its rules, and it describes so much about how our system of government works. It even describes the system of checks and balances built into our Constitution. The vertical protection of federalism says many of our laws--in fact, most of them--are supposed to be made at the State and local level and not within Washington, and the horizontal protection--that of federalism--says that we are going to have one branch that makes the laws, one that enforces them, and one that interprets them. In that same document, it gives both Chambers of Congress the authority to set our own rules. Even though the 60-vote cloture standard is not itself mandated by the Constitution, the authority to add it, to adopt it, as the Senate has, is in the Constitution, and its ends, more importantly, are entirely consistent with this principle of checks and balances, with this notion that Senator Schumer eloquently referred to. The mere fact that you have 51 percent of the vote doesn't entitle you to get your way 100 percent of the time. Now, this circumstance is particularly poignant given that he doesn't even have 51 percent of the votes in this Chamber, no. This is deadlocked 50 to 50. He is also right that this is what we call an abuse of power. Indeed, breaking the rules to grab power is an abuse. This attempt is so transparent that even Senator Schumer has told the media that his Members are concerned about losing their elections and the majority if they can't use this tactic to federally take over our election system. It is sad, it is tragic, and it is unacceptable. I warn them that the American people see through this ploy. They know what is happening, and they know why. They were promised a return to cordial statesmanship. They were promised unity. This attempt mocks both of these promises. It mocks the U.S. Senate. It mocks our system of checks and balances. Most tragically, it mocks the American people.

Mr. LEE

Mr. LEE. Mr. President, I am here on the Senate floor now for the 21st time specifically to oppose President Biden's sweeping vaccine mandates. I have introduced over a dozen bills to one way or another limit, clarify, or counteract the mandates. Every time I have come to ask the Senate to pass what should, frankly, be uncontroversial matters, one of my colleagues or another from the other side of the aisle has come to object. This is unfortunate. It is unfortunate, really, for a number of reasons. These mandates, while currently being challenged in court in a number of jurisdictions, show the terrible power that even the threat of a vaccine mandate can wield. Businesses across the country are suspending, punishing, and firing employees who haven't had the COVID shot. The threat of the mandate is making it harder for everyday American families just to put food on the table and to do so, moreover, in increasingly difficult economic times. Now, these are not our enemies. These are not people to be feared. These are not people to shun or loathe entirely, as the mandates seem to suggest. No. No. These are our friends and our neighbors. These are mothers and fathers. These are people who, like far too many Americans, are just struggling to get by. I am going to continue to fight for them and to protect them because they understand something that President Biden has yet to accept even though, deep down, I know he does know it, and that is, this isn't right. It is not right for him to do. It is not right constitutionally for about a dozen reasons, but it is also just not right morally. It is a morally unacceptable proposition to suggest that someone should get fired just because they don't conform to Presidential medical orthodoxy. It is immoral to tell someone that their ability to put food on the table for their children depends on whether they get a shot--a shot that they may or may not want; a shot that may or may not conflict with their religious or sincerely held beliefs, that might be contraindicated by one or more conditions, resulting in their doctors advising them not to get the shot. This is not something that anyone should do. In fact, the American people agree. According to a recent Axios poll, only 14 percent of Americans--just 14 out of every 100 Americans--agree with the apparent position of the President of the United States that if someone doesn't get the shot, they should be fired. I would imagine it is even fewer than that. Fourteen out of a hundred isn't very many to begin with, but I am pretty sure it is even fewer than that--far fewer--who would say that it is OK for one person within the Federal Government to decide to fire everyone who doesn't comply within the government and also to tell private employers that they will receive crippling, company-destroying fines--that no company, not even the wealthiest out there, could live with--if they don't fire every one of their employees or otherwise take adverse action against them in their declining to take the shot. It is not OK. In this effort, I have, to be sure, been supremely clear. I am not in any way against the COVID-19 vaccinations--quite to the contrary. I have been vaccinated. I have encouraged people to seek out all the relevant information and be vaccinated. I believe that the COVID-19 vaccines are keeping countless Americans safe from the harm threatened by the COVID-19 virus. This is different than that. As a matter of fact, there is an undercut, and it can't offset the fact that this mandate is pushing government control beyond the constitutional limits and into the private decisions of the American people. That is why I am against all of these mandates for all age groups, and that is why I have come to the Senate floor repeatedly to help and to call on my colleagues and President Biden himself to end this madness once and for all, to end it before it is too late, to end it before irreparable harm is inflicted on those who, for whatever reason, can't or are otherwise inclined not to comply with his directions. I have even offered a bill, one that should be unusually, uniquely uncontroversial, but even that one met objection. It was a simple reaffirmation of parental rights that our government has respected and honored and even protected from the beginning. My Parental Consent for Vaccination Act would simply require that any COVID-19 vaccine mandate issued by the Federal Government--to be clear, it shouldn't be issuing any at all, but any of them that it happens to issue must be a mandate that includes a requirement that informed parental consent be provided before the shot can be administered to a minor. Now, this one is so far afield from the broader question of whether we should have these mandates at all. It is the slightly narrower question of whether the President of the United States should administer them. It really should not be controversial. Now, allow me to put this issue in some context here. Parental consent is required for all sorts of things. Parental consent, as every parent with school-aged children knows, is required for field trips. Parental consent is required for pretty much all extracurricular activities. For that matter, it is required for many in-class activities. Parental consent is required before most schools can administer so much as a Tylenol or a baby aspirin to a child. Everyone knows that. None of that is happening without parental consent. That is, to be sure, the right approach. It is as it should be. Despite what some candidates have said in some recent political campaigns, parents should be informed and involved in their children's education and certainly in their child's health decisions, in matters of medical treatment. Parents, it is important to remember, are simply better equipped to make these decisions. Parents know their children, and they know their children's medical histories. Parents know their moral, their religious, and their health requirements that are, in many cases, unique to their families. It is certainly something that no government and no school can keep track of in the same way that a government or a school does. Parents also love their children--that is important here-- and parents, because they love their children, have their children's best interests at heart when they make decisions affecting them. The government can't do any of those things. It certainly can't do any of those things anywhere close to as well as a parent could. The reason for that is fairly simple. It is because government doesn't have arms with which to embrace children. The government doesn't have a heart with which to love children. The government doesn't even have eyes to see or ears to hear because government, of course, when reduced to its essence, when we really define it as what it is, is simply force. It is legally authorized violence. Now, thank Heaven that God and the law have always assigned the primary care of their children to parents and not to government. Government is just the official actual or threatened use of force. We need government. It is also one of the many reasons we have to be careful with it just like other things that we rely on in so many ways--things like electricity, like moving water, like fire. They are all necessary to our day-to-day lives, and yet when left uncontrolled, they are dangerous and quickly become fatal when we don't exercise due caution. This has, of course, been acknowledged for millennia. It has been written about widely for many, many centuries, even centuries before the founding of our Republic. And it has been acknowledged since the very earliest days of our Republic. George Washington himself warned the people about this, warning that government is itself forced and is therefore dangerous and has to be carefully managed. That is why we have a Constitution. That is why we have all these rules about government. If men were angels, we wouldn't need government. If we had access to angels to run our government, as James Madison described it in Federalist 51, then we wouldn't have to bother about government abusing its power, and we wouldn't need all these rules. But we are not angels. Men and women are not angels. And we don't have access to angels to run our government, and so we have to have rules governing the use of government. And it is for our own safety. Nowhere is this more important than with respect to our children. That is where we can really see laid bare the essential, core facts of what government is, which is the actual or threatened use of coercive force. Now, I also thank heaven above that God didn't assign the anonymous masses on the internet to care for children. The pressure children receive through social media, through news publications, and common video sites lacks nuance and any specific understanding of a child's health condition or history or religious beliefs. There are even reports in prominent magazines of children being advised to commit fraud or cross State lines to be vaccinated specifically against their parents' advice, circumventing parental authority. There is a reason why the FDA requires the fine print and the sometimes very painfully exhaustive and descriptive side-effect warnings on pharmaceutical advertisements and why those ads always encourage viewers to consult their doctors. But in the brave new world of Big Brother healthcare, students aren't encouraged to consult their parents, let alone their doctors. Unfortunately, in some places, like here in our Nation's Capital, government has completely lost the plot. In the District of Columbia school system, for example, minors can receive medical procedures without the school 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 and without parental consent. As a parent, this thought sends shivers down my spine. I know I am not alone in that respect--far from it. Most Americans, regardless of what part of the country they come from, regardless of creed, political affiliation, socioeconomic status, or any other single factor, if they are parents, they are going to feel the same way. They don't like the idea of someone else taking over the raising of their child. They don't like the idea of government taking over control of medical decisions on behalf of their child. You see, that is supplanting their role. That is moving them out of the way. School-aged kids are also some of those least at risk of contracting, spreading, and suffering long-term or serious effects from COVID. The data has shown this all along. The vaccines, on the other hand, may pose a more serious risk to some young people than they do the general population. Various countries, including France and Germany, have ceased recommending some COVID vaccines to those under the age of 30 because of complications. Again, I am not against the vaccines, but the thought of schools, social media, or, heaven forbid, government pressuring students into vaccination without parental consent is rightfully troubling. It is downright chilling, and it should not happen--not here, not in the United States of America. While the Federal Government has almost no legitimate role in influencing local education decisions, we can make sure that the Federal Government does not endorse or, heaven forbid, mandate this dangerous approach to medical decisions for minors. That is not too much to ask. That is not something that should be controversial here in the U.S. Senate. That is not something that is remotely controversial among the good people of this country--left and right, rich and poor. If they are parents, they are deeply disturbed by the thought of the cold, impersonal force that is government pushing them out of the way to make these medical decisions for them and for their children. So let's provide assurance to parents and children. Let's reaffirm our commitment to supporting parents in making decisions for their children. Let's protect kids, and let's end these mandates. They are illegal. They are unconstitutional, and they are morally indefensible.

Mr. LEE

Mr. LEE. To reiterate here, all I want is some assurance. I appreciate my friend and colleague from Oregon understanding my basic concern here. It is not an unreasonable concern. All I want is some assurance from the administration that it is not going to wipe out intellectual property protections. That wouldn't be right. They know it is not right. They give me those assurances, we can move on.

Mr. LEE. If confirmed as Deputy U.S. Trade Representative, Maria Pagan would be responsible for negotiating details of any waiver of the Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights agreement, also known as the TRIPS Agreement. I have concerns with Ms. Pagan's nomination. Therefore, I intend to object to that until the Biden administration has given me some basic commitments regarding the administration's position on waiving the TRIPS Agreement, particularly related to some of the proposals being pushed by various countries. As a quick recap, the TRIPS Agreement represents a vital element of international trade law protecting the intellectual property rights of U.S. businesses, individuals, and entrepreneurs. Waiving the protection of these rights for COVID-19 drugs, vaccines, and treatments under the notion of some sense of international altruism will not advance a universal solution to the COVID-19 pandemic. Instead, any proposal to waive IP protections would create a disincentive for continued research, development, and distribution of the COVID-19 treatments or drugs. That could mean fewer healthcare options and advancements as the virus continues to mutate into new variants with degrees of resistance to existing remedies. As always, anytime you weaken one property right, it spills over into other areas. We wouldn't expect this to become contained to the COVID- 19 universe. Additionally, U.S. companies would be less likely to introduce their product to WTO-member countries not enforcing IP protections. That could mean fewer options and less access for our neighbors, not more. Intellectual property rights provide the grounds for businesses to take risks in turning novel ideas into concrete goods and services. A business that knows its property is secure and will not be surreptitiously confiscated by government action can fully engage in developing the innovation that drives markets. Today, in stating my objections, this is all I am asking for. I have no concerns with this individual in particular; rather, with the authority that she might wield and the assurances I am wanting to receive from the administration on that authority, some assurance that this administration will not unilaterally wipe out intellectual property protections that have resulted in the vast majority of COVID- 19 remedies the U.S. currently enjoys and have also served millions of others globally. These are the things that are on the table. All I want is some assurance from the administration.

Mr. LEE. I object.

Mr. LEE

Mr. LEE. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, I made communication with the EPA as to how to resolve a concern that I have. It should be an easy thing to resolve. I am waiting to hear back a response from them. In the meantime, I object.

Mr. LEE. Sure.

Mr. LEE. It relates to a matter at the EPA.

Mr. LEE

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

Mr. LEE. Madam President, in her 1993 Nobel lecture, Toni Morrison-- no conservative--told a story of an old woman who was approached by a group of kids, mocking her and asking her to offer her conjecture: Old woman, I hold in my hand a bird. Tell me whether it is living or dead. The blind, old woman was revered for her wisdom and experience. She responded: I don't know whether the bird you are holding is dead or alive, but what I do know is that it is in your hands. It is in your hands. The old woman, of course, meant whether the bird is alive or dead is the responsibility of the person who holds it. Morrison said: The blind woman shifts attention away from assertions of power to the instrument through which that power is exercised. Now, Morrison could have been talking about Congress. I will leave to your judgment who in Congress is a mocking youth and who is the old woman, but in politics it is the instrument of power rather than the assertion of power that matters. Just this last week, the instruments of power were used, despite assertions otherwise, to quietly pave the way for the Democrats' ``Destroy America'' bill, which they have called Build Back Better. Congress used a novel procedure to pass a bill, giving Democrats a blank check to raise the debt ceiling to pay for Build Back Better. Procedural jujitsu is hardly the stuff of base-motivating campaign rhetoric, but it is the instrument of power. Now I will describe how this happened, but a bit of background is necessary. Like most legislation in the Senate, raising the debt ceiling, which has been done now 99 times since the end of the Second World War, ordinarily requires 60 votes, which, in an evenly divided Senate, means Democrats and Republicans have to work together to find an acceptable outcome. There is, of course, an exception that would allow Democrats to use a special budget reconciliation procedure to raise the debt ceiling without Republican help, with a simple majority vote--a simple majority vote that they could achieve if all 50 Democrats cast their votes. If there is an evenly divided vote at the end of the day, it can be broken by the Vice President. But they didn't want to use this special procedure, and I believe they didn't want to use it for two independent reasons. First, it was inconvenient. The special reconciliation procedure would require too many steps and too much time for their tastes. Still, I don't know of a single Republican Senator, myself included, who would unduly stall the Democrats from proceeding to its consideration. In fact, under the rules, if they follow the right steps, it is, more or less, a guaranteed outcome, one that doesn't require a supermajority and, at the end of the day, can be accomplished with a simple majority. Second, I suspect that Democrats didn't want to bear the political cost of raising the debt ceiling without some Republican cover. This would ordinarily mean using the standard 60-vote process, but that is not how it happened. Instead of Democrats and Republicans working together to find consensus on the appropriate way to raise the debt ceiling, likely in exchange for spending reforms, some combination of Senate and House leadership concocted a new mechanism. On a 60-vote bill, Republicans agreed to let Democrats pass an entirely separate bill to raise the debt ceiling--without any Republican votes--by whatever amount they want. So, rather than negotiating a reasonable number, Republicans agreed to ensure that the debt ceiling was increased by as many trillions of dollars as the Democrats might need to fulfill their agenda. There is an actual blank space in the bill where Democrats can write in whatever number they want. In exchange, Republicans would be protected from scrutiny for insisting that Democrats follow the established rules for raising the debt ceiling through the reconciliation procedure and would be able to launder this vote to appear as something other than helping Democrats raise the debt ceiling, which they had publicly committed--in writing, no less--not to do. To make matters worse, congressional leadership tied this to a bill preventing automatic Medicare cuts. This sent a clear message: Give Democrats a blank check or there would be Medicare cuts. Some of my Republican colleagues couldn't allow them to shoot that hostage, that hostage being held captive by Democrats. The playbook is written. The idea that this is a onetime thing or is somehow similar to other expedited procedures--for example, those found under the Congressional Review Act to disapprove of executive Agency rules--is preposterous. The comparison doesn't work. These are very different creatures. I am sure this vicious tactic, the one used here, has not seen its last use--far from it. I am certain it will be used in the future to enact other progressive agenda items, including many that are simply unable to garner the 60 votes necessary under the normal and transparent Senate filibuster rules. With a blank check and a new special procedure, Democrats are able to raise the debt ceiling by whatever amount they deem necessary to accommodate their ``Destroy America'' bill, which they call Build Back Better. They have set that price--and we know this now as of just the last few hours--at $2.5 trillion. This is the behemoth bill that would seek to grant a form of amnesty to illegal aliens; to further the Green New Deal agenda; to overturn State right-to-work laws; to increase vaccine mandate fines on private employers to $700,000; to infuse critical race theory indoctrination into medical care; and to grow the IRS by 87,000 agents. That isn't even the tip of the iceberg. The blank check to remake America was a gift to progressives from those within the Republican Party who decided to grant it. I regret deeply their decision to do so, and the filibuster--the major instrument of power preserving the unique identity of the U.S. Senate-- was all it cost. As to who was the old woman and who were the mocking children from Toni Morrison's story, I can't say, but America is the bird. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. LEE

Mr. LEE. Madam President, it is an honor to stand here today to recognize and celebrate the career of Police Chief Michael C. Nelsen of the Brigham City Police Department. For the last 42 years, he has diligently served and protected the people of Brigham City. His positive impact on the lives of many will be remembered as he transitions into retirement. I wonder if, as a young pre-law student at Rick's College in Rexburg, ID, Mike Nelsen ever sat back to imagine the impact his life would have on so many others? I wonder if, as a student of criminal, justice administration at Brigham Young University, Mike Nelsen ever dreamed of leading a police department to new heights and great successes? However, I hope that at the sunset of an impressive career, Chief Nelsen realizes the significance of the mark he has left on the lives of countless others and the new heights and great successes he has achieved. During his career as a police officer, Chief Nelsen climbed through the ranks. He rose from corporal, to sergeant, to lieutenant, and--most notably--to chief. Yet, despite the grandeur of his rise through the ranks, he always remained a faithful and committed public servant. Humility, sacrifice, and character have all been exemplified during his years of police work. Early in his career, Chief Nelsen earned a reputation for being willing to go the extra mile. From day l, he set a standard for community engagement outside of day to day policing. Perhaps the best example of this extracurricular community engagement is Chief Nelsen's avid support of the Special Olympics. Despite his many responsibilities as a police officer, Chief Nelsen has dedicated hours of service to his role as the director of the Box Elder Torch Run for the Special Olympics. For his service, he has had the honor to run in the International Torch Run for the Special Olympics in Alaska and to carry the Olympic Torch for the 2002 Winter Olympic Games in Salt Lake City. He has been an emissary of Brigham City and of Utah to the world. Public servants like Chief Nelsen deserve high praise. Their dedicated and faithful service sets an example for those who follow in their footsteps. I know that Chief Nelsen will be missed. However, thanks to the foundation that Chief Nelsen has laid over the last four decades, I have no doubt that the department will continue to flourish. I am grateful to Chief Nelsen for the commitment he has shown to a difficult, but meaningful job. Without individuals like him willing to shoulder this responsibility, our communities would not prosper as they do. Both he and his family have faithfully made sacrifices for the good of their community for decades. I thank them for their dedication. As Chief Nelsen transitions into retirement, I hope he does so knowing that his community has prospered as a result of his service and the memory of his servant leadership will live on.