[Congressional Record Volume 167, Number 175 (Tuesday, October 5, 2021)]
[Senate]
[Pages S6906-S6910]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]



                              Coronavirus

  Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. President, last week, I came to the floor in support 
of Senator Scott's bill pushing back on what many of us consider the 
unconstitutional COVID vaccine mandates. I used my floor time to 
describe the lack of transparency of our healthcare Agencies by talking 
about the information that our healthcare Agencies, the media, and the 
news media are not providing the American public. I come to the floor 
today to expand a little bit on that information.
  Now, last week, I presented this chart, which shows the daily number 
of new cases. Those are the blue lines. You actually have daily 
deaths--the tragic deaths--very thin red line. But you also have this 
line showing the percent of fully vaccinated Americans.
  Now, I pointed to this chart because this is not what I would expect 
to see if we had 100 percent effective vaccines. Now, let me again 
state, I was a big supporter of Operation Warp Speed. I am not an anti-
vaxxer. I have had every vaccine up to this one because I had COVID.
  So I had hoped and prayed that the COVID vaccine would be 100 percent 
safe and 100 percent effective, but this chart is not what I would 
expect to have seen with a vaccine that was highly effective and what 
we all were hoping would happen once we had a high percentage of 
Americans vaccinated, together with those who already had COVID, like 
myself, with natural immunity.
  You can see, prior to the vaccine even being able to take effect, as 
the first major surge of the pandemic was winding down, I would have 
expected to see a continued winding down, but that is not what we saw. 
We have seen this surge in Delta, and we have seen additional deaths, 
and the tragedy continues.
  Now, back on September 9, President Biden said: This pandemic is of 
the unvaccinated.
  And he also said: This is not about freedom or personal choice.
  No, this is exactly about freedom and personal choice. President 
Biden also said in July of this year--on July 21, he said: If you are 
vaccinated, you are not going to be hospitalized. You are not going to 
be in the ICU unit. You are not going to die. You are not going to get 
COVID if you have these vaccinations.
  Today, I received an email from a constituent in Wisconsin. I am 
going to read an excerpt. I am not going to identify the individual 
because he fears reprisals. He has seen what happens to people that 
tell the truth about COVID and COVID vaccines, so I will keep his name 
anonymous.
  But let me quote from his email: Both my parents were fully 
vaccinated with the Pfizer vaccine in the spring. Yet, in August, my 
mom became infected and then gave it to my dad. They became so sick 
that my sister, fully vaccinated with Moderna, moved in with them to 
care for them. She used PPEs and was careful, and she caught COVID too. 
Hence, my family, three of us, caught COVID while fully vaccinated. 
They spread it while they were fully vaccinated, from vaccinated to 
vaccinated. My mom and sister recovered. Dad died in a week at home 
after a 3-week stay in the local hospital.

[[Page S6907]]

  Now, that is a tragedy. I wish what President Biden said would have 
been true, but it is not. That talks to the vaccine's efficacy.
  Let's talk about vaccine safety. I have heard so often from who I 
refer to as the ``COVID gods''--the healthcare Agencies, the media, the 
news media--that vaccine adverse events are rare, and they are mild. 
Well, they are rare, and they are mild until they happen to you.
  Here is a chart that compares the number of deaths reported on the 
VAERS system. Now, this is the CDC's own vaccine adverse event 
reporting system. And I charted this all the way back to 1990, at the 
beginning of the VAERS system, and I got deaths associated with the flu 
vaccine there in blue. You can barely see them. But the largest year, 
the peak year for the VAERS-reported deaths associated with the flu 
vaccine was--in 2010, there was 162 reported deaths.
  Now, again, I understand that the VAERS does not prove causation. I 
have got that. But if you compare our experience since 1990 with the 
flu vaccine--by the way, it is generally about a third of the number of 
doses for an annual flu season versus what we have experienced with the 
COVID vaccine.
  So you compare that very low level of deaths reported on VAERS to 
what we now experienced with COVID, for just this count here, and it is 
15,737 worldwide for the 3 vaccines that have emergency use 
authorization in the United States. In total, it is 15,937 deaths 
reported on the VAERS system.
  Now, again, I realize that does not prove causation, but I do need to 
point out that 5,272 of those deaths occurred on day zero, 1, or 2 
following vaccination. Now, if I were in the CDC or FDA, those Agencies 
that in October of 2020 touted the VAERS report, their early warning 
safety surveillance systems--before the vaccines ever got the emergency 
use authorization--they were talking about how they were going to rely 
on these to provide the safety signals. I remember one member of the 
CDC saying: We are going to take adverse events so seriously that if 
somebody loses a couple of days work, lost work time because of an 
adverse event, we are going to get a CDC representative on the phone 
with that individual, and we are going to look into it.

  That simply has not happened.
  Now, one thing that the FDA has done is they have ridiculed some of 
the early treatment drugs. I don't have it on the chart here, but I 
just want to put things in perspective. So, now, again, 15,937 deaths 
in about 10 months with the COVID vaccine. Ivermectin, since 1996, over 
25 years, has 379 total deaths. That is 15,937, COVID vaccine; 
Ivermectin, 379 in 25 years; Hydroxychloroquine, about 1,039 deaths 
over 25 years; Remdesivir, which appears to be the drug of choice for 
hospitalized COVID patients, 1,499 deaths. Again, that is information 
our Federal Agencies aren't providing the American public, but this is 
information people need to know.
  Now, why am I giving you this information? Well, first of all, on 
social media, this is suppressed. This is being censored. People like 
me that would even broach the subject of VAERS have been attacked.
  So I think it is important to come to the Senate floor so the 
American people understand what is happening. But the main point I am 
trying to make is, those individuals who believe in their own health 
autonomy, believe in their own personal freedom, many of whom have 
already been infected with COVID, are reading the science and believe, 
based on what they are reading, that their natural immunity is probably 
as, if not more, effective than the vaccinated immunity and have chosen 
not to get the vaccine. That is their right. You may not agree with 
that, but it is not your body. It is not your right to impose on 
someone else a mandate to take the vaccine or take away their job, take 
away their livelihood, and take away their healthcare.
  By the way, I am not the only one that thinks this. President Biden, 
back on December 4, said: I don't think it should be mandatory. I 
wouldn't demand it be mandatory.
  The Press Secretary said: The vaccine mandate is not the Federal 
Government's role.
  And yet here we are, nurses being fired. What do you think that is 
going to do to our healthcare system? We already have a severe 
healthcare worker shortage. We are going to exacerbate that problem.
  These mandates are unconstitutional, but they are going to be 
incredibly harmful for military readiness and for our healthcare 
system. They are also going to be incredibly corrosive to our society.
  I have been inundated--even well before President Biden announced his 
ill-advised and unconstitutional mandate, I have been inundated with 
emails and letters and phone calls from people who are so concerned 
about being coerced, being forced to take a vaccine under duress. It 
has had an incredibly corrosive effect on our society.
  But I want to quote from one particular letter. I got this letter 
from a nurse. She has a master's degree. She is also a professor of 
nursing. She is describing what happened inside a meeting of their 
faculty as they were deciding how to handle mandates in their nursing 
school.
  She writes: Some of the biggest issues today are the conversations 
occurring behind closed doors. Our nursing department faculty got 
together to decide how to handle the nearly 50 percent of students that 
hadn't yet received their COVID-19 vaccination and faced being 
dismissed from their nursing program unless they complied. The students 
were referred to as ``ignorant,'' ``uneducated,'' ``killers.''

  This name-calling, although deeply inappropriate, is becoming the 
cultural norm against the masses of those who decide that it is within 
their right to attack the personal choice of others.
  But if I were a student or a parent of a student who heard that 
interaction that I am about to share with you, you would be beyond 
furious.
  When it was determined by consensus of the faculty group that we were 
not going to allow any special accommodations--in other words, 
switching of clinical assignments or sites--to allow for the 
unvaccinated students to progress, and that will be the standard 
practice in all other nursing programs soon, one faculty member 
exclaimed to the group: ``Good luck finding a new career.''
  And the group responded with laughter.
  This nurse writes: Let that sink in for a moment. They laughed. They 
laughed at the thought of someone's dreams being crushed.
  That's the effect these unconstitutional, coercive, freedom-robbing 
mandates are having on our society. There is no need for them.
  As the previous email from my constituent that I received today 
proves, even if you have been fully vaccinated, you can catch COVID. 
You can transmit COVID. You can die from COVID. Now, it is a tragedy. I 
wish it weren't so, but it is true.
  When are we going to start following the science? When are we going 
to reclaim the freedom that has been lost in this pandemic?
  There has been enough harm done during the course of this pandemic. I 
am begging this body; I am begging the President, do no further harm.
  With that, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Utah.


                   Unanimous Consent Request--S. 2848

  Mr. LEE. Mr. President, last week, I came to the Senate floor no 
fewer than three times and invited my colleagues to pass bills to 
protect millions of Americans at risk of losing their jobs, their 
livelihoods, due to President Biden's COVID-19 vaccine mandate.
  Unfortunately, due to objections from the other side of the aisle, 
these bills were not adopted. But I committed then, as I do again 
today, that I will be back with additional proposals for as long as it 
takes to beat this sweeping mandate.
  Since I began this effort against the mandate, there has been a 
massive outpouring of support from across the country. I have heard 
from Americans in countless sectors, from multiple States, who are at 
risk of losing their jobs. These Americans just want to make their own 
medical decisions--a right that has always been afforded and not 
challenged since the beginning of our Nation.
  In Utah alone, I have heard from no fewer than 184 people who are at 
risk of losing their livelihoods. They and so many others, those who 
share the same concerns, are our neighbors; they are everyday 
Americans, and they have legitimate medical concerns about getting the 
vaccine.

[[Page S6908]]

  But President Biden doesn't care. He said simply, ``This isn't about 
freedom or personal choice.''
  Well, to the millions of Americans who face the punishment of being 
made unemployable if they do not succumb to the President's will, this 
very much is about freedom and personal choice. There must be a more 
reasonable answer. There must be a more compassionate answer.
  The COVID-19 vaccine has been deemed generally safe. I don't dispute 
that. In fact, I, along with my entire family, have been vaccinated. I 
see the development of these vaccines as a miracle and a blessing. But 
there are some people with preexisting conditions or complications. 
Many of these individuals have been advised by their trusted, board-
certified doctors that they should not receive the vaccine. These 
Americans, they deserve to be able to make their own medical decisions, 
and they should not be forced by the President of the United States to 
go against the advice of their doctors.
  Now let's look down the road at what will necessarily follow this 
vaccine mandate. Countless Americans who follow the recommendations of 
their doctors would lose their jobs in an already troubled economy. 
These individuals and families would not be just unemployed; the 
President of the United States would deem them unemployable, second-
class pariahs. Businesses that dare to employ the unvaccinated would be 
subject to crippling fines and risk closure.
  The President of the United States, unilaterally, without any say 
from the people's Representatives in Congress, is set on imposing 
financial destruction on many American families and businesses. He is 
even targeting those with complicated medical conditions and forcibly 
removing them from the economy and much of broader society.
  So today, I am offering the Senate an option to take a more 
compassionate, reasonable approach. My bill, the Your Health Comes 
First Act, would exempt from the President's mandate individuals with 
personal health concerns related to the vaccine.
  Simply put, Americans who are worried about how the vaccine would 
interact with or compound their existing medical difficulties would not 
be obligated to get it. Those who have been advised by their doctors 
not to get the vaccine due to preexisting medical conditions would not 
be forced to go against the recommendations of their doctor.
  This bill is a reasonable and a compassionate solution to allow 
concerned Americans the dignity and autonomy we all deserve.
  This isn't the only flaw with the mandate. As I have said before, the 
President lacks authority to do this. Neither the Federal Government, 
in general, nor the President of the United States, in particular, has 
the power under the Constitution to implement a broad mandate of this 
sort.
  Whether you think government ought to be mandating it or not, whether 
you think government ought to force people out of their jobs if they 
refuse to get it or not, that is a different, analytically distinct 
question in our constitutional system from whether the Federal 
Government has the authority, generally, or the President, in 
particular, has the authority. It doesn't, and he does not.
  These arguments need to remain at the forefront of the conversation: 
questions regarding the constitutionality and the constitutional 
authority to issue this in the first place.
  I will be back tomorrow with another proposal, and I will be at this 
for as long as it takes to end this unconstitutional and 
uncompassionate mandate.
  Mr. President, as if in legislative session, I ask unanimous consent 
that the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions be 
discharged from further consideration of S. 2848, and that the Senate 
proceed to its immediate consideration. I ask unanimous consent that 
the bill be considered read a third time and passed and that the motion 
to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. MURPHY. Mr. President.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Connecticut.
  Mr. MURPHY. Mr. President, reserving the right to object. Yesterday, 
Tallahassee Memorial Hospital disclosed that 82 people died inside 
their healthcare system from COVID over the course of the month of 
September. That is the worst month on record for that hospital system.
  It is not shocking to anyone because we just went passed 700,000 
people who have now been killed by this virus in the United States of 
America. And this attack that continues to be launched on the Senate 
floor against science and against sound public health policy is 
standing in the way of us defeating this virus.
  Now, I will speak to Senator Lee's objection, but Senator Johnson 
just came to the floor and opened up his remarks by declaring he that 
wasn't an anti-vaxxer and then just engaged in a 10-minute broadside 
against vaccines, citing conspiracy theory after conspiracy theory. The 
effect will be to undermine America's faith in vaccines that are 
working.
  To prove his point, the Senator from Wisconsin read an email from a 
constituent who got the vaccine and got infected.
  I am sure that is true. There are, in fact, people who have gotten 
the vaccine who have gotten the infection. It isn't 100 percent 
effective.
  But he didn't cite these statistics: those who have been vaccinated 
are 10 times less likely to be hospitalized. Those who have been 
vaccinated are 10 times less likely to die.
  Here are some numbers from the State of Pennsylvania that I just saw 
this morning: In Pennsylvania, 97 percent of deaths are amongst the 
unvaccinated; 95 percent of hospitalizations are amongst the 
unvaccinated; and 94 percent of cases are amongst the unvaccinated.
  Senator Lee is right, vaccines work--vaccines work, and I appreciate 
his statement to that effect. But others, like the Senator from 
Wisconsin, are coming down to the floor, and their words have the 
effect of undermining people's faith in science, and that is deadly. 
That is deadly.
  As to Senator Lee's objections, I know he makes them in good faith, 
but my impression is that this Congress and this country decided a long 
time ago that the government does have a role to play when it comes to 
the safety of our workplaces. In fact, that is the entire reason for 
the existence of OSHA. Whether you like it or not, from a policy 
perspective, OSHA has handed down mandate after mandate about what is 
necessary for employers to make sure that when you show up to work in a 
hospital or a factory or a school, that your workplace is safe.
  Specifically, this country is not a stranger to vaccine mandates. In 
fact, every parent who sends their kids to school knows all about 
vaccine mandates because you have to make sure that your child is 
vaccinated before they go to school. Most of those schools have 
relatively reasonable exemptions--often, at the very least, medical 
exemptions; sometimes religious and philosophical exemptions.
  Let's be clear: President Biden's plan includes commonsense 
considerations for exemptions.
  Let's also be clear that, at least with respect to the OSHA 
requirement, it is a mandate for testing, not for vaccinations. There 
are other mandates that are requiring the vaccination take place, but 
the broadest of the proposed mandates is a mandate that everybody get 
tested; you don't have to get tested if you get the vaccine.
  And so I am deeply worried about how unserious this country is about 
the science and about sound public health policy. We aren't going to 
get over this pandemic--we aren't going to be able to turn the page--
unless people choose to get vaccinated: 10 times less likely to die, 10 
times less likely to get hospitalized.
  Yes, it is true, there are cases in which there may be medical 
contraindications. President Biden's plan accounts for that. And yes, 
it is true that there are individual people who have still had 
breakthrough cases. But this is an effective vaccine. It is a safe 
vaccine. And the only way that we save lives is if we stop focusing on 
ideology and keep our focus on science and what works.
  And for that reason, I object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The objection is heard.
  Mr. LEE. Mr. President, I appreciate the insight from my friend and 
distinguished colleague, the Senator from Connecticut.

[[Page S6909]]

  I want to be very clear: The limited focus of this bill--the bill 
that I offered up for passage in the Senate today--is narrow.
  It has one purpose: For those Americans who have a medical concern 
and who have been advised by their doctor, based on some condition 
associated with their health, that they should not get it, they 
shouldn't have to choose between getting vaccinated and losing their 
job.
  My friend from Connecticut goes so far, I think, as to implicitly 
acknowledge that there ought to be an exception made for those people. 
One, he says, President Biden's vaccine mandate accommodates them.
  Well, there is a problem with that. President Biden hasn't issued 
anything. He has suggested, along with members of his administration, 
that there might be a somewhat accommodation for them. I am not sure 
what that means, neither is corporate America. A lot of corporate 
America, acting on the advice of legal counsel and human resources 
departments, tends to be adopting rules already. Some of them take 
exceptions like these into account; others do not.
  Look, it is really not too much to ask. I suggest that if you are 
going to impose a sweeping mandate like this, that you ought to have 
some protection for people with complicating medical conditions, who, 
on the advice of a board-certified physician, choose not to get it.
  Now, again, this does not mean that I am OK with the rest of the 
mandate; I am not. And I respectfully, but very strongly, disagree with 
my friend's characterization that this is just fine for the Federal 
Government to do.
  The Federal Government lacks general police powers. The lion's share 
of the authority within government in our system lies with the States 
and their political subdivisions.
  Our national government is in charge of just a few basic and 
distinctively national matters: national defense, a uniformed system of 
weights and measures, trademarks, copyrights, and patents, regulating 
trade or commerce between the States with foreign nations and with the 
Indian Tribes.
  There are a number of others, but there is no power in there that 
just refers to providing generally for laws that make the American 
people safe and healthy.
  Those powers exist in America; they just aren't vested in this 
government. It doesn't mean that States and localities will always 
exercise that power wisely or prudently or compassionately, but it 
means insofar as you are going to act through government, that is the 
appropriate place and not this one.
  Now, my friend from Connecticut then responds by saying, ``Yeah, but 
the power is still there anyway.''
  Even if I were to assume his point that the power of the Federal 
Government somehow extends to an individual vaccine mandate, which it 
doesn't--and I would challenge him or anyone else to cite what 
provision of the U.S. Constitution it is that that provides that 
authority--but even if we were to accept the premise, just for purposes 
of discussion, that the Federal Government may exercise such authority, 
the President may not exercise that authority alone.
  The very first clause of the first article--in the first section of 
the first article of that Constitution says: ``All legislative Powers 
herein granted shall be vested in our Congress of the United States, 
which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives.''
  Article I, section 7 then makes clear that in order to pass a law, a 
Federal law in the United States--that is, in order to adopt a policy 
of the Federal Government, enforceable through the overpowering force 
that is the Federal Government--you have to follow the article I, 
section 7 formula, which means you have to take a legislative 
proposal--a bill--you have to pass it in the House, and you have to 
pass it in the Senate with the same language--and it has to be 
submitted to the President for signature, veto, or acquiescence.
  If you don't undertake that process at all, there is no authority in 
the executive to do anything like what they are describing. What 
President Biden has done is to arrogate to himself powers that he not 
only characterizes as Federal, but, really, are legislative powers that 
he doesn't possess.
  The President of the United States is the chief executive. He is not 
a lawmaker. And he certainly is not the entire legislative branch. And 
so that, really, is quite beside the point.
  It doesn't make a difference with his Federal authority. The fact 
that Federal authority is asserted to exist, which it is not, and we 
can't identify a single clause of article I, section 8, or another part 
of the Constitution that can fairly be read, especially against the 
backdrop of its original public meaning, to convey that power--but even 
if you concede that point, there is no reasonable, plausible, 
defensible argument that would say the President of the United States 
may wield this authority unilaterally.
  That is what despots and tyrants would have the power to do. And if 
there is one thing that is very consistent and uniform in our 
constitutional structure it is that no one person, no one group of 
people, is ever supposed to be able to accumulate dangerous degrees of 
power and that the President of the United States is neither a lawmaker 
nor the entire legislative branch. He may not step into those shoes.
  As to the assertion about science, my friend and colleague referred 
to this as somehow a war on science. It is not a war on science to 
suggest that the President lacks authority to do something 
unilaterally. I would call that a war on the Constitution, frankly.
  It is not a war on science to say that whenever a government acts, it 
ought to do so out of an abundance of caution and out of respect for 
the people to provide reasonable accommodations to individuals who have 
medical conditions that make them uniquely vulnerable to what the 
government is inclined to require.
  Again, this mandate is unconstitutional. It doesn't make the vaccine 
bad. In fact, the vaccine is a blessing, and I think the American 
people have been made safer as a result of it.
  That doesn't mean every American must get it. It certainly doesn't 
mean that it is any of the Federal Government's business to tell people 
that they have to choose between getting the vaccine and losing their 
job, especially with regard to individuals who have preexisting medical 
conditions that would make it dangerous for them to do so in the 
judgment of their board-certified medical physician. That is wrong. 
That is absolutely wrong.
  Now, look, COVID-19 has imposed a lot of tragedies, and it is 
heartbreaking. A number of people we have lost, including the 
individuals who have died in the last month at Tallahassee Memorial 
Hospital, who he mentioned--every one of those lives is of infinite 
eternal value. Those are unrepeatable lives lost to a deadly pandemic. 
My heart goes out to each one of those souls who has departed, along 
with their families.
  We are reminded of the lives that have tragically been lost to COVID-
19 by an exhibit that has been up on the Mall, up around the Washington 
Monument. It is beautiful, really. There are little flags--small 
flags--each of them white, each one representing one of the Americans 
who has been lost to COVID-19 since it broke out just over a year and a 
half ago. There are about 700,000 of those around the Washington 
Monument. From a distance, it looks a little like snow.
  I come from a State where there is usually snow at the top of 
mountains. It looks familiar to me when I see what looks like snow from 
a distance, but it is somber as I remember what they actually 
represent.
  If we want to talk about the loss of human life, we have to talk 
about the loss of all human life, and we also have to talk about the 
right of each individual to live and to continue living and to follow 
the advice of medical doctors based on the individuals' own medical 
conditions.
  I sometimes find staggering the accusations that those who have 
concerns with this are somehow committing a war on science. Against 
which science? Who exactly is it that is against science--the science 
that tells us that unborn human life can experience and respond to pain 
in the womb in 15 or 20 weeks of gestational development?
  What would it look like if we had a separate memorial with little red 
flags instead of little white ones, each representing one of the human 
lives lost every single year to abortion?

[[Page S6910]]

  You see, every single year we lose about the same number of human 
lives to abortion as we have lost to COVID since it first broke out. If 
for the last 50 years we had a little red flag, each marking one of 
those human lives lost, there would be a sea of red. It would take up 
not just the grass all around the Washington Monument, which is large, 
it would probably take up all the grass between the Capitol, the 
Washington Monument, and the Lincoln Memorial. It would be a sea of 
red.
  So, no, no, you can't say that this is a war on science to be 
concerned about individuals being able to make their own decision about 
whether to get this vaccine.
  If you want to accuse people on the other side of the aisle of doing 
something, you have to stop and think about other decisions that we 
make--other decisions that some are willing to defend, decisions that 
involve a whole lot of human suffering and a whole lot of loss of a 
whole lot of human lives.
  I get that a lot of people disagree on these things, but the fact 
that we disagree on them doesn't mean that they don't exist. It 
certainly doesn't mean that we can stand by and watch as if a vestigial 
legislative organ--as one single man steps into the shoes of 435 
Representatives or 100 Senators--makes, as it were, a law that, on its 
own, fails even to accommodate good-faith medical concerns backed up by 
medical science.
  It is too bad that we couldn't pass this simple law today. We could 
have; we should have; I wish we would have. I will be back. This issue 
isn't going away. Neither am I.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to complete my 
remarks before the vote.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.