[Congressional Record Volume 167, Number 183 (Tuesday, October 19, 2021)]
[Senate]
[Pages S7047-S7062]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                          MOTION TO DISCHARGE

  Mr. SCHUMER. Pursuant to S. Res. 27, the Committee on Banking, 
Housing, and Urban Affairs being tied on the question of reporting, I 
move to discharge the Senate Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban 
Affairs from further consideration of Brian Eddie Nelson, of 
California, to be Under Secretary for Terrorism and Financial Crimes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the provisions of S. Res. 27, there will 
now be up to 4 hours of debate on the motion, equally divided between 
the two leaders, or their designees, with no motions, points of order, 
or amendments in order.
  Mr. SCHUMER. I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There appears to be a sufficient second. There is.
  The yeas and nays are ordered.
  Mr. SCHUMER. Madam President, for the information of the Senate, we 
expect the vote to discharge the nomination to occur about 5:30 p.m. 
today.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington.


                             Voting Rights

  Mrs. MURRAY. Madam President, I rise today in defense of the most 
sacred right we have in this country, and that is the right to vote. 
This right is fundamental to our democracy. It is the right to make 
your voice heard in our government.
  But this right is under attack by ultraconservative State lawmakers 
who are restricting access to our ballot boxes--the same people who 
continue to cast unserious, faceless and dangerous doubts on the 
results of the 2020 election.
  I am not being hyperbolic when I say, if these attacks succeed, there 
will be grave consequences for our democratic system not just in those 
States, but throughout our country.
  So as I have said time and again, we must pass strong Federal voting 
rights protections into law, because doing so is essential to making 
sure that our democracy stays a democracy. Democrats are rightfully 
exploring every potential avenue to ensure Americans' fundamental right 
to vote is not restricted.
  We are voting on legislation this week--the Freedom to Vote Act--that 
has been the result of extended negotiations and discussions. And I 
appreciate all my colleagues who are working to craft a bill all of us 
can agree to, one that ensures that voters have equal access to the 
ballot box; that promotes best practices for voter registration and 
administration; and protects our elections from the very real threat of 
interference, both foreign and domestic.
  This is a reasonable bill by any stretch of the imagination. And I 
challenge anyone to tell me what could be more controversial about 
making election day a public holiday or ensuring everyone has the 
opportunity to vote early, making sure everyone can request a vote-by-
mail ballot.
  These are simple measures to ensure that every American's voice can 
be heard. And I am glad that this bill includes protections so it will 
help give power back to the people in our government, making sure 
people pick their representatives rather than representatives picking 
their voters; by stopping special interest money from drowning out 
Americans' voices and votes; and by protecting and securing each 
American citizen's right to cast their ballot.
  Again, nothing in this bill should be controversial if you care about 
the health of our democracy. So I hope our Republican colleagues will 
join us in supporting it, because I strongly believe protecting every 
American's right to vote should not be a partisan issue. And my 
Republican colleagues will have a chance this week to inspire 
confidence in our elections and make sure they are secure by voting for 
this commonsense legislation.
  But if there are some who want to stand between voters and their due 
right to the ballot box, we cannot, as public servants, simply throw up 
our hands and say: Oh, well, we tried.
  So Republicans choose to look the other way on implementing Federal 
voting rights protections because voter suppression tactics might 
benefit them politically.
  Democrats must use every legislative tool needed to get the Freedom 
to Vote Act to President Biden's desk, including an exemption to the 
filibuster, because, as I have said, of all the critical things we will 
vote on this Congress--and many are so important to our workers and 
families--this is the most important. It is about the future of our 
democracy.
  And if our Republican colleagues are not willing to stand up for our 
democracy, we can't let them hide behind Senate rules and block 
Democrats from doing so on our own. The stakes are really simply too 
high to fail. One way or another, this Senate has to pass the Freedom 
to Vote Act.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wyoming.


                                 Energy

  Mr. BARRASSO. Madam President, I come to the floor today to talk 
about what Americans are talking about all across the country, and that 
is the fact that energy prices are rising and doing it dramatically.
  Energy is called a master resource for a reason. It powers our 
communities, our homes, our military, and our economy. It fuels the 
trucks that bring goods and groceries to market. It keeps the lights on 
at small businesses all across the country, and it heats our homes. 
This is the reason why higher energy prices mean higher prices in every 
other part of our life.
  Now, over the last 9 months, people have been seeing this all across 
the country. Energy prices have gone up, and not just by a little. They 
have gone up a lot. It has contributed to higher prices for just about 
everything we do and everywhere we go.
  The cost of a tank of gas is about a dollar higher now than it was 
when Joe Biden came into the White House. As a result, if you go to 
fill up at your local gas station, it is about $25 more to fill your 
tank today than it was back in January, on the 20th, when Joe Biden 
took the oath of office.
  Now, it is not just gasoline that has gone up; it is the gas we use 
to heat our homes. Natural gas powers over half of the homes that are 
heated across America. And the price is now at a 7-year high. So as a 
result, families are going to pay a lot more not just to drive, but 
also to heat their homes this winter.
  And it is interesting because here in America, we have the energy 
resources we need; we are just not able to use them because of this 
administration.
  Under the last administration, America became the largest producer of 
oil and natural gas in the world--in the world--America. America's 
energy dominance worked to help us reduce our trade deficit. It brought 
home more jobs, brought industries home to America. It fueled the best 
economy in my lifetime here at home in America. And as a nation, we 
became energy independent for the first time in 70 years.
  Well, these were historic achievements by America's energy workers. 
In my home State, the State of Wyoming was proud to play a major role 
in these achievements. Wyoming is America's No. 1 per-capita exporter 
of energy. We

[[Page S7048]]

produce it in Wyoming, and we send it around the country and around the 
world. We power America and we power the world.
  Yet, ever since Joe Biden became President, it has become a lot 
harder. Now, I talk to energy workers at home all of the time in 
Wyoming, all across the State, and what they continue to tell me is it 
has never been more difficult than it is right now. In just 9 months, 
Joe Biden has already become the most anti-American energy President in 
our Nation's history.
  On his first day in office, he drew a target on the back of American 
petroleum energy, and he pulled the trigger. He killed the Keystone XL 
Pipeline, and that ended thousands of good-paying jobs at the height of 
a pandemic. President Biden also shut down oil and gas exploration near 
the Arctic. He banned oil and gas leasing on Federal land.
  This has been devastating to Western States: Wyoming, Colorado, 
Nevada, and New Mexico.
  Nearly half of Wyoming is Federal land, and now Joe Biden says that 
land is off limits to Wyoming energy workers.
  Because of Joe Biden's radical anti-energy agenda, people in every 
corner of this country are paying higher prices for energy. We are 
paying more at the pump, paying more at the grocery store--paying all 
around.
  Even one of the Democrats' favorite economists, Mark Zandi, says the 
American people are now paying $175 more every month--$175 every 
month--more than they were a year ago. That includes gas, groceries, 
rent. Joe Biden inflation--it is equivalent to $2,100 a week. That is a 
heck of a paycheck cut for American workers.
  So who gets hurt by this?
  Well, it is struggling families. It is seniors. It is people living 
on a fixed income.
  Polls show that about half of the country lives paycheck to paycheck. 
Forty percent of the country says they couldn't afford to cover an 
emergency if the cost were above $400.
  Well, in the Joe Biden economy, people are paying five times that 
amount--the amount they can't handle for an emergency--just in the cost 
of annual inflation.
  The Biden White House doesn't seem to care very much about it, 
doesn't understand it--clueless. Last week, the White House Chief of 
Staff retweeted a message which said inflation is a ``high class 
problem.''
  He couldn't be more wrong. If the White House believes this, they are 
woefully--woefully--at a loss for understanding what is happening in 
this country, because what is happening is exactly the opposite of what 
the White House thinks. The White House Chief of Staff clearly doesn't 
understand the struggles of working families all across this country.
  Now, the big Democrat donors in Chuck Schumer's Brooklyn, NY, or 
Nancy Pelosi's San Francisco--they are going to be just fine. It is the 
working families in rural America who are getting hurt the most.
  And as winter is coming, energy costs are going to go up 
significantly. The U.S. Energy Information Administration--branch of 
the government--says energy bills will be up dramatically this winter 
compared to last.
  This inflation nightmare is absolutely at a point where there is 
still no end in sight. The American people believe it is going to 
continue and it is going to get worse.
  Democrats have finally been hit with the reality that people are 
worried about the high cost of energy. So what have they decided to do 
about it? What will the White House do about it? What will the 
administration do about it?
  Astonishingly, in August, the National Security Advisor begged Russia 
and OPEC and the oil cartel to pump more oil. It is hard to believe 
that really happened. It is also hard to believe--my friend and 
colleague the senior Senator from Alaska told us in the Energy 
Committee that the United States is using more oil from Russia than we 
are from Alaska right now.
  If you don't believe it in terms of the fact that the administration 
is asking OPEC and Russia to produce more oil to help lower the costs 
in the United States, just go to the White House website. They put it 
on the White House website.
  Joe Biden would rather buy energy from our enemies and send American 
dollars overseas than produce it here at home. He would rather send 
American dollars overseas to our enemies than explore for American 
energy and the resources that we have, where we have the capacity to 
lead the world.
  Last week, the Biden administration made an off-the-record call to 
U.S. energy-producing companies. The administration had the nerve to 
ask them to lower their prices at the same time that this 
administration has forced them to lower their production. It is 
economics 101: supply and demand. It is basic arithmetic.
  And now the Energy Secretary says that we might have to use the 
Strategic Petroleum Reserve to try to bring more energy onto the market 
to help deal with the costs that have gone up as a result of the Biden 
policies. We went to the Strategic Petroleum Reserve during the first 
Iraq war and after Hurricane Katrina and during the Arab Spring. In 
other words, this is something we do in a crisis.
  The Biden administration won't say it out loud yet, but let's admit 
it; there is a crisis, and it is one that Joe Biden and this 
administration have created. It is a crisis of Joe Biden's own making, 
and it is a crisis that Joe Biden could end tomorrow because we have 
the capacity at home to do it.
  Instead, what are the Democrats doing? Well, they are threatening to 
make it even worse. Democrats in the Senate are pushing a $3.5 trillion 
reckless tax-and-spending spree. Last month, one Commissioner of the 
FERC, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, told us at the Energy 
Committee that to pass this $3.5 trillion bill would be ``like an H-
bomb'' on America's energy markets. That is because the bill contains 
huge portions of what has become known to be the disastrous ``green bad 
deal.''
  Here are just a few of the examples that are included in this $3.5 
trillion Democratic bill in the House right now: $8 billion for a so-
called Civilian Climate Corps. These are taxpayer-funded climate 
police. They will get free housing, free clothing, free college 
tuition, free childcare to go out and police the environment based on 
the climate.
  The Democrat spending spree also includes $10 billion for what the 
Democrats call environmental justice in higher education. The bill 
includes $105 billion for what the Democrats call climate justice and 
then green energy subsidies.
  Let's take a look at the subsidies. These subsidies include huge 
subsidies for people who buy and drive electric vehicles. And who buys 
and drives electric vehicles? Basically, people with lots of income, 
not the average American. The government is already giving billions of 
taxpayer dollars to electric vehicle manufacturers and owners. Nearly 
80 percent of the tax credits go to households making at least $100,000 
a year. That is who this administration is beholden to. The spending 
spree would give up to $12,500 to married couples to buy electric 
vehicles. A single person earning up to $400,000 a year could get a 
subsidy. A married couple earning up to $800,000 a year could get a 
subsidy.
  Now, how are the Democrats going to pay for all these things, all 
these handouts? Well, they want to put more taxes on producing natural 
gas. What is that going to do to the average person trying to heat 
their home this winter? It is going to raise natural gas prices even 
higher. Oh, and at the same time, we would eliminate 90,000 American 
energy jobs. It is going to raise energy costs for people all across 
the country.
  The administration's answer is the last thing we need in this country 
right now. We in this country have the best energy resources in the 
world. We also have the best energy workers in the world. It is time to 
let these good men and women do their jobs. American people don't need 
trillions of dollars more in taxes and spending and debt. We need more 
American energy. It is time for Joe Biden and the Democrats to get out 
of the way of affordable American energy. The people of this country 
need it badly.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alabama.


                        National Police Weekend

  Mr. TUBERVILLE. Madam President, I want to begin today by recognizing 
the service and sacrifice of our

[[Page S7049]]

law enforcement officers. This past weekend, Americans here in our 
Nation's Capital and around the country participated in National Police 
Weekend.
  Being a law enforcement officer is one of the toughest and most 
dangerous jobs that there is. I think people on both sides of the aisle 
in this Chamber would agree with that. Law enforcement officers serve 
as a boundary between a functioning society and a lawless one. And, 
sadly, during the course of their vital duty to serve and protect our 
communities, some pay the ultimate price.
  Alabama has lost four individuals in the line of duty to date this 
year: Deputy Sheriff William H. Smith, of the Baldwin County Sheriff's 
Office; Police Officer Marquis Dewon Moorer, of the Selma Police 
Department; Corrections Officer Maurice ``Reese'' Jackson, of the 
Robertsdale Police Department; Sergeant Nick Risner, of the Sheffield 
Police Department.
  And our State has lost five individuals this year from COVID: 
Lieutenant Jeff Bain, of the DeKalb County Sheriff's Office; Police 
Officer Juan Manuel Gomez-Lopez, of the Pelham Police Department; 
Deputy Sheriff Harry ``Buddy'' Hutchinson, of the Blount County 
Sheriff's Office; Police Officer Brandon Ard, of the Orange Beach 
Police Department; Investigator Richard Wendell Humphrey, of the 
Baldwin County District Attorney's Office.
  These nine individuals deserve our honor. They got out of bed each 
morning, put their uniform on, and went to work for our communities 
across this country.
  To their friends and families, thank you for your sacrifice. It is a 
tough task, loving and supporting someone who goes to work each day, 
putting their life on the line to protect people they don't even know. 
They know only that they are fellow Americans.
  And to every Alabamian who wears a badge and a uniform, thank you for 
all you do for our communities.
  It is an unfortunate truth that many officers are being driven out of 
their profession by a wave of anti-police rhetoric on the heels of bad 
actors who operated outside their training. The Biden administration 
had jumped at every opportunity to demonize and demean the entire law 
enforcement profession. The President has shown that if the optics are 
bad enough, law enforcement will pay.
  This was the case with Border Patrol agents on horseback in the Del 
Rio Sector in Texas just a few weeks ago. Reports of the agents 
whipping people turned out to be completely and utterly false.
  We shouldn't be surprised. When their policies have failed and 
created chaos, the Biden administration has had a choice between doing 
what is right and making our government work better or shaming those 
expected to do more with less. The Biden administration has always 
chosen the latter. The administration routinely chooses to hide behind 
platitudes and broken promises instead of addressing the crises of 
their own making.
  And because of that, the consequences of this administration's 
illogical and inconsistent policies will be felt by Americans for 
decades. If we didn't think it could get even worse, this 
administration's weak border policies impact every aspect of our 
Nation's immigration system.
  But the problems go far beyond the crisis we have seen unfold over 
the last 9 months at the southwest border. Just last week, Department 
of Homeland Security Secretary Mayorkas issued guidance ending worksite 
enforcement operations, which is the authority the U.S. Immigration and 
Customs Enforcement, better known as ICE, uses to crack down on 
businesses who employ illegal immigrants and to process illegal 
immigration workers for removal.
  Without the threat of removing illegal workers, this new guidance 
creates a pull factor, or a magnet, attracting more people to the 
United States through illegal means. Illegal immigrants come with the 
knowledge that the consequences for breaking our laws under President 
Biden is minimal or nonexistent.
  But this is a departure from what Democrats used to think. In 2005, 
then-Senator Barack Obama said:

       We simply cannot allow people to pour into the United 
     States undetected, undocumented, unchecked, and circumventing 
     the line of people who are waiting patiently, diligently, and 
     lawfully to become immigrants in this country.

  In 2009, Senator Chuck Schumer said:

       Illegal immigration is wrong, plain and simple . . . people 
     who enter the United States without permission are illegal 
     aliens and illegal aliens should not be treated the same as 
     people who enter the U.S. legally.

  And then, in 2006, then-Senator Joe Biden said:

       Let me tell you something, folks, people are driving across 
     that border with tons, tons--hear me, tons--of everything 
     from byproducts from [drugs] to cocaine to heroin, and it's 
     all coming up through corrupt Mexico.

  So why the change? It is politics. They are bending to the pressure 
from the far left to abandon enforcement of our laws in this country. 
And just look where it got us. How about the allegations of poor living 
conditions, rampant COVID-19 infection, and sexual misconduct between 
unaccompanied alien children and Federal contractors at Department of 
Health and Human Services housing facilities?
  Nearly 2 weeks ago, I sent a letter to the Secretary of the 
Department of Health and Human Services regarding the countless reports 
of mistreatment of unaccompanied minors while in Health and Human 
Services custody until released to a parent or legal guardian.
  Because our country continues to face public health emergencies 
brought on by the COVID-19 pandemic, President Biden kept title 42 in 
place at the border except for one piece. He made a huge politically 
driven exception: Unaccompanied children could be admitted regardless 
of public health emergency. This decision led to an onslaught of 
unaccompanied minors arriving at the border.
  This administration has been so consumed by ensuring that the 
President receives constant good press that they rushed tens of 
thousands of children through processing facilities and into the hands 
of adults who hadn't undergone background checks. What is more is 
Health and Human Services failed to conduct background checks on the 
contractors working at the housing facilities where unaccompanied 
minors stay before being released to parents.
  The administration repeatedly cut corners and endangered the lives of 
children just so they could provide pictures of empty Customs and 
Border Protection processing facilities to the press.
  At every turn, it has been about headlines over sound policy, and it 
has backfired. That is absolutely no way to go.
  Oh, and by the way, I have yet to receive a response from Health and 
Human Services Secretary Becerra on my questions. It has been weeks.
  Now there are reports of yet another memo coming out of DHS, one that 
would protect those who acquired U.S. citizenship by fraud.
  U.S. citizenship is the most valuable status that we have in this 
country, and it is coveted all around the world. It is the reason 
millions of people immigrate to the United States every year and have 
done so for many, many generations. They come here with the hope to 
capitalize on the opportunities that this country provides, the 
freedoms and liberties afforded to its citizens.
  Allowing people to be naturalized through fraudulent methods devalues 
our sacred privilege. It cheapens the inherent principles of our great 
country. I sincerely hope the administration will not actually consider 
such a drastic change in policy. But based on what we have seen so far, 
I wouldn't be surprised.
  By the end of 2021, Customs and Border Protection will have 
apprehended nearly 2 million people attempting to illegally cross into 
the United States. July and August each saw apprehensions of up to 
200,000 per month.
  Folks, that is astounding. That is 2 million people who decided the 
dangerous journey through South and Central America was worth the risk 
to illegally enter the United States through our southwest border, 
rather than to adhere to the laws and regulations we instituted for 
legal means of immigration.
  These numbers negatively impact the U.S. job market and our economy. 
They put a burden on the taxpayer through increased spending of Federal 
benefits. These numbers overwhelm--

[[Page S7050]]

and I am talking ``overwhelm''--our public schools and our hospitals, 
which are already maxed out.
  Also, wide open borders are also an issue of national security, and 
you can bet that the longer the border remains open, the more drugs 
make their way into the United States. Customs and Border Protection 
has seized over 10,000 pounds of fentanyl this year, more than the last 
3 years combined. Imagine the amount of illicit drugs President Biden's 
open border policy have added to our opioid epidemic.
  And while the U.S. economy continues to suffer due to the actions 
taken by the Biden administration in response to COVID, the cartel 
economy is booming.
  Earlier this year, CBP estimated the cartels make about an average of 
$14 million per day smuggling people and drugs into the United States. 
The cartels are running a multibillion-dollar business along our 
border, and the President is just letting it happen.
  Never before have we experienced illegal immigration on this scale, 
and it can all be tracked back to the bad policy decisions of this 
President.
  U.S. law allows for legal immigration, as well as pathways to work 
within the U.S. economy. When we allow people to continuously break our 
laws, we should not be surprised when more people join in. We should 
not be surprised when our laws no longer carry weight or authority in 
our country.
  The fact that this administration is not only disregarding current 
law and regulation but actively advertising ways around them is 
incredible. It is lawless.
  President Biden, or whoever in the White House is making these 
decisions, should be ashamed of themselves, putting people's lives in 
danger. The President could stop this today if he wanted to, but 
reverting to the policies put in place by the Trump administration 
would be an admission that those policies actually worked.
  We should all pray that when the consequences of these bad policies 
trickle down to our communities across this country, our law 
enforcement officers are still there to clean up President Biden's 
senseless mess.
  I yield the floor.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. SCOTT of Florida. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that 
the order for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                   Unanimous Consent Request--S. 2997

  Mr. SCOTT of Florida. Madam President, as if in legislative session, 
I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate 
consideration of S. 2997, which is at the desk. Further, I ask 
unanimous consent that the bill be considered read a third time and 
passed and that the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid 
upon the table.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  The Senator from Michigan.
  Ms. STABENOW. Madam President, reserving the right to object, the 
Senator will speak further about what he is attempting to do, but I 
want to make it clear, first of all, that this bill isn't about 
protecting access to food assistance for moms and babies or ensuring 
children continue to receive healthy school meals. This actually is, 
unfortunately, a bill that is in search of a problem.
  And if my colleague Senator Scott wants to work with me on 
eliminating barriers to access to SNAP or the WIC Program or school 
meals, I would be more than happy to work with him on it.
  But let me just say this: This bill, again, is in search of a problem 
because there is no rule requiring vaccinations for families to receive 
food assistance, and no one in the administration is proposing that.
  So let me just say that again: There is no rule requiring 
vaccinations for families to receive food assistance, and no one in the 
administration is proposing that.
  So if we want to work together on how to support families in our 
country to help make sure children have the healthy food that they need 
in schools, that is terrific. But rather than spending time on bills 
like this, we should be encouraging people to get vaccinated to protect 
their families, protect themselves, and protect their community.
  But this bill addresses something that is just not real nor will it 
be real.
  And so I would object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The objection is heard.
  The Senator from Florida.
  Mr. SCOTT of Florida. Madam President, this time last year, we still 
didn't know how much longer this pandemic would last. We didn't know 
when the vaccine trials would be completed. Thankfully, by December, 
the vaccine had been approved and brought normalcy back to the lives of 
many Americans. The Trump administration worked with public and private 
partners, doctors and scientists across our country to develop a safe 
and effective vaccine in record time. It was a feat of science, and it 
was an example of what Americans can do when we are working together.
  I had COVID, and I am grateful that I was able to get vaccinated. I 
hope that all Americans talk with their doctors and consider making the 
same decision. It is a personal decision every individual gets to make.
  That is not how President Biden sees it. Lately, the Biden 
administration has decided to try and take this decision out of the 
hands of the American people. With this recently announced 
unconstitutional vaccine mandate for private businesses, King Biden 
again is saying that government knows best and has taken choice away 
from families in Florida and across the country.
  That is not what the American people expect government to do. 
Government's role is to give Americans all the information and data it 
has so they can make the right decision for their individual family.
  That is exactly what I did when I was Governor of Florida. In the 
face of life-threatening hurricanes, I made sure Florida families were 
informed. I went out and made sure everyone knew exactly what to expect 
and how dangerous the storm could be, but I didn't issue mandates 
because that is not what governments should do.
  When I was Governor of Florida, we had the Zika healthcare crisis, 
which impacted newborns. Rather than placing mandates on pregnant women 
or restricting their travel to areas with local transmission of Zika, 
we simply informed Floridians, worked to be as transparent as possible, 
and offered free Zika testing to all pregnant women in Florida.
  But, again, that is not the approach--that is not the approach--Joe 
Biden has decided to take. President Biden has decided that threatening 
corporations and businesses and misleading the American people is a 
better option.
  It is dishonest and authoritarian, and it is no way to lead a nation. 
Americans should be free to make choices they feel are in the best 
interests of their own health and the health of their loved ones.
  In December, President Biden promised he would not require Americans 
to be vaccinated or require that they carry vaccine passports. But here 
he is, less than 10 months into his Presidency, breaking promise after 
promise and going back on his word.
  How can the American people believe anything he says? Americans are 
sick and tired of the government telling them what to do and are more 
than capable of making the right choices to protect themselves, their 
family, and their neighbors.
  But even as there are some of us in this Chamber who disagree about 
national vaccine mandates for private businesses, I wanted to try to 
find some common ground. Food stamps, supplemental assistance for 
women, infants, and children, and free and reduced lunch programs are 
programs run through the U.S. Department of Agriculture and provide 
food to hungry families and are some of the most basic of programs our 
government provides to those in need.
  For kids who are at school and who come from families who are 
struggling, I am saying you shouldn't have to be vaccinated in order to 
eat. Or for families who have trouble putting enough food on the table, 
I am saying you shouldn't have to be vaccinated to get groceries.
  I wish--I hoped--my colleague would agree. I offered a simple bill to 
say that families who need food stamps and additional support for 
women, infants,

[[Page S7051]]

and children shouldn't have to be vaccinated in order to have a full 
stomach.
  I was a poor kid growing up. My parents struggled to put food on the 
table, but my colleague is telling families like mine growing up that 
they don't care about their personal choices: If you want to be able to 
eat, you have to get a shot.
  This is ridiculous. This is un-American. This is an attempt by 
President Biden to take over every aspect of your life. I am not going 
to stand for it. The American people are not going to stand for it.
  I hope every household in America sees what happened on the floor 
today.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. SCOTT of Florida. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that 
the order for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                        Build Back Better Agenda

  Mr. SCOTT of Florida. Madam President, I want to talk about two 
things as we are waiting for Senator Wyden.
  First, I have been hearing all across the State of Florida, people 
are really concerned about the Democratic proposal basically to look at 
everybody's bank accounts.
  The latest is that the proposal will take it from looking at every 
$600 transaction or $600 account to $10,000. Well, if you look at it, 
almost everybody has a $10,000 account because what they are talking 
about is cumulative dollars.
  So why does the IRS want to look at everybody's accounts?
  It is for one reason. The one reason is to take more dollars out of 
somebody's pocket.
  We can't let this happen. We have a right to privacy in this country. 
We should be able to not have to tell the government everything we buy. 
If you want to buy a sofa or anything, you shouldn't have to tell the 
Federal Government.
  So I completely oppose this significant overreach by the Democrats 
trying to look into everybody's bank accounts, because that is exactly 
what it would do.


                              Supply Chain

  Madam President, the second thing I want to talk about is the supply 
chain. We have a significant problem in the supply chain. Not only do 
we have a big problem, but if you look at what is going to happen with 
regard to the vaccine mandate, it is going to cause even more problems.
  My dad was a truck driver. If he had to choose, he would have a tough 
choice if he wasn't comfortable, for whatever reason, getting the 
vaccine--and I took the vaccine and I had COVID--then he is going to 
lose his job, which is going to impact a lot of American families. It 
is going to cause the supply chain to be in worse shape, and it is 
going to cause even more inflation.
  So with President Biden's recently announced unconstitutional vaccine 
mandates for private businesses, the President is saying government 
knows best and is taking choice away from families all across our 
country, but clearly my State of Florida.
  That is not what the American people expect government to do. The 
government's role is to give people information. Give them the 
information and let them make good choices. They will make good 
choices.
  My parents didn't have much of an education, but they could make good 
choices. They figured out what was good for our family.
  These decisions should be up to individuals, not government. That's 
why I asked consent to pass S. 2997, and, unfortunately, the Senate 
Democrats objected. I hope we can find some common ground.


                   Unanimous Consent Request--S. 2998

  Madam President, I hope everyone here believes you should not have to 
receive a vaccine in order to obtain a Social Security check or Social 
Security disability check. Forcing families to choose between receiving 
Social Security and choosing to get vaccinated is a terrible choice.
  That is why I introduced legislation to protect Social Security 
recipients and ensure that Biden won't be able to strong-arm them into 
compliance with his unconstitutional mandate.
  As if in legislative session, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate 
proceed to the immediate consideration of S. 2998, which is at the 
desk. 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.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. WYDEN. Madam President, reserving the right to object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oregon.
  Mr. WYDEN. Parliamentary inquiry, Madam President. I am trying to 
juggle two things at once.
  We are talking about the Social Security UC; is that correct?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. That is correct.
  Mr. WYDEN. Madam President, I reserve my right to object.
  As chairman of the Senate Finance Committee and as a former director 
of the Oregon Gray Panthers, I take a backseat to no one when it comes 
to protecting Americans' earned Social Security benefits.
  Now, we know Halloween is right around the corner and families are 
getting ready for festivities--decorating their houses, picking out 
costumes, and watching scary movies. My colleague from Florida seems to 
be getting into the spirit of all this by telling the American people 
scary stories about vaccines threatening their Social Security 
benefits. I don't believe the American people are so easily tricked. 
This idea is as fantastical and ridiculous as a vampire living under 
your bed.
  The fact that Republicans are trying to scare folks for political 
gain I think is just very, very disappointing. These bills that are 
rooted in political messaging aren't going to help to end this pandemic 
or take concrete steps to address actual challenges facing many of our 
constituents.
  With that, I object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Murphy). Objection is heard.
  The Senator from Florida.
  Mr. SCOTT of Florida. Mr. President, well, clearly I am pretty 
shocked. By objecting to this bill, my colleague is suggesting that it 
is acceptable for the government to deny Social Security checks to 
American seniors and checks to those who are physically disabled 
because they have made a personal medical choice to not receive the 
vaccine.
  This is not farfetched. The Biden administration is already doing it 
to companies, and people are out of a job. The Social Security system 
is meant to help those who have spent their lives working in this 
country, and disability checks are designed to help those who cannot 
work. These checks are not a tool for government to impose its will on 
the people, just as it shouldn't be the position of the Biden 
administration to require companies to enforce the vaccine mandate.
  But if you are on Social Security or your parent is receiving Social 
Security checks, this is what my colleague is suggesting by blocking 
this legislation: Get the vaccine or go broke.
  As we all know, prices are going up, and the Social Security 
Administration just announced a record cost-of-living increase in 
benefits to keep up with Biden's inflation crisis. Individuals 
dependent on Social Security still need to get gas and groceries to 
survive. By objecting to this simple bill, my colleague is comfortable 
offering an ultimatum: Get the vaccine or go broke. It is wrong--it is 
wrong to the core--and the American people know it.


                   Unanimous Consent Request--S. 2999

  Mr. President, perhaps my colleague may agree with me on a different 
point--that vaccine mandates shouldn't be tied to participation in 
Medicare, Medicaid, or CHIP. There are more than 60 million Americans 
on Medicare and more than 80 million Americans receiving Medicaid or 
CHIP assistance. These programs are important for ensuring that our 
families, our seniors, and our kids can stay healthy and have access to 
a doctor. No one should be deprived of healthcare because they have 
chosen not to receive the vaccine. It would be simply unethical to do 
so. It seems like pretty common sense.
  My proposal would protect individuals on Medicare, Medicaid, and CHIP 
from any overreaching vaccine mandates, like the President has done 
with

[[Page S7052]]

companies, and ensure that a personal medical decision does not strip 
them of the access to healthcare they need.
  Mr. President, as if in legislative session, I ask unanimous consent 
that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of S. 2999, 
which is at the desk. 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.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  The Senator from Oregon.
  Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, again, this 
deals with an area that is in the province of the Senate Finance 
Committee. There, I made a special priority of ensuring that Americans 
who count on Federal healthcare programs can actually get the care they 
need. The notion that Medicare, Medicaid, and CHIP coverage could be 
subject to vaccination status is just nonsense.
  Contrary to Republican views that Federal coverage should be 
contingent on filing extensive paperwork, as conservative Governors 
have pushed in States from sea to shining sea, Democrats believe 
healthcare is a basic human right and should be available to all.
  Millions of Americans have received the COVID-19 vaccine through the 
Medicare and Medicaid Programs. That ought to be celebrated as a 
success rather than scaring people about their earned benefits being 
taken away.
  These bills--now two of them--are thoroughly about political 
messaging and aren't going to help to end this pandemic or do anything 
to address challenges facing so many of our constituents.
  With that, again, I object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The objection is heard.
  The Senator from Florida.
  Mr. SCOTT of Florida. Mr. President, first of all, let's remember 
that the President is requiring a vaccine mandate if you have a job. So 
there are people there who are going to lose their job because they, 
for whatever reason, are uncomfortable getting the vaccine. So this is 
not farfetched.
  I thought my colleagues had gone too far by suggesting it would be 
acceptable for the government to tie vaccines to Social Security 
checks, but this is another level of insanity. My colleague is 
comfortable denying healthcare to someone because of their vaccine 
status. It is really quite ironic because for the past 10 years, we 
have had Democrats falsely claim Republicans want insurance companies 
to be able to deny coverage based on preexisting conditions. But here 
we have it right here on the Senate floor--Democrats are doing exactly 
what they have falsely accused Republicans of. They want to be able to 
deny healthcare to Americans who have not received the vaccine.
  Does anyone really think that denying healthcare to people who don't 
want to get the vaccine for whatever reason is truly in the best 
interest of public health? What do you do when someone is a bit 
hesitant on the vaccine? And we all have met people like that. For my 
Democratic colleagues, the answer is simple: Take away their 
healthcare.
  Do you need to refill your arthritis prescription? It seems Democrats 
want to make sure that pharmacists charge you more unless you get the 
shot. Maybe it is time to get your physical. If you have been on 
Medicaid, you are left with two options: Either get the shot or go home 
because the Democrats don't want you to get your ears checked or your 
blood work completed unless you have met their standard of getting the 
shot.
  Whether you like it or not, some people are not comfortable. It 
doesn't matter how poor you are; they are willing to strip you of your 
health insurance and take away your ability to get your prescriptions 
unless you get the vaccine.
  The American people know these choices are wrong, and the fact that 
my colleagues stand by their decision I think is outrageous.


                   Unanimous Consent Request--S. 3000

  Mr. President, now, hopefully, we can get to some common ground. I 
think our colleagues disagreed on some of these things, but let's see 
if we can find another one they will agree on, and that is access to 
housing.
  The Department of Housing and Urban Development provides a wide 
variety of housing programs meant to help individuals and families in 
need of a home and those who are struggling and down on their luck. 
They help with everything from loans to first-time home buyers to 
homeless shelters and housing assistance. More than 5 million people 
currently receive some kind of housing assistance from HUD.
  I can't imagine anyone would think that the government should mandate 
vaccines for Americans who need to have basic access to housing or be 
able to limit, if you don't want to get the vaccine, your access to 
housing.
  Mr. President, as if in legislative session, I ask unanimous consent 
that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of S. 3000, 
which is at the desk. 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.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  The Senator from Ohio.
  Mr. BROWN. Mr. Brown, reserving the right to object, I don't want to 
laugh. This is too serious. But we have the chairman of the Republican 
Senate campaign committee who comes down to the floor--he knows better. 
I mean, he just knows better. He knows this is a political stunt. It is 
what he does.
  I don't think the chair of the Senate Republican campaign committee 
gets paid extra to do this kind of stuff, but it is just clearly a 
political stunt. He knows. He doesn't really know--I don't know what he 
knows, but I do know that I haven't seen his interest in housing since 
he has been in the Senate. I am the chair of the Housing Committee. 
When I was ranking member with Senator Crapo, for whom I have great 
respect, I didn't see any. But all of a sudden, he has this interest in 
low-income people's housing to make sure that they have safe, 
accessible, affordable places to stay.
  He knows--he should know; I don't know how he would not know--that 
HUD is not requiring proof of vaccination for people to use their 
services. There is no hint of any of us--I mean, because I am lucky 
enough to be chair of this committee, I do more in housing than perhaps 
anybody in this body--at least one of the three or four who do the 
most--and I don't know anybody who is saying we are going to require 
proof of vaccine. So it is just a political stunt.
  I don't know if the Senator from--I think it is Florida; I am not 
sure--the Senator from Florida is going to, as soon as this is over, 
take down these debates and show how he is standing up for people's 
access to housing, especially low-income, but he is proposing that the 
Senate take up and pass a bill to address a problem that just isn't 
happening.
  The sad part is, we know how real housing issues are in this country. 
It isn't a stunt for people trying to figure out how they are going to 
pay the rent. We know that before the pandemic, 25 percent of renters 
in this country were paying more than half their income for rent. That 
means if the car breaks down, it means if their child gets sick, it 
means if they have a minor workplace injury and they miss a week of 
work, it means that then their lives are turned upside down because 
they are evicted.
  I wish I saw my colleague and the other officers of the Republican 
Senate campaign committee out on this floor fighting for those renters, 
fighting for those low-income people who are paying $700 or $800 a 
month in rent in Hartford or in Cleveland and could pay less if they 
owned a home, but they don't have the downpayment. It would be great to 
see them come out on the floor and work with us--work with us--the 
Senator from Connecticut and me and others, to help low-income people 
come up with that downpayment. There are 27,000 Floridians who were 
experiencing homelessness even before the pandemic.
  So I just wish I saw this concern and these concerns in other ways. 
Housing is a foundation for opportunity. It is the biggest cost most 
families face. The cost is way too high. We can't build an economy that 
works for everyone when housing prices eat up more of families' budgets 
year after year. We can work to fix that.
  I encourage the Senator from Florida to join us to fix the real 
problems in

[[Page S7053]]

rural areas, in big coastal cities, in small towns on Lake Erie or the 
Atlantic Ocean. It is a national problem that needs a national response 
and a national, significant investment. Let's take housing problems 
seriously. Let's stop the political stunts. Let's work together for the 
people whom we serve.
  Therefore, I object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
  The Senator from Florida.
  Mr. SCOTT of Florida. Mr. President, well, first off, the Senator 
might not know I grew up in public housing, so I do have a little bit 
of knowledge about public housing, and we had public housing for my 
constituents as Governor of Florida. So I watched my friends struggle 
to make do.
  Let's all remember that President Biden promised us that he would not 
require anybody to get the vaccine or require vaccine mandates, and 
that has clearly changed.
  So, you know, my parents didn't have much of a formal education, but 
they worked hard, and they made the best choices they could with the 
information they had, and they focused on the well-being of our family. 
So it is baffling to me that my colleague might be willing to tell a 
family like mine that a vaccine was a precondition to have a roof over 
their head. I am surprised that Senate Democrats are willing to look in 
the eyes of struggling families and say: We can't help you unless you 
have been vaccinated first--which is actually going on right now when 
you are telling people in this country that if you don't get 
vaccinated, you lose your job. You will lose your job, so you will not 
be able to pay the rent; you will not be able to afford your house; you 
will not be able to afford to put food on the table. That is exactly 
what is going on. So this is not farfetched.
  These HUD programs were not meant to be used to force somebody to get 
a vaccine. So I am shocked that my colleague would object.
  My colleagues have objected to several proposals. All my proposals 
are designed to make sure that there is no government overreach. Why is 
this important? Because let's remember, Joe Biden promised he would not 
require anybody to get a vaccine, and he went back on that promise. I 
don't believe anybody sitting on this floor should ever be in a 
position to say that they are OK with somebody not getting in a 
government program because they haven't had a vaccine--food assistance, 
Social Security, healthcare, or housing, any of them.
  Now, look, I want to be clear. I had COVID. I got the vaccine, and I 
hope every American will consider getting the vaccine. But it is a 
decision that every American gets to make. They should talk to their 
doctor and make a decision for their family, and our government should 
never be in a position to tell somebody to get a vaccine.
  We can't give people an ultimatum to comply with unconstitutional 
mandates or go without anything--Social Security, healthcare, housing, 
food benefits, or a job--which is going on all across this country 
right now. It is a gross overreach by the Federal Government at a time 
when we need more information and more compassion, not mandates from an 
administration more focused on advancing its socialist agenda than 
looking out for every American.
  So, unlike Joe Biden and Democrats in Washington, I don't believe the 
government knows best. I grew up in a family--and my parents didn't 
have much of an education, but they did the best they could for our 
family. They worked hard. They made choices to make sure we all stayed 
safe. They didn't rely on a government program other than to get 
information. They were trying to get good information from the 
government and make their own choices.
  So with that, I am very disappointed that my colleagues would 
disagree.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Ohio.


                            Child Tax Credit

  Mr. BROWN. Mr. President, I have a message for Ohio voters, my great 
State of 12 million people.
  To Ohio voters, to parents, I say: Check your bank accounts.
  On Friday, most Ohio parents--the parents of more than 2 million 
children, 92 percent of children in our State--most Ohio parents, once 
again, saw $250, or $300, or $600 in tax cuts directly deposited in 
their banks accounts, or maybe they got the check in their mailbox.
  To parents, I say: We know how hard you work at your jobs and raising 
your children.
  Any parent--any parent--knows how much work it is to take care of 
children, especially young children.
  I am the lucky, proud grandparent, grandfather of eight 
grandchildren. I watch my children--five of our grandchildren live in 
Ohio; three of them live out of State not too far away. I watch them. I 
watch how hard they work, how difficult it is to take care of young 
children. And it has only gotten harder, of course, we know, over the 
last year and a half.
  So often I say to these parents: Your hard work doesn't pay off like 
it should.
  We have seen what happened over the past few decades: productivity 
goes up, stock prices have soared, executive compensation is off the 
charts; yet wages have barely budged.
  Meanwhile, you know how expensive it is to raise children: 
healthcare, school lunch, diapers, clothes, school supplies, braces, 
sports fees. The list never seems to end. One of the biggest expenses, 
of course, for so many families is childcare.
  Parents feel like they are stuck. The more they work, the more 
expensive childcare is. You feel like you can't keep up, no matter how 
hard you work.
  It is why we passed the child tax credit--the largest tax cut for 
working families ever. It is about finally, finally, making your--Ohio 
parents--your hard work pay off so you can keep up with those extra 
expenses that keep coming when you are raising a family.
  Stories pour into our office from parents from Sandusky to 
Portsmouth, from Ashtabula to Middletown and Hamilton, from Toledo to 
Gallipolis--stories we hear over and over about these tax cuts; stories 
about how expensive childcare is, how parents are using their money to 
afford childcare so they can go back to work or, in some cases, work 
overtime.
  Kristen of Columbus said she is using this to pay for ``Daycare. For 
two kids [at] $600/wk.''
  Brittany said, ``Daycare.''
  Ellie said, ``Daycare.''
  Alex in Cleveland: ``Every penny goes to daycare. 4 kids in daycare . 
. . $800/week.''
  These tax cuts mean more parents are in the workplace. They can 
afford to go to work. It is that simple.
  And let's be clear. Getting $300, getting $600 a month per child in 
tax cuts doesn't discourage anyone from getting a job, or doesn't cause 
any of them to quit.
  I am going to leave my job that pays $30,000 a year because I am 
getting $3,000--said no one ever to us.
  There is no way you could afford to raise a family on that. You still 
need a job. These tax cuts help parents afford that job.
  It is all about dignity of work. I can't count the number of families 
that said: You know--I said on this floor a few minutes ago that 25 
percent of renters in this country spend half their income on rent. So 
we know how anxious those families are on the last week of the month.
  One of the things I have heard perhaps more than anything else about 
this child tax credit is: The last week of the month, we don't have to 
deny our kids dessert, or we don't have to cut something else because 
some of that anxiety has been lifted off our shoulders because we are 
getting $250 per child in the child tax credit.
  It makes a huge difference in just their lives. As I said, it is 
about the dignity of work. All work has dignity, whether you punch a 
clock or swipe a badge, whether you work for tips, whether you are on 
salary, whether you are caring for children, whether you are taking 
care of a sick parent.

  Raising children is work. Raising kids is a hell of a lot more work 
than moving money from one overseas bank account to another, or than 
checking your balance in your stock portfolio.
  That didn't stop Mitch McConnell from rewarding the wealthiest CEOs 
and hedge fund managers and Swiss banks account owners. We remember 
what happened. We looked down the hall in Senator McConnell's office, 
just 100 feet or so down there, and you see--particularly 3 or 4 years 
ago, you

[[Page S7054]]

saw the lobbyists lining up there as he was dolling out to the 
wealthiest CEOs and the hedge fund managers and the Swiss bank accounts 
holders and the politicians, doing their bidding: pass that tax cut for 
the wealthy and for corporations and outsource jobs.
  Don't think a lot of those CEOs didn't take the tax cut, outsource 
jobs, set up manufacturing in those countries, and sell back in the 
United States. And then they took part of the tax cut and did stock 
buybacks to make themselves richer.
  Senator McConnell and the leaders in this body all knew that is what 
that was all about. But when it comes time for a tax break for families 
making $10- or $20- or $50- or $75,000 a year, they are absent.
  We know that it was a partisan vote. Every Democrat voted for the 
biggest tax cut in American history. Every Republican voted against the 
biggest tax cut in American history. Fortunately, there were more of us 
than there are of them. It was 51 to 50.
  They promised their tax cuts for the rich would trickle down. We know 
they never do. They keep the money for themselves. They spent that 
money on stock buybacks.
  Now, as I said, without a single vote from Republicans--I don't like 
to be partisan around here. I represent a State that leans Republican. 
A lot of Republicans vote for me because I work with them and want them 
to succeed, as I want everybody to succeed. But we also know this tax 
cut shows whose side you are on.
  It is a pretty simple contrast--are you on the side of workers, or 
are you on the side of these big corporations that outsource jobs? Do 
you want tax cuts for billionaires and decamillionaires, or do you want 
tax cuts for working families?
  Overwhelmingly, Americans from all over the country, from all kinds 
of backgrounds agree with that. Everyone is lining up behind extending 
the child tax credit expansion: the faith community, the civil rights 
community, the children's advocacy community, Catholic Charities, Bread 
for the World, RESULTS, the Coalition on Human Needs, Leadership 
Conference on Civil and Human Rights, the Children's Defense Fund.
  So many others are writing us in the last week in support of keeping 
these checks going, in support of extending the child tax credit 1 
year, 2 years, 3 years, 5 years, 10 years, making it permanent, because 
every single month we show parents and workers we are on your side.
  So count on it. Starting July 15, first check; a month later, mid-
August, second check; a month later, mid-September, third check; just 
last week, the fourth check. Two hundred and fifty dollars if your 
child is between the ages of 6 and 17; $300 per child if your child is 
under 6. It has been like clockwork. It has made a difference.
  We haven't quite reached everybody in my State--2.5 million children 
are eligible, 2.4 million. We have reached about 2.3 million of them. 
So we are still working to find those other parents who don't know 
about this for their children.
  But think of what that has done for 92 percent of my State's 
children. Ninety-two percent of the kids in my State, their parents are 
benefiting from this.
  One man said to me: You know, for the first time ever, I can buy my 
child--I can buy my daughter fastpitch softball equipment.
  At the same meeting, a woman, a mother, told me: You know, for the 
first time ever, my son can go to summer camp now, first time ever.
  Other parents were talking about childcare. One family said: You 
know, we can put aside $100 a month so my daughter can go to Sinclair 
State Community College, or maybe the University of Dayton, or maybe 
Ohio University.
  Other families talk, as I said, Mr. President, about rent, the 
anxiety they feel at the end of every month to come up with that rent 
check so they don't get evicted.
  Every single month, we are showing parents and we are showing workers 
we are on your side. We will keep doing that. I hope more Republicans 
join us and we can do this bipartisan, but, either way, we will not 
stop fighting to make sure parents' hard work pays off for years to 
come.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Idaho.


                                  IRS

  Mr. CRAPO. Mr. President, in the past few weeks, I have been working 
with my colleagues in the Senate to draw attention to the privacy 
concerns of requiring all financial institutions to report to the IRS 
on the inflows or outflows on every checking, loan, and investment 
account above a certain threshold.
  Under the guise of closing the tax gap, Democrats have proposed to 
drastically expand the powers of the IRS and turn banks and credit 
unions into private investigators for law-abiding Americans. The 
proposal as it originally came out in the ``Green Book'' from the White 
House required that every single financial account--not just bank 
accounts, not just credit union accounts, but all financial accounts 
that have more than $600 worth of inflow or $600 worth of outflow in a 
given year would have to have that reported to the IRS.
  We have been pointing this out to people across America now for 
several weeks, and the uproar is loud. The message has been getting 
heard obviously because now the administration and the IRS are saying: 
Well, we didn't really mean just everybody who has a $600 inflow or 
outflow of their account. We are willing to raise that to $10,000--so 
that you don't have to have the IRS snooping on your financial data in 
your financial accounts unless you have more than $10,000 worth of 
income or more than $10,000 worth of outflow in your account.
  And they said: And we are not even going to count wages or interest 
or government benefits in that.
  Well, let's see what that really means. Does that really reduce the 
scope of this spying on Americans' financial accounts, this dragnet, 
letting the IRS have access to everybody's account? How many people 
don't have $10,000 worth of income or outflow in their account?
  Let me just give you a few data points. From the Bureau of Labor 
Statistics, the average household in America--the average taxpayer in 
America spends about $61,000 a year. What do they spend that on? The 
average is housing, $20,000; transportation, $9,700; personal insurance 
and pensions, $7,296; healthcare, $4,968; groceries, $4,464; 
restaurants and other meals, $3,459; entertainment, $3,226; other, 
$2,030; cash contributions, $1,888; apparel and services, $1,866; 
education, $1,407; and personal care, $768--for a grand total of the 
average American running $61,224 through their personal accounts in a 
year.
  So does raising the total to $10,000 really stop the IRS from 
accessing very many people's accounts? No. The IRS today, because of 
the pressure that we have been putting on them, said today: Well, you 
know, we already have data from everybody's account on their paychecks; 
and we already have data on their interest that they get on their 
various accounts, which has to be reported to us; and we already have 
data on Federal benefits, like the COVID payments that have been made 
to people. So we don't need to have those data points collected in this 
new, massive privacy violation. We can leave those out. But we need--
and this is what the IRS said today, trying to defend this: But we need 
to have access to the other sources of income that people have.
  Now, in that very same document, the IRS said: Well, we are not going 
to audit anybody who makes less than $400,000 a year. Well, that wasn't 
what the Green Book said. They didn't say we will change our proposal 
to forbid us from auditing anybody who makes less than $400,000 a year. 
All they said was: Take our word for it. We promise. We will only audit 
rich, rich people who are billionaires.
  Well, if that is really the position they are taking, then why don't 
they put it in the bill? Why don't they put it in the proposal? Why 
don't they put right in the proposal that they cannot, secretly or 
publicly, access the data of private individuals in their private 
accounts if they make less than $400,000 per year? It would be really 
simple, wouldn't it?
  But the IRS didn't say that, and the reason they didn't say that is 
because that is not what they intend to do. Remember, they started out 
at $600. That tells you what they wanted. Now, they said: Well, we 
think we can get away with $10,000--because they know that still covers 
everybody.

[[Page S7055]]

  Think of a family that doesn't spend more than $10,000--yeah, that 
spends less than $10,000 in a year in their financial accounts. Think 
of a small business in America that doesn't run more than $10,000 a 
year of income and expense through their accounts. It will pick up 
every small business in America; it will pick up, I think, every family 
in America; and nothing will be changed. The IRS will have data on 
every American's account.
  Then they say: Well, OK, but it is only two numbers. It is just the 
total of your income and the total of your outflow.
  Well, everybody can kind of intuitively tell that that doesn't make 
sense. What would they do with those two numbers? What they will do 
with those two numbers is use their algorithms to figure out which 
taxpayers to audit--or which taxpayers that they don't even need to 
audit; they will just send them a notice of deficiency and say: Well, 
we think you should owe more taxes, and this is what we think you 
should owe us.
  And if the taxpayers don't comply, then the IRS can go ahead and 
audit them. And guess what happens when they audit them? They get 
access to every single transaction in their account.
  I asked the IRS Commissioner about whether this proposal involved 
transactional data or just totals, and he said: Well, we already have 
access to their transactional data if we want it. That is not a direct 
quote, but that is the essence of what he said. And it is true. If they 
want to audit you, they can get access to your bank accounts already.
  So the question is: Who are they going to audit? Now, today, those 
who are trying to defend this say: Well, we are only going to audit 
people who have, as they said, $10,000 worth of inflow or outflow, and 
we will even exclude wages, which are already reported, and we will 
exclude government benefits, which are already reported, and we will 
exclude interest, which is already reported, and we won't look into 
anybody's account if they make under $400,000.
  Well, that is actually not true. They just said they wouldn't audit 
those accounts. How can they make the money they are trying to make out 
of this proposal if they don't?
  Let's look at this in another perspective. We asked the Joint 
Committee on Taxation to tell us what they think the distribution of 
audits and tax collections would be from Americans in all income 
brackets of this proposal, and the Joint Committee on Taxation said: 
Well, you know, we can't tell you that because they haven't given 
enough detail on their proposal. So we can't tell you what their 
proposal is going to do because they haven't told us just the details 
of how their proposal is going to work.
  But Joint Committee on Taxation did say: You know, what we can do is 
look at the tax gap, which this is supposedly aimed at addressing, and 
we can tell you where that tax gap falls among the various income 
cohorts. So we asked them to do that.
  They indicated that the tax gap falls mostly in ineffective or less 
than accurate reporting on schedules C and schedule E. So they went 
through and they looked at this. So if you look at the Joint Committee 
on Taxation's report and the tax gap that is available for the IRS to 
go get, here is what would happen: 40 to 57 percent of the tax gap 
collections would come from taxpayers making $50,000 or less. If you 
add in up to $100,000, 65 to 78 percent of those making less than 
$100,000 would be part of the tax gap that they would be going after; 
78 to 90 percent from those making less than $200,000; and only 4 to 9 
percent would come from those making $500,000 or more.
  So if you want to know what the IRS wanted, you can look at this data 
on the tax gap; you can look at the data on where the tax gap lies; and 
you can look at their very first proposal that was down as low as $600. 
And you know then what the IRS is seeking to get.
  Americans should be outraged that the IRS is seeking to make banks, 
credit unions--I don't know--Venmo, PayPal, credit card companies, 
everybody who handles financial transactions, report to them, if you 
hit some level, whether it be $600 or $10,000 of either income or 
expenditure. And then the door is open. Then the IRS can use its 
algorithms and decide whether to do a deeper dive on you.
  And if they use the data from the Internal Revenue Code and from the 
tax reporting that has already gone on, 90 percent or more will come 
from people making $200,000 or less. Or the IRS will have to forgo 
that; in which case, they will be trying to collect on only 4 to 9 
percent, which is the people making over $500,000.
  Either way you look at it, either they are going to be collecting 
money--and that is billions and billions of dollars--from people who 
make less than $400,000 and mostly less than $200,000 or $100,000--or 
they won't make the tax collections that they are claiming they are 
going to get to justify the spending they want to make in their 
spending spree, in this big tax-and-spending spree that they are trying 
to cram down through Congress.
  Let's look at it from another way. Does Treasury envision gathering 
information on all of a--let's take a teacher. So if you have a 
teacher, does Treasury envision gathering information on all of the 
teacher's savings, checking, PayPal, Apple Pay, and Venmo accounts and 
somehow expect financial institutions to crosscheck these transfers to 
see if the threshold has been tripped? And at which point must 
additional reporting be done?
  It is very important to point out here: When I said earlier the White 
House and Treasury haven't really said what their plan is, it is 
because they don't want people to know what the real plan is.
  There is a telling sentence in the Green Book, put out by the White 
House, about this plan. It says that broad powers will be given to 
Treasury Department to issue by rule and regulation the details of how 
they are going to utilize and access this data.
  So if you have got a Treasury Department which has already proven it 
can't keep the data it has safe and that its data will be hacked; if 
you have a Treasury Department that has already proven that it will not 
avoid utilizing the data it has for political purposes, that it will 
not weaponize the data it collects to punish or try to diminish the 
effect and influence of people with different political points of view; 
if you already have an IRS that has proven that it will take those 
kinds of actions, and that it is available to be accessed for its 
private data to be hacked, what can Americans expect from that?
  Again, those today who have talked about it said they have fixes 
that, as I see it, don't really fix the proposal because it has 
fundamental flaws. The IRS does not need to have access to the accounts 
of every American who spends more than $10,000 or every American who 
has income of over $10,000.
  Industry has already spoken up about these changes that were proposed 
today. The American Bankers Association says that even with the 
modifications announced today, this proposal goes too far by forcing 
financial institutions to share with the IRS private financial data 
from millions of customers not suspected of cheating on their taxes.
  The exclusion of payroll and Federal program beneficiaries does not 
address millions of other taxpayers who will be impacted by this 
proposal. Not every nonwage worker is a millionaire. How about self-
employed hair stylists, convenience store owners, and farmers, just to 
name a few?
  If enacted, this new proposal would still raise some of the same 
privacy concerns; increase tax preparation costs for individuals and 
small businesses; and create significant operational challenges, 
particularly for community banks. The list goes on.
  Americans must speak up loudly and say ``no.''
  When asked if she was going to put this in the next bill, Nancy 
Pelosi said: ``Yes, yes, yes, yes.''
  Americans should say ``No, no, no, no.''
  I yield to Senator Grassley.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. Thank you, Senator Crapo, for leading this effort to 
point out what is wrong with this $4.2-trillion reckless tax-and-
spending spree. It is a massive government intrusion into the daily 
lives of American families.
  Under their vision for America, there isn't any aspect of life in 
which the government shouldn't perform a leading role. From cradle to 
grave, childcare to healthcare, college to career, the Federal 
Government will be

[[Page S7056]]

there in your lives, shaping your every decision.
  Their plans go well beyond shoring up the social safety net to 
prevent those in need from falling through the cracks. And everybody 
agrees that people that have needs, there is a role for government. But 
that doesn't include 320 million Americans.
  No longer, then, will the Federal Government's primary role be about 
lending a helping hand so individuals can get back on their own feet. 
Instead, government would be the ultimate helicopter parent, constantly 
hovering, regardless of need.
  Even wealthy households would be in line for generous handouts to 
procure Federal Government-approved childcare, send their kids to a 
Federal Government-structured preschool, purchase Federal Government-
approved health insurance on the individual market, and obtain Federal 
Government-provided paid family leave.
  Isn't that a staggering list of things that the Democrats are 
proposing in this 4.2 tax-and-spending spree they are pushing?
  On the one hand, my Democratic colleagues rail against the wealthy 
paying too little tax. On the other hand, they want to shower the 
wealthy with government benefits, not to mention hand the wealthy, for 
instance, $12,500 to purchase a luxury electric car and make Federal 
taxpayers subsidize the State tax bills of millionaires.
  Can you believe the inconsistency of their arguments?
  Tax the wealthy; give to the wealthy. At the same time, Democrats 
have decided that the best way to crack down on billionaires evading 
taxes is to snoop on the middle class. You just heard Senator Crapo 
speak at length about that. Under their proposal, every American's bank 
account with $600, or even if it is $10,000, of annual taxations would 
be subject to the peering eyes of the IRS.
  Democrats are betting the promise of free gifts will be too enticing 
for Americans to resist. However, Americans understand anything 
advertised as free comes with strings. Particularly, if it is free from 
the government, there is going to be strings attached. Those strings 
include higher taxes today and in the future and any loss of control 
over intimate family decisions.
  Liberal Democrats, in their progressive bubble, are under the 
mistaken impression the general public is clamoring for evermore 
government programs. Now, in reality, Americans have long held a 
healthy skepticism of Big Government. A recent Gallup poll shows this 
continues to be true to this very day. According to Gallup--I think it 
was a weekend poll--nearly 80 percent of Americans say that they prefer 
lower taxes and less government, or would like to see no change in 
either. Only 19 percent said they wanted more taxes and more 
government.
  President Clinton--up until 21 years ago, the President of the United 
States--understood this well when, in 1996, he declared in a State of 
Union message, ``the era of big government is over,'' and then worked 
with Republicans on comprehensive welfare reform.
  Why can't those things go on today?
  Hopefully, President Biden and Senate Democrats come to their senses 
and realize this before taking our Nation down the path of fiscal ruin. 
And I would define ``fiscal ruin'' by a Democrat by the name of Larry 
Summers, former Secretary of the Treasury in the Clinton 
administration--and I think he also had some posts in the Obama 
administration--anyway, he told us in January, he told us in April, he 
told us in August, and I saw it again on television just last week: 
Spending all this money is feeding the fires of inflation like gasoline 
on that fire, and we ought to learn not to go through what we did in 
the seventies and eighties with inflation out of control.
  Listen to that, fellow Democrats, today.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Indiana.
  Mr. YOUNG. Mr. President, Hoosiers have heard me talk about the size 
of the Democrats' reckless tax-and-spend bill--$3.5 trillion, and 
possibly growing in the House of Representatives. They have heard me 
talk about how this reckless proposal will raise tax on the American 
people.
  When I am talking about this legislation back home, I don't have to 
go much past the $3.5-trillion figure. People are against it. All told, 
Democrats have proposed $7 trillion in spending this year alone--$7 
trillion.
  Let me try to put that in perspective. Seven trillion dollars is 
roughly the mathematical equivalent of putting $1 million of credit 
card debt on every man, woman, and child in the State of Indiana.
  Now, Hoosiers know this is something we simply cannot afford. Beyond 
the massive multitrillion-dollar pricetag, we should examine exactly 
what the Democrats are proposing, because this bill isn't just a number 
on one side of a ledger sheet. This spending package--the largest in 
American history--represents a massive leftward shift in the way our 
country operates. And Hoosiers and, I think, all Americans need to know 
what is in it.
  Well, thankfully, I sit on the Senate Finance Committee, and in the 
Senate Finance Committee we are charged with overseeing matters related 
to taxation and entitlement programs. So if anyone has insight into the 
particulars of this legislation, it would be a member of the Senate 
Committee on Finance.
  If any legislation this large and this consequential were to pass, it 
would surely go through the Senate Finance Committee. But the full 
Finance Committee hasn't held a policy hearing in months.
  Tomorrow, we will hold our first full committee hearing since July. 
That hearing will be on a topic only remotely connected to the 
Democrats' reckless tax-and-spend proposal. And to my knowledge, no 
Senate committee has held any hearing whatsoever on this bill at all.
  You see, this reckless tax-and-spend bill has all been done, largely, 
in secret, behind closed doors. I read about it in the newspapers. I 
will hear rumors about it from my colleagues.
  So it is worth asking: What is the other side trying to hide? What 
have Democrats put in this mother of all bills?
  Well, let's start with what the Wall Street Journal recently called 
``Entitlements for the Affluent.'' This is the Wall Street Journal's 
way of saying ``handouts for the rich,'' which is accurate because so 
few of the new and expanding government giveaways in this bill are 
targeted in ways that I might support to actually help Americans of 
modest needs.
  Now, for reference, the U.S. median income for a family of four in 
this country is about $90,000. But, under this bill, a family can make 
$400,000 a year and get an $8,000 child tax credit from Washington.
  How about ObamaCare subsidies?
  The original eligibility limit for ObamaCare subsidies is 400 percent 
of the Federal poverty level--or about $106,000 for a household of 
four. Their bill completely removes the eligibility limit. This means 
much wealthier Americans would be eligible for taxpayer-subsidized 
health insurance.
  If Speaker Nancy Pelosi gets her way, wealthy elites on the coast 
will get a massive tax write-off for their mansions in high tax cities, 
like San Francisco; or high tax States, like New York.
  Now, what else is in the bill? How about $80 billion more for the 
IRS?
  Yes, Democrats want to add a mandate that banks turn over to the IRS 
personal, confidential bank information from rank and file Americans.
  You see, if you make or spend more than $600 in a year, they want 
your private information. They want to know what you are spending money 
on, how you earned your money. I have called on Leader Schumer to 
abandon this unprecedented proposal. If you thought the IRS was a 
political weapon before, you ain't seen nothing yet.

  What else is in this bill? How about $3 billion for tree equity--tree 
equity--whatever that means. You can't make this stuff up. Some of the 
provisions that are supposed to be about climate change are really 
handouts to Democratic constituencies.
  The spending bill raises the electric vehicle tax credit by up to 
$5,000, among other expansions, with the pricetag of $42 billion. Did 
you know you only get part of this credit, this electric vehicle tax 
credit of up to $5,000, if your electric vehicle comes from a unionized 
plant? I represent a lot of quality union members, great Americans. 
They are patriots. But

[[Page S7057]]

under this proposal, plants like the Toyota or Honda or Subaru 
factories in my State of Indiana are told to take a hike because they 
are located in largely red States with nonunion employees--by choice.
  I haven't even talked about the tax increases supported by the other 
side that will raise taxes on lower and middle-income households. Some 
of these households make under $30,000 a year. This is a clear 
violation of President Biden's tax pledge--a pledge that 49 out of 50 
of my Democratic colleagues formally voted to uphold just 2 months ago 
when we considered the budget.
  Ladies and gentlemen, this reckless tax-and-spending spree is full of 
giveaways to the wealthy and handouts to Democratic constituencies. I 
stand for the working men and women of this country. The Republican 
Party stands for the working men and women of this country. We will 
stand united against these giveaways to the rich. It is offensive. It 
is too much money, and it must be stopped.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Markey). The Senator yields back. Any 
other Senators seeking recognition?
  Mr. CRAPO. Mr. President, that concludes the Finance Committee 
Members' discussion today.
  I just want to thank Senator Grassley and Senator Young for joining 
me to help to continue to make the American people aware of what is 
going on here in Washington with this reckless tax-and-spending spree 
and this massive dragnet of IRS access into people's individual bank 
accounts and other financial accounts.
  I hope Americans across the country will speak out loudly in 
opposition to these terrible ideas that are now being crammed down in 
both the House and the Senate.
  I yield back our time.
  I believe Senator Grassley is here to speak on other matters.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Iowa.


                        Prescription Drug Costs

  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I hear about rising costs of 
prescription drugs at nearly every one of my townhall meetings.
  Three years ago, I began a bipartisan effort to lower prescription 
drug costs. Following our Finance Committee hearings at that time, we 
had a markup, and we had bipartisan negotiations. Senator Wyden, now 
chairman of the Finance Committee, and I introduced, at that time, the 
Prescription Drug Pricing Reduction Act.
  The bill caps yearly out-of-pocket drug costs for seniors at $3,100. 
It prevents drug costs from growing faster than the consumer price 
index on a yearly basis. It ends uncapped taxpayer-funded subsidies to 
Big Pharma. It creates more sunshine, more competition, and it even has 
oversight into the world of drug pricing. It brings meaningful reform 
while driving down costs. It has $72 billion in savings for seniors--
that is out-of-pocket costs to them--and $95 billion savings of 
taxpayers' money through Medicare.
  An important goal that we accomplish in our bill is lowering drug 
costs without hurting innovation. We did this by keeping government out 
of the business of setting prices and indirectly keep the government 
out of your medicine cabinet.
  Democrats have proposed the irresponsible idea of government 
dictating drug prices. They would do this by getting rid of the 
noninterference clause in the Part D part of Medicare. It is better 
known as so-called drug price negotiations, but it is not negotiation; 
it is dictating prices.
  Eighteen years ago, I was the principle architect of the Medicare 
Part D Program. Adding a prescription drug benefit for seniors was the 
right thing to do then, and it is still the right thing to do, but it 
needed to be done in the right way, and that right way is for the 
patients.
  In creating Part D, we enacted a very key policy: keeping the 
government out of the business of dictating drug prices. Governments 
don't negotiate; they dictate. Competition is the only thing that 
drives innovation, curbs costs, expands coverage, and improves 
outcomes.

  The Congressional Budget Office has consistently stated that 
government negotiations of drug prices would not achieve greater 
savings than the current market-based system, unless you restrict the 
formulary or dictate the price through reference pricing based upon 
what socialist healthcare systems pay in other countries. That is the 
outcome. The government gets between you and your doctors prescribing.
  Democrats propose so-called drug price negotiations in their reckless 
tax-and-spending spree to save hundreds of billions of dollars. Who is 
hurt by this policy? Of course, patients are.
  The Democrats would have government dictate drug pricing based upon 
an international reference pricing index. Study after study has shown 
so-called drug pricing negotiations will reduce the number of new drugs 
produced. What your doctor wants to prescribe for you might not be on 
that formulary.
  This policy would be devastating if one of those drugs was the cure 
for Alzheimer's or diabetes or cancer. I don't believe that is what 
Americans want.
  While Democrats attempt to advance their partisan drug pricing 
scheme, I hope common sense will prevail, and we pass a bipartisan 
prescription drug bill. I have engaged with colleagues on both sides of 
the aisle and in a bicameral way. I did this so common sense would 
prevail, if we ever get to the point of Democrats realizing that the 
government dictating prices on an international basis of what the 
prices are in other countries will never get 60 votes here in the U.S. 
Senate.
  All of the Republicans and Democrats I have contacted have expressed 
eagerness to find a solution to meaningfully lower prescription drug 
costs. Holding Big Pharma accountable has historically been a 
bipartisan effort.
  Delivering new reforms to fight price hikes should be no different. 
Democrats should stop pursuing their reckless tax-and-spending spree 
that will hurt innovation and produce less cures. Instead, we should 
act by passing my bipartisan prescription drug bill.
  I think maybe there is an inkling of good news coming from the 
Speaker of the House--and I have had a chance to visit with her at 
least three times in the last 2 years on this very subject about my 
bill--when she said that she didn't think--I don't know whether she 
referred to the number H.R. 3, but that is the bill that has their main 
effort on reducing prescription drugs--when she said that she didn't 
think that that would have the votes to get passed.
  I hope there is some awakening to the fact that we need to do 
something and that this bipartisan approach is the answer.


                          Trump Investigation

  Mr. President, today I would like to discuss the media's complete 
misrepresentation of the Republican report on Senator Durbin's Trump 
investigation, in which my staff participated according to Committee 
rules.
  I gave an October 7 speech on this subject, and you wouldn't know 
that anybody read my speech based upon what has been reported on TV. 
But as I noted in that October 7 speech, Senator Durbin publicly 
released a Democratic staff report on his investigation. We Republicans 
did the same thing that very same day.
  I came to the floor that same day to describe the Republican report. 
In so doing, I laid out what the available facts and evidence showed 
within the scope of the inquiry. That scope was from December 14, 2020, 
to January 3, 2021. But TV seemed to think we were talking about what 
happened on Capitol Hill on January 6.
  The Durbin investigation ended on January 3--or events leading up to 
January 3. I say that date range yet again because many reporters have 
wrongly conflated this investigation with the January 6, 2021, events 
here on Capitol Hill. We know all the damage that was done to the 
Capitol that day.
  So I want to repeat: The scope of the investigation stopped on 
January 3, not January 6, but you wouldn't know it from the TV reports.
  I am not going to rehash my entire speech. I have incorporated it 
here by reference. However, I will note, yet again for the media, 
several key facts. This is not analysis, as I think TV was trying to 
do, just the facts.
  Fact 1. Records indicate that President Trump's focus was on 
``legitimate complaints and reports of crimes.'' And those words come 
from the transcript.
  Fact 2. Witnesses testified that President Trump's main focus was 
making the Justice Department aware of the potential criminal 
allegations and to

[[Page S7058]]

ensure the Department did its job. Trump's focus then wasn't to direct 
or order specific investigative steps. And to that point, witnesses 
said that Trump's focus was on the American people--not himself or his 
campaign--being harmed by what he believed to be widespread election 
fraud.
  Fact 3, these witnesses testified under 18 U.S.C. 1001, which makes 
it a crime to give false statements, that it was not unreasonable for 
President Trump to question what the Justice Department was doing to 
investigate election fraud and crime allegations.
  In fact, one witness testified under 1001 that Trump had ``no 
impact''--those two words--on the Department's actions to investigate 
election allegations.
  I would be remiss if I didn't also note that one witness testified 
under 1001 that the Justice Department was ``dragging their feet and 
maybe more to keep these investigations from going forward.''
  Fact 4, my staff read former U.S. Attorney for the Northern District 
of Georgia, BJ Pak, a press release from the Biden administration where 
Biden set policy for the Justice Department by prohibiting it from 
using subpoenas for records of reporters in criminal leak 
investigations.
  My staff then asked if any President has similar authority to set the 
Department's policy with respect to investigating and reviewing voter 
fraud and election crime allegations. This witness stated, ``I would 
agree that the President has that duty.''
  And the last fact, 5, President Trump twice rejected firing Acting 
Attorney General Rosen, and twice rejected the notion of sending what 
is called the ``draft Clark letter.''
  Now, after giving you those facts, accordingly, on the basis of this 
foundational evidence, with respect to the scope of this investigation 
from December 14, 2020, to January 3, 2021, President Trump sought and 
followed the advice and also the recommendations of his senior 
advisers. I note with specific emphasis the fact that he followed their 
advice and recommendations. This is a crucial fact.
  The report is entitled ``In Their Own Words.'' It is based on actual 
witness evidence, not CNN-style partisan analysis. I encourage everyone 
to read the report and the transcripts and draw your own conclusions. 
That is how I always approached my investigations in the years that I 
have been in the U.S. Senate.
  Now let's go to how my speech was reported on TV. Some on CNN have 
said that I showed ``fealty'' to Trump by stating the facts. They 
called these facts that I just recited ``delusional.'' I have never had 
a problem following the facts wherever they lead, no matter who is in 
power.
  So I am going to refer to an investigation I did in the Trump 
administration, and it involved some people in the Trump--and close to 
President Trump.
  I ran a transcribed interview on Donald Trump, Jr., during the Trump 
administration. That was done as part of my Trump-Russia investigation 
when I was chairman of the Judiciary Committee, which focused on the 
June 9, 2016, Trump Tower meeting.
  I also subpoenaed Paul Manafort to appear at a hearing and provide 
testimony. Instead of publicly testifying, Manafort voluntarily agreed 
to an interview with my and then-Ranking Member Feinstein's staff. But 
as the ranking member's staff then refused to interview him and 
objected to my staff doing so without them there, that didn't move 
forward.
  Notably, the committee never received any--when I was chairman during 
this investigation I am talking about, the committee never received any 
emails from the Democratic National Committee or the Clinton campaign, 
even though we repeatedly asked for them. Of course, the Democrats 
wouldn't support subpoenaing them, and you didn't hear a lot about that 
from the media--the double standard media. The Trump campaign produced 
records.
  Just like there is a coverage vacuum, particularly by CNN, of Hunter 
Biden and James Biden and their connection with the communist Chinese 
Government, my and Senator Johnson's September 20 report on those 
financial connections and their potential criminality was attacked as 
Russian disinformation. Later on, Hunter Biden publicly admitted that 
he was under criminal investigation for financial matters. I don't hear 
much about that on CNN.
  In my and Johnson's report, we made clear that based upon deep 
financial connections between the Biden family and foreign governments, 
Hunter Biden is a counterintelligence and extortion concern.
  On that note, recently released emails have opened up the possibility 
that Joe Biden mixed bank accounts and funds with Hunter Biden. Other 
emails show that Joe Biden shared office space with individuals 
connected to the communist Chinese regime.
  Of course, my and Senator Johnson's report was the first to prove 
that Hunter Biden, James Biden, and other family members had extensive 
financial and business relationships with individuals not just 
connected to the communist Chinese regime, but its intelligence and 
military services.
  About that Grassley and Johnson report, POLITICO ran the off-base 
headline: ``GOP Senators' anti-Biden report repackages old claims.''
  In contrast, one of their own reporters just very recently confirmed 
the authenticity of some of Hunter Biden's emails for a book that he 
was writing.
  One Washington Post columnist said: ``Even after accepting 
disinformation from Russian agents, Johnson and Grassley couldn't come 
up with anything new or interesting on Hunter Biden.''
  And NPR said about the New York Post Hunter Biden stories: ``We don't 
want to waste our time on stories that are not really stories, and we 
don't want to waste the listeners' and readers' time on stories that 
are just pure distractions.''
  Now, compare what I have said--how different Democrats and 
Republicans are treated; how investigations are done differently by 
Republicans and by Democrats--and then look at the state of journalism 
today. What I just said is so much for investigative journalism. 
Investigative journalism died without so much as a whimper.
  The media's attack against the Republican Trump report is essentially 
an attack on witness testimony received by the committee. Time and 
again, many in the media have failed to meet the facts head-on in order 
to fit their own biased story line.
  So I say to everybody, including journalists that don't want to do 
hard work: Read the testimony of those people that were taken on what 
went on between December 14 and January 3. Read what I say about it. 
Read what Senator Durbin says about it. But at least read the testimony 
if you are going to make comments distorting what I said on October 7. 
In other words, stop screwing up.
  I yield the floor.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. CRAPO. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                      Vote on Motion to Discharge

  Mr. CRAPO. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that all remaining 
time be yielded back.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The question is on agreeing to the motion to discharge.
  The yeas and nays have been previously ordered.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. THUNE. The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator 
from Missouri (Mr. Blunt).
  The result was announced--yeas 50, nays 49, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 417 Ex.]

                                YEAS--50

     Baldwin
     Bennet
     Blumenthal
     Booker
     Brown
     Cantwell
     Cardin
     Carper
     Casey
     Coons
     Cortez Masto
     Duckworth
     Durbin
     Feinstein
     Gillibrand
     Hassan
     Heinrich
     Hickenlooper
     Hirono
     Kaine
     Kelly
     King
     Klobuchar
     Leahy
     Lujan
     Manchin
     Markey
     Menendez
     Merkley
     Murphy
     Murray
     Ossoff
     Padilla
     Peters
     Reed
     Rosen
     Sanders
     Schatz
     Schumer
     Shaheen
     Sinema
     Smith
     Stabenow
     Tester

[[Page S7059]]


     Van Hollen
     Warner
     Warnock
     Warren
     Whitehouse
     Wyden

                                NAYS--49

     Barrasso
     Blackburn
     Boozman
     Braun
     Burr
     Capito
     Cassidy
     Collins
     Cornyn
     Cotton
     Cramer
     Crapo
     Cruz
     Daines
     Ernst
     Fischer
     Graham
     Grassley
     Hagerty
     Hawley
     Hoeven
     Hyde-Smith
     Inhofe
     Johnson
     Kennedy
     Lankford
     Lee
     Lummis
     Marshall
     McConnell
     Moran
     Murkowski
     Paul
     Portman
     Risch
     Romney
     Rounds
     Rubio
     Sasse
     Scott (FL)
     Scott (SC)
     Shelby
     Sullivan
     Thune
     Tillis
     Toomey
     Tuberville
     Wicker
     Young

                             NOT VOTING--1

       
     Blunt
       
  The motion was agreed to.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Peters). Pursuant to S. Res. 27, and the 
motion to discharge having been agreed to, the nomination will be 
placed on the executive calendar.
  The Senator from Utah.
  Mr. LEE. Mr. President, I will be speaking in a moment. I had planned 
to deliver my remarks prior to making a unanimous consent request, but 
in deference to my friend and colleague from Washington, I will be 
making the consent request first, and then proceed to my prepared 
remarks.


                   Unanimous Consent Request--S. 2847

  Mr. President, as if in legislative session, I ask unanimous consent 
that the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation be 
discharged from further consideration of S. 2847, and that the Senate 
proceed to its immediate consideration. Further, I ask unanimous 
consent that the bill be considered read a third time and passed, and 
that the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the 
table.


 =========================== NOTE =========================== 

  
  On page S7059, October 19, 2021, first column, the following 
appears: UNANIMOUS CONSENT REQUEST--S. 2988 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. 2988,
  
  The online Record has been corrected to read: UNANIMOUS CONSENT 
REQUEST--S. 2847 Mr. President, as if in legislative session, I 
ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Commerce, Science, and 
Transportation be discharged from further consideration of S. 
2847,


 ========================= END NOTE ========================= 


  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  The Senator from Washington.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, first, before I object, I would like to 
thank the Senator for his consideration. I really do appreciate that.
  Mr. President, reserving the right to object, here we go again. Even 
after 700,000 deaths and rising, Republicans are coming up with new 
ideas to undermine our vaccination efforts and make it harder for us to 
safely reopen our country; and in this case, even make it harder for us 
to respond to future pandemics.
  Requiring basic precautions to keep people safe when traveling is 
nothing new in this country, nor are immunization requirements, for 
that matter.
  And let's be clear and remember, the vaccine requirements President 
Biden has enacted so far include tailored exemptions for legitimate 
religious and medical conditions that have long been standard, and the 
emergency temporary standard he has envisioned would allow testing as 
an alternative.
  Therefore, I would call on my Republican colleagues to remember this 
is a pandemic; it is not a political football. We need to treat it as a 
public health crisis.
  And, therefore, I do object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The objection is heard.
  The Senator from Utah.
  Mr. LEE. Mr. President, I have come here to the Senate floor six 
times now to oppose President Biden's unconstitutional actions, using 
the Federal Government and using the Oval Office, in particular, in 
order to force Americans to get the COVID-19 vaccine.
  Now, as I have said before, as I have said each and every time I have 
spoken on this issue, I am not opposed to the COVID-19 vaccine. I have 
been fully vaccinated, as has every member of my family, with my 
encouragement. I encouraged my family, I have encouraged friends, 
everyone I know, to get vaccinated.
  I think the vaccine is a blessing, and it is one that has helped a 
lot of people. And I think it is one for which society, as a whole, has 
benefited.
  I have had and recovered from COVID-19 before I got vaccinated, and I 
can tell you that contracting COVID is not an experience that I would 
like to repeat, and it is not an experience that I want others to have. 
That is why I have had the vaccine and why I have encouraged others to 
do the same.
  I, nonetheless, raise my hand in this very Chamber each time I have 
been sworn into the office. Pursuant to the Constitution, I stood right 
there on those steps and I swore an oath to uphold and protect and 
defend the Constitution of the United States.
  That inspired document limits the powers of government. It does so 
because government power is sacred. Government power is dangerous. 
Government power always involves the actual or threatened use of 
coercive force. It is what government is--the ability and the authority 
to use coercive force and to do so on an official basis through law. It 
is for that reason that the Constitution carefully contains the power 
of government and does so in a way that reflects its immense capacity 
for harm.
  There are lots of other things that are useful that we have to be 
careful when handling. You know, fire, electricity, oxygen, water, 
these are all things that are necessary, that we depend upon, that we 
need; and things that, if left uncontrolled, can inflict all sorts of 
harm, can hurt people, can kill people, can destroy life and property.
  So that is why the Constitution goes to great lengths to draw 
boundaries and assign authority not only to different branches of 
government, but also different levels of government. In fact, every 
single provision of the U.S. Constitution is itself a form of 
limitation on government power.
  These protections were designed to prevent government from 
excessively burdening the American people, because we have seen over 
time the tendency of governments to abuse that power and, in 
particular, the tendency of governments to become abusive when there is 
a dangerous accumulation of power at the hands of a few.
  Tragically, and under the direction of Senates and Houses of 
Representatives and White Houses of every conceivable partisan 
combination, we have strayed far from the design of our government--the 
design put in place by the Constitution, the very same Constitution to 
which we have all sworn an oath.
  And as a result of that, Americans are now forced to work many months 
out of every year just to pay their Federal tax obligations only to be 
told after the fact, by the way, that is not nearly enough because we 
are now nearly $30 trillion in debt in closing.
  The monetary printing presses are pumping out tsunamis of fiat 
currency that eats away at Americans' savings and earnings. Government 
regulations cost trillions of dollars a year as a hidden back door, 
invisible, and highly regressive tax on American productivity and on 
American development.
  And this is a tax that is borne disproportionately by poor and 
middle-class Americans who find that everything they buy--goods and 
services alike--become more expensive. And we find that they also pay 
for it with diminished wages, unemployment, and underemployment.
  Almost every aspect of American life is now inappropriately 
restricted, directed, or taxed by the Federal Government. President 
Biden's recent mandate adds yet another roadblock to millions of 
Americans just trying to get by, forcing them to choose between getting 
vaccinated on the one hand and having a job on the other hand.
  What it is doing is it is saying: Look, you don't agree with the 
government position on this? Fine. You are going to lose your job. You 
are going to pay. You are going to lose your job. You are going to be 
rendered unemployed and effectively unemployable. Not only that, but we 
are going to do it in a way that many instances will render it 
basically impossible for you to recover unemployment benefits.
  One of the things that is particularly devious about this one is that 
the mandate itself hasn't been issued, and yet it has been now a month 
and a half or so since President Biden gave the speech announcing his 
intention to create it.
  Had he created it, we would at least know what we were dealing with. 
We would know the precise source of authority in the law that he was 
claiming. We would know the contours of how it would be enforced. We 
would know the contours of any exceptions to the mandate.
  And because we would have an order, there would be something that 
people could challenge in court, where necessary. But as of right now, 
we have none of those things. We have only this Damoclean sword hanging 
over the American people, who are forced to guess.

[[Page S7060]]

  And in the meantime, we have corporate America--we have employers 
with more than 99 workers, understandably, scrambling in an effort to 
get ahead of this thing because they know that the penalties for 
noncompliance with this are likely to be significant. So many of them 
are trying to get ahead of it so they are not caught flat-footed and 
unable to comply.
  As a result, many of these have just tried to guess at what the 
mandate will say and adopted those policies, sometimes knowing that 
their policies might be more aggressive than what the Federal 
Government will require.
  But in the meantime, this leaves no one accountable. The corporations 
have the Federal Government to blame. And the Federal Government 
responds by saying there is no policy yet; there is nothing to sue on 
yet; there is nothing for the Federal courts to enjoin as unlawful, as 
unconstitutional, as an improper exercise of Federal power generally--
keeping in mind that the Federal Government is one of few and defined 
powers, as James Madison described them in Federalist No. 45. The 
powers reserved for the States are numerous and indefinite. We flipped 
that on its head here. There is nothing that gives the Federal 
Government this power.
  My friend and colleague from Washington moments ago made the argument 
that vaccines are nothing new and that vaccine requirements are nothing 
new. Well, you know, they are new when it comes to a general mandate 
issued by the Federal Government to do this. Yes, there have been 
mandates in the past, but insofar as they deal with the general 
population as opposed to military personnel or certain government 
workers. These are not Federal law issues. These have been State law 
issues. The Federal Government has no general police powers.
  Even if there were power within the Federal Government to do this, 
which I assure you there is not, we know for certain that one person 
acting alone--even if that person is the President of the United 
States--has not the power to do this.
  This is, I believe, perhaps the most egregious example of 
Presidential overreach, the most shameless executive branch power grab 
since President Harry Truman seized all steel mills in the United 
States in the 1950s in order to support the Korean war effort.
  Now, President Truman did not get away with that. The Supreme Court 
appropriately struck that down as well outside Presidential powers. You 
see, nothing in the Constitution and nothing in Federal statute gave 
President Truman the power to seize steel mills simply because he 
deemed them an important part of the war effort.
  Here, that hasn't happened. Here, that can't happen--at least not yet 
because we don't have an order. The President, after making this 
announcement about 6 weeks ago, hasn't had the decency to even tell us 
what the source of his authority is.
  And I will let you in on a secret: He has none. He has not a single 
scintilla, not a shred of authority--not statutorily, not 
constitutionally--to do this. He does haven't the power to do it.
  Now, lest you be deceived into thinking that this is an academic 
infringement of some esoteric liberty, it is not. Let's be honest about 
what we are doing here. We are telling hard-working American moms and 
dads: If you do not succumb, if you do not heel, if you don't obey the 
Presidential dictate at issue here, you are going to lose your job.
  We are making them decide between getting a vaccine to which they may 
have a medical or a religious or some other legitimate exemption on the 
one hand and on the other hand becoming unemployed and 
unemployable. And in many instances, they are unable to even attain 
unemployment benefits because you know what a lot of these companies 
are doing--again, in order to get ahead of the mandate--they are 
adopting their own draconian and aggressive policies. They are already 
firing people. In some cases, they are not firing them. They are 
putting them on unpaid administrative leave, making it impossible for 
them to get unemployment. Is that really what we want to do?

  Look, I understand the COVID-19 vaccine is a good thing. I consider 
it a medical miracle of sorts. What do you say to somebody whose 
religious beliefs make this an unacceptable choice for them? What do 
you say to someone with a genuinely serious medical condition, someone 
who has been told by his or her board-certified medical doctor, ``Don't 
get this vaccine. You, in your case, you shouldn't get it because of 
medical condition X, Y, or Z''? What do you say to that person? Do you 
really want to tell that person that them being brought to heel with 
the Federal directive issued by one person, in the absence of any 
statutory or constitutional authority to do that, that is more 
important; that is so compelling, that they have to be rendered 
unemployed, unemployable and ineligible, in many instances, even to 
collect unemployment? Is that really what we have sunk to? I hope not. 
I don't believe we have.
  The American people know better. They know that is not how we resolve 
disputes in this country. It is certainly not how we treat religious 
minorities or people with medical conditions that make them have a 
different set of concerns than other people. That is not how we act.
  By the way, it is also a good reason why we don't make law in this 
country through one person because, of course, Mr. President, a law 
like that would never pass. It would never pass here in the Senate or 
in the House of Representatives. It couldn't withstand that kind of 
scrutiny, not the way it has been laid out--not a chance.
  Deep down, the President of the United States perhaps knows this. I 
can only assume--of course, I can't read another human being's 
subjective mindset--but I can only assume that he would have brought it 
to Congress and given us the opportunity to consider it and adopt it. 
He cut out the people's elected representatives, the people's elected 
lawmakers whose constitutional obligation and authority it is to make 
the law so we can only make assumptions from them.
  But it is not as though he didn't have time to do it. Six weeks have 
elapsed since he made the announcement. Meanwhile, I am hearing from 
countless people across America, including 300 or so people from the 
State of Utah who are themselves being put in impossible positions.
  Now, look, mind you, for most people, this isn't a big deal. Most 
people in America have chosen to get the vaccine, and I am glad they 
have, but there are a lot of people whose stories are heart-wrenching.
  Just this week, I heard from a flight attendant who works with a 
major U.S. airline. She has religious beliefs that make her opposed to 
getting this vaccine or any vaccine. She is a hard-working employee. 
She has been a faithful flight attendant, and it is a job that she has 
loved and she has enjoyed throughout her entire adult professional 
career. It is a job that has benefited her and her family, allowed her 
to make a living, put food on the table. She is now being faced with 
this awful choice between, on the one hand, betraying her religious 
beliefs--which she is unwilling to do--and, on the other hand, losing a 
job which is her only means of earning a living, of feeding her family. 
How is this fair? How is this just? How is this constitutional? It is 
not.
  Troublingly, there are now signs that the White House isn't satisfied 
with just making Americans who haven't received the vaccine unemployed 
and unemployable. The administration is reportedly also considering a 
medical mandate for interstate travel. Such a move would be deeply 
constitutionally concerning, but it would also revoke yet another 
freedom and make yet another group of American citizens solidly second 
class.
  The privileges and immunities clause of the 14th Amendment, of 
course, protects the right to interstate travel. There is no precedent 
in our Nation's history of a requirement of this nature for interstate 
travel.
  Even if those considerations were somehow untrue--they are not, but 
even if they were--Congress has certainly not granted such authority to 
the President of the United States to act unilaterally, nor would we 
ever.
  A mandate requiring people to get the COVID-19 vaccine in order to 
have the privilege, the benefit, which is actually just a right, one 
that the American people ought to be able to rely on to travel 
interstate within the United States, is truly unthinkable.
  But many of the Federal Government's actions over the last year have

[[Page S7061]]

shown Americans the real threat it poses to freedom and simply to 
common sense. Remember, this is the administration that has forced our 
2-year-olds to wear masks for hours at a time on airplanes, buses, 
trains, and in bus depots, train stations, and airports--2-year-olds. 
For any parent out there or for anyone who has ever actually interacted 
with a 2-year-old human, you can certainly understand how absurd this 
is, especially when our peer nations have recognized there is no need 
to mask a 2-year-old.
  But back to the mandate for a minute. If we think through this 
disturbing possibility of forced medical treatment as a condition 
precedent for visiting family in another State or traveling for 
business reasons or traveling for any reason at all from one State to 
another, the impacts are clear, and they are devastating. Businesses 
already hard-hit by the pandemic--the travel and hospitality sectors--
would, of course, be further strained; collateral damage, I suppose, on 
the part of those who would push such an oppressive move.

  Individuals could be marooned in States or they couldn't work, 
couldn't go to restaurants, and couldn't leave. And the social capital 
built from face-to-face interactions would be further set back.
  I believe vaccines are generally safe, and they help protect people 
from the harms of contracting COVID-19. I have in the past and I still 
now continue to encourage people to get the vaccine, but we must ask 
what ends this administration is willing to go to to cudgel Americans 
to this state-sponsored health edict.
  I am personally uncomfortable with such sweeping mandates, but, more 
importantly, I am required by my oath to protect the Constitution of 
the United States to oppose this action. That is why I brought forward 
my latest iteration of my efforts against this unlawful, 
unconstitutional, and still inchoate mandate. My Let Me Travel America 
Act would clarify the law and prohibit the Federal Government from 
mandating that Americans receive shots against COVID-19 as a 
prerequisite for interstate travel.
  I am grateful that my colleagues, Senators Tuberville, Braun, and 
Sullivan, have joined me as cosponsors of this bill.
  This is a commonsense, practical, reasonable bill, one that would 
simply provide assurance and protection to millions of Americans whose 
rights are under attack.
  Moments ago, I came here, and I asked unanimous consent that we pass 
this bill today with the understanding that I am going to continue to 
come back day after day, as long as it takes, to address what the 
President is doing.
  The Senate had a chance to protect the American people from yet 
another unconstitutional overreach. It is disappointing to me, really, 
that my friend and colleague, the Senator from Washington, chose to 
object to its adoption.
  This shouldn't be controversial. It is really not controversial among 
the American people. I guarantee you, you take a poll asking people 
should the Federal Government ever be able to tell you that you can't 
travel interstate unless you receive a particular medical treatment, 
there is no way the American people would think that is a good idea 
because it is not, because it is absurd, and because it violates 
everything that we believe in.
  Now, my friend and colleague, the distinguished Senator from 
Washington, made the point that such measures can't be enacted because, 
according to her, they supposedly undermine vaccine efforts. Do you 
know what undermines the vaccine effort? What undermines the vaccine 
effort is when you try to use the overpowering cudgel of coercive 
force, a type and a level of coercive force that no other entity on 
planet Earth can wield more strongly than the Federal Government--you 
use that cudgel to tell people who haven't gotten it yet: You must get 
this.
  Look, a lot of people have been getting the vaccine. Yes, there are 
some holdouts, and they have their reasons for being holdouts. There 
are a lot of ways that you can convince someone to do something that 
they don't currently want to do. One of the things that is going to 
make it far less likely that they get the vaccine is for them to be 
told that they are being threatened with their jobs. It is not how you 
win. Even if it were that we could somehow chalk this up as a win here, 
that is not who we are; that is not how we play.
  And this is unprecedented. Make no mistake, the Federal Government 
has never undertaken anything like this. States and political 
subdivisions of States--meaning cities, towns, counties, so forth--
States and their subdivisions have general police powers, meaning broad 
power to protect health, safety, and welfare; to protect life, liberty, 
and property in whatever manner they deem appropriate, subject, of 
course, to such limitations as may be placed on them either by their 
State Constitution or by the U.S. Constitution.
  But States and their subdivisions have the ability to enact 
legislation like this--health, safety, welfare legislation--in a way 
that the Federal Government doesn't. We have to act pursuant to one of 
the enumerated powers in the Constitution.
  I challenge anyone to identify what source of authority can fairly be 
said to give the Federal Government this kind of power. It doesn't 
exist. We have never exercised this power with respect to the U.S. 
population at large. It is a different thing entirely to point to 
vaccine requirements that we have had for certain Federal personnel, 
including our military servicemembers. We have never done anything like 
this. If we were to ever consider something like this at a Federal 
level, I would have grave concerns with it because I don't think it is 
the prerogative of the Federal Government.
  But I can tell you one thing, I am darn certain we would never give 
one person the authority to impose such a mandate. No, that is not how 
our constitutional system works. There are a lot of reasons why we no 
longer fly the Union Jack. A lot of them had to do with what happens 
when you have a dangerous accumulation of power in the hands of a few. 
That is one of the reasons why we put in place a rigid set of 
requirements saying that before you change the legal status quo, before 
you pass a law, you have to run it through Congress. Any Federal law, 
assuming it is acting in an area within the Federal Government's power 
and authority and jurisdiction, it can't become law, Federal law, until 
you run it through the House, run the same language through the Senate. 
Then you present it to the President for an opportunity for veto, 
signature, or acquiescence. Without going through that process, you 
have not made a Federal law.

  Look, Harry Truman's effort to seize the entire steel industry in the 
United States was unlawful. It was unconstitutional. And, mercifully, 
the courts were able to dispense of that in a relatively short period 
of time.
  We don't even have the luxury of going to court in this instance 
because the President hasn't had the decency to show us his work, to 
tell us what he is actually doing.
  Meanwhile, he is bullying corporate America to do his dirty work for 
him. Corporate America is dutifully complying in some cases, perhaps 
out of allegiance or a desire to appear compliant with the President's 
wishes; in other instances, just for more practical reasons. They don't 
want to be stuck with the heavy fines that may be levied against them 
if they are caught flat-footed and unprepared for what may be coming. 
So they are doing the President's dirty work for him. They are doing 
the firing, rendering people unemployed, unemployable, and in some 
cases ineligible even to receive unemployment.
  Shame on him and shame on us if we don't call this out for what it 
is, which is an aggressive, unconstitutional, baseless power grab.
  My friend and distinguished colleague, the Senator from Washington, 
also pointed to what she referred to as tailored exemptions to the 
vaccine mandate.
  What exemptions?
  There is no mandate. There are no exemptions. Yeah, he has spoken in 
aspirational terms about certain exemptions that would be available, 
but corporate America doesn't know what they are. And so corporate 
America, acting on the advice of counsel, is understandably being very 
aggressive, erring on the side of firing more people and rendering more 
people unemployed and unemployable, and in many cases rendering them 
incapable of receiving unemployment.

[[Page S7062]]

  So, no. No. Don't tell me these are tailored exemptions, when there 
aren't even exemptions. In order for it to be an exemption, you have 
got to have a mandate. There is no mandate. There is just the 
threatened use of the mandate that is making corporate America decide 
that it is in its best interest to do the President's dirty work for 
him, and in a way that protects him from being questioned on legal, 
meritorious grounds in court.
  And if we can't muster the legislative will to defend that power 
which is rightfully ours--not ours in the sense that we personally own 
it, but it has been given to the people, the power to make sure that 
laws are passed only by their elected Representatives and Senators--we 
can't stand up for this, shame on us.
  And if we can't stand up for even a further encroachment on that 
power and on the corresponding right that the American people have long 
come to depend upon, to be able to travel interstate without undue 
hindrance or interference from their government, it is a sad outcome, 
one that I can't countenance. That is why I am going to be back day 
after day, as long as it takes. The American people expect more. The 
American people deserve better.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Ms. Hassan). The majority leader.

                          ____________________