[Congressional Record Volume 167, Number 185 (Thursday, October 21, 2021)]
[Senate]
[Pages S7147-S7150]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]



                             Appropriations

  Mr. President, today, while I am here, I would also like to discuss 
the fiscal year 2022 appropriations bill for the Department of Labor, 
Health and Human Services, and Related Agencies, which we released this 
week.
  A budget is a reflection of values. This bill shows exactly where 
Democrats' values are when it comes to help our working families and 
communities. This bill will help us respond to this pandemic and other 
health challenges by increasing funding for mental health and substance 
abuse disorders; maternal health and family planning; preventive care 
services; biomedical research, including a cutting-edge research 
agency; and public health, with the largest increase to CDC's budget 
authority in nearly two decades. This bill would also take the long 
overdue step of repealing the Hyde and Weldon amendments, which 
restrict people's ability to exercise their constitutional right to 
abortion just based on how they get their insurance.

  It would invest in our children and students by increasing funding 
for childcare programs, early education programs, HBCUs and other 
minority-serving institutions, and Pell grants, and even doubling key 
funding for our public schools, helping to close those important 
achievement gaps and making a quality public education available to 
every single child in our country.
  As we work now to rebuild our economy, this bill would strengthen our 
workforce and support workers across the country with increased 
investments in workers' safety, the protection of workers' rights and 
wages, and virtually every workforce development program.
  In short, this bill would support the health of our economy, our 
communities, and our families.
  I will be pushing to make sure we get this across the finish line, 
and I hope Republicans will work with us to make these critical, 
commonsense investments.
  I yield the floor.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The senior assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. LEE. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Ms. Cortez Masto). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.


                   Unanimous Consent Request--S. 2988

  Mr. LEE. Madam President, as if in legislative session, I ask 
unanimous consent that the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and 
Pensions be discharged from further consideration of S. 2988 and that 
the Senate proceed to its immediate consideration. I further ask 
unanimous consent that the bill be considered read a third time and 
passed and that the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid 
upon the table.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  The Senator from Washington.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Madam President, reserving the right to object, once 
again, I am here to oppose a bill that would undermine our efforts to 
end this pandemic.
  There are already State laws that address parental consent for 
vaccines, but this bill would trample on those laws and the rights of 
young adults across the country who are currently able to get 
vaccinated.
  This bill does not take into account the rights of children who are 
experiencing homelessness but want to get vaccinated nor does it 
consider children who are emancipated and want to get vaccinated, and 
it could make getting vaccinated even harder for children who can 
currently make that decision for themselves under their States' laws.
  We are trying to safely open schools, protect our communities, and 
end this pandemic that has killed over 700,000 people. Making it harder 
for anyone to get vaccinated and protect themselves is not helpful.
  Therefore, I object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.

[[Page S7148]]

  The Senator from Utah.
  Mr. LEE. Madam President, I am here on the Senate floor today, for 
the eighth time now, to oppose President Biden's sweeping vaccine 
mandate. I have introduced a dozen bills to, one way or another, limit, 
clarify, or counteract this still unpublished mandate.
  Now, make no mistake. I am opposed to the mandate categorically. I 
strongly dispute even the contention that one man--the President of the 
United States--has the authority to do this. He doesn't. I also 
fundamentally push back on the idea, the basic moral premise, that it 
is acceptable to put people in this position--to tell people that they 
have to choose between having a job and being able to put bread on the 
table for their children, on the one hand, or, on the other hand, 
accepting a medical procedure that they don't want either because of a 
religious objection or a specific medical condition or otherwise.
  I am categorically opposed to this being done. It shouldn't be done 
through the Federal Government. It certainly shouldn't be done by one 
person, the President of the United States, who doesn't have the 
authority to do that.
  And to highlight how concerned I am about this, I am coming down to 
the floor day after day to offer a different legislative proposal that, 
at a minimum, would make some of the effects of the mandate less 
severe, less painful, less cruel, less draconian.
  Each time I have come to ask the Senate to pass what would, frankly, 
be uncontroversial measures--that should be uncontroversial--and each 
time I have done that, one of my colleagues or another from the other 
side of the aisle has objected.
  This is unfortunate for a number of reasons. His mandate--which is 
still unavailable to be examined by the public, by the way--is already 
showing the terrible power that even the threat of a government-imposed 
vaccine mandate wields.
  Businesses across the country are suspending, punishing, or firing 
employees who haven't had the COVID shot. Even without government 
enforcement, the mere threat, the mere talk of the possibility of a 
threat of the mandate is making it harder for everyday American 
families to put food on the table in increasingly difficult economic 
times, times fraught with uncertainty.
  This isn't fair. This isn't right. Deep down, we know it.
  Now, lest anyone try to dismiss the victims of this misguided and 
ill-founded effort, these aren't people you can just otherize. These 
aren't people you could just imagine to be someone you don't like, no.
  These are mothers and fathers. They are our neighbors. They are 
people who, like far too many Americans these days, are just trying to 
get by. I am going to continue to fight this for them. I am going to 
continue to push back on this unlawful, misguided effort for them.
  And, you know, in the meantime, it is important that we be very clear 
and that we be very consistent. In this effort, I have been supremely 
clear. I am not, in any way, shape, or form against the COVID-19 
vaccine. I have been fully vaccinated. Every member of my family has 
been fully vaccinated with my encouragement. I encourage people all the 
time, and I repeat that encouragement this very moment from the U.S. 
Senate floor, that I encourage people to get vaccinated.
  I see the development of these vaccines as a miracle; one that is 
helping, and has already helped, countless Americans to avoid the harms 
of COVID-19.
  That doesn't undercut the fact that this mandate is pushing 
government and government control far beyond constitutional limits and 
into distinctively private decisions, decisions that belong to the 
American people and not to their government. It is why I am fighting 
against the mandate, and that is why I have come to the Senate floor 
eight times now, to help.
  So, today, I offered up a bill that should have itself been supremely 
uncontroversial. It is a reaffirmation of parental rights that our 
government has respected and honored from the very beginning.
  My Parental Consent for Vaccination Act would simply require that any 
COVID-19 vaccine mandate issued by the Federal Government must include 
a requirement that informed parental consent be provided before the 
shot is administered to a minor.
  What would be controversial about that? On what planet would we not 
want to have parents involved in that decision? On what planet would it 
be OK to administer a shot to a child without parental notification and 
consent?
  Allow me to put this in some context. Parental consent is required 
for field trips. Your child is going to the zoo or the park or anywhere 
else for a field trip, parental consent form. Parental consent forms 
are familiar to every parent and every child and every teacher in 
America. It is what we do. You are going to go on a field trip? You 
have got to have your consent form. No parental consent form, no field 
trip.
  Parental consent is required for extracurricular activities, for 
sports, student government, club activities, all sorts of things.
  Parental consent is required before most schools can administer a 
Tylenol to a child; and that is, after all, the right approach.
  Despite what some candidates have said in recent political campaigns, 
parents are people who should be informed, and they should be involved 
in their children's education and in their health decisions.
  There is good reason for this. Through thousands of years of human 
civilization, we have come to an understanding, quite appropriately, 
that parents are simply better equipped to make these decisions than 
are other people; certainly better than the impersonal arm of a 
government.
  Parents are people who know their children. Parents are people who 
know their children's medical history. Parents also love their 
children. Parents have their children's best interests at heart when 
they make decisions regarding involving or affecting them.
  Government cannot do any of these things like parents can--not in any 
way, shape, or form.
  There is a good reason for this, and it is because government doesn't 
love their children. It is not that government categorically always 
means them harm. That is not it. Government isn't a person. It is not a 
being. Government doesn't have arms with which to embrace or shelter or 
protect their children. Government doesn't have a heart with which to 
love their children.
  Government, when reduced to its core, when we really break it down to 
what it is, government is simply force--politically permissible, 
officially sanctioned, coercive force. It is violence or the threatened 
use of violence with a badge under the cover of official authority.
  Now, we need government--we need government to protect life, liberty, 
and property. We need government to protect people from harm. But we 
have got to use it carefully. When we misapprehend what government is 
and we lose sight of this relationship between the people and the 
government, with the understanding that the government is there to 
serve the people and not the other way around, when we lose sight of 
the fact that government is just the official use of coercive force, 
when we start to revere it as some sort of benevolent, omnipotent, 
omniscient presence, bad things happen.
  Because government, while necessary, is also dangerous; no less so 
than other things that are necessary, like water and like fire, like 
electricity, like wind, like oxygen. All these things, if not 
controlled, if not managed in one way or another, if not accounted for, 
can become dangerous and inevitably can prove deadly.
  So thank Heaven above that Almighty God assigned primary care of 
children to parents and not to government. And thank Heaven above that 
Almighty God endowed each and every human being with these inalienable 
rights and with the understanding that government is there to serve and 
protect them and not the other way around.
  Unfortunately, in some places, like right here in our Nation's 
Capital, the government seems almost to have completely lost the plot.
  Right here in the District of Columbia, the DC Public Schools system 
is one in which minors can receive medical procedures without the 
school obtaining the consent of the parents or even informing the 
parents.

[[Page S7149]]

  In other places across the Nation, this slippery slope is already 
leading governments to consider life-changing, school-provided medical 
procedures without parental notice or consent.
  As a parent and, for that matter, as a human being, as a citizen of 
this country, this thought sends shivers down my spine, and not at all 
in a good way.
  You see, while the Federal Government has almost no legitimate role 
in making decisions in our primary and secondary education systems, 
these are to be left for States and local governments. Very, very 
little role for the Federal Government to play in that area at all. It 
is an area that should be left to parents and students and teachers; 
and where government is involved, it nearly always is supposed to be 
State and local officials, not Federal ones.
  With this bill, we make sure that the Federal Government doesn't 
endorse or, Heaven forbid, mandate this dangerous approach to medical 
decisions for minors. It is not something that we should do.
  And so that is why I came here, to ask precisely that. I came here to 
ask that we provide assurances for parents and for children--once 
again, make no mistake, I am for the vaccine. I am categorically 
against the mandate. The mandate should not happen. The mandate is 
wrong. The mandate is without legal foundation. It is constitutionally 
indefensible, especially when exercised by one person at a level of 
government not equipped to deal with these things who are 
constitutionally authorized to do so.
  But more than anything, the mandate is itself immoral. It is telling 
American moms and dads that they have to choose between getting a 
vaccine--even if to do so would cause significant problems for them 
because of a unique health condition, a religious objection or 
otherwise, they have got to choose between getting that unwanted 
vaccine on the one hand and losing their job on the other.
  Are we really going to tell them that to honor their own personal 
autonomy, their own ability to decide what is best for them, we are 
going to order their employer to fire them, rendering them unemployed, 
for the time being unemployable?
  And in some cases, because of the way some of these companies--in 
anticipation of the yet-to-be-announced mandate, some of these 
companies that have already started firing people are actually putting 
them on unpaid administrative leave, such that they can't even collect 
unemployment.
  This is just mean. It is mean-spirited. So when you peel back all the 
layers of all the constitutional arguments, of which there are many, 
you are left with some policy arguments. But more than anything else, 
we are left with some basic moral arguments, arguments involving 
fundamental fairness. This is not who we are.
  Look, when we disagree, we can be--we should be able to disagree 
without getting someone fired. But we should certainly be able to 
disagree without subjecting potentially hundreds of millions of people 
to unemployment based on a personal medical decision, one that may have 
profound health consequences or religious consequences to them 
personally.
  I didn't think any of these things were all that controversial. I 
still don't believe they are. If any of us could talk to people at 
random from our home States, whether they are from communities or 
families or households that lean left or right or somewhere else, most 
people have a basic sense of fairness that transcends political 
ideology and partisan affiliation.
  That basic shared sense of fundamental fairness is utterly at odds 
with doing this. We are better than this.
  President Biden, you are better than this. President Biden, you and I 
don't agree on everything, but I know that you know, President Biden, 
that this isn't fair. Let's not do this to the people.
  So all I was asking today in trying to pass this legislation is that 
we reaffirm our commitment to supporting parents in making decisions 
for their children. I tried to pass that uncontroversial measure, and 
it is a source of great disappointment and even some surprise that we 
couldn't even pass that. There has got to be something that is a bare 
minimum.
  I appreciate the insights provided by my friend and distinguished 
colleague, the Senator from Washington, who, in objecting to the 
passage of this measure, shared her thoughts on why she opposes it. But 
I don't agree with her. Among the arguments she raised was a suggestion 
that under existing State laws, there are already ways of figuring out 
when, whether, and in what circumstances parental consent might be 
required. Now, this is--this is great.
  I love federalism arguments. I am happy anytime someone raises a 
federalism argument. I think that is the kind of argument that doesn't 
get made nearly enough around here because it is kind of a watershed 
structural issue within the Constitution, one that outlines the 
difference between Federal power and State power.
  You see, our constitutional Republic is one in which multiple layers 
of sovereignty exist. States and their subdivisions enjoy what we call 
general police powers, the power to enact legislation, generally, as 
States and their subdivisions deem appropriate for the protection of 
health, safety, and welfare. States, in the absence of an expressed 
U.S. constitutional prohibition or in the absence of some restriction 
in their State constitution--States are presumed to have general police 
powers. They may enact legislation as they deem fit to benefit their 
citizens.
  We, as lawmakers in the Federal Government, have a narrower view. We 
have a narrower task. We have a narrower area of authority. We can't 
just enact something as Federal law simply because we think it is a 
good idea. We have to connect it to one of the enumerated powers made 
Federal by the Constitution. Most of those powers--not all of them but 
most of them--can be found in one portion of the Constitution written 
in relatively plain English nearly two and a half centuries ago, still 
easy to read today, still makes sense today--article I, section 8 makes 
that clear. We are in charge of national defense, regulating trade or 
commerce between the States and with foreign nations and with the 
Tribes; trademarks, copyrights and patents, bankruptcy laws, 
immigration laws, naturalization laws. There are a few others, but that 
is the basic gist of it--things that are distinctively national and 
designated as such by the Constitution. That is within our power. And 
everything else, as the 10th amendment reaffirms, stating again what 
the original Constitution made clear implicitly and was made explicitly 
in the 10th amendment, that powers not made Federal by the Constitution 
and not prohibited to the States by the Constitution ``are reserved 
[for] the States respectively, or to the people.''
  That is no accident that they put that phrase in there in the 10th 
amendment, ``or to the people.''
  When you reserve power to the States, you are, in a sense, reserving 
it for the people, and the people are the ultimate sovereigns. We are 
authorized to act as a Federal sovereign only in those narrow areas.
  So I get back to the argument that my friend and distinguished 
colleague, the Senator from Washington, made moments ago. She referred 
to the existence of State laws delineating circumstances in which 
parental consent for a medical procedure, including a vaccine, might be 
acceptable or appropriate. I appreciate the federalism argument. We 
ought to have more of those. There are far too few of them here. The 
great irony here is that this focuses on the fact that we shouldn't be 
operating in this space in the first place.
  To the degree that she is right, as she absolutely is to be focusing 
on the distinction between State power and Federal power, that same 
principle argues a fortiori in favor of us not deciding this on a 
national level. In other words, if it is true, as it is, that we ought 
to be focused on State law and what State law requires or allows or 
contemplates or permits, heavens, yes, let State law apply.
  But you can't have it both ways. If you are going to make this 
Federal, as the President of the United States has purported to do, 
even though it isn't, then we not only may, I believe, we must weigh 
in. We must weigh in as the people's elected lawmakers. It is our job 
to make policy, and it is our job to decide when, whether, and to what 
extent Federal policy is unacceptable and needs to be curtailed. So, 
absolutely, the Senator from Washington

[[Page S7150]]

is absolutely right that we should be concerned about what State law 
says. And State law should be the beginning and the end of the inquiry 
here.
  You see, this is what is different between this vaccine mandate and 
others that have been mandated in the past. We have never seen one that 
is Federal--not applied to the American population as a whole, not as 
to the general public. We have never seen one done federally, and there 
are good reasons for this. It isn't a Federal beast.
  So my friend from Washington has expressed concern for not trampling 
on those laws. She couldn't be more right in the fact that we should 
respect State sovereignty and the sovereignty of the people. That is 
all the more reason why we should have passed S. 2988 today.
  S. 2988 is yet another example of a simple modification, that if--
if--we are going to go down this road of a Federal vaccine mandate--
which we should not, but if we were going to, at bare minimum, we ought 
to be making this a decision that has to be done in consultation and 
with the approval of--not just the notice but also the consent of 
parents. That is not too much to ask.
  The American people have been asked over and over again, especially 
over the last 18 months with the COVID-19 pandemic, they have been 
asked to settle. They have been asked to settle for this brooding 
omnipresence in Washington that tells them what to do. They have been 
asked to settle for multitrillion-dollar annual deficits. They have 
been asked to settle for limited freedoms.
  The American people shouldn't have to settle for those things. They 
certainly shouldn't have to settle for a Federal Government acting 
without authority through one person who has the ability to take away 
one of the most sacred, one of the most fundamental, one of the most 
cherished God-given rights, which is the right to make decisions 
involving and uniquely affecting their own children.
  For anyone within the sound of my voice or reading this, I implore 
you, don't settle--don't. Don't settle for multitrillion-dollar annual 
deficits. Expect Congress to start to care about the inflation that it 
is causing through reckless spending.
  Don't settle for this brooding omnipresence of a Federal Government 
that is purporting to have the ability to dictate every aspect of your 
lives. No. Expect a government that operates within the space carved 
out by the Constitution. Don't settle for a government that knows no 
boundaries around its authority. Expect the government to respect its 
own limitations. It is time to expect more, and it is time to expect 
freedom.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Louisiana is recognized.