excellent ongoing investigation into facebook's refusal to address the serious and at times threatening failings of their platforms. on september 14, the journal published an article revealing that facebook incorporated executives know that their popular intake gram photo-sharing platform is toxic, especially for young women and girls. they know for a fact that 32% of teen girls said that when they felt bad about their bodies, instagram made them feel even worse. they knew that instagram makes body image issues worse for one in three girls. they knew that teens blame instagram for increases in the

rate of anxiety and depression. how did they know all of this? because they -- facebook -- had done their own research. in 2019 and 2020, facebook's in-house analysts performed a series of deep dives into teen use of instagram that revealed -- and i'm quoting -- aspects of instagram exacerbate each other to create a perfect storm. this is their awareness. that perfect storm that they mention manifests itself in the minds of teenagers in the form of intense social pressure, addiction, body image issues, eating disorders, anxiety, depression, and suicidal thoughts. this multibillion-dollar company

is dragging their young users to hell, and they're doing it on behalf of a fantasy. much of the problem has to do with the fact that by its very nature, instagram forces its users to confront the unattainable. facebook's researchers found that young users who spend their days scrolling past filtered faces and lavish lifestyles can spiral into a so-called social comparison journey that mimics the grief cycle. 68% of teen girls and 40% of boys experience this when they use instagram. mr. president, this is their research -- their research.

68% of teen girls and 40% of teen boys experience that grief cycle. yes, heartbreaking, infuriating, and, guess what? it gets even worse. the internal research also shows that facebook execs at the highest level were in on the scheme. younger family members were of particular interest. this reporting gives sunshine on a particularly troubling aspect of facebook's strategy to shape the world in their image. facebook often touts their compliance with copa and other child protection standards as proof of their commitment to online safety. oh, but if it were only so.

but the "wall street journal" reports show that facebook has actual knowledge that they're collecting personal information online from kids under 13 years of age. these are children. they are suffering. but in the eyes of facebook, they're the product. they're the product, mr. president. they're the product that facebook is using to get data. so that they make more money. it's sickening. all of this and more was revealed to me and my staff by a very brave and well-informed whistleblower from within facebook. i've been working closely with my colleague, senator blumenthal, to bring this information to light, and i thank him and his staff for being excellent advocates on

behalf of young people and teenagers. on october 5, senator blumenthal, chairman blumenthal, and i will host a hearing in the commerce, consumer protection, data security subcommittee where the whistleblower will offer and insider -- an insider account of facebook's total lack of gonance and the -- governance. at this point, i with aens to emphasize a few important points we can extrapolate from what we novello thus far. -- from what we know thus far. facebook's internal research showed a strong correlation between use of their platforms appeared some forms of deteriorating mental health in kids and teens. but here's the larger issue --

even if fake didn't find proof of a causal link, it's unreasonable to assume that a company as large and successful as facebook would ignore the social environment in which their young user live and scroll. if you accept this general assertion -- which i hold is reasonable -- then you must also accept that mark zuckerberg and the rest of facebook's top executives were very well aware of the real-world context behind all of that research. and the context will make you sick. between 2009 and 2019, the percentage of high school students who experienced persistent feelings of sadness or hopelessness increased by more than 10%. the percentage of high school

students who seriously considered attempting suicide increased by 5%. numbers regarding suicide plans and suicide attempts also trended in the wrong direction, and even less severe mental health crises can lead to risky sexual behavior, drug use, truancy, delinquency. this is all no secret. it's publicly available information compiled by the c.d.c., accessible by anyone capable of executing a google search. it's getting harder for our kids and grand i had cans to make it -- our kids and grandkids to make it through the day. they haven't even had a chance to live yet, and already they're experiencing hopelessness and despair. they feel so terribly about themselves, that they would

rather die than live another day. facebook has evidence that their platform facilitates these mental health spirals for young users, and yet they focused on how to trick them into thinking that scrolling through content that makes them miserable is somehow healthy and normal behavior. mr. president, our children are not all right. and i'm willing to state for the record that the people pushing success buttons at facebook, they really do not care. on september 21, "the new york times" published an expose on the company's frankly shocking efforts to rehabilitate its image by promoting pro-facebook content into user news feeds. but all accounts, this reporting backed the company into a corner. they were caught red-handed

manipulating the flow of information, which is a charge that in other contexts has drawn fire from activists, politicians, and even facebook itself. in response to the well-earned backlash that facebook received, mark zuckerberg chose to avoid accountability and instead made a joke about an anecdote the "times" reporters, including regarding a video had he posted of himself cruising around on a glorified surf board. mr. president, that's the sort of reaction you see from a person who feels that they are invincible. when they feel like they are so rich and powerful and so totally in control of their own destiny that they're the master of universe, that no one can rich them, that's what -- can touch them, that's what you get.

in light of all we've seen in the past from this company and all that we have learned so far from whistleblowers, i think it's time to adjust mr. zuckerberg's thinking. accountability, yes, indeed, there's bipartisan agreement that it's time for accountability to come. and i sincerely hope that mr. zuckerberg and the rest of his facebook colleagues are prepared for what is coming. i yield the floor.

a senator: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from texas. mr. cornyn: are we in a quorum call? the presiding officer: we are not. mr. cornyn: thank you, mr. president. this morning, the senate judiciary committee had a hearing to discuss two of our democratic colleagues' biggest headaches, the supreme court of the united states and state laws that protect the right to life. this wasn't the first time we had seen an attack on both waged by members of the senate. last year, the majority leader, senator schumer, walked across the street to the supreme court and threatened two supreme court justices by name based on an abortion case that they were

considering. sadly, it seems that our democratic colleagues have simply given up when it comes to protecting innocent life. in 2020, february, 2020, the senate voted on a bill that would outlaw elective abortions after 20 weeks when science tells us that a fetus can actually feel pain. had this bill become law, it would have put u.s. domestic policy in line with that of most of the rest of the world. unfortunately, we happen to be in a small category, including north korea and communist china, when it comes to the ability to get an abortion well into the period of gestation, including up to late-term abortions. as it stands today, the united states is currently only one of seven countries to allow

elective abortions after 20 weeks. as i said, those seven countries include the communist party in china and north korea. but our democratic colleagues filibustered that bill, too. then came one more opportunity to protect the most vulnerable among us. the senate voted on legislation requiring doctors to provide lifesaving care to infants who survive abortions, just like any other newborn child would receive. that sounds like common sense, right? well, if you ask the american people, they say yes. more than three quarters of the american people, when it comes to polling, said they support providing medical treatment for babies that survive abortions. but there are no federal laws requiring health care providers to care for these children, just

as they would any other infant in their care. and yes, you guessed it, democrats blocked that bill, too. the attack on innocent life has been years in the making, but we have never seen anything quite like the latest endeavor that's come from the house of representatives. so-called women's health protection act, it's really nancy pelosi's abortion protection act. this isn't just about messaging. the senate version of the bill is cosponsored by all but two of our democratic colleagues. clearly, the provisions included in this bill don't represent the beliefs of just some small subset of democratic -- the democratic party, but apparently it's mainstream within the democratic party. but it's clear that this is a

no-holds-barred attack on the right to life. one of the most outrageous and unprecedented aspects of the bill is it limits state laws limiting abortion even after viability. this goes far beyond where the supreme court went in roe v. wade. it also undermines another landmark abortion case, planned parenthood versus casey. in casey, the supreme court abandoned the trimester framework of roe, replacing it with a viability standard to determine the state law's constitutionality. so even -- even the author of roe v. wade agreed that the -- and of casey agreed that this viability standard was largely arbitrary. but this decision came in 1992 when a baby was considered viable after 23 or 24 weeks, but

the marvels of modern medicine continue to challenge this estimate. last june, a baby was born at 21 weeks and two days, and this past summer, he celebrated his first birthday. the extreme legislation attacking the right to life coming out of the house and now empraised by senate democrats would undercut the supreme court's ruling in casey versus planned parenthood and would invalidate state laws that limit abortions after 20 weeks, which is now the consensus period of viability. a number of states have passed laws to restrict access at specific gestational -- for different gestational periods. for example, massachusetts and nevada, for example, abortions are restricted after 24 weeks. in california, washington, and

illinois, they are among the many states that restrict abortions after viability, but the democratic proposal is so extreme, it would invalidate the laws passed in each of these blue states. if this proposal, the pelosi abortion bill, became law, it would allow health care providers to perform abortions at any point so long as it's done to preserve the mother's health. this actually undermines a decision of the supreme court of the united states that said it is constitutional to debt limit so-called partial-birth abortions as a barbaric practice that does not have constitutional protection. but the provision that would allow abortion at any point in the pregnancy, so long as it's done to preserve the mother's health, that doesn't mean that the pregnancy actually threatens the life of the mother.

let's be clear on that point. if a single health care provider determines that the birth of the baby would impact on the mother's mental health, an abortion would be legal at any point in the pregnancy up to birth. this is way out of step with where most americans are. a poll this last summer found that 65% of americans believe that abortion should be illegal during the second trimester, the second three-month period of pregnancy. opposition to a third trimester abortion is even stronger. these are the so-called late-term abortions where the fetus is fully formed and even viable outside of the mother's womb. 80% of americans oppose third trimester abortions, but not pelosi's abortion act embraced

by all but two of the democrats here in the u.s. senate. the american people clearly do not want abortion laws that put us in the same league as china and north korea. two of the world's most aggressive human rights abusers. until 2016, china had a strict one-child policy. families who didn't comply with that policy could be fined, lose their jobs, and the baby would even be the subject of a forced abortion. and it became common in china as a result of this limitation on pregnancy for families to prefer a son and undergo gender selection abortions. if you're pregnant with a -- with a female child, well, abortion's fair game because they preferred to use abortion as a means to select the gender

of their child. democrats' legislation doesn't simply remain silent on gender-selected abortions. it goes so far as to prohibit states from allowing abortion as a method of gender selection. not only that, it undermines state efforts to protect unborn babies with disabilities or down syndrome. unborn children being killed solely on gender or disabilities is a devastating problem in other countries. we cannot allow such a grotesque practice to become mainstream here in the united states. we are better than that. the list of atrocities included in this legislation is a long one. it requires health care providers who hold deep religious objections to abortion to violate their own deeply held religious beliefs and kill

unborn babies. it invalidates informed consent laws which require health care providers to share accurate information with their patient about the baby and whether specifically the child can feel pain. and it gives the attorney general of the united states sweeping authority to block state laws that try to protect innocent human life. so this radical proposal from the house now embraced by all but two of our senate democrats would overturn existing state laws and allow abortions on a scale our country has never seen before. i think it's a sad commentary on the conscience of america when all but a handful of our democratic colleagues are fighting to implement these radical policies, but, mr. president, we cannot and we will not stay silent at a time when our most vulnerable are being attacked in such a manner.

we have a moral imperative to defend those who cannot defend themselves, born or unborn. to protect those who cannot protect themselves. babies with heartbeats, fingerprints, taste buds, they deserve to have protection of the law, too. the declaration of independence, after all, says that we hold these truths to be self-evident, that all are endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights, including the right to life. i've always been proud to defend that right, and at no time in my lifetime has it ever needed more defense than right now in the face of these outrageous proposals. i yield the floor.

the presiding officer: the senator from illinois. mr. durbin: mr. president, i have six requests for committees to meet during today's session of the senate. with the approval of the majority and minority leaders. the presiding officer: duly noted. mr. durbin: thank you, mr. president. mr. president, earlier today, as we just heard from my colleague in texas, the judiciary committee held a hearing on the abortion ban that took effect in the state of texas earlier this month. i hope every american who tuned into this listened very closely, very closely because here is what we heard. my republican colleagues on the committee literally made no effort to defend the texas abortion law, the texas abortion ban. s.b. 8 it's known as in texas. not a single effort to defend it on its merits. they made no effort to engage on the issue of the shadow docket

process through which the supreme court allowed this bill to become law, and they made no effort to argue that women's constitutional rights should be protected. what we witnessed today during today's hearings was the opening salvo on the fate and future of roe v. wade. here are the facts. this texas law is no ordinary piece of legislation. to quote supreme court justice sonia sotomayor, it is, quote, a flagrantly unconstitutional law engineered to prohibit women from exercising their constitutional rights and evade judicial scrutiny. this law has effectively banned abortion after six weeks in the nation's second largest state, even in cases of rape and incest. the fact is, madam president, many women do not even know they are pregnant by six weeks. the architects behind s.b. 8 took an extreme proposal that

clearly violated supreme court precedent and paired it with a new, disturbing private bounty hunter enforcement scheme, and they did so in the hope that the courts would not block the law because it wasn't clear who should be sued. at midnight on september 1, the supreme court allowed s.b. 8 to go into effect. as a result, millions of texas women have had their constitutional rights challenged and suspended. this attack on women has already caused irreparable harm to countless women who lost their right to reproductive care in texas. at today's hearing, we heard from donna howard, state representative from texas. in her written testimony, she shared the story of a woman who was denied the health care she is entitled to under the federal constitution. the woman went into an appointment on august 31 of this year, and at the time there was no heartbeat detected on the state-mandated sonogram, but when she came back the next day to have the procedure done, a

cardiac motion was detected. representative howard said of this woman, quote, at only five weeks, five weeks of pregnancy, she was too late to receive an abortion under the provisions of this new law. she was devastated. she already had a child at home and knew bringing another child into their lives threatened their family's situation and financial security. as the representative went on to note, having an abortion was the right decision for her family's well-being, but the texas law went into effect and the supreme court deprived this woman of her constitutional right. sb-8 jun r undermines the supreme court's holding under roe v. wade. it had been stopped by courts until now. the legal architects behind this

texas law crafted a scheme to avoid judicial review. they lifted the responsibility of enforcement from the state and put it in the hands of private citizens. listen to this, madam president. as a result of this texas law, they have turned ordinary citizens into bounty hunters. i want to clarify something that i asked the texas state representative to verify. it's been said that you can sue a person who aids and abets an abortion in texas and retain $10,000 costs in attorney fees. that's not what the law says. the law says, you can receive not less than $10,000 in costs and attorneys fees. lawsuits have been filed already against doctors in these clinics and seeking damages of $100,000 or more. you don't even have to live in texas to receive this bounty. consider dr. allen brave, the

first doctor to be sued. earlier this month dr. braid said why he is continuing to provide abortions despite the law. as someone who worked in medicine since 1972, dr. braid remembers the time when women could not safely access abortion care. he believes, he has a duty of care to his patients and not to return back to 1972, in the doctor's own words. he is already facing the legal consequences of this new texas law. who is exactly the bounty hunter who filed the first lawsuit against him? you might think it's a fellow texan? you're wrong. it's a bounty hunter who lives in arkansas. that lawsuit being filed against dr. braid illustrates how ig regular this is.

anyone from any state can file a law enforcement against any physician but when we include the categories of people who aid and abet the person receiving the abortion, the categories go wide afield from the people who gave advice, the folks who gave the transportation to the clinic, the mincister of -- minister who councilled her, they could all be sued for a minimum of $10,000 in texas. there's a reason why the texas legislators designed the law this way. they knew an emergency legal challenge to this texas law would go to the supreme court and they knew the supreme court showed a willingness to show sweeping changes to take place on a short timetable without detailed explanation. it was interesting to listen to

the republican senators go into orbit over the fact that we would raise questions about the shadow docket. it is a motions democrat where the justices on the supreme court can decide an issue on a very short time frame without even explaining their position. that's exactly happened with sb-8, when the law became the supreme court, supreme court justices allowed it to take affect. there was a one-paragraph opinion to explain it. and it said it would not stay texas' abortion ban because of the law's complex and novel procedural questions. in other words, the texas legislators got their way by designing sb-8 with a new bounty hunter enforcement model, they were able to evade justice review. justice sotomayor explained how

it worked. they were able to reword a constitutional -- in disregard of the court's precedence through entanglement's of the court's creation. this is disturbing for a number of reasons. for one it has galvanized law makes -- over the past month lawmakers and candidates in florida, south dakota and other states have pledged to follow suit and copycat the texas law. they saw what happened when this bill came before the supreme court, the supreme court basically said it can go forward. additionally the conservative majority on the supreme court has now signaled that it's willing to use the shadow docket to use even laws unconstitutional on their face to take effect as long as it

aligns with certain ideological norms. another witness we heard from today was professorrer steven lanik about the shadow docket. this is where the court issues decisions outside the traditional merit docket. historically that is helped to resolve routine procedural questions frequently without public deliberation, full briefing or even signed briefings. there is an uptick in shadow docket issues that are having a far broader substantive impact for better or worse. and many of the shadow docket orders appear to be driven by ideology. let me tell you why i say that. listen to these numbers. during the four-year presidency of donald trump, the supreme

court issued 28 grants of emergency relief on the shadow docket at the request of the trump administration. 28 grants of shadow docket relief out of 36 requests. each of these orders advanced president trump's political agenda, including one that allowed the resumption of federal executions for the first time in nearly two decades. now let's do a comparison. if there were 36 requests of the supreme court for shadow docket opinions and 28 of them were granted in the four years of donald trump, how about previous presidents? during the 16 years of the george bush and obama presidencies, from 2001 to 2017, the supreme court issued four -- four orders in 16 years in this last four-year period of time

granted 28 out of 36 with the trump justice department. with its handling texas abortion bans, the supreme court conservative majority have changed substantive law in sweeping ways without due deliberation and public reporting. in doing so, they are undermining confidence in the court and the conservative majority has opened the door for ideological driven schemes to rewrite laws in the shadows like sb-8. this is a five-alarm fire for due process as well as our constitutional rights and i expressed during today's hearing, i hope every member of the senate, democrat or republican, will join together to protect and preserve independent transparent and reasoned judicial decision-making based on the rule of law. at a time when the public's confidence in our governmental institutions has been greatly eroded, we must restore it. madam president, i yield the floor.

mr. lee: madam president. the presiding officer: the senator from utah. mr. lee: madam president, i rise again today to express my objection to president biden's sweeping vaccines mandate and to offer legislation that would protect americans from this federal intrusion. as i said yesterday, the federal government has no business mandating covid-19 vaccination for all americans. unfortunately, at least some of my colleagues disagree. the president of the united

states said, while announcing the mandate, quote, this isn't about freedom or personal choice. this isn't about freedom or personal choice. it stuns me to think that a sweeping federal mandate could be about anything other than freedom or personal choice. it's like robbing a bank and then saying it's not about the money. our constitution was designed to protect the liberties of the people of the united states, but now the government is being used by the executive to force americans to be vaccinated or to be terminated. yesterday i came to the floor to speak about those americans with sincerely held beliefs, whether religious or otherwise. my bill yesterday would have simply required that any mandate of this sort contain an exemption for those individuals. now i don't believe that such an exception would be sufficient to resolve the constitutional and the policy problems with such a

mandate, but there are millions of americans who would be able to live according to their beliefs if in fact such an exemption were included by law, which it should be. lamentably my colleague, the senior senator from washington objected. so i pledged to come back again today and tomorrow for as long as it takes to win the fight against this egregious mandate. today i'm providing another opportunity for this body to protect americans. this mandate poses a real threat to the well-being of millions, those who choose not to be vaccinated are at risk of losing their jobs. my office has been in contact with 144 utahans who are concerned about this very issue. i shared some of their stories yesterday. despite what many on the other side of this debate would have you believe, these are, in fact,

every day americans, people with preexisting medical conditions like auto immune disorders. these are people just wanting to provide for their families and not to be able to expect that, these are pregnant mothers who are concerned about the safety of their own health and that of their unborn children. some of these -- some of these people are the heroes of yesterday. they -- they are first responders, they are medical professionals and essential workers who sacrificed to carry our nation through the hardest days of this pandemic and they are still heroes today. these americans are not the enemy. president biden and those who support this effort are grasping for solutions they believe can bolster their political position

and shift blame on the status of the pandemic. those paying the price are the people back home, including many of the people i just described. so today i offer another proposal. this bill would provide those americans harmed by this mandate with a means of recourse. under this bill those who lose employment or lose their livelihoods due to this mandate may sue the united states for relief. the bill would make the -- these very americans whole after the president of the united states made working impossible for them. this bill is only one of many that i introduced to combat this unconstitutional, unwarranted, indefensible mandate. while i believe this mandate will eventually be invalidated in court, i'm quite confident that it will, until that day comes, these bills can provide businesses and the american people with the certainty that they need to make their own

decisions, we'll be protecting their god-given and constitutionally protected right to make medical decisions for themselves. and so, madam president, i'm here today and i'll be back tomorrow fighting against this mandate for as long as it takes. madam president, as if in legislative session, i ask unanimous consent that the judiciary committee be discharged from further consideration of s. 2840 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. the presiding officer: is there an objection? mr. durbin: reserving the right to object. the presiding officer: majority whip. mr. durbin: more than 680,000 americans have died from covid. the majority of these deaths occurred before we had viable, effective, and safe vaccines. doctors were begging for these vaccines to save lives.

and now we have three safe, effective, widely available vaccines in america. all three have proven successful and safe. however, one in four adults in america still refuses to get the vaccine. according to c.d.c., these unvaccinated individuals -- listen to this -- these unvaccinated individuals are ten times more likely to be hospitalized from covid, ten times more likely to die from covid than those who got the shot. and as long as large numbers of americans remain unvaccinated, this virus is going to continue to spread and raise the risk of mutation and more deadly variants. we've tried approaches to incentivize people. what more can we do? we created a lottery in illinois that said if you're vaccinated, you're automatically buying a lottery ticket. you don't even have to pay for it. the head of the federal bureau of prisons union for employees with only 50% of those working

in federal prisons vaccinated said they were going to set up a popcorn machine at the prisons and break room in the hopes of getting people vaccinated. trying everything to get people to try the vaccine. we've tried every approach to incentivize them. but the vaccine numbers are not where they need to be. so facing this reality, the president accepted responsibility to try harder. he's directed federal agencies at osha to mandate vaccination for federal employees and certain private workers. these directives were issued by osha and other established legal authorities and listen, they've been welcome by the business roundtable and other employers that are waiting for a signal from the white house that are serious. they are supported by a majority of the american people. i recognize that some of my colleagues disagree with that action and has prompted this bill from my friend and fellow senator from utah. his bill, the don't jab me act,

would create a private right of action for any, quote, aggrieved individual to sue the federal government, quote, for injuries sustained as a result of covid-19 vaccination mandate. i know the senator is careful in his words. i would ask him to look carefully at that word injuries. it is misleading. covid-19 vaccines are safe and effective. they were evaluated in tens of thousands of clinical trials. they meet the f.d.a.'s rigorous scientific standards for safety and effectiveness of quality. they've undergone and will continue to undergo the most extensive, intensive safety monitoring in history. in an extremely rare case that an individual suffers an injury, a harm from covid-19 vaccine, there's a system in place to provide compensation. under the countermeasures injury compensation program, a person can already seek to recover damages for physical injuries suffered because of covid-19

vaccines. the senator from utah's bill appears to go beyond compensating individuals for physical injuries caused by the vaccine. it lets people sue the government for, quote, injuries sustained as a result of a covid-19 vaccine mandate. what kind of injuries might they be? well, we surely don't know. the bill does not define the type of injuries that a person could sue for. the entire bill is two and a half pages of very vague language. what we do know is that the bill if enacted would authorize a flood of lawsuits by individuals claiming that a vaccine mandate injured them in some physical ma,maybe nonphysical way. we don't know. for more than a year my republican colleagues have claimed the pandemic would create a tsunami of covid lawsuits. remember all the times senator mcconnell went to the floor and said hang on tight, the trial lawyers are going to be hell-bent now filing lawsuits

all across america. there will be a tsunami of lawsuits. well, it never happened. despite that fact, the senator from utah is apparently urging a new set of lawsuits to be filed. i'm a former trial lawyer. made a living at it. when people have been harmed, i support their day in court. but liability laws need to be carefully calibrated to promote the right behavior and incentives. this short, vague bill does thought try to strike a balance between health and safety. it's a shot across the bow using endties -- entities -- courts have long rejected challenges to vaccine requirements imposed by public entities. the senator might take a look at his home state. and senator lee's home state of utah, the public actors like salt lake community college, the university of utah, and utah state university are using covid vaccine mandates to promote health and safety. and i want to show the senate

this chart because it tells an amazing story. remember the report by all the attorneys general who were going to file lawsuits in keeping with the senator's message against joe biden for these mandates, for these employees? well, we took a look at their state. 24 states threatened lawsuits against joe biden for the very reasons stated by the senator from utah. how are they doing compared to all the other states, the 26 states that didn't file a lawsuit? well, it turns out the infection rate for covid-19 is more than twice in those states as it is in the states not filing these lawsuits. the death right, the death rate is almost three times the rate of those states that didn't file a lawsuit. and the vaccination rates are significantly lower. so for those who have an idea about guiding a state to the right outcome shouldn't public health and safety be important?

i'm sure we all understand the issue of liberty and how important it is to america, but there was a word before liberty that the founding fathers used. life. life. these vaccine mandates are about saving lives in america and it's for that reason that i object. the presiding officer: the objection is heard. mr. lee: madam president, i appreciate the insight provided by my friend, the distinguished colleague and senior senator from illinois and assistant majority leader. i respectfully submit that this is about allowing people to obtain redress for, among other things, the awful hobson's choice people are facing and increasingly are going to be facing as this mandate kicks in. now, it hasn't issued yet. we still don't know what's in

it. we don't know the precise basis for the authority. we presume he would have told it if in fact it existed. i scoured the united states code looking for authority for the president of the united states to implement this unilaterally and i have found none. so it is very significant, therefore, that when you're going to put this kind of a hobson's choice in front of the people, you ought to be able to at least have the decency to tell them what your source of authority is. hehehehehe hasn't done it. if we assume that he's going to come up with one and that he's going to issue a mandate, that mandate is going to put a whole lot of people in a terrible position, forcing them to choose between getting a vaccine that for whatever reason they don't want and termination between submission and poverty. that's unfavor. now, look, -- unfair. now, look, i get the fact that a lot of us were and are

enthusiastic and grateful for the existence of the vaccine. i've received the vaccine as has every member of my family. i think the vaccine is a good thing. i also understand that there are people who feel differently. in some cases there are people who have been advised by board certified medical doctors not to get the vaccine based on existence of one or more autoimmune diseases, a past personal or family history, and their idiosyncratic reaction to other vaccines or to this vaccine. there are other people who might have religious or other sincerely held personal beliefs that might make this choice a really unfair one for the federal government to force upon them. so, yes, i'm glad we've got the vaccine. i think the vaccine is good. i think the vaccine is helping a lot of people. but to tell every american that he or she must get this under

penalty of losing a job and then for the president after acknowledging that he doesn't have authority to mandate this for every american turns america's employers, all those with more than 99 employees, into the covid-19 vaccine police for the entire country is unjustifiable, even at a policy level before we get to the obvious constitutional defects and the lack of any semblance of any statutory authority. so i'm disappointed that we can't pass this one today. i'll be back again tomorrow. i will continue to come back for weeks to come because the american people deserve better than this. they deserve not to have people in washington, d.c. purporting to make very personal health care decisions for them and conditioning their own private sector employment on compliengs with the dictate of --

compliance with the dictate of one man in washington, d.c. a senator: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from wyoming. mr. barrasso: thank you, madam president. i ask unanimous consent that senator peters and i be allowed to continue to complete our remarks before the roll call vote commences. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. barrasso: thank you, madam president. madam president, the senate is about to vote on the nomination of robert anderson to serve as solicitor of the department of interior. and i'm here to tell you, madam president, that i oppose this nomination. if confirmed, mr. anderson will serve as the department's chief attorney. and also as the principal legal adviser to the secretary of interior secretary holland. he would oversee more than 430 attorneys and a staff within six legal divisions. he would be responsible for ensuring the business conducted at the interior department follows the law and is done transparently. he would be granted tremendous powers to shape how the

department fulfills its mission by issuing final legal interpretations on all matters with jurisdiction of the department. these decisions directly impact homes and businesses in wyoming and throughout the nation. these decisions can make or break our nation's ability to protect our environment, to use and enjoy our natural resources, to create good-paying jobs, and to pay for services such as public education. over the course of his career, mr. anderson has both taught and practiced law prior mayorly focus -- primarily focused on tribal issues. i'm concerned that mr. anderson lacks sufficient legal experience beyond the tribal law to effectively navigate the complex web event of issues governing the multiple use of public lands and federal lands. i'm very concerned about mr. anderson's actions, specifically actions he has

taken as the principal deputy solicitor since january 20 of this year. he has revoked many solicitor's opinions issued under the trump administration. his work has paved the way for the biden administration's punishing policies that are in direct conflict with the department of interior's multiple use mandate. mr. anderson's responses to questioning by senator cassidy during his nomination hearing were particularly concerning to me. senator cassidy asked whether the nominee agreed that the requirement to, quote, many obtain, maintain -- quote, maintain, maintain oil and gas leasing programs meant to lease some more, not just maintain the leases that were already leased but continue leasing. mr. anderson responded that he thought it was an open question. madam president, to suggest that the secretary is no longer required to plan for and hold

new offshore oil and gas leases is simply and unfortunately but truly ignores the law of the land. let me be clear. the secretary of interior is required to comply with the law like everyone else. mr. anderson's willingness to put the biden administration's war on american energy ahead of following established law in my opinion disqualifies him from serving as solicitor. i will vote against mr. anderson's nomination and i will urge other senators to do so. thank you, madam president. i yield the floor. a senator: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from mitch began. mr. peters: madam president, i rise in support of jonathan myers nomination to be general

counsel of the department of homeland security or d.h.s. mr. meyer is an accomplished lawyer and dedicated public servant who is well qualified to serve as the department's chief legal officer. his nomination maintains bipartisan support, including from former d.h.s. counsel generals who served under both democratic and republican administrations. mr. meyers' previous government service spans 17 years and includes senior roles in the department of justice, united states senate, and as the deputy general counsel for d.h.s. during the obama administration. since returning to private practice in 2016, mr. my year's legal -- meyer's legal work has continued to focus on cybersecurity and homeland security. throughout the confirmation process, mr. meyer has demonstrated that he understands

the complex legal issues facing d.h.s. and the importance of ensuring that the department cooperates with congressional oversight. d.h.s. has not had a senate-confirmed general counsel for over two years. d.h.s. needs qualified, senate-confirmed leaders in place to effectively carry out its critical mission of safeguarding our nation. madam president, i urge my colleagues to confirm mr. meyer today. madam president, i yield the floor. the presiding officer: the clerk will report the motion to continue voke cloture. the clerk: cloture motion: we, the undersigned senators, in accordance with the provisions of rule 22 of the standing rules of the senate, do hereby move to bring to a close debate on the nomination of executive calendar number 264, robert t. anderson of washington to be colter of the department of interior, signed by 18 senators. the presiding officer: by unanimous consent, the mandatory

quorum call has been waived. the question is, is it the sense of the senate that debate on the nomination of robert t. anderson of washington to be solicitor of the department of the interior shall be brought to a close? the yeas and nays are manned trid under the rule. the clerk will call the roll. vote:

vote:

vote:

the presiding officer: have all senators voted? does any senator wish to change his or her vote? if not, the yeas are 52, the nays are 46. the motion is agreed to. the clerk will report the motion to invoke cloture. the clerk: cloture motion, we, the undersigned senators, in accordance with the provisions of rule 22, do hereby bring to a close debate on the nomination of executive calendar number 159, jonathan eugene meyer, of ohio, to be general counsel,

department of homeland security, signed by 18 senators. the presiding officer: the yeas and nays are be mandatory -- by unanimous consent, the mandatory quorum call has been waived. the question is, is it the sense of the senate that the debate on the nomination of jonathan eugene meyer, of ohio, to be general counsel, department of homeland security, shall be brought to a close? the yeas and nays are mandatory under the rule. the clerk will call the roll. vote: vote:

vote:

vote:

s vote:

the presiding officer: have all senators voted? do any senators wish to change their votes? if not, the yeas are 52, the nays are 46. the motion is agreed to. a senator: madam president. the presiding officer: the clerk

will report the nomination. the clerk: nomination, department of homeland security, jonathan eugene meyer of ohio to be general counsel. mr. wyden: madam president, i ask unanimous consent that notwithstanding rule 2022, all postcloture time on executive calendar numbers 264 and 169 be considered expired at 4:45 p.m. today, that the vote on confirmation of the anderson nomination occur at 4:45 p.m. today and that the vote on confirmation of the meyer nomination occur at a time to be determined by the majority leader following consultation with the republican leader on thursday, september 30. the presiding officer: is there objection? without objection. mr. wyden: madam president. the presiding officer: the senior senator from oregon. mr. wyden: in a few minutes i'll put forward a unanimous consent

request that the senate take up and approve a highly qualified and unquestionably noncontroversial nominee. i'm going to take just a few minutes to talk about jonathan davidson nominated to be the next deputy for legislative affairs under secretary at the treasury department. just briefly there are a few key points to make about this important nomination. to start, john isn't just a person off the street being nominated for a new job in the biden administration. in fact, my guess is virtually every member of this body, democrats and republicans alike, have worked with john at one point or another, from 2011 until he was nominated this past spring, john served as chief of staff to another finance committee colleague, senator bennet. he's known as somebody who's honest, who's hardworking, committed to bringing people together to tackle big

challenges and been doing it for a long time. before work with senator bennet, john served as chief of staff with senator sarbanes. he sent time in the office of representative john sarbanes and was later chief counsel to our friend and colleague, senator mark warner. you don't have to take it from me that john knows his way around the congress. all of those members trusted john as a right hand man. second issue, i be can't find any controversy with respect to his nomination. he cleared the senate finance committee on a 28-0 vote. let me repeat that. 28-0 vote. in fact the finance committee reported out several nominees this congress without any republican opposition. none at all. normally that would be enough to pave the way for prompt and full senate consideration, but i think we all understand that these are not normal times here

in the united states senate. it used to be the case at the end of july, two sides would come together, look to pass a package of noncontroversial nominees by consent, by unanimous consent. my finance committee team that would be the case this year. unfortunately that did not take place. senate republicans were just in no mood to clear even the most noncontroversial nominees. this is an extraordinary level of obstruction, beyond what you saw when the previous administration was staffing up. for example, let's take the two previous nominees for the same position john's up for. drew maloney was the first trump nominee for legislative affairs. the finance committee held a hearing on this nomination on june 7, 2017. the committee voted on his nomination a week later, favorably reported by a vote of 25-1. a few weeks after that, the full

senate passed his nomination by unanimous consent along with several other nominations for roles in the trump treasury department. that's how the process generally unfolds. two years later, bryan mcgwire was nominated to replace mr. maloney. his hearing was held july 24, 2019. the finance committee approved his nomination a week later. he was confirmed to serve in the trump administration on september 24. in both cases, these two nominees, colleagues, were confirmed two months after their hearings. john davidson has been waiting four months since his hearing on may 25, nearly twice as long as trump nominees waited for the same job. i think we all understand it's essential to have qualified individuals heading up offices of legislative affairs. they help to make sure administrations follow the laws,

the senate passes as intended. they help members write legislation. they make sure that all members get responses to their questions with respect to oversight. setting everything else aside, you would think that the senate republicans would be especially interested now in making sure the senate can perform that essential oversight. i, myself, am looking for some straight answers to a number of oversight requests i have posed to the treasury department and having john installed in his new role at treasury would sure help to move that process along. federal agencies in the congress need these legislative point guards in order for agencies to run as smoothly as possible. this isn't a policy position nor is john davidson a nominee who raises any major concern from anybody. i have yet to hear even anything

resembling a substantive reason from senate republicans for opposing a nominee like john davidson who got a 28-0 vote out of the committee to lead this office. there's no reason for delaying any longer. therefore, i ask unanimous consent that the senate proceed to the following nomination, calendar 168, jonathan davidson to be under secretary of the treasury, that the nomination be confirmed, the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate, that no further motions be in order in the nomination and that the president be immediately notified of the senate's action. the presiding officer: is there objection? a senator: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from texas. mr. cruz: reserving the right to object. mr. president, this continues a discussion we've been having for days and indeed weeks and indeed

months. joe biden is being flagrantly lawless in that he is refusing to impose mandatory congressional sanctions passed by congress in the countering america's adversaries through sanctions act, also known as caatsa. caatsa was designed for precisely the purpose of taking away the president's discretion to impose sanctions on russia in cases where congress deemed it necessary to mandate them. caatsa passed congress overwhelmingly. the vote was 98-2. indeed, in september 2020, my colleague, senator wyden, wrote a letter that was joined by ten other democrats about russian maligned activities. senator wyden's letter stated that, quote, congress has mandated a broad range of

sanctions tools and it is long past time for the administration to send a direct message to president putin. the letter continued specifically citing the sanctions mandated provided for in caatsa. president biden is legally obligated to sanction nord stream 2 a.g., the company responsible for the planning, construction and operation of nord stream 2 pipeline. nord stream 2 a.g. has committed acts that required the conditions under caatsa section 228. it mandates sanctions on any company that kucts any, quote -- conducts, any transactions, including for russian companies that are already sanctioned. in may, the biden state department sent congress a certification confirming that

nord stream 2 a.g. had engaged in those sanctions. it is clear that nord stream 2 a.g. falls under the mandatory sanctions of caatsa. nobody, not even in the biden administration denies that the biden state department sent that certification confirming those actions. nevertheless, president biden, and in particular the department of treasury, is refusing to implement the law. i've spoken directly with secretary yellen. i've spoken directly with the deputy secretary of treasury. the law is clear and unequivocal and because of the political agenda of the biden white house, because of president biden's desire to surrender to vladimir putin and give him a multibillion-dollar pipeline, weakening america, weakening europe and giving vast resources to europe to hold them to

blackmail, treasury is refusing to follow the law. nevertheless, i have been willing to offer a compromise. i've placed holds on nominees to the state department and some of the nominees to the treasury department and i offered a compromise, to lift the holds on this nominee and other nominees to the treasury department and also to lift the holds on career nominees to state if either the biden administration follows the law in caatsa and imposed sanctions, that's option a, that would be the best option, or if option b, if they decide for whatever political reason they believe surrendering to putin is a good idea, notwithstanding america's national security interest, there's a second option i offered to lift the holds. which is they could impose the sanctions under caatsa and need r- immediately -- and immediately delist nord stream 2 a.g., that would trigger an automatic vote here in this congress to override that decision. i made that offer along with

senator toomey months ago, it's a reasonable compromise yet the biden administration won't take it. they won't take it because they are terrified if and when congress votes on that override, that an overwhelming bipartisan majority in the senate and the house will vote to override joe biden's indefensible decision to surrender to vladimir putin. nonetheless, in the spirit of reasonableness, i'm happy to offer the senator from oregon the same deal, or a similar deal at least, right here and right now. there's a bill that i filed that imposes caatsa imposed sanctions on nord stream 2 a.g. every democrat in this chamber has supported sanctions on nord stream 2. in a moment i'm going to ask for unanimous consent to pass the legislation simply mandating that the biden administration, that the treasury department, and this is a treasury nominee that we are discussing, follow the law.

if the senator from oregon will agree to my unanimous consent request, and that bill passes the senate, i will not object to this nominee if the senator from oregon is willing to accept that because that will move the process along. the objective is to stop this pipeline that strengthen putin, weakens europe and weakens america, and, indeed, if we pass the legislation mandating the caatsa sanctions, i won't object to this nominee. when that legislation passes the house, i'll lift my hold on another treasury nominee and when the president does the right thing and signs it into law, i will lift my holds on all the treasury nominees. so it is a reasonable, incremental step forward that gives the senator from oregon the chance to demonstrate that when democrats give speeches about how nord stream 2 is bad for america, bad for europe, bad for the environment but good for

russia and putin, we can now discover whether or not democrats actually believe what they have said in speeches so many times. therefore, i ask that the senator modify his request so that in addition to confirming the nomination and as if in legislative session, that the senate proceed to the immediate consideration of s. 2894, which is at the desk, 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: does the senator so modify his request? mr. wyden: reserving the right to object, mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from oregon. mr. wyden: thank you, mr. president. let's understand exactly what's at issue here. jonathan davidson has been nominated to be the deputy under secretary for legislative

affairs. in that particular role, he would not be directly involved in decisions over sanctions, number one. number two, when it comes to nord stream 2, the biden administration, to their credit, has recognized the threat from russia but also that the pipeline is nearly complete and the trump administration failed to stop the construction. everything my colleague from texas is raising his concerns about nord stream 2 is already happening with another pipeline turk stream 2, and my colleague is aware of this. he's been briefed repeatedly. now, for those who don't have access to the same kind of information that my colleague has, gas is already being diverted from ukraine into

europe through turk stream 2 because the past administration did nothing about that pipeline either. the biden administration is actually -- has actually put a plan forward to mitigate the effects of nord stream 2 and has received concrete agreements from the germans to move ukraine toward energy independence and address russian threats. and i'm just going to close with just another dose of good government. the 9/11 commission specifically warned about the need to have senior confirmed individuals in place to avoid a threat to the homeland. and by the way, we did that during the trump administration. we have far less people confirmed today than we did in 2001 before 9/11. in my view this has got to end. for these reasons, i object to

the u.c. the presiding officer: objection to the modification is heard. is there objection to the original request? mr. cruz: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from texas. mr. cruz: reserving the right to object. i recognize that my friend from oregon has been busy with affairs on the finance committee and so has not been involved in the now two years of debate of nord stream 2 on the senate foreign real estates committee. but unfortunately that has resulted in the senator from oregon being given talking points, perhaps from the administration or perhaps from colleagues, that are factually incorrect. i'm sure that is inadvertent. the senator from oregon just said that there is no way to stop this pipeline and that the trump administration failed to impose sanctions to stop the pipeline. both of those statements are factually wrong. i was the author of two separate

pieces of legislation that passed into law concerning nord stream 2. both were bipartisan legislation. both i authored with senator jeanne shaheen, a democrat in the senate, both passed with overwhelming bipartisan support from both houses of congress. the first bill passed in 2019. nord stream 2 at the time was more than 90% complete. the argument then that was being pushed by russian disinformation and that sadly has been echoed by the biden administration and was just echoed by the senator from oregon, the argument from russian disinformation was the pipeline can't be stopped. it's too late. we know that was russian disinformation because it was conclusively disproven. putin stopped building the nord stream 2 pipeline. the very day that the

cruz-shaheen bipartisan sanctions were signed into law. not the next day, not the next week. that day we stopped the pipeline in its tracks. but, mr. president, it was not only stopped for one day. it was stopped for more than a year. for december of 19, for january, february, march, every month in 2020, the pipeline lay dormant. it was a piece of metal at the bottom of the ocean. so the claim that we cannot stop this pipeline is flat out false because we did. and by the way, when the senator from oregon said the trump administration couldn't stop this pipeline, that again is just incorrect. when the president signed the legislation, the pipeline was stopped that day. it remained stopped for over a year. and when did putin return to building this pipeline? the date is important. putin returned to building the nord stream 2 pipeline on january 24, 2021.

four days after joe biden was sworn into office. and he did so because joe biden and his team had already conveyed weakness that they would not enforce u.s. sanctions law, and that they would roll over and give putin and russia a generational geo political gift. the only reason putin began building again is because the biden white house defied u.s. law to surrender to putin. now, joe biden is entitled to believe that's a good policy idea. what he's not entitled to do is ignore u.s. law. the senator from oregon suggested this nominee has nothing to do with that. well, it is the department of treasury that is ignoring the caatsa law, that is refusing to follow the policy. and sadly, this moment marks a new threshold in that debate. up until this point, it has only been the biden-white house that

has been surrendering to russia. sadly now we have a democratic member of the senate objecting to legislation to stop the biden white house from surrendering to russia. that is a move in the wrong direction. that being said, my offer of reasonable compromise remains. if we can come together as we have repeatedly, republicans and democrats to force the president to obey the law and to stop surrendering to russia in a way that hurts america, hurts europe, and by the way, the european parliament, my friends on the democratic side of the aisle like to consider themselves lovers of our friends in europe. the european parliament voted on nord stream 2. the vote was roughly 500 to 50 against nord stream 2 because it makes our european allies subject to energy blackmail by putin and his successor

dictators. this is bad for america, bad for europe, bad for peace, bad for the environment, but good for vladimir putin and for russia. joe biden is mistaken to be committing this surrender and my friend from oregon ears in joining joe biden in that surrender to russia. i hope the senator reconsiders. i hope congress comes together again, but as long as that does not happen, i object. the presiding officer: the objection was heard. mr. wyden: mr. president, i'm going to be very brief and then make a unanimous consent request. again we have al difference of opinion -- we have a difference of opinion with respect to the facts. that's what the senate is all about, is real debates. in a moment i'm going to ask unanimous consent to put into the record at this point an article just a few days ago from "the wall street journal" that makes the truth about the nord stream 2 a.g. very clear.

in effect, in "the wall street journal" article that we're going to put into the record, the pipeline owner said last week that construction on the pipeline has been completed. there is no reason to object to this very talented individual john davidson to head this important post after he got a 28-0 vote in the senate finance committee. and i think this article in "the wall street journal" that i've just asked go into the record at this point in the debate so we can make sure the facts are correct, supports our basic proposition on this side of the aisle. mr. president, i yield the floor. mr. cruz: mr. president? the presiding officer: without objection, the material will be included in the record. mr. cruz: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from texas.

mr. cruz: i don't have objection to the article being included in the record, but i would note that once again the senator from oregon is limited by the fact that he has not participated in the debate on this in the senate foreign relations committee for the last two years. because what he stated in his first remarks was there was no way to stop the pipeline initially in the -- and the trump administration failed to do so. that was factually incorrect. we stopped the pipeline the day president trump signed the bipartisan cruz-shaheen sanctions into law. that was december of 2019 and the pipeline was stopped for over a year. as i mentioned, on january 24 of 2020, four days after joe biden was sworn into office, putin began return to building the pipeline because biden had already telegraphed his surrender to russia. now, while my friend from oregon just said is he repeated news coverage that the pipeline is

now today complete. and that is in fact correct, that because biden surrendered on this point, putin went all in and finished the pipeline. but this is where being part of the foreign relations committee discussion matters because even though the pipeline is now physically complete does not mean it's operative. after the pipeline is physically complete, there are months of certifications required and multiple authorities, and the legislation that congress passed as a bipartisan matter also imposes sanctions on any entity, any company that certifies the pipeline and indeed the position of the biden state department has been that even when the pipeline is complete, we can stop it ever from going online by stopping certification. and so the legislation that i just asked for consent would do exactly that. it would stop certification and it would leave it as a hunk of metal rather than an operating pipeline enriching putin at the expense of europe and america. so we still have time to stop

this. one final observation. this morning i spent a couple of hours in a classified briefing on this topic on nord stream 2. and a question that i posed to the biden state department, i said what exactly did joe biden, did the administration get in exchange for surrendering to russia in a way that will impact this country and europe for decades to come? and the answer i will say was altogether unsatisfactory. the only thing the biden white house got was goodwill from angela merkel whose party was just defeated resoundingly this past weekend in the election. so angela merkel is on her way out. we got goodwill from someone who will very soon no longer be the leader of germany. instead the german people voted in, elevated the greens who were vocally opposed to the nord stream 2 pipeline. so the new government in germany

is not going to appreciate biden's surrendering to putin in a way that hurts the environment and hurts germany. but we've alienated the ukrainians. we've alienated the polls. we've alienated eastern europe. the european union voted 550 roughly against nord stream 2. we got nothing and hurt u.s. jobs. this is foolhardy and i'm hopeful the senate will exercise our historical role over foreign policy and prevent a president and administration from making this mistake. i would note secretary of state blinken and the state department argued vociferously in the interagency process to sanction nord stream 2 a.g. and it was the political operatives at the biden white house who overrode the state department. they should not have done so and today the treasury department should follow the law and impose sanctions under caatsa or delist

them and trigger a vote in this congress. i yield the floor. mr. scott: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from florida. mr. scott: mr. president, the past 18 months have been trying for our nation. thankfully the vaccine has brought normalcy back to life for many americans. in record time thanks to the hard work of the trump administration and scientists across our country, we developed a safe and effective vaccine to protect americans against covid-19. these vaccines show us what can happen through cooperation, ingenuity, and hard work. and i'm grateful for all those who helped us get here. i got the vaccine and would encourage everyone to talk to their doctor and consider doing the same. that's what we all should do. give americans all the information and data so they have everything they need to make a good decision for their family. that's exactly what i did when i was governor of florida in the face of life threatening

hurricanes, i made sure florida families were well informed. i went out and made sure everyone knew what exactly to expect and how dangerous the storm could be. but i didn't issue mandates because that's not what government should do. when i was governor of florida, we had the zika health care 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 transparent as possible and offered free zika testing to all pregnant women in florida. unfortunately the biden administration has gone in the complete opposite direction. the white house has tried to use the new osha guidance to create fear, push another round of trillions of dollars in reckless, wasteful spending, lock down our nation, close our schools and kill the economy that so many americans have worked so hard to preserve and protect. americans are sick and tired of the government telling them what

to do. and the american people are more than capable of making the right choices to protect themselves, their families, and their neighbors. as families and businesses in florida and across the u.s. continue to work hard to recover from covid-19's devastation, travel is critical to getting our economy fully reopened. america's truckers, shippers, pilots, and delivery men and women play an important role in delivering the goods needed to keep our economy going. everything from gas and groceries to packages from small businesses and department stores. they help keep this country running. they also haven't had the luxury of working from home. for 18 months they have shown up to work. they figure out how to be safe without the feds telling them what for do. but the job-killing biden white house is now considering requiring those engaged in interstate commerce or interstate travel be vaccinated and provide proof of vaccination and a vaccine passport.

mr. president, the federal government has no business imposing vaccine mandates on the american people and our hardworking businesses. this proposal wreak, of a power grab and is another attempt by the biden white house to control americans. the biden administration wants to control americans through fear and mandates so the federal government is touching every single part of your life. i won't stand for it. americans won't stand for it. they know that such an order is an overreach of power. americans should be free to make choices they feel are in the best interest of their own health and health of their loved ones. and the federal government has no business requiring travelers to turn over their personal medical information in order to make a delivery or to catch a flight. i believe florp riddians and americans -- floridians and americans across this country know what decisions are best for them. they don't need the biden administration controlling their lives. the supreme court has already ruled that the federal

government can't force people to purchase health insurance under the commerce clause. why would president biden think he could do so with a vaccine mandate? in december president biden promised, promised he would not require americans to be vaccinated or require that they carry vaccine passports. a promise by president biden. the new osha order breaks that promise. it has been one lie after another with this president. today i'm introducing legislation which would prevent unconstitutional vaccine mandates for interstate commerce. i'm thankful for senators johnson, lummis, marshall and lee for cosponsoring this legislation. and for congressman dan crenshaw who's introducing the companion bill in the house of representatives. we are working to make sure that families across our country can travel freely and businesses can conduct interstate commerce without the ridiculous government bureaucracy created by a vac -- by vaccine passports. this bill would prohibit the

department of transportation, the department of commerce, and other federal agencies from requiring proof of vaccination or the use of a vaccine passport to engage in interstate commerce or travel. it protects people like my dad who used to drive a truck and would carry goods across state lines. it protects the rights of american citizens as laid out in our constitution. president biden is trying to upend our way of life and impose his view on the health of every american and i'm here to say i won't stand for it. i'd like to yield to my friends, senator johnson and senator lee, as they'll talk about this same bill. the presiding officer: the senator from wisconsin. mr. johnson: i rise in support of senator scott's bill and want to make a few points.

i don't believe president biden and the people are thinking this through about how devastating this will be on our economy. well before the president even announced his unlawful regulatory initiative, i was hearing from truck drivers, i was hearing from nurses and doctors who have already had covid, who have natural immunity, who are looking at, for example, the reports, or looking at some of the data and science saying natural immunity is 13 to 27 times more effective than the vaccine, and they had chosen not to get it. senator scott indicated president biden promised the american public he wouldn't mandate this. he said, quote, i don't think it should be mandatory. i wouldn't demand it be mandatory. his press secretary jenn psaki said it is not the federal government's role. i agree. the president also said this is

not about freedom or personal choice. no, mr. president, this is exactly about freedom and personal choice. i have written so many oversight letters to the health care agencies. i completely agree with senator scott. i was a big supporter of operation warp speed. i've gotten every vaccine until this one because i've had covid. but the federal agencies have not been transparent. they have not given the american public information that we need to make that informed choice. we need to recognize people's health autonomy. this is their body. they should be able to make these choices. but i want to talk a little bit about some of the information we're not getting from our health care industries -- our health care agencies that people who are choosing not to get vaccinated are looking at. and it's not disinformation.

this is real information. it's just being withheld from the public by our health care agencies, by the media, and the social media. the first thing i want to show is a chart i put together. this is real data. this comes from the c.d.c. in terms of the number of new cases per day as well as the number of deaths per day. the deaths are down here in a very thin red line. but you can see by this chart that in terms of the surge of the initial alpha variant of covid pretty well peaked late december-early january. the vaccines got emergency use authorization about mid-december. the orange line shows the percent of americans vaccinated, fully vaccinated. and you can see the initial surge, the initial pandemic was winding down before the vaccines even could take effect. now again, we all hoped and

prayed that the vaccine would be 100% effective and 100% safe, but when you look at this chart as the pandemic is winding down, the percent of fully vaccinated individuals going up, you would think -- again, you would think what you'd see is just a complete winding down of the pandemic, but that's not what we've seen. we've seen this new surge, this new surge of a variant called delta. so what are we to make of this? again, i'm not a doctor, i'm not a medical researcher, but i look at this and i'm going, well, it certainly doesn't look like the vaccine has been particularly effective against the delta variant. let's look at some data. the type of data that we're not getting from our health care agencies, so we have to look unfortunately to england and to israel, that are more transparent. i don't expect anybody to be able to read the figures here.

i'll give you the highlights. i'm showing this is from public health england. this is one of their federal health care agencies. this is from their briefing number 23 dated september 17, 2021. it covers cases for about seven and a half months, from the beginning of february to february 12. what the data shows is that during that seven and a half month period in england, there were about 750,000 new covid cases, a little under 600,000 of those were the delta variant, about 80%. the number of deaths associated with those 600,000 delta cases was 2,542, which gives us a case fatality ratio of about .4. again, case fatality is higher than infection fatality because these are all kinds of cases

that never get registered. to put this in context, infection fatality rate for a bad flu season is slightly under .2, half of this. again, just to put things in perspective. president biden -- and this has been parroted by media, news media, said what we're cernlt cernlt -- currently experiencing is a pandemic of the unvaccinated. they don't give us really any data to back that up. they just proclaim, pronounce that 99% of the people with covid now are unvaccinated, but they don't give us the data. but we have data from england, and here's the data. so of the 600,000 cases in england, 43% were with the unvaccinated. 20% were with the fully vaxxed. i think what's interesting, because here's another quote from president biden. president biden said if you're

vaccinated, you're not going to be hospitalized. you're not going to an i.c.u. unit, you're not getting die. you're not getting get covid if you have these vaccinations. maybe that's true in the u.s. i kind of doubt it, because in england of the 600,000 new cases of delta, of the over 2,500 deaths, 63% of those deaths, 1,613 people were fully vaccinated. 28% were with the unvaxxed. this is information the american people probably never heard. it's information by conveying it, i will get attacked, i will be vilified, i will be censored, i will be suppressed. it's one of the reasons i've document floor of the senate to reveal this information that the american people need to know. let me close with something else

that certainly nurses know, nurses who were our heroes. they had the courage and compassion to treat covid patients. many got infected, some tragically died. most survived. now many of those nurses are treating the vaccine injured. let me just quick quote a couple of figures from the c.d.c.'s own safety early surveillance system, the vaccine adversary reporting system. worldwide from a couple of weeks ago -- these numbers are pretty fresh -- there have been over 15,000 deaths reported on va yers. over 5,000 of those deaths occurred on day zero, one or two following vaccination. it doesn't prove causation, but if i were working at the c.d.c., i'd be looking at that

closely and analyzing those cases. the final number, total adverse events on the system in tenl months, over 725,000 adverse events. again, i was hoping and praying this vaccine was 100% effective, 100% safe, but that does not appear to be the case. and i believe this administration, i believe our health care agencies need to be honest and transparent with the public. they have not been. the american people have the right to choose. it should not be mandated. we should respect their personal choice. we should respect their freedom. and i'll just close on, i will be bringing more information as we discuss other ways to push back on these mandates over the next few days, so stay tuned. i yield the floor.

a senator: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from utah. mr. lee: during this pandemic, the people of the united states have seen the federal government intrude into their lives more frequently and more completely than ever before. president biden didn't make any pretense about this. he didn't mince any words, he didn't sugar coat it. he didn't even try to hide behind any veneer when he spoke to the american people. he said, quote, our patience is wearing thin, close quote. this five word expose of the president's thinking is deeply troubling. it's not the kind of sentiment you ever want expressed within a free republic, not from the chief executive. to say our patience is wearing thin, that might be something that you say of a foreign

adversary, it might be something you say of a subordinate within government, something who reports up to the president. it's not something you say of the people, the people who within our system who collectively are the sovereign. it is only by them that the government has legitimacy. and to denigrate the american people that way is not consistent with who we are. it's not consistent with our form of government. so i find that five-word admission of how he views the american people worrying in its own right. but i find it nothing short of horrifying that he, as if acting as some sort of omnipresent nanny state disciplinarian executive, he's now set to plunge even more deeply into the everyday lives of the american people. we're here today to remove one of the options from the

unconstitutional buffet of strong-arm executive tactics used by president biden in connection with covid-19. requiring proof of vaccination for interstate travel would create millions of second-class americans, and it would make all americans subject to a form of government and a type of power to which we are not accustomed, and that's really ill suited for our constitutional structure. the constitution itself protects americans from this type of action. the privileges and immunities clause of the 14th amendment grants americans the right to freely travel between the states. there's no precedent for the federal government requiring anything like vaccinations before traveling domesticically. there's no president because there's no legitimate federal power in this area to begin with.

it's important to remember that the federal government doesn't have what we call general police powers. these are the basic powers of government that are there to protect life, liberty, and property, and to focus on things like health, safety, and welfare. you see, state governments retain this general police power. remember that james madison in federalist 45 described the powers given to congress as few and defined, and those reserved to the states as numerous and indefinite. the founding fathers understood what general police powers were. they deliberately, consciously, intentionally, and with very good reason did not give those powers to the federal government. so as a result, the federal government doesn't possess under the constitution the ability to pass laws or regulations of this

sort. now, in our system of government, our national government, this federal government has to pass only those laws that are within these powers that are few and defined, those enumerated in the constitution. the president of the united states, under our constitution, does not moreover have any kind of unilateral law-making authority whatsoever. this power is not federal in the first place. even if it were a proper federal power -- which it is not -- it's a legislative power that he's trying to wield here. only we can give him that. only we could enact legislation, article 1, section 7, makes very clear, if you're going to change the legal status quo, if you're going to establish policy at the federal level that will carry the force of generally applicable federal law, you've got to be being the aing within one of congress' enumerated powers. but more importantly here under

article 1, section 7, you've got to have passage in the house, you've got to have passage in the senate of the same legislative vehicle followed by presentment to the president of the united states. that formula has not been followed here. we have no federal law as a result of that. now, we thankfully got rid of a kick -- we never longed for the union jack. we shouldn't be anxious to convert the presidency into a type of monarchy even if it's a mini monarchy. beyond the constitutional problems, requiring vaccines passports for domestic travel in the united states would place a huge burden on not only the american people but also on airlines and on other businesses that are already hard hit by the pandemic. multiple major airlines have already expressed their concerns

with a -- vaccine passport mandate. look, the last thing the american people need is more mandates and restrictions, preventing them from making their own reasonable decisions. americans deserve to be able to make a living and to be able to engage in interstate commerce and to travel interstate without mandates making them choose between providing for their families and undergoing a medical procedure against their will. mr. president, i ask unanimous consent for permission to complete my remarks. the presiding officer: is there objection? without objection. mr. lee: that is why i'm fighting president biden's existing mandate and fighting existing intrusions. the bill offered by my friend and colleague, the senator from

florida, to insure that there would not be vaccine requirements for interstate travel. i'm here to stand for this bill and to defend americans and their constitutional rights. i hope we can protect millions of our fellow american citizens and their way of life by passing this bill. a senator: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from florida. mr. scott: i ask that i and senator cantwell and senator cortez masto be allowed to finish our remarks before the vote. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. scott: under no circumstances should the federal government require vaccines. small business owners who are trying to are restart their businesses, families trying to take vacations and truckers getting back to work shouldn't have to choose between living their lives and meeting president biden's demands. as if in legislative session, i ask unanimous consent that the senate proceed to the immediate

consideration of senate 2895, introduced earlier today. i ask unanimous consent that the bill be considered read a third time and passed, the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table. the presiding officer: is there objection? ms. cantwell: reserving the right to object. the presiding officer: the senator from washington. ms. cantwell: mr. president, senator scott's bill would prohibit amtrak or other agencies from requiring passengers and others to show proof of covid vaccine in order to travel. i appreciate my colleagues on the commerce committee. i know they know well. we've had a lot of discussions about the impact of covid-19 on our transportation sector. they know very well we've had to spend a lot of resources to keep the transportation sector moving. why? because we have to move goods and services and products and during covid-19 we had to move

essential workers and product. there's no doubt that our transportation system needs to have keen oversight as it relates to moving in even a pandemic. and so that's what we did so i'm proud of the work this we did but it's not lost on anybody that covid-19, the deadliest pandemic in u.s. history, as of september 28, there have already been 700,000 covid-19 related deaths in the united states an over 43 million infections. in my state, 570,000 deaths and 652,000 cases. so the point here is we've been fighting this pandemic with all of these tools and no one has ever suggested the one that senator scott or my colleagues from the commerce committee saying that the president might do. that's not what he is -- he has suggested. in fact, i was very involved in an area of transportation where we wanted to get cruise ships

back in service to alaska, at a critical both for alaska and a critical moment during the pandemic. not everybody was ready to have that happen. not everybody was ready to move, and yet it meant so much to alaska that we all worked together and in some instances, those cruise ships said we're going to require the vaccine. the point is here we're not trying to mandate this. if the president and the industry feels that it is important to have a workforce so that that workforce continues to serve us and can serve the growing response to the pandemic, which i mean responding to the aftermath of the pandemic, that's why we spent money, that's why we're trying to take off, that's why we're trying to return a workforce, that's why we're returning kids to school and getting our hospitals staffed, that's only thing the president has said. those people should get a vaccine. he's not said if you want to get on a vaccine, you should get

vaccinated. if you want to fly overseas and go to another country, my colleague from florida, know too well, we want to get temperature checks in a broadway established at airports, we agreed that's a smart thing to do, it's been done on the international places and it prevents people from getting on a plane and getting sick. but the president has not said this and now to put a bill through that might have prohibited the cruise ship industry from re-establishing services up through alaska, is not the way i want to go. i like what we've achieved. it takes hard work, it does not take passing this bill by senator scott. i object and i hope my colleagues understand that we're willing to work on anything related to the transportation sector so it can keep our u.s. economy moving. the presiding officer: objection is heard. the senator from --

mr. scott: first off -- mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from florida. mr. scott: first off, i'm disappointed my colleague objected. i think, number one, this is unconstitutional. first president biden promised wouldn't do this. this is unconstitutional. if you talk to businesses around the country, they are struggling to get people back to work, you know, because of excess funding that's been provided and now what we're going to do is tell a bunch of people that you don't -- you can't come back to work because you haven't been vaccinated. we're going to tell people that you can't get on an airplane because you haven't been vaccinated. this is wrong. this is not what the government should dot. you do give people information and feel comfortable the american people will make the right decision. i i think this is a mistake and i hope my colleague will change their mind and i hope this president will not require

americans to get vaccinations. i think it is wrong and unconstitutional. i yield the floor. a senator: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from covid-19. ms. cortez masto: mr. president, today i want to recognize a friend of mine, susan miski, who is the director of the nevada coalition to end sexual violence. she has worked on behalf of women and children in the state of nevada. sue has been a champion for the victims of domestic violence and their families, since she started aiding women in reno, nevada, it was there that she listened to stories of women dealing with family violence, that she began to hear about their struggles. she went on to work for 32 years with the coalition helping it to develop into a powerful organization statewide for those

affected by domestic violence. i have worked with sue since i was nevada's attorney general, we passed legislation to create funding for domestic violence programs. she has continued to be a resource for me during my time in the u.s. senate as i worked to prevent sex trafficking to stem the tide of violence against native women and push for reauthorization of the violence against women act. during the height of the covid-19 pandemic, i pushed to make sure that our next covid package included more support for survivors of domestic violence. sue worked to distribute those federal funds fairly and effectively to nevadans and she worked especially hard to promote a microloan program that families could use to regain financial independence. as sue enters her retirement, i want to make sure everyone in nevada appreciates her decades

of advocacy. she has made a profound difference for families in the silver state and i have no doubt that whoever succeeds sue at the coalition will continue to work tirelessly to end domestic and sexual violence. because, honestly, we still have so much work to do. and that's why i'm here on the senate floor today. the reality is that women's rights are under attack around the country and that includes reproductive rights. anti-abortion extremists are going to great lengths to stop women from seeking reproductive care. as of june, they had proposed 500 new laws restricting reproductive rights and passed 70 of these laws. let's start with texas where a new law prohibits abortions before many people even though they are pregnant. the law let's anyone sue them

that aids and abets abortion and get a $10,000 reward. it has the potential to create a whole industry of vigilantes prying into women's life all to stop women from accessing reproductive health care. 70% oppose deputizing private citizens to collect these kinds of bounties. even though the texas law is extreme, the supreme court has refused to stop it from going into effect. that means that right now several million women of reproductive age in texas have been deprived of a key constitutional right, a right that they have had for 50 years. clinics in oklahoma city, oklahoma, little rock, arkansas has seen the number of texas women seeking abortions jump

tenfold in a number of days. it is not just texas where the right to medical care is threatened. dangerous abortion bans have been signed into law in mississippi, arizona, and georgia, among others. and all of this is happening because anti-abortion extremists have been working for decades to limit women's choices. let's be very clear. they are on the brink of success. on december 1, the supreme court is set to hear oral arguments in a case called dobbs versus jackson women's health which deals with an abortion ban in mississippi. this case was chosen by anti-abortion activists to help strike down roe v. wade and sadly the court has given every signal that it is willing to do those activist bidding by overturning roe v. wade and allowing these bans to take

effect. that's why i and 47 of my senate colleagues filed a friend of the court brief last week calling on the supreme court to stick to the subtle precedent of roe and strike down the mississippi law. but if the supreme court doesn't abide by 50 years of its own rulings, well, there are 19 states where abortion would be illegal the day after supreme court ruling overturning roe v. wade and others where abortion bans would likely follow. all in all, nearly half of women nationwide will see the nearest clinic closed. the average distance to the nearest clinic for those seeking reproductive care will jump from 25 miles to 279 miles. anyone who has worked a minimum wage job those that they don't have the luxury of traveling hundreds of miles for health care.

women's health care isn't optional. nevadans know this. that's why we work so hard in nevada to protect the right to choose. in the 1990's, we passed a ballot initiative to enshrine choice into law and we've actually done away with the kind of restrictions on abortions that are popping up in state after state. but we are seeing in texas and other states across the country threatens the future of roe v. wade everywhere. let me be clear, it threatens the future of roe v. wade everywhere. and without roe, there will be no federal protections in place, paving the way for antichoice lawmakers to pass legislation to restrict reproductive rights anywhere in the country and that's why it is so important for the senate to pass the women's health care protection act. this bill would outlaw bans in other medically unnecessary restrictions on abortion across the country.

it would mean that states could not impose medically unnecessary ultra sounds, excessive waiting periods and extreme burdens on health care providers intended to limit abortion access. in nevada and across the country, the vast majority of voters believe that women should get to make their own decisions about their reproductive health, including when and whether to have a child. now, we cannot let a dedicated minority take that right away from the rest of us. let me just say i am going to keep working on this issue because it is so important to nevadans and to women all over this country. this is about making sure that women can control their own bodies and their futures. and i will always stand up for that. thank you, madam president. i yield the floor.

the presiding officer: under the previous order, all postcloture time has expired on the anderson nomination. the question is on the nomination. call for the yeas and nays. is there sufficient second? there appears to be sufficient second. the clerk will call the roll. vote:

vote:

vote: