The publication is reproduced in full below:
Tribute to Emily Spain
Mr. CARPER. Mr. President, I have already telegraphed my pitch here, but I rise today to thank from the bottom of my heart the woman who has spent nearly two decades serving in this institution, and luckily for me, nearly 13 of those years have been spent as a member of my team.
Emily Spain has written many speeches like the one I am about to give, Mr. President, but today I have the privilege of giving a very special speech thanking Emily for her great service.
Emily may have been born and raised in California, but she has become an honorary Delawarean, and we are so proud to have had the blessing of her service and her friendship.
Anybody would be hard-pressed to find others who have been able to do all the things that Emily has done. She has helped to win campaigns, including a number of mine.
She has worked in the House of Representatives for her hometown Congresswoman, Lois Capps, whom the Presiding Officer served with, I believe, in the House.
She has helped to pass historic legislation that improved the lives of millions of Americans, like the Affordable Care Act. When people ask me what I am proudest of that I have worked on in the U.S. Senate, I always say the extension of healthcare to millions of people who otherwise wouldn't have it, through the Affordable Care Act. Without Emily's support, I am not sure that it would have become law.
She has served not only as our communications director but also as our legislative director and as our chief of staff. For folks who are not familiar with Washington, DC, that may not sound like maybe a lot, but in this game, in this business, it is a hat trick. It is a hat trick. You don't often find someone as talented or, frankly, as tireless as Emily Spain.
Many of my colleagues know this about me, but I like to start my days off by going for a run or going to the YMCA in Wilmington for a workout, and then I head to the train station, the Biden Station, and jump on a train and come down here and come to work with all our colleagues. I am used to having a pretty full day of meetings and committee hearings and votes and events. And then almost every night, I go back to Union Station and climb on a train and take the train in the opposite way, back to Biden Station in Wilmington. It is a full day every day. I enjoy it because I like to be busy, and I like to get things done.
Well, let me just say, in terms of getting things done, I have met my match--fortunately, I met her about 15 years ago--because the person who always, without fail, demonstrates more energy in her small finger than I do in my whole body is Emily Spain. It is incredible. It is incredible. Her tenacity, her strength, her conviction--this woman is literally tireless and somehow manages to get it all done and more.
She has an incredibly demanding job managing a staff of nearly 50 people between our DC offices and my three offices back in the State of Delaware.
Dealing with the latest in Congress often requires, as the Presiding Officer knows, one's attention 24/7 and especially of late. On top of all that, she is raising a young family and managing to give back to her community in ways big and small. Ask anyone who knows Emily--her energy is boundless, and you will never hear her complain--never hear her complain. She dives in headfirst to whatever task is before her, and she just gets things done.
I know the Presiding Officer feels this way, but I love to be surrounded by people who are good at getting things done. I always like to be surrounded by people who are smarter than me. That is not a high bar for me, but for others, it probably is. But she is smart as a whip--smart as a whip.
I also consider myself a glass-half-full kind of person. My wife likes to say I am an eternal optimist, and Emily and I share that trait too. I think it is easy for people to come to Washington and, maybe after a couple years here, become cynical, maybe even jaded. That has never happened with her, even after all these years--not Emily. She always sees the best in other people. She always sees the potential for what could be in a person or in a piece of legislation, and if a bill can be made better, Emily will give it all that she has to make it happen.
If an intern in our office wants advice on how to succeed on Capitol Hill, Emily will take an hour out of her incredibly busy day to help that intern. If partisan politics are getting in the way of getting things done, Emily is not afraid to cross the aisle, make a connection, and get something over the finish line.
There is a reason that, when I walk around the Capitol with Emily, she is the one people recognize and say hello to, and that is because, from staff to Senators alike, Emily has an incredible ability to connect with people from all walks of life. No matter how busy she may be, she always takes the time to really listen to others. She is a really good listener. My father used to say: God gives us one mouth and two ears; we should use them in that relation. And she is a great listener.
Many people in this town will offer to help, but far fewer actually mean it. People say: If I can ever be of help, let me know. When Emily says that, you know she means it. She always follows through. No matter how much success she had throughout her career, no task was ever too small for her to take on. She is a team player in the best sense of the word, through and through. She is always willing to jump in and lend a hand to whoever might need it, whether that means negotiating an infrastructure deal or helping to put binders together.
The late Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg said:
You can disagree without being disagreeable.
Emily is proof of that, living proof of that.
She believes fiercely that climate change is the greatest challenge of our lifetime; that every American deserves quality, affordable healthcare; and that every child, no matter what their ZIP Code may be, should have clean air to breathe and clean water to drink. She has spent her time in Congress fighting--fighting to advance those policies without fighting with others.
She has a great deal of reverence for this institution and for her colleagues, no matter their political affiliation. She is respected and beloved by people on both sides of the aisle. That is why I say--
sitting here for a number of minutes before we were brought back into session, I had the opportunity to get recognized and give these remarks. It is interesting how many people came up to her, Senators and staff alike, to say hello and to thank her and to wish her well. She treats people with respect, and she earns their respect in return.
Our country could use a lot more Emily Spains these days, and I believe she is an example to anyone--to anyone--who may have hopes of having a career in public service and a career in political life as well.
There is no doubt that Emily has had enormous professional success, but I know that her most important job has always been and I think probably always will be being a wonderful mom to Jack and Emma Spain. And the days they come to our office are some of the happiest days of the week.
Over the last decade, Emily has spent a great deal of time in Delaware. She has gotten to know my family. My wife Martha and I have a couple sons of our own, Ben and Christopher. I have been lucky to get to know Emily's husband Ken and have gotten a chance to know their children. They are wonderful children, young children, just kids whom any mom or dad would be delighted to be able to call their own. Family is important to both Emily and to me. She has always gone out of her way to make sure that what we call Carpertown--that is the extended Carper team family--is a family-friendly place. It is always a good day when Jack Spain comes in and tells us about his latest baseball game, and we find Emma coloring in Emily's office.
At our annual Carper holiday Christmas party, there is now a table filled with gingerbread houses to decorate and all kinds of arts and crafts, and that is because of Emily. She knows it is not enough to just say that we value family; she walks the walk. She makes sure that our policies reflect our priorities, and for that and many other things, I am very, very appreciative.
For folks who may not be all that familiar with the work or the role of chief of staff, Senate chief of staff, and a full-time mom, let me just tell you, neither one is easy. Put them together, and they are really hard. But no matter what the circumstances, she has risen to the challenge in both roles--in both roles--without fail.
I just want to note that Emily has led our office under particularly difficult conditions and has done so with grace and compassion. Her tenure included, among other things, two impeachments; an attack on this very building on January 6 of this year; an unprecedented global pandemic, the worst in 100 years; and the worst economy since the Great Depression.
There was no handbook for how to handle any of these things, let alone all of them at once. There was no guide to show her how to keep our office firing on all cylinders in remote settings so that we could keep our staff safe while also helping the people of Delaware when they needed that help the most. There was certainly no instruction manual to help her console our staff during an insurrection at this place of work. I know these were challenges that Emily never anticipated when she took on this role--none of us could have anticipated these challenges--but I am immensely grateful that she was the leader on our team during such turbulent and trying times.
You know, one of the glories of knowing someone like her is, she has had the compassion, as we have gone through this pandemic this year, to literally call just about everybody on our team in Delaware and our offices here, our three offices in Delaware and the folks who work here, including the members of the Environment and Public Works Committee, the Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations that I have been privileged to help lead, and to make sure that they are doing OK, that they and their families were doing OK as we go through this pandemic. That is the mark of a great and wonderful human being and a great leader.
There was, again, no guide to show her how to keep our office firing on all cylinders in a remote setting so that we could keep our staff safe while also helping the people of Delaware with what they needed the most. And there was certainly no instruction manual to help her console the staff during the insurrection of this place of work, right here in this building. I know these were challenges Emily never anticipated when she took on this role, but I am immensely grateful that she is, again, the lead and one on our team during such critical, turbulent, and trying times.
I will close with this. From the bottom of my heart, I want to thank Jack and Emma--son and daughter of Ken and Emily Spain--for sharing your mom; and Ken for sharing your wife with all of us for these years. I know it has been a lot of early mornings and probably more late nights than you want to think about, and some unexpected things over too many weekends. But what we love to call Carpertown is better for your mom's dedication, your wife's dedication to this job and the people of Delaware, and I think the country is better off because of her dedication.
I want to sincerely thank Emily for her service to the Senate, to the country, and to the people of Delaware. Sometimes it is hard to really know that we have made a difference, but I can assure Emily and her family that she has. She has left her mark on 513 Hart. That is where we have been for 20 years--all 20 years since I have come here--and made her mark on 515 Hart and on the First State, and she will be sorely missed.
In the Navy, when people do an especially good job--I have had the privilege of serving for, I guess, 23 years all in, plus midshipman before that. And we have a saying that we like to--when people do an extraordinary job, do a terrific job, we say: Bravo Zulu. Bravo Zulu.
And I will say to Emily over and over again: Bravo Zulu. I probably say it just about every day of her service. But thank you for a remarkable, remarkable congressional career that has been an inspiration to me and, I know, all of Delaware that you served.
When people are ready--in the Navy, when they are ready to weigh anchor and sail off to their next chapter or their next adventure, we say these words: Fair winds and following seas.
So I will say those today to Emily and her family, and I say those words with reluctance but also with joy that comes from having been able to know her, to work with her, and to get to know her and her family.
We are lucky in life when we get the chance to work with people who push us to be the best versions of ourselves, who make our loads lighter, and who bring us people from all walks of life. Joy. Joy every day.
And I am very lucky--we are very lucky in our team that Emily Spain has, in my case, let me work for her for all these years, and she has kept me on the payroll and, in no small way, helped make sure that I stay on the payroll here to be able to do all these things together.
But Em, we will miss you, but we wish you and the Spain family nothing but the best.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Ms. Rosen). The Senator from Iowa.
Unanimous Consent Request--S. 535
Ms. ERNST. Madam President, the time is now. We need a memorial to the fallen heroes of the Global War on Terror, and the memorial should be in its rightful place on the National Mall in Washington, DC.
On Tuesday, I spoke with a group of nearly 30 Gold Star families who lost their loved ones during our Nation's longest war. Their stories of heartache and sacrifice inspire me to continue fighting for this important memorial.
The overwhelming theme on that call was this: the time is now to get the Global War on Terrorism Memorial built on our National Mall.
And it is with that in mind that I come to the floor again to ask the Senate to join me in honoring our veterans, our Gold Star families, and fallen heroes by supporting my bipartisan legislation, the Global War on Terrorism Memorial Location Act.
I believe our Nation has a responsibility to properly honor and pay tribute to our veterans, including those who have served in the longest conflict in the history of the United States. The Global War on Terrorism Memorial belongs on our National Mall, in the same place as the memorials that honor the heroes of earlier conflicts, like Korea and Vietnam.
This memorial, which has bipartisan support, will serve as a permanent reminder of the eternal gratitude of all of America.
As a fellow veteran of the Global War on Terrorism and a friend and advocate for our Gold Star families, I firmly believe that placing this memorial anywhere but the National Mall is absolutely unacceptable.
We have an opportunity for bipartisanship right here with this bill. So let's join together and show the country that the U.S. Senate will honor the sacrifice and properly memorialize the service of the brave men and women who fought and died to protect and defend the Nation since the beginning of the Global War on Terror. It is the least we can do for those who have given so much.
I ask you today to support my mission, to build a memorial to empower those who answered the call to serve in the Global War on Terror, who, for so long, protected us and allowed us to enjoy the freedoms that we have to this very day.
This memorial is ready to go, so let's get it built on our National Mall in Washington, DC, where it belongs.
Madam President, as if in legislative session, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources be discharged from further consideration of S. 535 and the Senate proceed to its immediate consideration. I ask unanimous consent that the bill be considered read a third time and passed, and that the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
The Senator from West Virginia.
Mr. MANCHIN. Madam President, reserving the right to object, last week, Senator Ernst asked unanimous consent to bypass the committee process and pass her bill. At the time, I committed to work with her and that we would schedule this bill for a vote at the next Energy and Natural Resources Committee legislative markup.
That commitment remains. In fact, we are fulfilling it. In fact, just this morning, both of our staffs were on the National Mall walking through potential sites with the National Park Service and representatives from the Foundation to get a better understanding of the issues associated with the locations proposed in Senator Ernst's bill.
My goal is to get this memorial built as quickly as possible. I was the proud lead Democratic sponsor of this legislation to authorize construction of the National Global War on Terrorism Memorial 4 years ago and remain just as supportive and committed to seeing the memorial built today as I was then.
It is important that we commemorate and honor the members of the Armed Forces who served on Active Duty and supported the Global War on Terrorism. The original legislation authorizing construction of the Global War on Terrorism Memorial required that the memorial be located and designed in accordance with the Commemorative Works Act.
The Senator's bill is now proposing to waive a key provision in that law. I am concerned that trying to legislatively force a memorial into the Reserve area of the National Mall will result in a more contentious approval process that will take longer to get the memorial built than staying with the process that applies to all of our memorials.
I restate my commitment to keep working with Senator Ernst and to schedule a vote on this bill at the Energy and Natural Resources Committee's next legislative business meeting so that committee members can weigh in, which is the process, on with what the appropriate policy should be.
Again, I remain a very strong supporter of the Global War on Terrorism Memorial, and I believe that all of our colleagues on the Republican and Democratic side feel the same. The National Park Service should give it the highest priority, and they will, in finding an appropriate site.
But the memorial should be built following the same process--the same process--that applies to all of our memorials and commemorative works. I will continue to work with my friend and colleague from Iowa, but I must respectfully object to the unanimous consent request.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
The Senator from Iowa.
Ms. ERNST. Madam President, I just want to come forward and thank the Senator for the progress that is being made on the location for the Global War on Terrorism Memorial, and I will continue to pursue this. I think it is important to do that. I remain committed to the families of those who have fallen, as well as the many servicemembers who have served across the spectrum in the Global War on Terror.
I understand that many decades ago an act was put in place by Congress which limited activity on the National Mall, but understanding, since that time, we have seen many memorials and many monuments that have been placed on the Reserve on the National Mall.
And so I am asking that, as Congress, we move forward quickly on this act. We have been working on this for a number of years. We need to move quickly and provide a time of healing for our Nation after we are closing the Global War on Terror.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from West Virginia.
Mr. MANCHIN. First of all, I want to thank the total commitment and dedication that my friend from my Iowa has; the same as, I think, all of us have. But on that, since 2003, when Congress acted about basically putting a moratorium on the Mall so the Mall would be preserved for all of us to enjoy, there were some that were still pending but were allowed to complete. There has not been any new approved since 2003.
But we have a process, and I respect that, and I am going to work as hard as I can to make sure that that process is going to be honored and we go through it in our markup and everyone have input on it. And I think that is the proper way for us to proceed.
And I appreciate the Senator working and understanding and working with us. Right now, we just have to continue to do what we are doing and let this process basically go forth as quickly as possible. That is my commitment, and I will honor that.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Utah.
Unanimous Consent Request--S. 2843
Mr. LEE. Madam President, as if in legislative session, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on HELP be discharged from further consideration of S. 2843 and the Senate proceed to its immediate consideration. I ask unanimous consent that the bill be considered read a third time and passed, and that the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
The Senator from Washington.
Mrs. MURRAY. Madam President, reserving the right to object, this is outrageous. On September 27, there were over 80,000 new COVID-19 cases and over 1,000 COVID-19 deaths in our country; and yet, the next day, I had to come to the Senate floor to explain why undermining our efforts to end this pandemic would be reckless. And now, 2 days, with thousands more cases and deaths later, I have to do it again. And this is the second time today Republicans have tried to do something like this.
This virus has killed over 685,000 people in our country. And if people do not get vaccinated, variants like Delta will continue to spread, undermine our economy, and take lives.
So why in the world, for the second time in a week, do I have to come down here and explain to some of my Republican colleagues that weakening one of our strongest tools to fight this virus is a dangerous and deadly idea?
Getting people vaccinated is one of the most important things we can do to stop COVID-19. And let's be clear, immunization requirements are nothing new in this country. So I hope we can stop with this political theater and focus on ending this pandemic, rebuilding our economy, and keeping people alive.
I object.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The objection is heard.
The Senator from Utah.
Mr. LEE. Madam President, immunizations are nothing new. To a degree, immunization requirements might not be new, but sweeping immunization mandates issued by a single individual within the Federal Government--
that is, the President of the United States--are entirely new, entirely unprecedented, entirely unfounded, and dangerous to our constitutional order, to say nothing of its tendency to discourage those who have been reluctant to get the vaccine from getting one.
So I have returned to the Senate floor today, for the third time this week, to express my profound objections to that sweeping mandate--to President Biden's sweeping, promised, and still inchoate vaccine mandate--and to offer legislation that this body could have passed right now; that it could have passed in order to protect countless Americans from this Federal intrusion.
Now, look, the Federal Government has no legitimate role mandating COVID-19 vaccination for all Americans. In fact, the President of the United States has acknowledged that. It doesn't have that role. It doesn't belong to this government. Yes, there have been vaccine mandates in the past. They have never been from the Federal Government, directed at the entire country.
During a really difficult time, economically and otherwise, in which inflation and the jobs market are causing a whole lot of businesses around the country to have to close their doors, President Biden has announced that he is going to enforce this mandate with a really hefty fine. Each incidence of a business not fulfilling the mandate could cost a business $14,000. President Biden, under the threat of massive punishment, is co-opting businesses to enforce his mandate. They will have to police their workforce's personal medical decisions and order the receipt of a vaccination or, alternatively, be forced into bankruptcy.
Now, some on the other side of the aisle think that the President's punishment doesn't go far enough. In fact, in the reconciliation bill draft currently being circulated on the other end of the Capitol in the House of Representatives, Democrats are pushing to increase the fine to
$70,000 per violation.
Look, unvaccinated Americans are not the enemy; they are not the virus; and they are certainly not the enemy. Some are frontline doctors and nurses and other healthcare professionals who worked overtime throughout the pandemic, throughout the darkest of the dark hours of the pandemic, treating patients and saving lives.
Others are workers whose industries were deemed essential and who showed up to work to ensure Americans kept having access to food and electricity and other essential items and services. Others still are simply neighbors, family members, and other loved ones who have supported friends, families, and entire communities as Americans as a whole struggled through quarantines, shutdowns, financial difficulties, and social isolation.
Let me reiterate, as I have said many times before and I will continue to repeat: I believe the vaccine's development is nothing short of a miracle. It is an answered prayer. I have been fully vaccinated, as has every member of my family, with my encouragement. But we certainly should not be forcing employers, through the Federal Government, without congressional authorization or constitutional authority, putting employers in a position where they have to fire some of their most valuable and now increasingly hard-to-find workers.
We shouldn't be threatening business owners with closure simply because they don't have any desire to police their workforce's personal medical decisions. That is not who we are as a country. I don't care whether you are a Democrat or a Republican or an Independent or a Libertarian; Americans, as a whole, don't believe that that is who we are. We are not into that kind of draconian micromanagement associated with a nanny state, nor are we into the excessive accumulation of power in the hands of a few or, even worse, in the hands of one person. Many simply cannot incur the cost of this enforcement--certainly not in this economy.
Additionally, this fine really amounts to a tax. It is government revenue collected from the American people, and the Constitution has a thing or two to say about how revenue bills must be enacted. The Constitution does not vest any taxing or, for that matter, any other revenue raising or fining authorities in the President alone--no. This is a power that is reserved to the people's representatives in Congress who are charged with precisely that responsibility. We have exclusively that authority, and that authority is not to be exercised by the President of the United States.
It is no accident that the Founding Fathers, through the Constitution, put this power in the hands of those people occupying positions in the branch of government most accountable to the people at the most regular intervals and in no one else within our government.
President Biden's mandate would impose really significant costs on Americans and on American businesses and on our Nation's economy that is already in some really rough times.
Look, it is unconstitutional. It hasn't been passed by Congress. It is wrong for America. And that is why, today, as I did yesterday and the day before, I came here to offer a proposal that, if enacted, as we could have enacted it today, it would protect Americans from some of the most disastrous effects of the mandate.
While I believe the mandate will, I am quite certain, eventually be invalidated in court, it is going to take some time for us to get there because right now we don't even have the mandate itself; we just have the threat of the mandate. And it is the imminent apprehension of the mandate's eventual issuance that is causing HR departments and general counsel's offices in corporate America throughout this country today to scurry to try to get ahead of the curve, develop their own policy, so that they are in compliance as of day one when the mandate hits.
But, in the meantime, there is nothing to sue. There is no one to sue because there is no final Agency action. There is no order in place. There is just the threat of it.
This, I fear, is a feature, not a bug, because by the time we actually have something on which to sue and by the time lawsuits are brought, by the time that litigation works its way to its natural conclusion--which, I believe, inevitably, culminates in a finding that it is invalid; it is unconstitutional; it is not warranted by law--
months, if not years, will have elapsed, and a lot of the damage will be done.
So, until that day--until that day I consider inevitable when a court rules that this is unlawful--these bills like the one that I have offered today can provide businesses and the American people with the certainty that they need to make their own decisions.
My bill that I have offered up today, the No Taxation Without Congressional Consent Act, would prohibit OSHA and other executive branch Agencies in the Federal Government from imposing fines, fees, or taxes with respect to these mandates. It would protect our constitutional order by requiring that revenue measures be voted on by Congress, the branch of government most accountable to the people and the only branch of government empowered to enact such policies. The other two branches cannot.
As I mentioned yesterday, the people concerned about this mandate are everyday Americans. I have now heard from 158 Utahns who are at risk of losing their jobs due to the mandate, and that number continues to grow every day. They are not our enemies; they are our neighbors. Many of them have been advised by board-certified doctors that they ought to not receive the vaccine. We shouldn't be punishing them or forcing them into second-class status.
So today we have a choice. I hope that, at some point, my colleagues on the other side of the aisle will allow us to provide this certainty and peace of mind to those individuals and businesses at risk of suffering under the mandate.
We can defend Congress's role as the branch of government that determines how and from whom revenue is to be raised. Not only can we do that, but we have an obligation to do that. We have all sworn an oath to uphold and protect and defend the Constitution of the United States, and that document doesn't give the President this power. In fact, that document precludes, it prohibits the President from exercising this power in the absence of congressional authorization, which we have not provided.
So this bill, one of a dozen that I have submitted, could have passed this body today. I wish, for the sake of millions of concerned Americans, that it had, but regardless of this result today and of the objection that precluded it from passing the Senate today, I am going to continue to fight. I will keep coming back for as long as it takes in order to end this egregious and legally baseless and unconstitutional mandate.
I find it interesting that my friend and colleague, the distinguished Senator from the State of Washington, referred to this as
``outrageous,'' as outrageous that we would be attempting to put in place protections for those Americans who are going to be victimized by the vaccine, who are going to have to choose between, on the one hand, receiving a medical procedure that they don't want and, on the other hand, being fired. Nobody should have to choose between submission and financial ruin. They especially shouldn't have to do that under the direction of an invalid, unconstitutional directive by the Federal Government.
She also referred to what she described as ``our efforts,'' ``our efforts to end this pandemic.'' This isn't about whether we want to end the pandemic. There is not a single person--Democrat, Republican, Independent--in this Chamber or in the other Chamber--I am not sure I know a single American anywhere who wouldn't want to end this pandemic. This is not the pandemic. This is not going to end the pandemic. If anything, this will cause more people to be more reluctant to get the very vaccine that they are wanting to encourage others to provide.
This is not about that. The minute we lose control of the government that is supposed to work for us, the minute we start to erode, willfully, even for those who might be convinced that it is good policy--and I would disagree with them on that. The minute we decide to give this power to the President of the United States and stand silently as he usurps authority that under article I, section 7, and article I, section 8, plainly belongs only to Congress, to the extent we have any business operating in this area to begin with as a Federal Government, which we do not--then we have simultaneously undermined both the vertical protection that we call federalism and the horizontal protection we call separation of powers.
Now, lest anyone might be left with the impression that this would be an esoteric or academic exercise or that that is not something that affects their freedom--there are those who would make that suggestion--
they are sorely mistaken. You see, because anyone, anywhere can have a Bill of Rights.
In fact, as the late Justice Antonin Scalia used to point out, any
``tin horn dictator'' around the world can have a Bill of Rights. And most of them do. Many of those Bills of Rights are scintillating documents; they are glowing in terms of their expression of individuality and the right of each human to exist and flourish. They will articulate a list of rights that is, in some cases, comparable to, if not even more protective of, individual liberty than our own Bill of Rights.
Yet, as Justice Scalia continued, whether or not that Bill of Rights or any Bill of Rights is worth more than the paper that it is printed on ultimately rests on whether there are protections in place that guard against the dangerous accumulation of power in the hands of the few. That is what makes that difference.
So if we allow a President today to adopt whether you want to call it a tax or a fine or whatever revenue-raising tool that you choose to identify this as being, the President doesn't have the power to impose that. That is a legislative function.
Article 1, section 7 is very clear: You cannot enact legislation, including any legislation collecting revenue from the citizenry without passage in the House, passage in the Senate, and presentment to the President of the United States. He can't do it alone.
That is what this is about. This is about so much more than just this vaccine mandate. But this vaccine mandate in and of itself is wrong. It is unconstitutional. It is harmful, and it has a tendency to undermine the very interest the President purports to be advancing.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wyoming.
SOURCE: Congressional Record Vol. 167, No. 171
The Congressional Record is a unique source of public documentation. It started in 1873, documenting nearly all the major and minor policies being discussed and debated.
Senators' salaries are historically higher than the median US income.
Alerts Sign-up