[Congressional Record Volume 169, Number 26 (Wednesday, February 8, 2023)]
[House]
[Pages H747-H757]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




   TERMINATING CDC REQUIREMENT FOR PROOF OF COVID-19 VACCINATION FOR 
                           FOREIGN TRAVELERS


                             General Leave

  MR. KILEY. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may 
have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks on the 
legislation and to insert extraneous material on H.R. 185.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from California?
  There was no objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 97 and rule 
XVIII, the Chair declares the House in the Committee of the Whole House 
on the state of the Union for the consideration of the bill, H.R. 185.
  The Chair appoints the gentleman from California (Mr. Kiley) to 
preside over the Committee of the Whole.

                              {time}  1402


                     In the Committee of the Whole

  Accordingly, the House resolved itself into the Committee of the 
Whole House on the state of the Union for the consideration of the bill 
(H.R. 185) to terminate the requirement imposed by the Director of the 
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention for proof of COVID-19 
vaccination for foreign travelers, and for other purposes, with Mr. 
Kiley in the chair.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The CHAIR. Pursuant to the rule, the bill is considered read the 
first time.
  General debate shall be confined to the bill and shall not exceed one 
hour equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority 
member of the committee on Energy and Commerce or their respective 
designees.
  The gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Guthrie) and the gentleman from New 
Jersey (Mr. Pallone) each will control 30 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Guthrie) to 
begin debate.
  Mr. GUTHRIE. Mr. Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chair, I rise today in support of H.R. 185, which provides 
another opportunity to recognize COVID-19 as an endemic and move our 
country back to normal.
  Last week, we had a couple of bills dealing with COVID--one vaccine 
mandate for healthcare workers, which is the only CMS vaccine mandated 
for healthcare workers--and my bill to declare the emergency over.
  President Biden actually did announce that the emergency is going to 
be over May 11, so we have a lot of work to do moving forward.
  Now we move forward to ask for support for H.R. 185, which provides 
another opportunity for us to move our country back to normal.
  H.R. 185, introduced by Mr. Massie, a member of the Rules Committee 
and a fellow Kentuckian, would finally put an end to the CDC's 
requirement for international travelers to show proof of COVID-19 
vaccination before entering the United States through air, through 
flying to this country.
  The bill would also prevent the CDC from implementing any similar 
mandates to show proof of COVID-19 vaccination to enter into the United 
States through air.
  This policy is out of touch with the rest of the world. The U.S. is 
the only country in North America with this requirement, and most other 
countries have no testing or vaccination requirements at all. Also, the 
Biden administration fails to provide exceptions for religious or moral 
reasons.
  As with other vaccine mandates, this requirement will not end on May 
11, and thus far, the administration has not indicated any plans to 
change it.
  It is long past due to end this mandate. Doing so will align the 
United States with the rest of North America's COVID-19 vaccine policy 
for people coming into the country and recognize COVID-19 is an endemic 
rather than a pandemic.
  Further, this will serve as an important check and balance against 
President Biden's overreaching policies by requiring the President to 
come to Congress in order to enact similar policies in the future.
  I ask my colleagues to join me in supporting this bill, and I reserve 
the balance of my time.
  Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I rise in opposition to H.R. 185, which once again prioritizes 
politics over science at the expense of the health of the American 
people.
  To date, COVID-19 has killed more than 1 million of our fellow 
Americans. Families have been changed forever. Fortunately, today we 
have vaccines, tests, and treatments that have put the darkest days of 
the pandemic behind us, but we can't forget that COVID still kills 500 
Americans every day.
  Variants of concern continue to emerge, and therefore we must be 
vigilant and data driven in monitoring any uptick in cases. We must 
follow the science and the guidance of our public health experts.

  We are not done with COVID; or, rather, COVID is not done with us. 
Ending all of our protections and public health measures without a 
reasoned discussion is downright dangerous. Unfortunately, that is 
exactly what House Republicans continue to do week after week, bringing 
bills to the floor that are nothing but political stunts that put 
politics over science. This is the latest dangerous stunt.
  H.R. 185 would terminate the Centers for Disease Control and 
Prevention's order that requires proof of COVID-19 vaccination for 
foreign air passengers entering the United States.
  Vaccination is protective against severe illness and death from 
COVID-19. It reduces the impact of COVID-19 on our healthcare 
infrastructure, including hospital capacity and healthcare provider 
staffing. That is why the CDC order was put in place and why I continue 
to believe that our public health experts are best positioned to make 
these kinds of determinations.
  This bill would permit unvaccinated individuals to freely enter the 
United States, even as variants continue to emerge around the world, 
potentially increasing the risk of circulating new variants of concern. 
This could potentially stretch our healthcare resources just as our 
hospitals, providers, and public health infrastructure try to rebuild.
  In addition, H.R. 185 would also prohibit the CDC from issuing any 
successor or subsequent orders to require COVID-19 vaccination for 
foreign travelers in the future as well. This is dangerous and ties the 
hands of our public

[[Page H748]]

health experts to the political whims of the most ideologically extreme 
in a way that makes our Nation less safe and more vulnerable in the 
future.
  Imagine if a dangerous new variant that was highly contagious 
appeared somewhere in the world. This Republican bill would prevent the 
CDC from restricting people from entering the Nation who are not 
vaccinated. This simply defies logic, but it is, unfortunately, what 
happens when you have an extreme Republican majority that is more 
interested in rushing these bills to the floor as political stunts 
without any consideration of the implications.
  There have been no committee hearings to hear from experts on what 
this bill could mean for the American people, and without any input 
from Democratic Members, who remain willing to have reasoned 
discussions about moving beyond the immediate emergency of COVID-19.
  This is also the second bill in just 2 weeks in which Republicans 
have sought to question the safety and efficacy of the COVID vaccines, 
despite the unequivocal scientific consensus that COVID-19 vaccination 
is protective against severe illness and death.
  Mr. Chairman, I have now sat through two Rules Committee debates and 
two floor debates in the House of Representatives where some 
Republicans have sought to undermine vaccine confidence and contend 
that vaccines aren't safe and effective. This is extremely dangerous.
  It is also deeply disappointing that we have to continue to have 
these discussions instead of coming together to encourage all Americans 
to get their vaccinations to protect themselves and their loved ones 
against severe illness.
  That is why I am also disappointed that the Rules Committee and its 
Republican majority barred consideration of an amendment by the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Takano) which would have made clear that 
nothing in this bill shall be construed to cast doubt on the safety and 
efficacy of COVID-19 vaccines. This would have sent a strong message 
for us to come together on a bipartisan basis and make clear that this 
bill is not intended to disparage vaccines and that the House of 
Representatives stands in support of science and reason.
  It is telling that the Rules Committee decided not to make this 
amendment in order. It is a sad sign that my Republican colleagues 
continue to cater to the most extremist members of their Conference who 
would rather spread COVID misinformation than come together to 
encourage vaccination as our best path out of this pandemic.
  Mr. Chairman, Democrats understand that we are entering a new phase 
of our response to COVID-19 and believe it is reasonable to reconsider 
some of the pandemic-related policies and whether they are still 
necessary.
  Instead of rushing partisan bills like this to the floor, we are 
willing to have bipartisan conversations on a path forward. However, we 
will never--and I stress never--call into question the safety and 
efficacy of vaccines. We will not undermine the expertise of our public 
health officials or put politics over science.
  Unfortunately, this bill does just that. For that reason, I strongly 
urge my colleagues to oppose this bill, and I reserve the balance of my 
time.
  Mr. GUTHRIE. Mr. Chair, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from 
Kentucky (Mr. Massie), my good friend, to speak on the bill. We have 
the great privilege of sharing Bardstown in Nelson County in our 
districts.

  Mr. MASSIE. Mr. Chairman, it is interesting to hear the other side of 
the aisle talk about logic. What we are talking about today is whether 
to repeal the vaccine mandate on international travelers. Well, what is 
the logic of having a vaccine mandate on legal international travelers 
but not on the millions of people who are pouring across our border? 
Where is the logic in that? I don't see any logic.
  It is time for us to join the rest of the free world. You want a list 
of countries that don't have this mandate? Australia, Japan, Mexico, 
Canada, Spain, Germany, France, Ukraine. I could go on and on. Am I 
memorizing a list of countries? No. I am telling you basically all of 
the countries in the world. In fact, dictatorships have already gotten 
rid of this vaccine mandate: Russia, Syria, China. Cuba even doesn't 
have this draconian xenophobic measure at the border.
  Let's talk about the State of the Union Address last night. The 
President said: Today COVID no longer controls our lives. Gee, I wish 
that were true. I wish that were true.
  Here is a letter I received--now, it is from a foreigner who is 
related to Americans: Dear sir, I am an Australian. My daughter married 
an American in September of 2020. My wife and I were not allowed to 
visit for the wedding. Subsequently, due to the U.S. ban on 
unvaccinated arrivals, I have not seen my daughter in over 2 years. I 
appreciate your attempts at overturning this harsh rule. I am sure I 
speak for many separated families.
  Yes, he does. He speaks for tens of thousands, hundreds of thousands, 
millions of people who have been separated at our border because of 
this ridiculous, illogical, unscientific policy.
  What else did the President say in his State of the Union Address 
last night? ``We opened our country back up.'' Well, we need to tell 
all of the tourism industry that we have opened our country back up 
because the U.S. Travel Association has stated this week, just this 
week, that it cost over $90 billion. This one policy has cost over $90 
billion of revenue, of income to this country in tourism, and that is 
why they support getting rid of this ridiculous mandate.

                              {time}  1415

  What is the Democrats' argument over there? I have heard it all 
already. I see they are very smug and smiling. They bleat about 
democracy. They bleat on and on about democracy. Is this democracy?
  Their best argument--virtually their only argument--is right here in 
``The Whip's Daily Preview'' on the Democrat side: ``House Democrats 
have been stalwart in their defense of following the science over 
playing politics with COVID-19. The decision to end vaccine 
requirements for global travelers should be made by public health 
experts with real-time understanding of the situation. Hamstringing 
agencies from responding to ongoing or future threats that could impact 
the health and economic stability of America undermines our Nation.''
  They are arguing that they are not qualified to vote on laws that 
affect the most basic human rights of people in this country and people 
wishing to visit this country.
  Imagine that. Working so hard to get elected, preaching about 
democracy, and then getting here and saying: Do you know what? I don't 
think we should be voting on this because, well, I think the 
bureaucrats are probably more qualified than we are. The science is 
hard.
  Science is hard. That is basically their argument.
  Let's take their argument. Let's listen to the scientists, the 
bureaucrats. What does the World Health Organization, what does this 
collection of global scientists, say about this policy? This is real-
time because it was January 30, 2023. They had a meeting and said No. 6 
in their recommendations: ``Continue to adjust any remaining 
international travel-related measures, based on risk assessment, and to 
not require proof of vaccination against COVID-19 as a prerequisite for 
international travel.''
  They love global government. You think the science over there would 
appeal to the World Health Organization, but if that doesn't work, 
let's listen to our own CDC, which said in August of last year: If you 
are deciding to quarantine or mask or any of these other things, it 
shouldn't be done with respect to vaccination status.
  In other words, there is enough natural immunity, and there was in 
August, for the CDC to say we shouldn't discriminate based on 
vaccination status when determining policy.
  I will just close with this: Let's not be hypocrites. We were all in 
this room last night, hundreds of us, with hundreds of visitors, and 
none of us were under a vaccine mandate.
  Repeal this vaccine mandate. Vote for H.R. 185 and support the bill.
  Mr. Chair, I include in the Record a report from the WHO Director-
General, and a recommendation from the CDC for managing SARS-CoV-2 
exposure.
  Mr. Chair, I enter into the Recrod two articles:

[[Page H749]]

  


    Statement on the Fourteenth Meeting of the International Health 
   Regulations (2005) Emergency Committee Regarding the Coronavirus 
                      Disease (COVID-19) Pandemic

       The WHO Director-General has the pleasure of transmitting 
     the Report of the fourteenth meeting of the International 
     Health Regulations (2005) (IHR) Emergency Committee regarding 
     the coronavirus 2019 disease (COVID-19).
       Continue to adjust any remaining international travel-
     related measures, based on risk assessment, and to not 
     require proof of vaccination against COVID-19 as a 
     prerequisite for international travel.
       Continue to support research for improved vaccines that 
     reduce transmission and have broad applicability, as well as 
     research to understand the full spectrum, incidence and 
     impact of post COVID-19 condition, and to develop relevant 
     integrated care pathways.

                     Managing SARS-CoV-2 Exposures

       CDC now recommends case investigation and contact tracing 
     only in health care settings and certain high-risk congregate 
     settings. In all other circumstances, public health efforts 
     can focus on case notification and provision of information 
     and resource to exposed persons about access to testing. 
     Persons who have had recent confirmed or suspected exposure 
     to an infected person should wear a mask for 10 days around 
     others when indoors in public and should receive testing  5 
     days after exposure (or sooner, if they are symptomatic), 
     irrespective of their vaccination status. In light of high 
     population levels of anti-SARS-CoV-2 seroprevalence (7, 16), 
     and to limit social and economic impacts, quarantine of 
     exposed persons is no longer recommended, regardless of 
     vaccination status.

  Mr. GUTHRIE. Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute.
  Mr. Chair, again, I am not surprised, I guess, but when the gentleman 
from Kentucky talks about human rights and then he gives the lists of 
the countries that don't mandate vaccines that include Iran, Russia, 
Cuba, Syria, and China, these are not countries that care much about 
human rights.
  As I said before in the Rules Committee, Republicans always talk 
about America first. We have the best healthcare and public health 
experts in the world, in my opinion. The CDC is so much better than any 
of the healthcare organizations, in my opinion, certainly better than 
our adversaries like Russia, Cuba, or China, but even for the other 
countries that are mentioned.
  I understand the World Health Organization is out there, but I think 
we should be listening to the public health experts in our country and 
not worrying about some of these other countries that are adversaries.
  I would be very concerned about people coming from places like 
Russia, China, and Cuba not being vaccinated because of the lack of 
attention to public health in those countries.
  Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. GUTHRIE. Mr. Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Florida (Mr. Bilirakis), my good friend.
  Mr. BILIRAKIS. Mr. Chair, I appreciate the gentleman yielding.
  Mr. Chair, I rise in strong support of H.R. 185, which will lift the 
CDC's burdensome mandates for international travelers into the United 
States.
  Frankly, I can't believe the mandate is still here, but I talk to my 
constituents who have family that want to come to the United States, 
international travelers, and they can't come because they don't want to 
take the vaccine. That is their right.
  We need to lift this. I thank my colleague, Mr. Massie, for his 
leadership on this particular piece of legislation.
  This past week, my colleagues and I on the Energy and Commerce 
Committee have held hearings and markups focused on competitiveness 
versus China, ensuring American companies lead the globe.
  This morning, we also held a long-overdue Oversight Committee hearing 
with the CDC, and I challenged them to think of the impacts their 
mandates are having on the travel and tourism section.
  The Biden administration's onerous vaccine mandates for workers, 
citizens, and international travelers have been disastrous for our 
economy and have done very little to mitigate public health concerns, 
as my colleague stated.
  Republicans have made it clear: We are tired of mandates and 
overregulation. This legislation will remove these mandates so travel 
can resume into the country and so we can make our Nation competitive 
again on the international stage.
  We have the Brand USA program that advertises our Nation's hidden 
treasures. They are everywhere, but the travel sector hasn't been able 
to be fully unleashed, thanks to the CDC. We know, historically, that 
the industry in my home State of Florida--but it is not just my home 
State--has accounted for more than $80 billion in revenue and 1\1/2\ 
million jobs annually.
  Let's get our economy back on track. This makes so much sense, this 
particular bill. Let's remove this ridiculous mandate.
  Mr. GUTHRIE. Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Tennessee (Mr. Cohen).
  Mr. COHEN. Mr. Chair, my friends on the other side of the aisle seem 
unconcerned about the threat the COVID-19 virus poses to public health. 
They have shown that consistently over the time of the pandemic.
  They have dismissed the severity of the virus. The previous 
Republican Party President dismissed it, too, and tried to claim that 
you could just solve it with a light bulb going into your body 
somewhere or drinking some type of Clorox.
  They have dismissed the science behind masking and social distancing. 
They have dismissed vaccinations. They have dismissed peer-reviewed 
science. They have condemned Dr. Fauci, who is an American hero who 
guided us through this pandemic that cost the lives of over 1 million 
Americans dying of COVID over the last 3 years. The Centers for Disease 
Control and Prevention says that there are over 500 Americans dying 
each day from COVID.
  I believe in science. I believe in specialists. I believe in doctors. 
CDC is the specialist here.
  My colleagues on the other side are very concerned about China, but 
now they are not concerned about China--which has one of the biggest 
COVID problems of any place in the globe--having visitors come to our 
Nation without having been vaccinated.
  This is a threat to the health of the American people directly from 
China. They are concerned about China, but not now.
  I would submit most of my colleagues on the other side are vaccinated 
against COVID, vaccinated against polio, vaccinated against all types 
of diseases, but all of a sudden, they don't want to give any authority 
to the CDC to protect us from countries that don't have vaccination 
requirements.
  Science first. Dollars and sense, s-e-n-s-e. That is what we ought to 
have.
  Mr. GUTHRIE. Mr. Chair, before I yield, I want to point out that this 
doesn't do anything to undo the restrictions on people traveling from 
China.
  As a matter of fact, the Rules Committee made an amendment in order 
that will pass today, and I hope my friends will support it. That will 
reiterate that this doesn't do anything to undo the restrictions on 
people traveling from China.
  Mr. Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. 
Bucshon), my good friend and vice chair of the Health Subcommittee.
  Mr. BUCSHON. Mr. Chair, I rise today in support of H.R. 185.
  As a physician, I do support the science, and the previous speaker is 
on the wrong side of it. He is ignoring the science.
  It is unfortunate but not surprising that the Biden administration is 
failing to acknowledge the foolishness of requiring proof of COVID-19 
vaccination for international travelers.
  We know that while the current COVID-19 vaccines are highly effective 
at preventing severe disease and death, they don't provide sterilizing 
immunity and prevent vaccinated individuals from becoming infected or 
from transmitting COVID-19.
  I want to say that I am vaccinated. I wish everyone would be.
  Thus, continuing to impose this vaccine mandate causes unnecessary 
harm to our Nation's tourism industry, which has already suffered for 
more than 3 years. Beyond that, it damages our image as a nation whose 
laws and policies are guided by the principles of freedom and backed by 
science.
  President Biden's continued insistence that international visitors be 
vaccinated appears to be virtue signaling,

[[Page H750]]

in my view, because the scientific evidence does not support the claim 
that vaccination prevents the spread of the virus.
  Our neighbors in Canada and Mexico, our allies across the Atlantic in 
the U.K. and France, and many more countries around the world are 
declining to require proof of vaccination for international travelers.
  In addition to ignoring the needs of business and communities that 
rely on tourism, these requirements make us look ludicrous on the world 
stage.
  For example, last year, we blocked the number one-ranked tennis 
player in the world, Novak Djokovic, from entering the country to 
compete in the U.S. Open. Do we really think that blocking one 
individual from the country is going to have any real impact on the 
spread of COVID-19?
  I strongly believe COVID-19 vaccines are safe and very effective at 
reducing harmful effects of the virus. Again, I recommend vaccination, 
but it is nonsensical that we are driving away foreign nationals who 
want to compete, visit loved ones, conduct business, or simply take in 
the amazing sites our country has to offer. That is why I support this 
legislation and why I believe the U.S. needs to lift this requirement 
now.
  Mr. GUTHRIE. Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Washington (Ms. Schrier), a member of our Energy and Commerce 
Committee.
  Ms. SCHRIER. Mr. Chair, I thank the ranking member for yielding.
  Mr. Chair, our healthcare workforce is stretched to capacity after 
having spent now 3 years on the front lines of the pandemic, and add to 
that recent spikes in RSV and flu.
  Our hospitals have been overpacked, with a shortage of available beds 
and a real worry and sometimes a reality that there won't be room in a 
hospital if we get sick or injured.
  Due to stress and burnout, hospitals across the country are 
experiencing staff shortages. What healthcare workers and hospital 
workers really don't need right now is more stress on an already 
stressed system, and that is exactly what this bill will do.
  As we all know, and as I can tell you, as a pediatrician, people who 
are not vaccinated have a significantly higher risk of being 
hospitalized if they contract COVID. Why in the world would we invite 
people from around the world to come to visit the United States without 
that protection and then put our hospital systems at further risk of 
overcrowding and collapse? Not to mention the higher risk of getting 
and spreading the disease around our country or even potentially 
bringing new variants to our shores.
  Vaccination is safe. I speak as a doctor. It is effective in keeping 
people out of hospitals and curbing transmission. We should rightly 
expect that those traveling to the United States get immunized because 
we should not risk further stressing an already strained healthcare 
system.
  It was only a few months ago when hospitals in my State, in 
Washington State, were full. Patients with life-threatening illnesses, 
bleeds, life-threatening injuries had to be flown to distant cities to 
get care. Whatever we can do to prevent that from happening again, we 
should do. Making sure we get vaccinated and insisting that those 
visiting our country get vaccinated help do just that.
  Public health decisions should be made by doctors and public health 
professionals based on data, not by Members of Congress for political 
expediency.
  This bill is a political stunt. It has no basis in science. It fails 
to recognize the reality that our hospitals are facing right now and 
that any one of us might face if a loved one needs a hospital bed and 
that bed is not available. Please leave public health decisions to 
public health professionals.
  Mr. Chair, I include in the Record the text of my amendment.

       Ms. Schrier moves to recommit the bill H.R. 185 to the 
     Committee on Energy and Commerce with instructions to report 
     the same back to the House forthwith, with the following 
     amendment:
       Add at the end the following new section:

     SEC. 2. EFFECTIVE DATE.

       The provisions of this Act shall not take effect until the 
     date on which the Secretary of Health and Human Services 
     submits to Congress a certification that such provisions will 
     not result in--
       (1) a decrease in hospital bed capacity in the United 
     States;
       (2) a reduction in health care resources available in the 
     United States; or
       (3) any staffing shortage for health care providers in the 
     United States.

                              {time}  1430

  Mr. GUTHRIE. Mr. Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Arkansas (Mr. Crawford).
  Mr. CRAWFORD. Mr. Chair, I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I 
thank my friend and colleague from Kentucky for his leadership on this 
bill.
  I just want to remind everyone here today that the year is 2023, it 
is not 2020, and yet, many of our COVID policies are still based on 
numbers from almost 3 years ago.
  This vaccine requirement for international travelers is a prime 
example. Countries all around the world realize this and are rolling 
back their own border restrictions.
  I also point out that this vaccine requirement is not part of the 
emergency declarations that are scheduled to end in May.
  This means that vaccine requirements could still stay in effect for 
an indefinite period of time. Come May, it is possible we won't even 
have a public health emergency at all.
  We won't have a national emergency, but our friends and family from, 
say, for example, Canada would still have to show proof of vaccination 
when flying in to visit their relatives.
  We don't even require our own citizens to be vaccinated or show a 
negative test, so why would we do that and create a different standard 
for folks that are visiting?
  This only causes confusion for Americans who are told one minute they 
are safe and don't have to fear COVID-19, and yet, we continue these 
pandemic requirements.
  I am here today to tell the American people that despite the mixed 
messages emanating from the White House, I believe we are safe, and in 
the words of President Biden, the pandemic is, in fact, over.
  I am proud to cosponsor this commonsense bill, and I urge my 
colleagues to vote in favor of H.R. 185.
  Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute.
  Mr. Chairman, again, the previous Republican speaker said that we are 
confusing the public, and I think it is they that are, in fact, 
confusing the public.
  We are hearing all kinds of anti-vaccine misinformation on the floor 
and in Rules, and I just think it is important to note that CDC, FDA, 
and nearly all health professionals are near unanimous in recommending 
that people get vaccinated and that vaccines are safe and effective.
  I just think it is very damaging for the public to constantly hear 
from Members on the other side of the aisle about potential problems 
with vaccination because then people think that they shouldn't get 
vaccinated.
  I know what your position is, that you don't want it to be mandated 
which, of course, I disagree with because of what public health experts 
say for foreign travelers, but please don't continue to give 
misinformation.
  There are over 500 people that die every day from COVID. COVID is 
still here. COVID continues to spread. The variants could come up and 
spread at any moment, so we should not give the impression that people 
should not take vaccines.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. GUTHRIE. Mr. Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Iowa (Mrs. Miller-Meeks), a member of the Subcommittee on Health.
  Mrs. MILLER-MEEKS. Mr. Chairman, I thank my colleague for yielding 
time.
  I rise in strong support of H.R. 185 to end the international travel 
COVID vaccine mandate.
  I am a doctor, and unlike my colleague on the other side of the 
aisle, I am also a former director of the Iowa Department of Public 
Health, so I am speaking for public health.
  The vast majority of Americans are either vaccinated or have natural 
immunity. There is no recognition of natural immunity by continuing the 
COVID-19 vaccine mandate for travelers into the United States.
  This is, as previously alluded, not 2020. It is 2023. This timely 
measure

[[Page H751]]

nullifies the CDC's order that restricts noncitizen entry into the 
United States unless the traveler can prove they are vaccinated against 
COVID-19. It doesn't say to prove immunity or prove testing negative.
  Mr. Speaker, it is time to move forward. Entry restrictions were 
necessary during the early stages and the height of the pandemic, but 
that was when we, as a Nation, were still learning the details of the 
virus and experiencing soaring death and hospitalization rates.
  Now, over 95 percent of Americans have various forms of immunity, 
whether from vaccination or prior infection, and health professionals 
have deep knowledge of the coronavirus that has led to multiple 
vaccines and therapeutics.
  People have returned to work, children to school, and Americans have 
resumed international travel at prepandemic rates.
  Some of the countries with the most stringent lockdown and protocols, 
Canada, Australia, and Germany, all have eliminated their severe entry 
restrictions. All have suspended their vaccine requirements. It is time 
that we, as a Nation, do the same.
  This does not mean that we do not still have circulating virus. We 
are aware of that, but it is time for the mandate for travelers 
entering the United States to end.
  Republicans and Democrats should be able to agree that the pandemic 
is over. President Biden even said so himself.
  House Republicans will continue to move our country past the 
pandemic, which is exactly what this bill does.
  Mr. Chair, I urge my colleagues as a public health professional to 
vote ``yes.''
  Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. GUTHRIE. Mr. Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania (Mr. Smucker).
  Mr. SMUCKER. Mr. Chair, I thank my friend, Mr. Massie, for 
introducing this bill.
  I am listening to some of the arguments on the Democrat side here 
today, and I hear about vaccine conspiracies. I am not hearing that 
over here. In fact, I am vaccinated. I have the boosters. I think it 
was important to do that.

  I am proud of what we were able to get done through Operation Warp 
Speed. We protected many Americans. But I don't understand the argument 
that this has anything to do with vaccine conspiracies.
  I was contacted by a constituent, Hunter McBryde, who informed me 
that this particular mandate, that almost no one else in the world has 
in place, is keeping his family separated. This is keeping his kids 
from seeing their grandparents.
  He is from the district that I represent in Lancaster, Pennsylvania. 
He happened to be studying in Australia for his Ph.D. when the pandemic 
started. His wife is an Australian citizen. They share three beautiful 
children.
  Because of this shortsighted policy, Hunter and his family have been 
unable to move back home to Lancaster County to be with the rest of 
their extended family here simply because of the family's vaccination 
and immigration status.
  I contacted the CDC on behalf of the family and was told that the 
agency still believes that COVID vaccines, not testing, not 
quarantining, are necessary to protect public safety, despite the fact 
that President Biden has said the pandemic is over.
  Mr. Chairman, 147 countries, including Canada, U.K., Italy, France, 
Australia, South Korea, and many others are totally open to tourists, 
regardless of their vaccination status. Another 57 nations allow 
tourists to take a COVID test or quarantine if they are unvaccinated.
  The worst of this pandemic is clearly over. There is no reason that 
the CDC should continue to discriminate against tourists or residents 
who, for health or religious reasons, do not wish to receive the COVID 
vaccine.
  Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute.
  The gentleman from Pennsylvania--let me just make it clear. I have 
not used the word ``conspiracy.'' I am not suggesting there is a 
conspiracy on the other side of the aisle.
  What I just resent is the fact that I do not hear any of my 
colleagues on the other side, on the Republican side, get up and say 
that vaccines are safe and effective, and people should take them.
  We had an amendment by Mr. Takano before the Rules Committee, which 
would have made it clear that nothing in this bill shall be construed 
to cast doubt on the safety and efficacy of COVID-19 vaccines.
  This would send a strong message to us that we should come together 
on a bipartisan basis and make clear that this bill is not intended to 
disparage vaccines and that the House of Representatives stands in 
support of science and reason, but my colleagues refuse to say that.
  It is not a question of a conspiracy. It is a question of I believe 
it is your obligation to tell the American people that they should be 
vaccinated or at least that the vaccines are safe and effective in most 
cases, but you don't do that.
  So the misconception is out there. It is not a conspiracy, but it is 
a misconception that vaccines are not safe.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. GUTHRIE. Mr. Chair, I am prepared to close, and I reserve the 
balance of my time.
  Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time. 
Again, this is the third in a series of bills over the last 2 weeks 
that tries to roll back the protections that the Federal Government has 
put in place to try to stop the pandemic.
  Now, granted, the pandemic--we have had a lot of success. I mean, 
President Biden for the last 2 years in terms of promoting vaccines and 
testing and all kinds of public health protections, COVID is on the 
wane. The number of people dying, the number of people hospitalized, 
all that is on the wane. He has said that he is planning on May 11 to 
lift the public health emergency.
  But all I have been saying, and all the Democrats have been saying 
for the last 2 weeks on all these bills, is let's go by the science.
  Let's be reasonable about this. Let's not assume that we can let 
foreign travelers in and them not be vaccinated.
  Let's not assume that it is a good thing for public health workers to 
be unvaccinated. Let's not make a decision to end the public health 
emergency immediately.
  Let's leave it up to the agencies and the experts, which again, I 
believe, are the best in the world. I am not interested in what Russia 
does or Cuba does or some of these other countries that are mentioned 
because we have the best experts in the world. If anybody denies that I 
will prove it to them that we do.
  The bottom line is that as Democrats, we understand that the pandemic 
is on the wane, but we don't want to rush to make decisions or force 
decisions, if you will, on our public health experts that could be 
detrimental or make it difficult and tie their hands.
  One of the things that is in this bill--and there are going to be a 
series of amendments now to deal with this--is to say that not only is 
this vaccine mandate eliminated but that the CDC can't even make any 
other types of mandates like that in the future.
  That is very dangerous to tie their hands when we don't know exactly 
where COVID and the variants are going to be going in the next few 
months or the next few years. It is a mistake to do that.
  So we will hear about some of these amendments that I think are 
really important, but the bottom line is this is a bad bill.
  It continues this policy of basically eliminating the protections 
that we have been trying to put in place, that we have had in place, 
and that have helped us get beyond the COVID pandemic, for the most 
part.
  I urge my colleagues, you know, for the sake of science, for the sake 
of helping people, for the sake of public health to vote ``no'' on this 
legislation.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. GUTHRIE. Mr. Chair, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  Mr. Chair, I heard several Members that were talking, saying that 
they were vaccinated and encouraged people to be vaccinated.
  I actually did my vaccination on Facebook to encourage people to be 
vaccinated.

[[Page H752]]

  The question is: Is it a choice or a requirement to move forward?
  So I am not here to disparage the vaccine at all. I just think it 
should be the people's choice.
  To clarify--this was brought up, and I want to reiterate again--this 
does not affect any of the entry requirements that have been put on 
people coming from China. There will be an amendment in the package to 
reinforce that it doesn't do anything to move forward.
  We had a hearing earlier today, and for the first time, I heard there 
is actually a plan to try to unwind the emergency pandemic. That is the 
first time I heard of that. We have been asking for that for a year.
  We want to move these bills forward because other countries have 
started opening up. Other countries have moved forward.
  We heard the President say the pandemic is over. We heard the 
President say in this Chamber last night that COVID doesn't run our 
lives anymore. So we need to do our proper role of oversight.
  I will point out that if there is another strain of COVID--when it 
says that not only does it undo the mandate, it will also undo any 
similar mandates, it is only for COVID. So if there is another kind of 
pathogen, unfortunately--hopefully not--that comes into our country, it 
can be addressed.
  We can come together. We came together when COVID first broke in 
2020. I remember flying back on an airplane that had three people on it 
right in the heart of COVID so we could come back and cast a vote.
  We all came together and did that. We will rise to the occasion as we 
move forward.
  The question is: Can we get back to normal?
  This is a bill that brings us back to normal.
  It has nothing to do with the effectiveness of the vaccine. As I 
said, I took mine on Facebook so people would see that I felt it was 
safe. I just don't want to force somebody else to do it.
  This is an opportunity for us to end this mandate and continue to 
work because I want to work with my colleague on the Energy and 
Commerce Committee as we unwind this pandemic before May 11, so that we 
do it together, and we do it in a way that we recognize COVID is still 
here.
  When they say it is not a pandemic, it is endemic. That doesn't mean 
it has gone away. It means we still have to mitigate and deal with it.
  There will be opportunities for us to work in a bipartisan way and do 
so as we move forward out of this emergency order, which was last 
week's bill.
  But in this bill, it is time for us to move forward like the rest of 
the world, as well.
  Mr. Chairman, I encourage my colleagues to support this bill. There 
will be some amendments also to move forward on as we debate later 
today.
  Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mrs. DINGELL. Mr. Chair, I rise today in strong opposition of H.R. 
185.
  Detroit Metropolitan Airport is a leading international hub with over 
1,100 flights daily to and from four continents. Every year, the 
airport welcomes more than 36 million passengers from across the world.
  Southeast Michigan was hit hard by the coronavirus, and orders like 
the COVID-19 vaccine requirement for global travelers entering the 
United States helped mitigate its further spread into our communities.
  Our nation is entering a new phase of our recovery, but COVID-19 
remains a real public health threat. The emergence of new variants 
globally continues to put our own nation at risk.
  That's why legislation we are considering today is misguided. These 
decisions must be rooted in science and made by our Nation's leading 
public health experts, not politicians.
  We know the best way to defeat this pandemic is for people within the 
United States and around the world to get vaccinated, and this 
legislation is contrary to this goal.
  I urge all my colleagues to oppose this measure,
  Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Chair, I rise in opposition to H.R. 185, to 
terminate the requirement imposed by the Director of the Centers for 
Disease Control and Prevention for proof of Covid-19 vaccination for 
foreign travelers.
  H.R. 185 is hasty attempt to reverse the order issued by the Centers 
for Disease Control and Prevention without any proper planning or 
preparation.
  The Amended Order Implementing Presidential Proclamation on Advancing 
the Safe Resumption of Global Travel During the COVID-19 Pandemic was 
first published on April 7, 2022, and was implemented to save lives.
  The CDC order imposes necessary restrictions on the entry of 
noncitizens into the United States by air travel unless they are fully 
vaccinated against COVID-19 or otherwise attest that they will take 
public health measures to prevent the spread of the disease.
  Similar restrictions have been implemented and enforced worldwide, 
and countries like Thailand have had to reimplement such restrictions 
after lifting them.
  Now is not the time to roll back protections, only to be in a place 
where we will need to reimpose more onerous and unwanted lockdowns and 
shutdowns across the country.
  Yet, H.R. 185 would nullify any successor or subsequent orders that 
require foreign persons traveling by air to show proof of a COVID-19 
vaccination as a condition of entry, as well as prohibit the use of 
federal funds to administer or enforce such a requirement.
  Mr. Chair, the wellbeing of the American People should hold the 
utmost importance and any act against their health and wellbeing should 
be strongly condemned.
  Since March 2020, life in Houston--like most of the world--has been 
upended.
  Houston, Texas is the 4th largest city in the country and is one of 
the most racially and ethnically diverse cities in the United States.
  In addition to Houston being a culturally diverse city and home to 
international students, residents, and families from all over the 
world, Houston also serves as an international hub for millions of 
people all over the world who travel to my city every year for both 
leisure and business.
  According to the Houston First Corporation, a record 22.3 million 
people from around the world visited Houston in 2018.
  Notably, the 2023 Houston Rodeo season, scheduled for Feb. 28-March 
19, is the largest rodeo in the world and contributes significantly to 
our city's economy. In 2022, this event attracted over 2.4 million 
international travelers from around the world.
  Despite the senseless and disingenuous politicization of the COVID-19 
vaccine, it has and continues to save countless lives--particularly in 
my home state and internationally rich travel hub of Houston, Texas.
  In Houston, specifically Harris County, there have been 1,058,476 
confirmed COVID-19 cases, 7,839 active cases, 1,041,939 recovered, and 
8,589 deaths. Furthermore, Texas as a state has recorded 8.24 million 
cases and 93,366 deaths.
  In the United States, there have been 102 million confirmed case and 
1.11 million deaths.
  And across the globe, there have been 671 million confirmed cases and 
6.83 million deaths.
  These statistics serve as a harrowing reminder of the gravity of this 
epidemic and the caution we should be taking in ensuring preventative 
responses and remaining vigilant against the spread of COVID-19.
  Rolling back critical vaccination policies put in place to protect 
Americans through hasty measures such as H.R. 185, undermines the 
national mission and unified efforts nationwide to prevent future cases 
infiltrating our communities.
  While progress has certainly been made in protecting Americans from 
this deadly virus, we cannot stand for the erosion of such progress 
through ill-conceived and politicized measures.
  As we continue to make strides to prevent and eradicate current and 
future variants plaguing our cities, states, nation, and world, let it 
be known that H.R. 185 would only serve to disregard the health and 
well-being of all Americans, foolishly jeopardizing our lives and the 
ongoing fight to keep everyone healthy and safe.
  Instead of halting vital funding and vaccine policies for 
international travelers, without a plan or forethought of the 
disastrous impact that will inevitably result, it is imperative that we 
stand together in planning and preparing for smart policy shifts that 
will allow our country to effectively and safely ease back into some 
sense of normalcy.
  Anything less is an abdication of our governmental duties and an 
insult and danger to the welfare of all those we are sworn to serve.
  With strong opposition to this bill, I urge my Republican colleagues 
to step back and actually work with us to lay forward common sense 
implementations of care and safety for our fellow Americans.
  The CHAIR. All time for general debate has expired.
  Pursuant to the rule, the bill shall be considered for amendment 
under the 5-minute rule.
  The bill is considered as read.
  The text of the bill is as follows:

                                H.R. 185

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

[[Page H753]]

  


     SECTION 1. TERMINATING CDC REQUIREMENT FOR PROOF OF COVID-19 
                   VACCINATION FOR FOREIGN TRAVELERS.

       (a) In General.--Beginning on the date of the enactment of 
     this Act, the air travel vaccination requirement for foreign 
     travelers shall have no force or effect.
       (b) Prohibition on Funding.--Beginning on the date of the 
     enactment of this Act, no Federal funds may be used to 
     administer, implement, or enforce the air travel vaccination 
     requirement for foreign travelers.
       (c) Air Travel Vaccination Requirement for Foreign 
     Travelers.--In this Act, the term ``air travel vaccination 
     requirement for foreign travelers'' refers to the requirement 
     specified in--
       (1) the order issued by the Director of the Centers for 
     Disease Control and Prevention entitled ``Amended Order 
     Implementing Presidential Proclamation on Advancing the Safe 
     Resumption of Global Travel During the COVID-19 Pandemic'' 
     and published in the Federal Register on April 7, 2022 (87 
     Fed. Reg. 20405 et seq.), for proof of COVID-19 vaccination 
     for air travelers who are covered individuals (as defined in 
     such order); or
       (2) any successor or subsequent order of the Centers for 
     Disease Control and Prevention requiring foreign persons 
     traveling by air to show proof of COVID-19 vaccination as a 
     condition on entering the United States.

  The CHAIR. No amendment to the bill shall be in order except those 
printed in House Report 118-3. Each such amendment may be offered only 
in the order printed in the report, by the Member designated in the 
report, shall be considered as read, shall be debatable for the time 
specified in the report equally divided and controlled by the proponent 
and an opponent, shall not be subject to amendment, and shall not be 
subject to a demand for division of the question.

                              {time}  1445


                Amendment No. 1 Offered by Mr. McGovern

  The CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 1 printed in 
House Report 118-3.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Page 2, after line 22, add the following:
       (d) Rule of Construction.--Nothing in this section shall be 
     construed to affect the authority of the Centers for Disease 
     Control and Prevention to mandate vaccination requirements 
     against any other disease for noncitizens who are 
     nonimmigrants seeking to enter the United States by air 
     travel for the sake of public health.

  The CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 97, the gentleman from 
Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Massachusetts.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Chair, I know that some of my colleagues on the 
other side may think a degree from google.com makes them a public 
health expert, but the truth is it doesn't.
  I am sick and tired of coming down here to the floor wasting time on 
anti-vaxxer junk science dug up from the darkest corners of the 
internet and brought to the House floor. Once again, it should be no 
surprise to anybody, we are bringing this bill to the floor in which 
lots of questions have been raised without a single hearing, without a 
markup.
  By the way, the Energy and Commerce Committee today is having a 
hearing but, unfortunately, this bill is not the subject of that 
hearing because here we are on the House floor.
  The amendment I am offering today is simple. All we are saying is the 
CDC should continue to have the authority in the future to demand that 
visitors to the United States show proof of vaccination for diseases 
other than COVID. It is not complicated. It is not a radical idea.
  We already require multiple vaccines for people who are immigrating 
or seeking refuge in this country for diseases like smallpox, polio, 
measles, and mumps. Why? Because they work.
  My colleagues on the other side seem to think that if there is a 
polio or smallpox outbreak in another country, they don't want the CDC 
requiring proof of vaccination for people traveling from those 
countries to the United States. But using their logic, that is where we 
are headed.
  We have wasted 2 weeks now on these ridiculous anti-vaxxer conspiracy 
theory bills. We have Members that watched a few YouTube videos, and 
they think they know more about all the medical research than the 
experts on this subject. They think they know more than all the 
scientists, all the doctors, and all the public health professionals. 
It is embarrassing and, quite frankly, it is alarming.
  But what is even more disappointing is that we have doctors in 
Congress who, shamefully, stood in silence while anti-science and anti-
safety rhetoric has run rampant.
  The majority says that this bill doesn't apply to other vaccines. 
Well, if they believe that, they should vote for this amendment and 
clarify their intent.
  So let's just put this out in the open. This bill isn't about COVID 
vaccines. It is about disinformation. It is about conspiracy theories 
that, quite frankly, confuse people and can pose a threat to the people 
of this country. This doesn't put politics over science, it puts 
science over politics.
  I don't want anything in this bogus bill to be used to diminish the 
CDC's authority to respond to public health emergencies in the future. 
The purpose of the CDC is to prevent the spread of disease in this 
country, and we should let them do their job.
  I urge a ``yes'' vote, and I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. BUCSHON. Mr. Chair, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
  The CHAIR. The gentleman from Indiana is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. BUCSHON. Mr. Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  This legislation is targeted to COVID-19, and has nothing to do with 
other diseases.
  Further, CDC does not have clear authority to mandate vaccination 
requirements. The order referenced in legislation is implementing a 
Presidential proclamation and not a standing authority that CDC has.
  Further, almost every single one of CDC's overreaches in authority 
have been challenged. CDC is still fighting for their ability to 
require masks in public transit stations in court. They are still 
fighting that.
  Why would we adopt this amendment and signal that they have authority 
to mandate vaccinations in the future?
  I urge a ``no'' vote on this amendment, and I yield to the primary 
sponsor of the underlying legislation, the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. 
Massie).
  Mr. MASSIE. Mr. Chair, I thank the gentleman from Indiana for 
yielding.
  I find it somewhat ironic that the other side is complaining about 
the process during the debate on the amendment that the other side gets 
to offer by virtue of a decision in the Rules Committee to open up this 
process. So this is the process.
  The gentleman from Indiana is correct. It is not a given; it has not 
been established that the CDC has this authority. There is no need for 
us to legislate beyond the intent of this bill.
  The intent of this bill is to eliminate a Presidential order about a 
COVID vaccine for international travelers. There is no need for us, in 
this bill, to try and give the CDC additional authority. In fact, the 
bill is quiet on whether they have this authority, and that is a 
subject that is being debated in the courts right now.
  I also want to point out that the order, as well as the gentleman's 
amendment, doesn't apply to immigrants. The order that the President 
has put in place on visitors doesn't apply to illegal immigrants to 
this United States, and neither would this gentleman's amendment.
  So I think when you talk about science and logic, why is it that 
somebody who is coming here legally would be more of a threat than 
somebody who is coming here illegally?
  So I urge a ``no'' on the amendment, and a ``yes'' on the bill, but 
mostly, certainly a ``no'' on this amendment.
  Mr. BUCSHON. Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Chair, I am just asking, urging that we clarify 
that the anti-vax rhetoric we hear on the other side of the aisle 
doesn't apply to other vaccines beyond COVID. There is a trust issue 
here.

  I will give you an example. Last night, when the President asked that 
the Republicans not vote to cut Social Security and Medicare, you all 
said you weren't going to do that.
  Yet, we look today, we see statements from people like Senator Mike 
Lee who said that his objective is to phase out Social Security; to 
pull it up by the roots and get rid of it.
  The Republican Study Committee released a budget that calls for

[[Page H754]]

privatizing Social Security and raising the eligibility ages for Social 
Security and Medicare.
  We have had Senator Lindsey Graham suggest raising the age for Social 
Security and cutting benefits for seniors, while making them pay more. 
I can go on; Rick Scott introduced a bill that would sunset Social 
Security, so there is a trust issue.
  Quite frankly, in order for me to agree with the gentleman, I would 
have to forget everything that I heard in the Rules Committee last 
night.
  So this simply says that your anti-vax rhetoric does not apply to 
other health emergencies and other vaccines. This is about protecting 
the safety and well-being of the people of this country.
  Again, if you had a hearing, and if you brought the CDC head up and 
asked these questions, maybe we would all feel a little bit more 
comfortable, but you are rushing this to the floor because you are 
looking for a sound bite; you are looking for a moment on Tucker 
Carlson or whatever, or more Twitter followers or whatever.
  We are interested in responsible legislating, so we would appreciate 
a reassurance that, in fact, your anti-vax rhetoric doesn't apply to 
other vaccines.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman 
from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern).
  The question was taken; and the Chair announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Chair, I demand a recorded vote.
  The CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further proceedings on 
the amendment offered by the gentleman from Massachusetts will be 
postponed.


                Amendment No. 2 Offered by Mrs. Boebert

  The CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 2 printed in 
House Report 118-3.
  Mrs. BOEBERT. Mr. Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Page 2, after line 22, add the following:

     SEC. 2. REPORT.

       Not later than 90 days after the date of the enactment of 
     this Act, the Director of the Centers for Disease Control and 
     Prevention shall submit a report to Congress on the number of 
     visitors denied entry under the order specified in subsection 
     (c)(1) during the period beginning on April 7, 2022, and 
     ending on the date of the enactment of this Act.

  The CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 97, the gentlewoman from 
Colorado (Mrs. Boebert) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from Colorado.
  Mrs. BOEBERT. Mr. Chair, I rise in favor of my amendment which will 
require the CDC to produce a report to Congress on the number of 
visitors denied entry under the Biden administration's vaccine mandate 
for all incoming international air travelers and visitors to the United 
States.
  This simple, straightforward amendment will provide transparency 
surrounding this ludicrous and unscientific vaccine mandate put in 
place by Joe Biden's bureaucrats.
  This unnecessary CDC rule has made everyday life so much harder for 
so many people; from tearing apart family reunifications and forcing 
loved ones to die alone, without their relatives by their side, to 
punishing companies overseas for doing business with America.
  Just a few short stories my congressional office has come across 
include: The mother of a Dutch tourist who died on the Appalachian 
Trail, was unable to come home to the United States to collect her dead 
son's body; a woman's fiance who lives in Canada has been unable to 
visit her on American soil for the past 3 years; a man working for a 
company in the United Kingdom who is unable to travel to the United 
States for business meetings; and a family in New Hampshire with 
Canadian in-laws has been unable to have Canadian family members visit 
for Christmas in the United States since COVID started.
  My amendment will require the CDC to account for these stories and 
countless others who have felt the negative ramifications of this rule. 
It will also provide transparency and allow congressional oversight of 
the consequences of this vaccine mandate.
  Despite Joe Biden stating the pandemic is over, he has refused to 
lift this mandate. Even Canada has lifted its vaccine mandate for 
incoming U.S. air travelers.
  Other than a few countries around the world run by dictators, the 
United States of America is literally the only country left that is 
imposing this unscientific and immoral COVID vaccine mandate on our 
visitors. Of course, if you cross our southern border illegally, there 
is no such mandate; and we know of about 5 million who have done just 
that.
  Simply put, COVID is over. It is time for us to rejoin the free 
world.
  I thank my friend and colleague, Representative   Thomas Massie, for 
his work to end yet another vaccine mandate. I am proud to be a 
cosponsor of this legislation, and I strongly support it.
  I urge my colleagues to support my amendment and to vote in favor of 
the underlying bill.
  Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
  The CHAIR. The gentleman from New Jersey is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  The reason I am opposed to the amendment is because I don't think it 
is necessary or is even helpful to the issue at hand. It talks about a 
report on the number of visitors denied entry under this policy.
  The fact of the matter is that, on the Democratic side, what we are 
concerned about is the public health. If the gentlewoman wanted to have 
an amendment that said there would be a report that provides us with 
public health data to justify lifting the mandate, I could see 
something like that because the bottom line here is we are concerned 
about the science.
  The CDC says that this mandate is necessary to protect Americans, to 
reduce the COVID cases, to make sure that people don't get sick and 
that more people are hospitalized and be taxing on our public health 
system. So I don't see how this amendment that talks about the number 
of visitors gets to any of that.
  Mr. Chair, I oppose the amendment, and I yield back the balance of my 
time.
  The CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentlewoman from Colorado (Mrs. Boebert).
  The question was taken; and the Chair announced that the ayes 
appeared to have it.
  Mrs. BOEBERT. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further proceedings on 
the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from Colorado will be 
postponed.

                              {time}  1500


             Amendment No. 3 Offered by Mr. Golden of Maine

  The CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 3 printed in 
House Report 118-3.
  Mr. GOLDEN of Maine. Mr. Chair, as the designee of Ms. Perez, I have 
an amendment at the desk.
  The CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Page 2, line 8, strike ``specified in--'' and all that 
     follows through ``(1) the order'' line 9 and insert 
     ``specified in the order''.
       Page 2, line 17, strike ``; or'' and insert a period.
       Page 2, strike line 18 and all that follows through line 
     22.
       Page 2, after line 22, add the following:
       (d) Nonapplicability to Subsequent Orders.--Subsections (a) 
     and (b) shall not apply to any successor or subsequent order 
     of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention to that 
     specified in subsection (c) which requires foreign persons 
     traveling by air to show proof of COVID-19 vaccination as a 
     condition on entering the United States.

  The CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 97, the gentleman from Maine 
(Mr. Golden) and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Maine.
  Mr. GOLDEN of Maine. Mr. Chair, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Chair, I rise to offer an amendment on behalf of Ms. Gluesenkamp 
Perez of Washington to ensure that

[[Page H755]]

the underlying bill does not risk the public health and safety of the 
American people in the future.
  Like many of my colleagues across the aisle, I support ending the 
COVID-19 vaccine requirement for international travelers at this time 
but doing so in the interest of our constituents' safety in mind, first 
and foremost.
  Today, this COVID-19 vaccine requirement for international travelers 
is no longer necessary. In fact, it has become an unnecessary barrier 
for visitors who would boost local economies and who want to visit with 
friends and family and reunite with loved ones. However, we should 
remember that at the beginning of the pandemic, this requirement served 
as an important protection for our constituents. It would be 
shortsighted to move to hamstring similar future actions, if necessary.
  That is why Ms. Gluesenkamp Perez and I support this amendment, which 
strikes the prohibition on successor or subsequent requirements for air 
travelers so that future administrations, whether they be Democrat or 
Republican, have the tools that they need to protect the American 
people.
  We are not here to subject the health and safety of our constituents 
to political whims here in Washington.
  Mr. Chair, I appreciate the opportunity to work with my colleague on 
this amendment, and I urge all of our colleagues to support it.
  Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. BUCSHON. Mr. Chair, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
  The CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. BUCSHON. Mr. Chair, it is clear that the Biden administration has 
pushed its authorities past reasonable interpretation during the COVID-
19 pandemic.
  With everything from eviction moratoriums and student loan 
forgiveness to vaccine and mask mandates being challenged and defeated 
in court, it is clear that the Biden administration needs the oversight 
of Congress.
  The prohibition on rulemaking makes sure the CDC cannot impose a 
future COVID-19 vaccine requirement on international travelers and that 
the Biden administration would need to come to Congress for CDC to take 
such action in the future.
  H.R. 185 is a commonsense bill. As President Biden himself has 
stated: The ``pandemic is over.'' And, as he announced last week, the 
White House would end the current COVID-19 public health emergency 
effective May 11, 2023.
  We are currently one of the only countries still requiring any such 
vaccine mandate. The CDC itself has also acknowledged the vaccine does 
not prevent transmission. Why then are we still requiring a vaccine to 
enter our borders for legal travelers? Again, reminding everyone that 
for illegal travelers entering across the southern border, we are not 
requiring it.
  Mr. Chair, I urge a ``no'' vote on this amendment, and I yield back 
the balance of my time.
  The CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman 
from Maine (Mr. Golden).
  The question was taken; and the Chair announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Chair, I demand a recorded vote.
  The CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further proceedings on 
the amendment offered by the gentleman from Maine will be postponed.


                  Amendment No. 4 Offered by Mr. Rose

  The CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 4 printed in 
House Report 118-3.
  Mr. ROSE. Mr. Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Add at the end the following new section:

     SEC. 2. RULE OF CONSTRUCTION.

       Nothing in this Act may be construed to suggest that the 
     provisions of section 1 shall effect the order issued by the 
     Director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention 
     entitled ``Requirements for Negative Pre-Departure COVID-19 
     Test Results or Documentation of Recovery from COVID-19 for 
     Aircraft Passengers Traveling to the United States From the 
     People's Republic of China'' and published in the Federal 
     Register on January 5, 2023 (88 Fed. Reg. 864) for proof of 
     negative pre-departure COVID-19 test results or documentation 
     of recovery from COVID-19 for aircraft passengers traveling 
     to the United States from the People's Republic of China or 
     departing from a designated airport if such passenger has 
     been in the People's Republic of China within the 10 days 
     prior to departure for the United States.

  The CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 97, the gentleman from 
Tennessee (Mr. Rose) and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Tennessee.
  Mr. ROSE. Mr. Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I rise in support of my amendment to H.R. 185, and I thank my friend 
from Kentucky, Mr. Massie, for introducing this important piece of 
legislation.
  We all know that the People's Republic of China has not been 
transparent regarding its handling of the COVID crisis.
  My amendment is simple. This amendment will add language to the 
underlying bill to clarify that no provisions in the bill shall affect 
the order issued by the CDC requiring negative COVID-19 tests or proof 
of recovery from COVID-19 for travelers coming from the People's 
Republic of China.
  A Bloomberg news article from last month said that: ``After years of 
meticulously testing to find every last case of COVID-19, Chinese 
President Xi Jinping is now effectively looking the other way as the 
virus ravages the nation's 1.4 billion people.''
  Mr. Chair, we cannot fall asleep at the wheel when it comes to 
protecting our Nation, its people, and our safety with respect to the 
adversarial and all-too-often nefarious actions and intentions of the 
People's Republic of China.
  Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Chair, I rise in opposition to the amendment, 
although I may not necessarily be opposed to the amendment.
  The CHAIR. Without objection, the gentlewoman from Texas is 
recognized for 5 minutes.
  Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Chair, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Chair, any effort to keep the existing protocols for China are 
appropriate, but I rise today with great concern about the underlying 
bill, H.R. 185, which is to terminate the requirement imposed by the 
director of Centers for Disease Control and Prevention for proof of 
COVID-19 vaccination for foreign travelers.
  It is not the CDC, based on science, that is attempting to do this, 
or the administration, based on the multiple levels of science, Health 
and Human Services, CDC, and NIH that may contribute to this decision. 
It is Congress, that certainly has its role of authority, but it is not 
authority based on science and based on knowledge.
  I believe this is a hasty attempt to reverse the order issued by the 
Centers for Disease Control. As well, I believe it imposes important 
restrictions by the CDC on the entry of noncitizens into the United 
States by air travel unless they are fully vaccinated.
  We know that there are discussions going on about ending certain 
protocols with COVID-19. But as the President said last night, we lost 
a million Americans. People are still mourning their loved ones. We 
understand, with that in mind, we are still seeing people die of COVID-
19 and many of its, in essence, other aspects of infectious diseases, 
and we are seeing COVID-19 still actively exist.
  People with underlying conditions suffer greatly. Restrictions have 
been implemented and enforced worldwide, and countries like Thailand 
have had to re-implement such restrictions after lifting them.
  Now is not the time to go back on protections, only to be in a place 
where we will need to reimpose more onerous and unwanted lockdowns and 
shutdowns. Yet, H.R. 185 would nullify any successor or subsequent 
orders that require foreign persons traveling by air to show proof of 
COVID-19 vaccination as a condition of entry, as well as prohibit the 
use of Federal funds to administer and enforce such a requirement.
  Mr. Chair, this is not logical or sensible. This is a country of over 
300 million persons. Again, this is a Nation that lost a million 
persons. I will say it again: People are still dying of COVID-19.
  The well-being of the American people should be our first priority. 
Since March of 2020, I proceeded to provide

[[Page H756]]

any number of testing sites and vaccination sites. We saw our hospitals 
teeming. We, of course, reached out to the chair of the Energy and 
Commerce Committee, as we were desperate to get tests and vaccines.
  I spoke to New York hospitals and doctors who were telling me that 
their hallways were teeming, their operating rooms were nonexistent, 
because there were COVID patients everywhere. Many of us remember the 
stark look of the refrigerator cars not only in this Nation but around 
the world.
  So I am hesitant that at this point we make a decision on the floor 
of the House, not a scientific report, not a hearing in a committee, to 
be able to suggest that we could go ahead and remove this particular 
health caution protection.
  Again, COVID-19 cases have been 1,058,000 confirmed in our area, 
7,839 active cases now, and 1 million persons recovered. There have 
been 8,589 deaths. Texas, as a State, has recorded 8.24 million cases 
and 93,366 deaths.
  We are a border State, and so we have the opportunity for people to 
come in from foreign countries, as well as South and Central America, 
who come into the United States, and I am saying through legal travel. 
So it doesn't make sense to go to this length and to do it without 
further study, further science, and as well for the recognition of the 
importance of the Centers for Disease Control, the National Institutes 
of Health, Health and Human Services, and the President of the United 
States, who is the leader of this Nation.
  So in working with the executive, I believe that we should give them 
the opportunity to work constructively and to be able to give the right 
kind of guidance that will protect all of us. We should not 
precipitously try to overcome a disease that is evident as a major 
killer of Americans.
  Mr. Chair, I ask my colleagues to oppose the underlying bill, and I 
yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. ROSE. Mr. Chair, I yield myself the balance of my time.

  Mr. Chair, just a few days ago, we saw the People's Republic of China 
send a high-altitude surveillance balloon over our airspace spanning 
almost the entire continental United States. No one believes the 
government of China's ludicrous explanation that this was simply a 
weather balloon that inadvertently went off course. If the Chinese 
Government is willing to make such a bald-faced lie to the world, then 
how can we possibly trust the information they are releasing regarding 
the current COVID crisis in China?
  The easy answer is: We can't. Because we can't trust the Chinese 
Government to be transparent and honest about the scope of their 
current COVID crisis, we must take appropriate precautions. Continuing 
to test travelers from China is essential to our national safety. A 
vote for this amendment is a vote in favor of holding China accountable 
and ensuring the safety of our Nation and its people.
  In closing, I urge Members to vote ``yes'' on my amendment and the 
underlying bill, and I yield back the balance of my time.
  The CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman 
from Tennessee (Mr. Rose).
  The question was taken; and the Chair announced that the ayes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Chair, I demand a recorded vote.
  The CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further proceedings on 
the amendment offered by the gentleman from Tennessee will be 
postponed.


          Amendment No. 5 Offered by Mrs. Torres of California

  The CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 5 printed in 
House Report 118-3.
  Mrs. TORRES of California. Mr. Chair, I have an amendment at the 
desk.
  The CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Add at the end the following new section:

     SEC. 2. EFFECTIVE DATE.

       The provisions of section 1 shall not take effect until the 
     date on which the Secretary of Health and Human Services 
     submits to Congress a certification that such provisions will 
     not result in an increase in hospitalizations due to COVID-
     19.

  The CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 97, the gentlewoman from 
California (Mrs. Torres) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from California.
  Mrs. TORRES of California. Mr. Chair, I rise today to offer amendment 
No. 5 to H.R. 185.
  The decision to change COVID-19 vaccine requirements for global 
travelers into the United States should not be made by Members of 
Congress but instead by public health experts.
  Colleagues, if we must continue with this reckless bill that puts 
politics over science by replacing guidance from our public health 
experts with harmful ideology at the expense of our communities, our 
hospitals, and our health, then I would ask for your support for my 
amendment.
  Knowing that other countries have different health standards, have 
little access to vaccines for COVID, why would you risk the number of 
hospital beds that are currently available for yourselves, your 
families, your community that you represent, why would you risk that to 
allow visitors who are traveling into the United States to not show the 
bare minimum of having had a vaccine?
  My amendment would require that the Secretary of Health and Human 
Services certify that the end of the COVID-19 vaccination requirement 
for foreign air travelers will not result in an increase in U.S. 
hospitalizations due to this deadly virus.
  We do not want to threaten the progress that we have made in our 
fight against the COVID-19 pandemic and push hospitals, healthcare 
providers, and public health resources past their breaking points 
again.
  COVID-19 is still a public health threat, with new variants of 
concern having emerged globally and entering the U.S. every single day.
  Mr. Chair, I urge my colleagues to please, if you must move forward 
with this bill, vote in support of this commonsense amendment to 
protect our constituents, our hospitals, and our healthcare system.
  Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.

                              {time}  1515

  Mr. BUCSHON. Mr. Chair, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
  The CHAIR. The gentleman from Indiana is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. BUCSHON. Mr. Chair, I want to reiterate, as a physician, I 
believe the vaccines are safe and effective, and I would hope that 
people can make the personal choice to get vaccinated. It should be 
just that, their personal choice, not the choice of the Federal 
Government.
  The CDC itself has acknowledged the vaccine does not prevent 
transmission, so termination of this burdensome and unnecessary mandate 
should not play any role in the increase in hospitalizations.
  Based on the current science and what we know regarding how COVID-19 
spreads, any individual person should have the right to choose whether 
to get the vaccine or not.
  Further, we have seen that President Biden and Secretary Becerra are 
unwilling to relinquish any power or authority from the COVID-19 
pandemic, leaving in order ridiculous guidance long past the date 
indicated it is necessary or useful. I have no doubt Secretary Becerra 
would refuse to certify this, so a vote for this amendment would delay 
or even prevent totally the repeal of this ridiculous mandate.
  Mr. Chair, I urge a ``no'' vote on this amendment, and I yield back 
the balance of my time.
  The CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Torres).
  The question was taken; and the Chair announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Chair, I demand a recorded vote.
  The CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further proceedings on 
the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from California will be 
postponed.
  Mr. BUCSHON. Mr. Chair, I move that the committee now rise.
  The motion was agreed to.
  Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr. 
Massie) having assumed the chair, Mr. Kiley, Chair of the Committee of 
the Whole House on the state of the Union,

[[Page H757]]

reported that that Committee, having had under consideration the bill 
(H.R. 185) to terminate the requirement imposed by the Director of the 
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention for proof of COVID-19 
vaccination for foreign travelers, and for other purposes, had come to 
no resolution thereon.

                          ____________________