[Congressional Record Volume 169, Number 58 (Thursday, March 30, 2023)]
[Senate]
[Pages S1070-S1075]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                          LEGISLATIVE SESSION

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senate will 
resume legislative session.
  The Senator from Texas.


                   Unanimous Consent Request--S. 1082

  Mr. CRUZ. Mr. President, I wish we were not here facing these issues 
yet again. In recent days, our Nation has seen yet another horrific 
school shooting. In September of last year, I stood on the Senate floor 
and tried to pass legislation to stop these school shootings. There 
have been too damn many. I have been there on the ground at too damn 
many of them.
  Sante Fe High School in Texas, about 45 minutes away from my house--
the morning of that shooting, I got the call within minutes of the 
shooting. I was down on campus just over an hour after it occurred. I 
saw the tragedy, the tears, the grieving parents, the children in 
shock.
  Uvalde, I was there shortly after that shooting as well--the horror, 
the mayhem.
  Too many of our children have been murdered by deranged lunatics.
  Mr. President, when you and I were kids, this wasn't a thing. When 
you went to school, when I went to school, there wasn't a single day 
that I woke up going to school worried that some idiot, some sociopath, 
was going to shoot up the school. You might worry about getting punched 
at recess, but this didn't happen 30, 40, 50 years ago. Now it is a 
brutal reality over and over again.
  There are lots of causes that we could debate for a long time: causes 
in our culture; causes of disconnected, emotionally disturbed young men 
who want to become famous. I think Columbine may have started this 
whole tragic cycle where an angry young person seeks to lash out by 
murdering little kids.
  With respect to becoming famous, one rule I try to follow is that I 
will never say the names of these mass murderers. If they want to be 
well-known, I hope everyone in elected office--I would like everyone in 
the news media to follow that rule as well. They deserve to be 
forgotten in utter obscurity.
  But we also have an obligation to stop this. Every time there is a 
mass murder, there is a pattern that plays out. No. 1, there is an 
expression of grief, of love for the community. There are millions of 
us who lift the community up in prayer. Inevitably, that produces a 
response from the political left where they scream in unison: Thoughts 
and prayers aren't enough.
  I will tell you, Mr. President, I believe in the power of prayer, and 
I will continue praying for communities that are hurting, whether from 
a natural disaster or a horrific crime or anything else. But I agree 
with the sentiment ``thoughts and prayers are not enough.'' That is 
exactly right. We need action.
  And what is so infuriating is, every time there is a mass shooting, 
Democrats in this Chamber stand up, and they don't actually want to do 
something to stop the murderers. Instead, they want another gun control 
bill to disarm law-abiding citizens that won't actually stop the 
murders, that won't actually protect our kids.
  In September of last year, I introduced legislation that would be the 
most far-reaching school safety legislation ever enacted. It would 
double the number of police officers on campuses, devoting $15 billion 
to putting armed police officers on campus to protect our kids, the 
single most important step we can do. It would also devote $10 billion 
for mental health professionals on campuses because so many of these 
troubled murderers had warning signs leaping off the page. It also 
devotes $2.56 billion for physical security at schools to help enhance 
the security of schools.
  When I introduced this bill, it first came up as an amendment on the 
much-touted bipartisan gun control bill last year that did nothing to 
stop violent crime but satisfied the leftwing donors of the Democratic 
Party. When my amendment was voted on, on the Senate floor, I am sorry 
to say every single Democrat in this Chamber voted no--all of them, 
every one.
  Afterwards, I went to this floor, I stood on this floor, and I tried 
to pass the bill by unanimous consent. And when that happened, the 
Senator from Connecticut stood up and objected.
  Now, I have to say, leading up to that unanimous consent request, 
numerous reporters had asked me in the hallway: Why are the Democrats 
objecting to this?
  And I was forced to say ``I do not know,'' because, to date, they 
have not articulated any reason. They have not explained why they 
oppose more police officers in schools. They have not explained why 
they oppose more mental health counselors in schools. They have not 
explained why they oppose more funding for enhanced physical security 
in schools.
  So I was quite interested to hear the Senator from Connecticut give 
his reasons. I was disappointed that day. The Senator from Connecticut 
stood up and uttered two words: ``I object.'' Then he sat down. That 
was it. His answer was just no.
  Mr. President, I stood on this floor then, and I said something 
that--I said: God forbid there is going to be another school shooting--
I pray to God there isn't--but we are going to find a day when another 
one of these happens, another deranged lunatic commits this kind of 
mass murder. And if there is not a police officer at the front door, I 
said, remember this moment, remember this moment. Because if the 
Senator from Connecticut had not stood up and said ``I object,'' this 
bill would have passed the Senate unanimously.
  If this bill had passed into law, $15 billion to double the number of 
police officers on campus--and that was available at public schools, at 
private schools, at parochial schools--what that would have meant is 
that there is a very real possibility an armed police officer would 
have been at the front door of the Covenant School in Nashville.
  As we look at what happened, every one of us--every one of us--who is 
a parent or a grandparent is beyond horrified at what sort of deranged 
person murders little children, but we also know that that shooter came 
to the front door and shot the front door open. If this bill had 
passed, funding for school security, that front door could have been 
made more secure so the shooter couldn't have blasted in.
  But even more importantly, what many of us have watched in the body 
cam footage is horrific. It is deeply disturbing. But, I will tell you, 
it is also awe-inspiring. You saw the Nashville police officers arrive 
on campus about 15 minutes after the shooting began. They enter the 
campus. They are scared. They don't know what is going on, but they are 
looking for the shooter. They are wearing bulletproof vests. They are 
searching for the shooter. They are going up the stairs, and they hear 
the sound of gunshots. The police officers do what police officers 
should do: They head toward the shots. They risk their lives. And they 
encounter the shooter and shoot the shooter dead.
  The heroism of those officers saved lives that day. If this bill had 
passed, those officers might not have been 15 minutes away; they might 
have been standing at the front door. The purpose of this bill was to 
have those officers at the front door so that when the deranged shooter 
showed up and tried to shoot in the door, the officers could stop the 
shooter right there and then, which would have meant that not a single 
child needed to die.
  I told this body that if we didn't act, the consequences would be 
horrific. Yet the sad reality--I do not understand why our Democrat 
colleagues in this body do not support having police officers keep our 
kids safe; why, when it comes to this issue, the only thing that 
interests them is disarming the people at home who pose no threat 
rather than protecting our kids.
  As I said, I wish I wasn't back here today. I wish this had passed 
last year. I wish Democrats were willing to work together on really 
solving this problem. But, sadly, this pattern replays over and over 
again.

[[Page S1071]]

  I have two different bills that I am going to put before this body, 
but I am going to start with the first one, the one I have just 
described--$15 billion for police officers to double the number of 
police officers on campus to protect our kids.
  You know, when you go to the bank and you deposit money in the bank, 
there are armed police officers in the bank. Why? Because we want to 
protect the money we save. Why on Earth do we protect a stupid deposit 
more than our children? If there are parents who don't want police 
officers protecting their kids, I don't know those parents.
  We have the opportunity right now to double the police officers on 
campus and keep kids safe. Therefore, I ask unanimous consent that the 
Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of S. 1082, which is at 
the desk; further, 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 (Mr. Peters). Is there objection?
  The Senator from Connecticut.
  Mr. MURPHY. Reserving the right to object, as I understand, the 
Senator has two unanimous consent requests. I will object to both, and 
I will make my comments when the Senator makes his second unanimous 
consent request.
  For now, on this first objection on this first request, so as to save 
time, I will wait for my comments on the second and simply object to 
this one.
  I object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
  The Senator from Texas.
  Mr. CRUZ. So history has repeated. We still don't have an explanation 
as to why police officers on campus is not a good thing. Maybe we will 
get it. We were told we will get a speech, so we will see what that is. 
That is what happened last time.
  All right. The Democrats don't like that.


                   Unanimous Consent Request--S. 1081

  Let me give you a simpler bill--a simpler bill that would spend 
unused COVID education funds. There is over $100 billion in funds that 
Congress has appropriated to the schools. Under the restrictions put in 
place from the Democrats, that money cannot be used for school safety. 
That money cannot be used to make our kids safer.
  In September, I introduced this bill as well. It is a one-page bill. 
It is a very simple bill. It says schools can choose to use that money 
to enhance school safety. It says if a school wants to use some of that 
money to hire a police officer, the school can do so. It says if the 
school wants to use some of that money to enhance their physical 
security, the school can do so. It gives flexibility to the schools.
  In September when I attempted to pass this, I asked: Why would anyone 
possibly oppose this?
  I don't know how a Democratic Senator goes home to your State--I 
don't know how you go home to Connecticut or New Jersey or Michigan and 
look in the eyes of a superintendent, look in the eyes of a teacher, 
and say: No, I will not let you spend the money on school security. It 
doesn't matter if your kids are afraid. It doesn't matter if your 
teachers are afraid. We the Democrats in Congress know better than you, 
and you may not spend a dollar of this on school security.
  Let me be clear. This would have passed in September except for two 
magic words uttered by the Senator from Connecticut: ``I object.''
  Now, last time, he went on a discourse about how this was not the 
full legislative process, that we hadn't negotiated with him, and, 
goodness, that must be comfort to the parents who are scared at home, 
that we hadn't sat there in a detailed negotiation.
  Every year, this body passes bill after bill after bill by unanimous 
consent. Every Senator here knows how to do that.
  The reason it doesn't go through the committee process, by the way, 
is because the Democrats control the committees, and they don't want to 
debate this.
  So if you hear a bunch of process arguments from the Senator from 
Connecticut--``Gosh''--what he said last time--``this isn't real,'' it 
is only not real because the Democrats are objecting. That is what 
makes it not real, because they are blocking it. But to say it is not 
passing because I am objecting is like the arsonist complaining there 
is a fire.
  I ask you in all seriousness, Mr. President, how do you explain to a 
parent back home, how do you explain to a superintendent, how do you 
explain to a teacher that there is something wrong with your having the 
ability to spend this money on school safety? I don't know how to 
articulate that. I am looking forward to hearing it. We will see if we 
do.
  Therefore, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the 
immediate consideration of S. 1081, which is at the desk; further, 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 Connecticut.
  Mr. MURPHY. Mr. President, the Senator is right--I have very little 
interest in engaging on the merits of these proposals in a dialogue on 
the floor of the Senate because they are not serious attempts to make 
our kids safer.
  These unanimous consent requests that Senator Cruz makes--they are 
going to get a lot of clicks online. The confrontation that he is 
looking for will probably lead to a bunch of cable news appearances 
being booked, but it is not going to save any kids' lives.
  The Senator knows this is not how the Senate works. This isn't an 
autocracy. It is not a dictatorship. You don't come down here and 
introduce a piece of legislation and 2 minutes later demand that the 
entirety of the Senate agree to it without any debate, any negotiation.
  The Senator says these are the same bills he introduced last year, 
but as far as I can tell, he introduced the bills he is making 
unanimous consent requests on minutes ago. They are not even fully 
formed pieces of legislation. This thing is so ham-handed--one of the 
bills--that there are literally brackets and question marks in the 
text. The legislative drafters--at least in the version I see--haven't 
made decisions on when the money is being spent.
  The Senator says there is this pattern that plays out after these 
shootings in which Democrats make demands about taking people's guns 
away but aren't serious about making our kids safer. Is that how it 
played out after the shooting in Uvalde? Is that what happened last 
summer? No, that is not what happened. What happened last summer after 
the shooting in the Senator's State is that serious Members of this 
body--Members of this body who are more interested in legislating than 
enacting political theater--sat down together and negotiated a bill to 
save children's lives. Did it solve all of the problems in this 
country? Did it guarantee every child's safety? No, it did not. But 
let's be clear. Senator Cruz never expressed one iota of interest in 
being part of those negotiations. Other Republican Senators did.
  While I understand he objects to the gun provisions in that bill, 
guess what--that bill also put $15 billion into school safety, into 
mental health, into hardening our schools, into community anti-gun-
violence programs.
  I can't speak about the other Members of the group who authored that 
bill, but I never got a single phone call from Senator Cruz during the 
month of negotiations suggesting that we add the language he is talking 
about to that proposal. Last summer, there were serious legislators who 
came to this floor to enact legislation, to set aside our differences 
and pass legislation that makes our kids safe--willing to make 
compromise. Senator Cruz didn't even sniff that room.
  He references the unanimous consent requests he made later last year 
that I objected to. I think I suggested then, as I suggest now, that 
the result of that unanimous consent request was to create political 
theater and book cable news hits. The result was not going to be a 
piece of legislation being enacted. I figured that if I was wrong about 
that, if the Senator's purpose was to pass a piece of legislation, that 
the result of my objection would have been to get outreach from the 
Senator's office, to try to figure out a way forward, to try to find a 
compromise. And I waited. And I waited. And I waited. And I waited. And 
I waited. But not once did Senator Cruz reach out and say, ``Let's work 
together to get this

[[Page S1072]]

done,'' which confirmed my suspicions that these unanimous consent 
requests are not about passing legislation; they are just about 
creating conflict for the sake of conflict.
  This legislation was introduced minutes ago, so I am not able to 
debate the merits of it on the floor of the Senate right now. It 
appears to make a whole bunch of changes to the not-for-profit Security 
Grant Program, which the Presiding Officer knows very well, changes 
that have little to do with school safety. It seems there are a bunch 
of processes changes to the not-for-profit security grant program. That 
is probably something worth having a conversation with the chairman of 
the committee about before we pass it by unanimous consent.

  It makes broad structural changes to title IV, which is a very 
important program to schools. They use that money for school security, 
but they also use that money for a host of other important programs. 
That is probably worth having a conversation with the members of the 
Education Committee about.
  A very quick look at this bill suggests it likely opens up the use of 
those funds to arming teachers in our school. I think that is a 
terrible idea.
  This is all to say that this isn't how the process works. You don't 
drop a piece of legislation on the floor of the Senate and 2 minutes 
later demand that the whole Senate pass it. You do that if your intent 
is to create conflict for the purposes of publicity. I don't know what 
the Senator's intentions are, but if that was your intention, this is 
what you would do.
  If you were interested in actually passing something, you would have 
dialed up the authors of the Bipartisan Safer Communities Act and asked 
to be part of that negotiation. You would have reached out to my office 
after the objection last year and said: What is your objection? Let's 
sit down and do something together.
  That is how legislation gets passed in this place. I know because I 
have done it on this topic.
  I am not saying the Bipartisan Safer Communities Act solved the 
problem. I know we have more work to do. I know it because I spend time 
with those same families every single week. I know it because I live in 
a dangerous neighborhood in South Hartford. I talk to those kids who 
have to fear for their life when they go to school. That is why my 
purpose for being in the Senate is to work like hell across the aisle, 
through compromise, not by coming down here, dropping a bill on the 
floor and then immediately demanding that the entire Senate vote for 
it. That is not how we save kids' lives--compromising, working toward 
compromise, behind the scenes, not always in front of the cameras.
  I object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
  The Senator from Texas.
  Mr. CRUZ. As the Senator from Connecticut walks away because he is 
unwilling to debate the topic, I will note several things he said not a 
word about.
  But let's focus on--he said: Oh, this bill is very hard to figure 
out; it is very complicated. Well, the second bill, the one he just 
objected to, is all of one-page long. I am going to read you the 
statutory text. The Senator from New Jersey is here. He is a learned 
Senator. It says:

       The unobligated balance of funds made available in the 
     COVID funding--

  I won't read the actual citation, but the COVID funding:

       The unobligated balance of funds made available . . . shall 
     be made available to local educational agencies to keep 
     elementary schools and secondary schools served by such 
     agencies physically secure.

  That is the entirety of the bill. You can use the $100 billion that 
Congress has appropriated to make schools safer.
  Now, not a word from the Senator from Connecticut addressed that 
bill. He just said: ``I object.'' And as for his caterwauling that the 
first bill--gosh, he can't figure out what is in it; you don't do it 
this way. I will point out the first time I introduced it, it was Cruz-
Barrasso, and every Senator voted on it because I introduced it as an 
amendment to the bill the Senator from Connecticut introduced.
  Mind you, in the wake of Uvalde, with great fanfare, the Senator from 
Connecticut passed a meaningless gun control bill that did nothing to 
prevent what happened in Nashville. That is not going to prevent the 
next mass murder. Why? Because it doesn't target criminals. It doesn't 
go after the bad guys. It doesn't put police officers in a position to 
protect our kids. I find some rich irony that the Senator from 
Connecticut suggested: Gosh, the purpose of this is to get on cable 
news. I don't know if the Senator from Connecticut has difficulty 
getting on the news, but I can assure you that I don't.
  What I do know is this is about stopping these damn murders. The 
Senator from Connecticut suggests this is about conflict with him. I 
can assure him, very few people outside of Connecticut have any 
awareness of what he says. Why is that? Well, for one thing, when we 
did this last time, there were zero reporters in the Gallery; now there 
are two. The corporate media doesn't report on this. If you turn on 
cable news, they won't tell you that the reason there wasn't a police 
officer at the Covenant School is because every Democrat in the Senate 
voted against it. Corporate media won't tell you the reason the 
Covenant School couldn't spend these funds on hiring a police officer 
and hardening that front door so you couldn't shoot through it is 
because the Senator from Connecticut objected. He knows--he knows, to 
an absolute certainty, that a dishonest press corps will not tell 
anybody.
  By the way, he made great fanfare of saying: Well, the legislative 
text has a bracket. What he didn't tell you is his staff gave him an 
old version of the bill, not the one that is filed. And he was focused, 
in particular, on the one edit that was made, which was to change the 
fiscal year because we are now 1 year later, so it was to alter the 
date from the appropriate date last year to the appropriate date this 
year. That was the amendment.
  He reported: Gosh, no one knows what is in this. You all voted on it. 
You know what he didn't say once? Why having police officers--more 
police officers in schools--is a bad thing. He didn't talk at all about 
$10 billion for mental health program counselors.
  I am tired of these games. I told you that he would give you process 
arguments and, oh, boy, did he. He said: Gosh, Cruz didn't call me. I 
guess his feelings were hurt.

  I have also done this a long time. I have seen the political 
posturing that too many Democrats do on this issue. The Senator from 
Connecticut suggests that this is a newfound interest. I served 11 
years on the Senate Committee on the Judiciary. I have fought for 11 
years. I have introduced legislation after legislation after 
legislation to lock up gun criminals. If you commit a crime with a gun, 
you should be prosecuted and go to jail. If you are a felon or fugitive 
or someone with serious mental illness and you try to illegally buy 
guns, you should be prosecuted and sent to jail, and, repeatedly, 
Democrats block those bills.
  The sad reality of this body is, if you are a mom at home who wants 
to be able to protect your kids, the Democrats are really eager to 
disarm you. But if you are a gangbanger in Chicago, they are not 
interested in a gun task force to lock you up and take the murderers 
off the street.
  Why is it an unreasonable question to ask what is wrong with having 
more police officers to protect our kids?
  I want to show you how little interest the Democrats have. The 
Senator from Connecticut is gone. He gave his little speech and ran 
away. This is supposed to be the world's greatest deliberative body. 
But as long as the press doesn't do its job, the Senator from 
Connecticut can send out a fundraising email tonight to all the gun 
control groups saying: Guess what. We are coming after the Second 
Amendment. Please click here.
  That is cold comfort to the parents who are scared at home right now, 
to the kids who are scared at home right now.
  The solutions put forth by the Democrats in this body are not 
designed to stop crime; this bill is. You know, for a long time, in the 
weeks and months following Uvalde, there has been a talking point 
raised by the left on Twitter and echoed just moments ago by the 
Senator from Connecticut that says: Well, we don't want more police 
because the police don't stop these crimes, and they point to Uvalde. I 
will say, having been in Uvalde right after

[[Page S1073]]

that shooting, what the police officers did there was tragic. Hundreds 
of officers showed up at that school, and for an hour and 14 minutes, 
they did nothing. They didn't go in and take out the shooter. That was 
true even as shots rang out repeatedly. That was true even as little 
children were calling 9-1-1 begging for help. For over an hour, they 
didn't go in. I agree the conduct of law enforcement that day was 
inexplicable and indefensible.
  I will say, when I went to Uvalde immediately after the shooting, 
senior law enforcement there in Uvalde sat in the room and lied to me 
and lied to John Cornyn and lied to Greg Abbott, the Governor, about 
what happened. The story they described was utterly false, as would 
come out in the days to follow. One of the things they claimed that day 
was to say: Oh, an officer was there when the shooter arrived. That was 
not true.
  You want to know why having an officer there matters? Watch the body 
cam footage. In Nashville, those heroic officers who heard the sounds 
of gunshots ran toward them, risking their lives. There are children 
who are, thank God, alive because of the heroism of those officers. Is 
it too much to ask how things would have been different if the officer 
could have been at the front door to begin with? They could have been, 
if not for Senate Democrats.
  The Senator from Connecticut said, gosh, he hasn't had time to read 
this bill that he voted on before; that he has objected to before. But, 
you know, it really did make his head hurt to have to read this 
legislative language. I tell you what. We are ready to go on a 2-week 
recess. When we come back, we can do this again. Senator from 
Connecticut, take 2 weeks to read the bill. It is not complicated. And 
then I look forward to the Senator from Connecticut telling me why, on 
behalf of the Democratic Party, he thinks having police officers on 
school campuses is a bad idea.
  By the way, I would note, even though it is just the Senator from 
Connecticut objecting, every Democrat in this body voted against this 
bill, and not a single Democrat has come to the floor to say they 
disagree with what the Senator from Connecticut is doing. When he 
stands up and does this objection, he is doing it on behalf of the 
whole Democratic Party. I will make an invitation to any one of you. If 
there is a Democratic Member in this body who actually believes that 
having police officers protecting our kids would be a good thing; that 
actually believes having mental health program counselors in our 
schools would be a good thing; that actually believes that providing 
funding to enhance physical security in schools would be a good thing, 
then come join me. I don't have a whole lot of optimism that is going 
to happen. But if it doesn't, this is all going to happen again.
  The bill passed last fall. Nobody--nobody, nobody, nobody--thinks it 
is going to do anything to stop mass murders. It wasn't designed to do 
that. It was designed to assuage gun control activists. If you want to 
stop mass murders, go after the murderers. If you want to stop mass 
murders, protect our kids.
  We can do this. But to do it, we have to have someone from the 
Democratic Party willing to stand up and say: Let's actually get it 
done. Right now, today, the answer from Democrats is thoughts and 
prayers. I agree, thoughts and prayers are not enough. How about 
action? By the way, they do want action. They would be happy to 
confiscate all the law-abiding citizens' firearms, which doesn't work 
and wouldn't have kept anybody safe. How about action to keep our kids 
safe?
  If the Democrats had that objective in September of 2022, this 
horrific murder in Nashville could have been prevented. It should have 
been prevented. And we have a responsibility to do everything we can to 
prevent the next one.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Utah.


                  Unanimous Consent Request--H.R. 185

  Mr. LEE. Mr. President, I am back again, seeking unanimous consent 
for the passage of my FREEBIRD Act.
  Now, previously, my request for unanimous consent was met with an 
objection, an objection on the grounds that we are still in the midst 
of a public health emergency.
  It was obviated. This unanimous consent request was objected to on 
the grounds that if we were going to do this, we should end the vaccine 
requirement for foreign travelers and the public health emergency at 
the same time, in the words of the objector, to make it clean.
  Well, just last night, the Senate voted to terminate the COVID-19 
pandemic national emergency order. That makes this as clean as it gets.
  We have passed this now, and early this morning the White House 
announced that the President will be signing that measure--which had 
previously been passed by the House--into law. So that is happening 
now. That means that this is as clean as it gets. These things would go 
out at the same time with a bang--as well they should.
  Now, that also means that there is no reason why we shouldn't end 
this particular restriction, the restriction on unvaccinated foreign 
travelers coming into the United States today.
  Now, to those who might think that the Senate passed something last 
night that might somehow make it unnecessary to pass the FREEBIRD Act, 
make it unnecessary, separately, to enact legislation ending the 
foreign traveler vaccine requirement, they are mistaken.
  And they are mistaken because those two legal documents--the 
proclamation issued by President Trump in 2020 declaring a national 
public health emergency and the October 2021 Executive order issued by 
President Biden putting in place the foreign traveler vaccine 
requirement--are separate things; neither depends on the other. And so 
the fact that the public health emergency Executive order is now on its 
way out the door, it will be no more in a matter of hours or days, 
makes no difference as to this one. This one remains in effect unless 
or until it is undone.
  So to paraphrase the words of the Member of the Senate from the 
Democratic Party who objected to this just a few days ago, we can make 
it clean. Now, we should make it clean. In fact, we should make it 
clean by getting rid of this just as the other expires.
  Now, look, so basic question, right, why does this matter so much? 
Why do we care about the fact that we are requiring foreign travelers 
to prove that they have been vaccinated prior to entering the United 
States? Well, we care, and we should care because it is levying a 
really heavy cost on State and local economies and on the American 
economy and on American relationships across this country.
  Continuing to keep this mandate in place at a time when President 
Biden himself has declared that the pandemic is over and is prepared, 
apparently, to sign into law legislation passed by both Houses, 
officially ending the order declaring the existence of a public health 
emergency over COVID, it doesn't make any sense to continue this, 
especially at a time when this body has voted and the President's 
prepared to sign the other measure.
  Look, those who oppose this really are unjustified in what they are 
trying to do, especially because they are ignoring the new risk 
calculus that is affording Americans a renewed sense of normalcy, much 
needed normalcy after 3 years of chaos.
  This policy has separated loved ones for far too long. It is time to 
end the COVID-19 vaccination requirement for foreign travelers, 
prohibit using Federal funds to carry out the requirement, and prevent 
the CDC from ordering future COVID-19 vaccine mandates for foreign 
travelers. It is costing us too much.
  In 2021 alone, Utah visitors, travelers coming into Utah, spent 
nearly $11 billion, generating over 130,000 jobs and almost $2 billion 
in State and local tax revenue.
  Now, look, Utah's tourism sector experienced so much decline during 
COVID, particularly during 2020. By 2021, and even more so by today, it 
really has recovered quite well, except in one area. We still haven't 
recovered, much less made any gains, with regard to foreign visitors to 
the State of Utah.
  Why? Well, I think a lot of it has to do with this unnecessary, 
draconian requirement, a requirement that the developed world no longer 
recognizes the need for. We are outliers in the free world for keeping 
this in place. But by lifting the vaccine mandate, Utah and

[[Page S1074]]

the United States stand to benefit tremendously from increased 
international travel.
  Look, it is not just that it is costing us tourism. It is costing us 
meaningful connections, connections that enrich and promote our shared 
humanity.
  Right now, foreign travelers, including family members, including 
friends, business relations, and even international sports figures are 
being kept off of U.S. soil arbitrarily due to this draconian vaccine 
mandate.
  Look, right now today, this very moment, we have the opportunity to 
reverse course. In fact, the House of Representatives has already 
passed this very bill ending the vaccine mandate, and it passed it with 
bipartisan support.
  Today, we can restore our personal and business relationships, boost 
our tourism, not just in Utah but across America, and reengage in the 
competitive spirit that brings nations together.
  It is time to end this mandate. It is time to join the rest of the 
developed and the free world. It is time to free the bird and to pass 
the FREEBIRD Act.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the 
immediate consideration of Calendar No. 14, H.R. 185; further, that the 
Lee substitute amendment at the desk be considered and agreed to; 
that the bill as amended be considered read a third time and passed; 
and that the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the 
table.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. BOOKER. Reserving the right to object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Jersey.
  Mr. BOOKER. Mr. President, I am here on behalf of Senator Sanders, 
who was pulled away from the floor on an important matter, and he asked 
me to object on this matter. He gave me some documentation and some 
points. I don't want to burden the Senate with reading everything I was 
given, but I would like to ask unanimous consent to enter into the 
Record the objection on behalf of Senator Sanders, if there is no 
objection to that, sir.
  And I will say, I really feel so blessed to be a Senator, and one of 
the great blessings for me has been getting to know my colleagues. I 
know folks on both sides of the aisle and have sincere friendships and 
admiration.
  Senator Lee is one of the people I respect in this body the most. He 
is learned. I have learned from him. My positions on issues have 
evolved by taking time to actually listen to my colleague from Utah 
speak.
  I see both colleagues from Utah are here. I need to get Menendez down 
to this floor and get some firepower here.
  But I have also learned a lot about Utah itself, and when he talks 
about the reasons for getting rid of this, they are very compelling to 
me. The reality is, tourism is one of our greatest industries. It 
creates jobs and opportunities.
  When he talks about sports teams--I am not sure if it is because he 
is a sports fan--I think he understands that sports teams help promote 
economic growth and economic opportunity. And even more than that, what 
I have learned from my colleague and my friend is that Utah is a very 
special place.
  I remember the Senator from Utah told me that I think one of the 
cities in Utah is one of the places in America that most foreign 
languages are spoken and mastered in all of our country, and I imagine 
because of the extensive foreign travel, there are real connections.
  And he said something that resonated with my spirit, which is this 
idea that it is affecting families; that we might have blended 
families. Americans do often marry people from outside of our country.
  All of those reasons I feel are very compelling. When I read Senator 
Sanders' remarks here, though, I found them compelling as well. And one 
of the things I found most compelling--I don't know about the Senator 
from Utah, but I actually have a science degree, a political science 
degree, so I tend to rely on health professionals.
  And then Senator Sanders' remarks, all of which I will put in the 
Record, talk to the point about the fact that people are still dying in 
the United States from COVID, but they also point out that COVID didn't 
originate here.
  We know it came from another country. We know that a zoonotic disease 
spread from wet markets in other countries into human beings. It then 
traveled to our Nation, most likely, and spread to us. We know that 
variants are still happening. Many of them can come from outside of our 
country, and there are many health professionals who believe that doing 
the right thing, ensuring people are vaccinated, may help us to stop a 
future variant.
  Now, again, there are reasonable objections on the other side on 
this, and my hope is that perhaps we as a body can come together and 
find a just way forward.
  We are, indeed, a body where a lot more happens in a bipartisan way 
than I think most of the public understands.
  And I know from my experience of 9 years in the Senate that a lot of 
the bipartisan legislation I respect most, Senator Lee, especially on 
our Judiciary Committee, has been involved in those.
  So I, on behalf of Senator Sanders, am objecting because of his 
reasons, but I do hope to continue my personal conversations with 
Senator Lee on that.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

       H.R. 185 would terminate the current requirement from the 
     Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) for proof of 
     COVID-19 vaccination for foreign travelers entering the U.S. 
     The requirement was first imposed in October 2021, and 
     renewed in April 2022 and specifically requires that incoming 
     travelers are ``fully vaccinated'' against COVID, which means 
     they've received the primary series of the COVID vaccine.

                  Vote Recommendation: Oppose H.R. 185

       1. Senator Lee's bill proposes to overturn the current 
     COVID-19 vaccination requirements for foreign travelers 
     entering the United States by air.
       2. COVID vaccines are one of the most important tools we 
     have to protect against the pandemic.
       3. While I know many people want the COVID pandemic to be 
     over--Americans are still getting sick and dying from this 
     illness every day.
       4. This bill not only undermines the recommendations from 
     our public health officials--it further harms public 
     confidence in our public health system.
       5. It is irresponsible to take away tools from the 
     Administration that they might need in the future to protect 
     against COVID.
       6. I object.
  Mr. BOOKER. So, officially, I object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The objection is heard.
  The Senator from Utah.
  Mr. LEE. If I can respond very quickly because I know the floor is 
backed up, and I know we want to get back on schedule.
  First of all, I really appreciate the kind remarks from the Senator 
from New Jersey. He is a dear friend. I am a former resident of his 
State, and I first heard his name when I lived there about 25 years 
ago.
  I have always enjoyed working with him, and I appreciate the 
dignified manner in which he responded to this request today. He drew 
the short stick, and you have got a job to do. I get it.
  I do look forward to working with you on this because I suspect you 
and I could get to the point where we agree on this. I would love 
nothing more than to add you as a cosponsor, but the bottom line is, I 
haven't reviewed what Senator Sanders has submitted through Senator 
Booker, but I look forward to doing that.
  I surmise, based on the summary, that these are relying on certain 
experts, some of the same experts who have given some phenomenally bad 
advice, much of which turned out to be wrong; the same experts who told 
us it didn't leak from a lab; the same experts who told us that it 
wouldn't spread among the vaccinated; the same experts who have told us 
that we should have to mask 2-year-old children when getting on a 
plane; that there would be no adverse consequences from sending 
children to school during COVID and that it was absolutely necessary 
and apparent to do so--some of the same experts who tell us to 
vaccinate young children, sometimes infants, with this particular 
vaccine.
  So I have great reluctance to defer to those same experts, when 
especially--especially considering the fact that even though some of 
those very same experts are telling us not to end the public health 
emergency, we have now

[[Page S1075]]

done so, and President Biden is going to sign that into law.
  Let's end the madness of deference to experts who have been proven 
time and time again to be wrong.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Louisiana.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be allowed 
10 minutes before our vote.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. ROMNEY. Mr. President, yes, the vote is at 1:45.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The objection is heard.

                          ____________________