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.

Mr. Speaker, I rise for the purpose of announcing the schedule for next week.

Mr. Speaker, the House will meet next Monday at noon for morning hour and 2 p.m. for legislative business.

On Tuesday, the House will meet at 10 a.m. for legislative business. At 9 p.m. the House and Senate will assemble for a joint session to receive President Biden's address on the State of the Union. Members should be seated in the House Chamber by 8:25 p.m.

On Wednesday, the House will meet at 10 a.m. for morning hour and 12 p.m. for legislative business.

On Thursday, the House will meet at 9 a.m. for legislative business.

We will be considering several bills under suspension of the rules during the week. The complete list of suspension bills has been posted on the Clerk's website.

Next week, the House is expected to consider a number of bills under rules: H.R. 185, to terminate the requirement imposed by the Director of CMS for proof of COVID-19 vaccination for foreign travelers and for other purposes.

H.R. 185 rescinds the Biden administration's vaccine requirement on travelers who are coming to visit the United States.

The House is also expected to consider H.J. Res. 26, disapproving the District of Columbia's City Council revised Criminal Code Act of 2021. H.J. Res. 26 makes it clear that Congress does not approve of the City Council's radical decision to reduce penalties for a variety of crimes, including many violent crimes.

Finally, we expect to consider H.J. Res. 24, disapproving the action of the District of Columbia's City Council in approving the Local Resident Voting Rights Amendment Act of 2022. What this resolution would do is reverse the decision by the D.C. Council that would allow illegal aliens to vote.

As we all know, our southern border has been wide open under President Biden. Millions of people have come into our country illegally, and he continues to keep that border open. We have talked about bringing legislation to this floor, which we are working on in committee, to secure America's border.

But, in the meantime, the idea that allowing people that are here illegally to vote here, not only undermines one of our most sacred rights in the United States, but it also sends the wrong message to those who are seeking to come into our country illegally.

We need President Biden to close the southern border, secure the southern border, get back to a legal process of immigration. That is what H.J. Res. 24 would do.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from Massachusetts (Ms. Clark), my friend, the new majority--minority whip of the House.

Mr. Speaker, what I would first say to the American people is, thank you for giving the Republicans the House majority to finally stop this mad rush toward socialism that we have seen in the last 2 years by the Biden administration: the taxing; the spending; the out-of-control policies that have led our country into one of the worst economic times we have ever seen. Inflation through the roof to the point where families can't even afford to put gasoline in their car. Inflation through the roof to the point where families can't even go to the grocery store and buy all the things that they would want. That is what the American people surely were fed up with.

The good news is, as I thank them for giving the Republicans the majority, which they did in the last election, Republicans have already gone to work delivering for those families. We have actually brought-- it is interesting, as the gentlewoman talks about scoring points, we have scored a number of points for those American people to the point where we have actually had a number of Democrats vote with us.

The bills that were called partisan just 2 weeks ago--we brought a bill to the floor to say, on energy, the Strategic Petroleum Reserve, which is supposed to be America's security blanket in case there is some major disruption with American energy supply. I am not talking about the disruption we have seen from President Biden's attack on American energy, which has been so severe that it has made our country dependent on foreign nations again, which is unconscionable, when we can produce our own energy, cleaner, better than anybody else in the world.

But it said, if you are going to raid, Mr. President, that Strategic Petroleum Reserve, you certainly can't do it

to sell it to China. It was called partisan when we filed it. What is interesting is a majority of Democrats actually voted for that legislation, and it is now over in the Senate.

I hope it ends up on President Biden's desk. I hope he signs it. But if he vetoes it, there was a veto-proof majority that passed that bill.

We just brought a piece of legislation a few minutes ago on to the floor to reject the ills of socialism; not just what we are seeing here in the United States socialist movement that has been damaging to our economy, but all throughout time, so many examples of socialist dictators killing millions and millions of people.

I am glad to say a majority of Democrats joined with us to vote for that bill. It is still a little bit shocking that 86 Democrats were not willing to stand up against the ills of socialism and that, I would consider, an extreme position, but clearly, there is still work to be done.

The American people, I am sure, will continue to engage their Members of Congress on those issues, but we are also going to continue to move policies to help families who are struggling; energy policies, obviously, and there is more to come on that.

The Energy and Commerce Committee just got constituted. They are working now on a good energy security package. The Natural Resources Committee and the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee are doing the same thing.

I had mentioned to the gentlewoman earlier, on the border, as we would like to see real security from our southern border. I hope President Biden, when he is speaking from the podium here in just a few days, will address that problem.

More people have come into our country illegally under President Biden's watch than the entire population of the State of New Mexico. Where it has caused real damage is more than 100,000 young kids, our young kids, have died because of drug overdoses from drugs like fentanyl because the drug cartels in Mexico now have operational control of America's southern border. That is disgraceful.

That is all brought on by President Biden's policies. He could end those today through executive action; reverse the things that he did that created the problem. He won't do that, so I do think it is important that this Congress take that action.

We still wait for the President to do it on his own, but we are not going to stand by. We will take our own action and show the country how we can get a secure southern border. I hope that would be a bipartisan vote when we bring that to the floor.

The 87,000 IRS agents--I don't know of any Member of Congress--I would love to hear from any of them--who have gotten phone calls from their constituents saying please double the size of the IRS.

Now, what they have said is please get Federal employees back to work because some people--I have got constituents that have been waiting 2 years for their tax return and, yet, you have still got about half of the Federal workforce that is working remotely, not coming into work.

I have got veterans who call my office all the time who can't get their benefits that they earned. They showed up for work, by the way, they showed up and said I am going to go defend the rights of this country, and some of them got injured. Some of them are trying to get their benefits today and can't because some of those people working, getting their full salary at the VA, are not showing up for work.

People that are waiting for passports to go visit loved ones overseas can't get their passports processed because some Federal employees feel they should get their full salary but not show up for work.

So we brought a bill this week to say you should show up for work. It seems pretty basic. It is unfortunate that there were less than a handful of Democrats that joined with us to do that.

So we are addressing the needs of those families who are struggling. Some of those votes have been bipartisan; some haven't. But we are going to continue to address them because they are bipartisan issues for America, even if they are not bipartisan in this Chamber and, hopefully, that improves over time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from Massachusetts (Ms. Clark).

Mr. Speaker, the good news is, we not only have already brought some bills to achieve cost savings, we are going to continue to bring bills to achieve cost savings. In one example, the gentlewoman referred to a piece of legislation that deals with drug prices, and it was failed to mention that part of what that bill did was limit about 40 percent of lifesaving drugs to come to market.

We are already seeing right now a reduction in R&D and drugs being developed to cure new diseases because many of those countries that have government-fixed pricing also don't have many of the lifesaving drugs that America has because of that very policy.

I am curious to see which lifesaving drugs they don't want to have on the market in America anymore. You can go to Canada, you can go to France, and you can see a long list, unfortunately, of drugs that you can't get in those countries that you can get in America that save lives every day.

That bill also raised taxes to the tune of over a trillion dollars on Americans. It raised spending to the tune of over a trillion dollars in America. That has increased inflation.

The biggest concern I hear from families who want cost savings is to stop the mad spending in Washington. It has not only caused them to have to pay more for everything they buy, it has literally taken a paycheck a year--at least one month's pay a year--out of their pockets because of all of the spending we have seen in the last 2 years in Washington. Our constituents just want Congress to try to rein in that spending.

In fact, we brought another bill this week. We can talk about D.C., we can talk about other places, but all across America, most Americans are saying, let's get back to our lives, let's end this COVID emergency. We announced last week that we were going to bring a bill during this week to end the COVID emergency.

What was interesting was, after we took the lead, President Biden himself actually acknowledged that it does need to end, but he said he wants to wait until May to do it. What is interesting about waiting until May is it allows the Federal Government to continue spending billions and billions of dollars under the guise of COVID that has absolutely nothing to do with COVID, like paying people not to work.

Millions of people today are able-bodied, fully capable of working, but because of the waiving of things, like welfare-to-work requirements, where people can right now get $25,000, $35,000

a year to sit at home and not work, well, you know what that does. We want to reverse that policy. If somebody is capable of working, they should be working.

We believe in a social safety net for people. If somebody comes on hard times, that is why you have programs there.

We are in America. If you want to stay at home and not work, that is your right. Just don't ask that hardworking taxpayer, the single mom who is working two jobs, to pay for you to stay at home.

The Biden administration policies that pay millions of people to stay at home from work undermines Social Security because those are millions of people who our seniors are counting on to be in the workforce. These people are fully capable of being in the workforce paying into Social Security so that those who work their whole lives and earn that benefit can have confidence that it will be there for them.

When you have millions of people being paid by the Federal Government to stay home, of course it adds trillions to our deficit, but it also takes billions of dollars out of Social Security that we want to put back in. We want to shore up Social Security, but President Biden has undermined it with these policies that pay people not to work.

Our bill would end that immediately. Let's get those people back to work who are fully capable of working. Let's shore up Social Security immediately. We shouldn't have to wait more and more months like President Biden said he would want to do. Of course, if we didn't file that bill, he probably never would have wanted to end that emergency.

Hopefully, as we continue to lead, we will see the President follow along. We welcome him to join us in saving this country and getting the country back on track, so we will continue to bring bills to address those many problems our country is facing.

I earlier pointed out, I reject what President Biden did to undermine Social Security. In their discussions about the debt ceiling yesterday, Speaker McCarthy discussed with President Biden what Republicans are hoping to do. Frankly, I think most Americans have been hungry for us here in Washington to have the same adult conversation that they have been having at their kitchen tables for years as to how we can actually get spending under control in Washington.

We have talked about the problems of paying people not to work. It not only adds to our deficit and debt; it also undermines Social Security. Let's get people back to work who are fully able-bodied.

Let's talk about the Nation's credit card. The debt ceiling is a symptom of Washington's spending problem. According to Treasury, we are approaching in June the end of extraordinary measures where the Nation would exceed its debt limit. What that means for a family is: Families have credit cards. The credit card has a limit, a maximum amount you can spend. Many families would not like to spend up to that limit. Some like to pay their credit card off fully at the end of the month. Many don't have that luxury, so they watch what the maximum is so they know, okay, if I have got $300 before I hit it, I am not going to spend 300 bucks, because then the card will be declined.

Well, if you max out the card, which Biden has done in his last 2 years, $6 trillion minimum--those are the conservative estimates; some estimates go as high as $10 trillion that President Biden has racked up on the Nation's credit card. The $31.3 trillion maximum on the Nation's credit card has been hit by President Biden and the Democrat majority's spending the last 2 years.

Interestingly, when they were doing that spending, they didn't account for raising the cap on spending when they were spending the money. They pushed that off on us, so now we have to confront this problem that they created.

The conversation really should be focused on how we stop this from happening, how we stop maxing out the Nation's credit card. If a family maxed out their credit card, of course they would pay the minimum payment; of course they would pay the must-dos.

Again, Speaker McCarthy has made it very clear, we are fully committed to Social Security and those promises that have been made.

Why is it that the first thing President Biden threatens is Social Security?

A dollar is coming into the Federal Government; $1.29 is going out. That is the spending problem. If you really want to break it down in raw numbers, for every dollar the Federal Government takes in, it spends $1.29. Very few families sustain themselves on that kind of trajectory.

What we are saying is why don't we try to figure out, Republicans and Democrats--by the way, this shouldn't be a partisan exercise. Both sides should want to say if a dollar is coming in, how do we make sure that only a dollar goes out? That is not where we are today. Let's have that conversation. It is a responsible conversation to have.

In the meantime, let's make sure we are paying our debts and talking about how we can make reforms so we don't keep maxing out the Nation's credit card. That is what this debt ceiling discussion is about.

If we just give the President a blank check, which he asked for--he is not going to get it; nobody should just get a blank check, give me more money so they can just go spend more money--that is not responsible.

Let's figure out how we can stop the Federal Government from continuing to max out the Nation's credit card. There is no better time to have that discussion than after President Biden has maxed out the Nation's credit card.

We will have that conversation, and I think we can get to an agreement where both sides come together and say this is a problem we need to tackle together. Previous Presidents have done that, Republican and Democrat, working with Congresses of the other party. I think we can have that conversation.

Again, I think most of America has been saying it is about time Washington finally starts having that conversation because families have been having that conversation at their kitchen tables for decades and generations.

Madam Speaker, I appreciate you bringing up a number of constituencies that we need to fight to help.

Let's start with the people that have been struggling the most. The lower- and middle-income families, they have been struggling the most in the last 2 years. They thrived like never before during those Trump years that are being decried by the left.

Why did we see such growth from lower- and middle-income families into the middle class and into higher income categories?

Because we actually cut taxes so that we could be competitive as a Nation again and create millions of jobs. We actually created millions of jobs by cutting taxes and making our country competitive, and not keeping money in Washington, but actually freeing up power so that people could control their own destiny again. Those people did take control of their own destiny.

Again, we were losing our middle class during the Obama years. We were seeing great American companies leave America. You can get the list of them. It is a long list, unfortunately. Let's reverse that. Let's fight for those forgotten men and women.

The millionaires and billionaires have their attorneys and their accountants and all the folks on the left who took care of those millionaires and billionaires. How about we start fighting for those people who were left behind--because they were being left behind. We said, let's make a tax code that is competitive for them.

If you go back and look--and the good news is there is real data now. You don't have to wonder about it. You can throw away the talking points about the rich that are always thrown out there.

The income groups that benefited the most from those tax cuts were the lower- and middle-income groups, and millions of people became part of the middle class who were left behind. Those are the facts. The data is out there.

Some people are angry about that because they still want to live in this false universe where they just decry tax cuts because that takes power away from Washington. I think that is what scares the left so much, is when they see people being empowered again to be free to control their own destiny. Not bureaucrats and autocrats in Washington taking their money and then telling them what they can get back. Telling them how high they can go.

How about you break the ceilings and just let people go out and succeed and give them the tools to do it. If you want to go out and work and succeed and achieve the American Dream, it is there for everybody. We restored that again.

By the way, some of those tax cuts expire. I hope the gentlewoman and their side will join with us in continuing to keep that tax structure in place so those middle-income folks can continue to grow and thrive, but also for our seniors.

This is where the President, I think, is looking for ideas on how we can start living within our means again. As I will refresh, as the gentlewoman talked about, spending that has already been done and leverage and full faith and credit to the United States, none of that would even be a discussion point today, if--as the Democrats, when they had the House, Senate, and White House for 2 years, and spent over $6 trillion of money we don't have--they also would have addressed the debt ceiling at that time, we wouldn't be standing in this spot.

We literally took the majority weeks ago and the Nation has already hit its debt ceiling because of the spending; not by President Trump, he actually addressed the debt ceiling as we were putting policies in place that grew our economy and created a middle class again. That was already done.

Over the last 2 years, over $6 trillion in spending, but no time seemed to be

available to address the debt ceiling. So here we are. We are willing to have a discussion about how to get control over spending. There are really good ideas. In fact, many of these ideas will strengthen Social Security for our seniors.

I talked a little bit earlier about getting people that are being paid not to work back into the workforce. That will strengthen Social Security. How about we restore some of the work requirements that used to be there?

This goes back to Bill Clinton, a Democrat, who signed those work requirements. It helped get more people into the workforce. It helped give them a chance to achieve the American Dream, but it also strengthened Social Security. When the government is paying people not to work, they are not paying into Social Security. That undermines the program. We should be wanting to strengthen it.

By the way, there is also a long list, and we are going to be getting these lists out. I hope Democrats will go down this menu, and say, okay, we agree paying people tens, if not hundreds, of billions of dollars to get tax credits who don't even have Social Security numbers, who don't even live in America. If a tax credit is there, it is there for people who pay taxes, not for people who manipulate the system because, for whatever reason, this administration won't even verify a Social Security number. Just doing that verification would save tens, if not hundreds, of billions of dollars--we are talking about real money.

Those things could all help. These aren't cuts to things, these are savings for fraud; real fraud, waste, and abuse that equals hundreds of billions of dollars. We have been outlining these things. I haven't found any takers yet, but I am not going to give up. I think eventually we will get a lot of takers on the other side who will recognize this is something we all need to come together and do because there is no reason that the families who are working hard should be paying for somebody else to cheat the system. There are many, many examples.

We will continue to highlight them. We will actually bring bills to address those exact problems. All of that should be a part of this discussion so we don't keep maxing out the Nation's credit card.

Again, nobody just says, here, if their kid maxed out the card, they are not just going to give them a new card and say, go max out the next one. They are going to sit down and have an adult conversation about how you don't put the country in this situation again.

Mr. Speaker, I would say on that, you can go look at the tax cuts. After those taxes were cut, the Federal Government took in more money than it has ever done in the history of the country because more people were working, and lower- and middle-income people were making higher wages, lifting those at the bottom into the middle class, which was evaporating under the Obama years.

The data is very clear on that. Those tax cuts actually brought more money into the Federal Treasury. If anybody wants to dispute it, I challenge them to go to President Biden's Treasury website and find the numbers because they are there.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding. I enjoyed our first of many of these colloquies. As we look toward hearing from the President, which we welcome together into this Chamber, I look forward to working with the President to address these problems our country is facing so we can get the country back on track and focus on the challenges ahead. There will be many more conversations we will have.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from New York (Mr. Langworthy) for yielding the customary 30 minutes.

Mr. Speaker, here we are, 6 weeks into a new Congress, and the Republican majority has yet to bring substantive, serious legislation to the floor that does anything to address the serious issues confronting our great Nation.

Instead, we have seen Republican leadership buckle under time and again to the demands of a rightwing minority that seems more interested in stoking controversy and conspiracy theories than crafting actual legislation or governing.

Instead of delivering for the American people, we have seen precious time and taxpayer dollars wasted in power struggles and political stunts, rather than doing the people's business.

True to that pattern, today's rule provides for the consideration of three deeply problematic measures, measures that further the objectives of that extremist minority, measures that stoke division, that undermine government institutions, and that threaten fundamental American freedoms when they don't align with the radical right's ideology.

By caving to these fringe forces, Republican leadership is squandering precious time and taxpayer dollars that would be better spent working together on the issues most Americans want us to address lowering prices; housing, healthcare, and education needs; making our communities safer; and protecting our planet.

The first two resolutions under consideration today would nullify legislation recently passed by the democratically elected D.C. Council and, in the process, would undermine the fundamental right of citizens of Washington, D.C., to political self-determination.

H.J. Res. 24 would overrule the Local Resident Voting Rights Act, which was recently passed by the D.C. Council.

With this measure, the citizens of D.C. decided to join other municipalities around the country in allowing noncitizen residents to vote in local D.C. elections.

H.J. Res. 26 would nullify the Revised Criminal Code Act, the RCCA, which reformed D.C.'s criminal code. That code has not been comprehensively revised since it was first enacted in 1901.

The American people expect their Members of Congress to prioritize their most pressing kitchen table issues, but instead of focusing on lowering costs or creating better-paying jobs, we are here today to interfere with legislation duly enacted by the citizens of D.C. and their government.

Not only is that not what our constituents sent us to do, it is distinctly antidemocratic to substitute our policy judgment for the local policy judgment of D.C.'s elected officials.

The nearly 700,000 residents of the District of Columbia, a majority of whom are Black and Brown, are worthy and capable of self-government.

Instead of seeking to undo the work of that democratically elected body, we should be holding hearings and considering whether it is finally time to address the issue of D.C. statehood.

As my colleague, Mr. Raskin, said in the Rules Committee yesterday, if my Republican colleagues insist on acting as a colonial overseer of the District of Columbia, the least they can do is hear from the people of D.C.

Those promoting these resolutions should have called a hearing or at least attempted to engage the D.C. Council and community leaders in some way.

If my colleagues think they have the best interests of the people of D.C. at heart, let's hear from the D.C. residents.

I believe they have made it quite clear they don't appreciate being made a pawn in national political battles.

We owe it to the people of D.C. to enact statehood, not this radical attempt to interfere with the district's Democratic process.

The subject of these disapproval resolutions, the Revised Criminal Code Act and Local Resident Voting Rights Amendment Act, should be irrelevant.

But just so we are clear, let's look at the legislative history of those two acts that our colleagues across the aisle want to overturn.

Under the D.C. Home Rule Act, which is a Federal statute, the democratically elected 13-member D.C. Council is required to enact a new law twice, with at least 13 days intervening between each vote, in order to pass legislation.

Legislation passed by the council and affirmed by the Mayor or with a veto override is then transmitted to Congress for a review period.

The legislation takes effect at the expiration of the review period unless Congress intervenes by passing a resolution of disapproval.

Congress has only overturned duly elected D.C. laws three times before the misguided efforts that we are forced to consider today.

Now, the D.C. Council passed the Revised Criminal Code Act by votes of 12-0 and 13-0. While the Mayor vetoed it, the council voted to override that veto by a vote of 12-1.

The Revised Criminal Code Act is the culmination of a 5-year process to revise and update D.C.'s criminal code, which, as mentioned previously, has not happened since it was first created over a century ago.

Everyone in the D.C. legal system, from prosecutors to judges to defense attorneys to scholars, agrees that this revision is long overdue.

Our colleagues across the aisle object to the revised criminal code that has been crafted with so much care to meet local conditions because they don't like some sentencing provisions that seek to match up the law with current standards.

They posit that harsher penalties would be a greater deterrent to the criminal conduct that they want to target when, in fact, the data shows that harsher penalties in some of the States that they represent does not, in fact, deter that conduct.

So think about this: Republican politicians from Georgia and Kentucky and Texas, who haven't bothered to take the time to hold a hearing or study this issue, have decided to parachute in and dictate to the 700,000 residents of D.C. that they know better than those residents and their elected Representatives how to run their city.

Can you imagine how those politicians would react if the D.C. Council tried to tell them how to run the jails in Athens, Georgia; Lexington, Kentucky; or Buffalo, New York?

What is particularly infuriating is that our Republican colleagues claim that they want to block the D.C. law because they want to be tougher on crime. But, once again, this is empty rhetoric. Overturning the D.C. criminal code will do nothing to increase public safety in D.C. or anywhere else.

As I mentioned at the outset, we are 6 weeks into the new Congress, and the Republican majority has not brought forward any legislation to address crime in America.

They won't consider legislation to block the flood of unregulated guns into American communities, they won't ban the weapons of war that take innocent lives in horrifying and predictably regular mass shootings, and they haven't taken any action to address the societal issues that produce violence.

The second resolution under consideration would vacate the Local Resident Voting Rights Amendment Act, which the D.C. Council passed by votes of 12-1 and 12-0 after holding hearings and soliciting public comment.

This act would allow otherwise qualified D.C. residents who are not U.S. citizens to vote in local D.C. elections.

Qualified noncitizen residents could vote in races for Mayor, council, attorney general, neighborhood commissioners, school district, and local referenda.

Of course, this does not apply to Federal elections. Our colleagues are trying to paint this legislation as some radical new idea, but there is nothing in the U.S. Constitution--which I understand was read here on the floor today, so we could check--that prohibits noncitizens from voting in local, State, or Federal elections.

In fact, there is a long history in the U.S. of noncitizens being allowed to vote in those elections, and they have done so since at least 1704 in what would later become the U.S. At various points, 40 States have permitted noncitizens to vote. Congress only first prohibited noncitizens from voting in Federal elections in 1996.

Currently, there are at least 15 municipalities that permit noncitizens to vote in local elections. They do so in recognition of the fact that noncitizens, who are allowed to vote under such local laws, pay a variety of State, local, and Federal taxes, and they have an inherent interest in helping to shape policies in the communities where they live.

I strongly encourage all of my colleagues to oppose these profoundly undemocratic and paternalistic resolutions.

Now, today's rule also provides for consideration of H.R. 185, which would terminate the CDC requirement for proof of COVID-19 vaccination for foreign travelers to enter the U.S.

The CDC order was put in place to open the world back up and allow vaccinated foreign travelers to visit the U.S. while keeping our community safe.

Revising or revoking the COVID-19 public health guidance should be at the behest of public health experts with understanding and knowledge of global case trends, up-to-date data, and real-time safety information about emerging infections and COVID-19 epidemiology, not partisan politicians looking to settle political scores or curry favor with the disgraced former President and his base.

This bill would upend our current COVID-19 travel protocol, and worse, tie the hands of our public health experts by prohibiting any future order to require COVID-19 vaccinations as a condition of entering the United States.

As I said last week when the majority brought several bills to the floor attacking COVID-19 emergency declarations and vaccines, we shouldn't jeopardize our progress in fighting COVID with political stunts.

This is just the latest bill inspired by anti-vax conspiracy theories that has been rushed to the floor, uninformed by any hearings or any scientific evidence.

It is dangerous to repeatedly mislead the public about the efficacy of these vaccines that are proven to save lives.

This bill increases the risk of spreading new variants, just as hospitals and public health infrastructure are trying to rebuild.

Once again, an extremist fringe is putting politics over science and undermining public health experts at the expense of the American people, and Republican leadership is letting them get away with it.

We need Republican leaders to embrace science and promote the public

good, instead of undermining them to score political points.

I am disappointed that my colleagues continue to waste this body's time and taxpayer dollars on frivolous bills and resolutions.

Mr. Speaker, the resolutions and bill we are considering today do not address the issues we were elected to address for the American people.

We have now been in this Congress for over a month and have yet to take up any serious legislation. I hope my colleagues can work in a bipartisan manner to address the problems our constituents sent us here to solve.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this rule, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record a letter from The Sentencing Project advocacy group, which is signed by over a dozen civil rights organizations opposing the Republican efforts to obstruct the enactment of the District of Columbia's Revised Criminal Code Act.

It states: ``Washingtonians know best how to address criminal justice policies in their community and deserve the right to determine their own laws. Local leaders are better positioned and retain more expertise to address safety and justice issues in the District than Congress.''

The Sentencing Project,

February 6, 2023.

Re Oppose efforts to obstruct the District of Columbia's

Revised Criminal Code Act.

Hon. Kevin McCarthy,

House of Representatives,

Washington, DC.

Chairman Jim Jordan,

Judiciary Committee, House of Representatives, Washington,

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from the District of Columbia (Ms. Norton), our esteemed colleague.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

I am afraid we have to dig into the weeds a little bit with Rules Committee process right now.

Earlier, the gentleman from New York said that with this rule, the new majority has tied the number of times that more minority amendments were made in order than majority amendments.

While I am certainly supportive of minority amendments, that sounded wrong, so we asked our staff to check. They haven't had much time while we have been speaking, but they have already found at least two times that the Democratic majority did this in the last Congress, H.R. 302 and H.R. 963. Perhaps our colleagues need to check their facts.

What I do know is that this rule contains the 18th and 19th closed rules of this new Congress. That is already over 30 percent of what we did during the first year of the Democratic majority. So it is more like a return to Republican habits, just like they ran the most-closed Congress in history last time they had control.

I am also astonished to learn that it was the possibility of family separation that inspired our colleagues to introduce H.R. 185, when the issue of family separation due to our outmoded, broken immigration system has not served to inspire any urgency to reform that system.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee).

Mr. Speaker, if we defeat the previous question, I will offer an amendment to the rule to ensure that H.R. 185 does not take effect unless it is certified that it won't decrease Social Security benefits.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of my amendment into the Record, along with any extraneous material, immediately prior to the vote on the previous question.

Mr. Speaker, Social Security is the bedrock of our Nation's social safety net. Since its inception, it has lifted millions of our seniors out of poverty. Protecting the benefits that Social Security provides should be a priority for this Congress, for everyone in this Congress, as my Republican colleagues demand reckless cuts in exchange for paying our Nation's bills.

Democrats are going to continue to push to ensure that these vital benefits are protected and will continue to give Republicans every opportunity to ease the American people's anxiety by demonstrating with their votes, including on this measure, that they do not intend to cut Social Security.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Beyer).

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time for closing.

Mr. Speaker, these measures today do nothing to address the important issues facing American families. These resolutions are misguided and unserious at best and deeply undemocratic at their core. House Republicans continue to waste precious time and taxpayer dollars on power struggles and political stunts.

Republican leadership's acquiescence to the fringe forces in their party is a disservice to the American public. With all of the challenges this Congress should contend with, an extremist overreach to nullify democratically passed legislation and rolling back lifesaving COVID protections is a waste of precious time and resources.

My Democratic colleagues and I are here to work on behalf of the American people and are ready to do the serious work of delivering for them, fighting for better jobs and safer communities. We will oppose extremist attempts to stoke division, to undermine government institutions, and to threaten fundamental American freedoms.

I invite my colleagues to work across the aisle, to work together on the issues that matter to all of our constituents: lowering prices; addressing housing, healthcare, and education needs; making our communities safer; and protecting our environment.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to oppose the previous question and the rule, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

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

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. 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. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Cohen).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Washington (Ms. Schrier), a member of our Energy and Commerce Committee.

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. 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. 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. Chair, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

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.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. President, the song ``Free Bird'' by Lynyrd Skynyrd became an anthem for those consumed by wanderlust. The music speaks to freedom, the right to explore and experience the world, and a simple truth that we are all connected.

However, on October 25, 2021, the right to explore and experience the

world was put on hold for many when the White House issued a proclamation suspending and limiting air travel by unvaccinated foreign travelers.

This mandate levies a particularly heavy cost on State and local economies and American relationships. Continuing this mandate at a time when President Biden himself declared that the pandemic is over is unjustified, and it ignores the new risk calculus that is affording Americans a renewed sense of normalcy. You see, Americans are ready to move on. In fact, in many instances, they are moving on. Yet many are kept from doing so because of this policy and others like it.

Right now, foreign travelers, including family members, friends, business relationships, and even international sports stars, are being kept off U.S. soil due to this draconian vaccine mandate.

Mr. President, there are too many places we have got to see, but if we stay here with this vaccine mandate, things just couldn't be the same.

So in the spirit of freedom, in the spirit of self-determination and sanity, I am here today to try to pass this--to try to seek to pass by unanimous consent the FREEBIRD Act, which will restore the right to explore and experience the world by allowing nonimmigrant, noncitizen travelers to be vaccinated only if they choose to do so, because this policy has separated loved ones for too long.

It is time to end the COVID-19 vaccine requirement for foreign visitors, prohibit using Federal funds to carry out this requirement, and prevent the CDC from ordering future COVID-19 vaccine mandates for foreign travelers. This is just costing too much.

In 2021 alone, Utah visitors spent nearly $11 billion visiting our great State, generating over 130,000 jobs and almost $2 billion in State and local tax revenue alone. A significant portion of that involves foreign travel. But international visitation rates are still lagging. By lifting this vaccine mandate, Utah and the United States stand to benefit from increased international travel.

Our travel and tourism industry in the State of Utah dipped substantially after the pandemic hit us and hit us hard. Fortunately, it has recovered very nicely, but it has never recovered in the international travel sector to where it should be now, due in significant part to this particular mandate. It is not right. And it is not just costing us tourism; it is costing us meaningful connections that enrich and promote our shared humanity.

Right now, 22-time Grand Slam champion and top tennis competitor Novak Djokovic is missing the ongoing Miami Open due to the foreign traveler vaccine mandate still in effect, regrettably, in the United States. He recently missed the Masters tournament in Indian Wells, CA, for the same reason.

The U.S. Tennis Association, which does not impose COVID-19 restrictions of its own, expressed its hope that the policy will end.

This is an excellent example of how the United States and Americans in general miss out on relationships, business, and recreational opportunities. The United States is missing the action while Djokovic continues to play in countries that have ended their vaccine mandates, including in Monaco, Bosnia, and France. It is affecting his standing in world tennis competition. Just as importantly, it is affecting America's standing with the rest of the world.

Perhaps some think that the joke is on Djokovic. The joke is not on Djokovic; the joke is on us, the United States of America, if we leave this senseless, meaningless policy in place that does no good. It accomplishes nothing, but it inflicts great harm at the same time.

Right now, we have the opportunity--a great opportunity, a prime opportunity--to reverse course. Today, we can join the rest of the world, restore our personal and business relationships, boost our tourism, and reengage in the competitive spirit that brings nations together.

It is time to end this mandate. It is time to be free as a bird. So 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.

Madam President, I appreciate the thoughtful words from my friend and colleague, the Senator from Vermont. I have enjoyed working with him on the Judiciary Committee, and I always appreciate his insights and the thoughtful, respectful manner in which he communicates his message. I do think it is significant to point out a couple things in response to those arguments.

I think it is unfortunate. We had an opportunity to end this today, and by ending it, we could open up travel and tourism in a way that we haven't been. We could join the ranks of civilized nations of the world that have seen what a barbaric piece of nonsense this sort of restriction is, and we can do it right now.

Now, my friend and colleague from Vermont points out that it is important to remember that the public health emergency associated with the COVID-19 pandemic is set to come to an end. I assume he is referring to the May 11 deadline on which we are expecting for it to come to an end. I welcome that, and I look forward to that coming to an end. It is right for it to come to an end. One must ask, however, why must we wait until then to bring it to an end? President Biden has now long acknowledged that the emergent nature of the pandemic is itself over, is itself passed.

I understand and respect concerns about not wanting to do things too abruptly that might affect, for example, telehealth. That is very important. That is why it is very important for me to point out here that there is absolutely nothing in this bill that would

affect in any way the practice of telehealth--not directly, not indirectly, nothing, nada. There is zero language in this amendment that would in any way affect telehealth. Is there anything in here that would affect the other programs--any of them--that he mentioned? Not one thing. This is laser-focused on a single point-of-entry restriction on foreign visitors to the United States. That is it. Nothing else is affected by it.

So if what we are saying is that we can't end any of this before we end all of the public health emergency, that makes no sense. It also makes no sense because, as far as we can tell, there is absolutely nothing about the international traveler restriction attached to this particular mandate that is tied to the public health emergency for the COVID-19 pandemic--nothing. They are not tied together. So there is no reason at all for us to not pass this today, right now, at this moment.

Look, this has passed the House of Representatives. We could make this law. We could make this the law of the land by the end of the day today. The American people would be much better off for it.

Who will be better off as a result of keeping it? It is a legitimate question to ask. Who benefits from this? I struggle to imagine who really benefits from it. Now, maybe one or two Federal bureaucrats save face over it because they put it in place. Perhaps they have some pride of authorship with it; they don't want it to end. Well, I hate to break it to them: They are not lawmakers. They don't have the job of making law. We do.

So if this stays on the book, again, the joke is on us. The joke is not on Djokovic; it is on us.

So I really am trying to understand why we would want to wait until May 11 or any other date on which the Federal pandemic emergency would come to an end. It makes no sense.

To the degree that this involves an argument that I have heard time and time again when addressing COVID issues from several of our colleagues that we have to defer to the experts, defer to the science used by the experts in our Federal executive branch Agencies, I would ask this: Do you mean the same experts who told us that this virus came from bats? I am told that anyone who doubted the idea that it came from bats, that they were horrible people aimed at genocide or something.

Do you mean the same experts who told the American people they couldn't let their little kids go to school?

Do you mean the same experts who told America they had to mask their 2-year-olds, apparently unaware of the fact that 2-year-olds don't respond fairly well to that? It makes me wonder whether any of those people have ever raised or even been around an actual 2-year-old.

Do you mean the same experts who told us that masks would make all the difference and that if you were masked, you would live, and if you were unmasked, you would die?

Do you mean the same experts who told us that if we got the vaccine, we would not get or be able to spread COVID-19? I can speak from personal experience. Having had COVID, then got vaccinated, then got it again, it didn't have that effect. And I know there are millions and millions of people like me who are in the same boat.

Do you mean the same experts who continue to this day to insist that everyone else follow the restrictions imposed by those experts who were not elected by the American people and are not accountable to anyone who is elected by the American people?

We have reached an epidemic in this country, an epidemic in which we have government being run by experts. Experts are great. I am glad we have access to them. They are not lawmakers. My copy of the Constitution, in the very first operative provision--the first article, the first section, the first clause of the Constitution says: ``All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and a House of Representatives,'' making clear that if you want to make a Federal law, you must go through Congress, not through an expert in some executive branch Agency.

Article 1, section 7 makes clear how that happens. You can make a Federal law only if you pass something through the House and the same language through the Senate and then present it to the President for signature, veto or acquiescence. If you don't follow that formula, you don't have a Federal law.

Tragically, since the mid-1930s, we have been on a bad trajectory, a bad course, a bad idea conceived in hell by the Devil himself in which we started delegating our lawmaking power. We hereby declare that we shall have good law in area X, and we hereby commit and delegate to commission Y the power to make and interpret and enforce and adjudicate laws, rules carrying the force of generally applicable Federal law. Make it so.

The power to make laws, to be a lawmaker, is distinct from the power to make lawmakers. We are given by the Constitution and the people who elected us the power to do the former, not the latter. We make laws, not lawmakers.

The only way these things were put in force to begin with was because we have excessively delegated our lawmaking power. Shame on us for doing that. It has remained in effect because the Federal court system, in my view, while occasionally stepping in, has been a little too lax, a little too reluctant to push back when we delegate our lawmaking power, which is itself a nondelegable duty. Shame on them for doing that, but shame on us again for the fact that when we act, we delegate to somebody. Somebody puts in place a ridiculous, indefensible set of policies--policies that would never pass this body, never become law here or in the House of Representatives. Why? Because they are stupid. They are silly. They are ridiculous. They are counterproductive. A policy that we would never enact, and if we were stupid enough to enact it, we would promptly repeal it.

When it gets put in place by an unelected, unaccountable bureaucrat using a stretched, distorted version of statutory text delegating them some other power, we have to sit here and take it. The American people, whom we serve, who hired us to make laws, have to sit there and take it. And we pretend: Sorry, there is nothing we can do. We have to wait until the experts end this problem that they themselves created.

This has to stop. I am not going away. This issue isn't going away. I don't want to wait until May 11. I don't want to wait until those bureaucrats pull their heads out of wherever their heads happen to be at the moment.

This is not going away, and I will be back.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.