Pandemic is Over Act

Madam Speaker, let me thank the gentleman from Texas, now the new vice chair of the Rules Committee, for yielding me the customary 30 minutes.

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

Madam Speaker, there is a lot to take in from the opening remarks the gentleman has provided. I want to say one thing. He says that the Republicans have a mandate. I think the message of the last two elections was that the overwhelming number of people in this country said no to extremism.

And mandate? Democrats picked up a seat in the Senate. The red wave that was predicted by my Republican friends turned into a pink splash.

The reason why was because people were turned off by their extremism, and this in spite of all kinds of gerrymandering, crazy redistricting plans, and money like we have never seen in an election before, and we have the narrowest of narrow margins.

So if the gentleman thinks that there is a mandate here to embrace extremism, I beg to differ with that.

Madam Speaker, there is no denying that the situation with COVID has improved. Cases are down, deaths are down, and most of us have returned to the lifestyles we had before the pandemic. That is because of the incredible steps we have taken to keep people safe: vaccines, expanded healthcare, telework flexibilities, and other programs and initiatives that ensure Americans can lead healthy, full lives.

The rule before us today allows for the consideration of four measures, four reckless and regressive measures, to turn back the clock on all that we have gone through and learned over these last 3 years, and all under closed rules. Let me repeat that: all under closed rules.

H.J. Res. 7 would terminate, effective immediately, the COVID national emergency declared in 2020 by President Trump and renewed by President Biden in 2021.

This immediate reversal offers no off-ramps for relief programs and benefits, threatening aid for nursing homes and hospitals, additional support for the VA, as well as help for small businesses and more. It would end flexibilities to ensure more food-insecure people have access to SNAP, our Nation's first line of defense against hunger.

H.R. 382, the Pandemic is Over Act, would similarly repeal Health and Human Services' public health emergency declarations. This would roll back significant expansions to healthcare access and services for millions across the country.

H.R. 139, the SHOW UP Act, would force Federal agencies to return to prepandemic telework policies, despite the fact that the pandemic demonstrated workers from many industries could complete their jobs remotely.

H.R. 497, the Freedom for Health Care Workers Act, would remove COVID vaccine requirements for Medicare and Medicaid healthcare workers.

Now, if you take a second to think about these bills, not a single one makes things easier, safer, or more effective. They are sound bites. That is what my Republican friends are good at, sound bites, not legislating. They are good at making political statements but not solving problems.

Eliminating vaccine mandates for healthcare providers will not help healthcare providers. Instead, it increases their chances of getting sick, increases their patients' chances of getting sick.

COVID vaccines are safe and effective. You wouldn't know that if you listened to some of the commentary in the Rules Committee last night, but they are. They have protected millions of healthcare workers and their families from infections, hospitalization, and death.

Pulling the plug on the national and public health emergency declarations will throw Federal programs in our healthcare system into chaos. No longer will Americans be able to receive free COVID testing and treatments. Hospitals that already struggle to stock their shelves with proper PPE will face an even greater uphill battle.

I am not saying that these declarations should continue indefinitely. Nobody is saying that. President Biden announced yesterday that he plans to end the declarations on May 11. But we need time to understand the impact that ending the declarations will have on our country.

The responsible thing to do is to provide an orderly off-ramp for these agencies so that essential benefits aren't suddenly ripped away from those who need them most.

Essentially, getting rid of telework for Federal agencies when it has allowed our Nation and government to function through this historic pandemic is nonsense. Studies have shown that telework has been largely beneficial, resulting in increased productivity, reduced absences, reduced turnover, and reduced office costs. If corporate America has chosen to harness the net positive effects of teleworking, government agencies should, too.

Madam Speaker, my Republican friends who are screaming against teleworking provisions, I point out, for the Record, that Republicans voted by proxy more than 14,500 times in the last Congress.

Let me repeat that. Republicans voted by proxy--that means they were operating remotely--more than 14,500 times in the last Congress.

It was kind of comical. Last night, my friend from Texas in the Rules Committee said that Republicans were voting by proxy because they felt Democrats pressured them, that Democrats made them do that. Really? I mean, I have heard a lot of crazy things in my life, but I have never heard that used as an excuse. Give me a break.

I find it outrageous that some Members are so worried about government workers getting their work done from home while they themselves took advantage of proxy voting over the last 3 years. Guess what? Proxy voting is called telework, and my friends are okay with telework for themselves, but when it comes to Federal workers, no, they are not okay. I guess for House Republicans, it is do as I say, not as I do.

We had the chair of the Oversight Committee testify very passionately against telework last night, and he voted by proxy--get this--83 times. You can't make this stuff up.

We all know that COVID has moved into a new phase, and thanks to the use of safe, effective vaccines and other prevention tools, we are moving forward. We are learning to live with it, but let's not forget that over a million of our fellow Americans have died from it.

We should not ignore the fact that COVID continues to spread and mutate. It still poses a danger to people.

It is clear that House Republicans just want to pretend that COVID isn't still a problem, that science doesn't exist, and that telework doesn't have a place in the 21st century.

At the end of the day, these measures were introduced really out of spite. Our colleagues across the aisle are looking to undo everything we did, even if that means getting rid of important, effective measures that help American workers, families, and patients.

In closing, Madam Speaker, none of these have gone through committee. There were no hearings, not a single hearing.

Again, there were lots of questions raised about these bills in the Rules Committee last night, including whether or not title 42 would be overturned. The administration has one opinion, and the Republicans have another opinion. I don't know what the truth is. A hearing would have made a difference, but they couldn't even wait a couple of days to do a hearing. They just wanted to rush this to the floor to get a press release out.

There were not only no markups, but there were no amendments. We had amendments submitted to the Rules Committee last night not just by Democrats but by Republicans. They said: No. Closed. Can't even have a debate on the floor. Can't have an up-or-down vote.

Fifteen out of the 16 measures that this Congress has considered so far have been totally closed. I am thinking I need to call the Office of Attending Physician and get a neck brace because I have whiplash trying to reconcile what my friends said they were going to do and what they are actually doing.

I mean, the last time the Republicans controlled Congress, they presided over the most closed Congress in the history of the United States of America. Let me repeat that. The last time they were in control, they presided over the most closed Congress in the history of our country, and they are on track to try to beat their own record.

This is not what the Speaker promised. I didn't see the secret memo that Speaker McCarthy was circulating to get votes. Maybe there was some stuff in the secret memo that basically said that, you know, say one thing and do another.

The bottom line is this is not what anyone was promised, and there is absolutely no reason that we couldn't have waited a few days to do hearings on this stuff so we could decide whether or not any of these measures were the responsible thing to do or whether or not there were some additions that we could have made to these measures to make them responsible.

We all want to move on, but we want to do so responsibly. We all want to move beyond the national emergency, but we want to make sure that there are not unintended consequences. This is not serious legislating. This is political posturing, and it is a lousy way to begin the new Congress.

Madam Speaker, I urge a ``no'' vote on the rule and a ``no'' vote on the underlying legislation, and I reserve the balance of my time.

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

There is a lot to unpack here, but let me just tell the gentleman on the issue of national emergencies--by the way, I will add war powers-- we did a hearing in the Rules Committee on that in the last Congress. I did it with now-Chairman Cole. We thought that it was appropriate to do a hearing because we wanted to avoid any unintended consequences. So, we have done that.

It is now becoming very clear to me how this Congress is going to operate in the Rules Committee. The gentleman just made it clear that everything should go through regular order except what he thinks is important. If he thinks it is important, we can come here with a closed rule.

Then I am a little confused over the gentleman's pontificating on the fact these are only one-page bills and, therefore, they shouldn't be amended. I point out that the bill that they had the modified open rule on was a three-page bill, but is the number of pages of the bill going to be determinative of whether or not we have amendments or not?

The bottom line is people had some good ideas that they offered to the

Rules Committee last night. Not only that, but people also had a lot of questions. If you read the President's Statement of Administration Policy, he raises issues about title 42 that we seem to have a dispute on, but, boy, if you did a hearing and you did a markup, you might have been able to address those things.

I'm not saying we are moving too quickly. I am just saying we are not moving responsibly. Once your committees are constituted, you can have a hearing immediately. You can bring this to the floor next Monday or Tuesday if you want; but you chose to shut the system down.

Notwithstanding all of your rhetoric, not notwithstanding all of the pontificating on the need for more amendments to be made in order, a more open process, a more transparent process, you are beginning this session with closed rule after closed rule after closed rule.

Last night, the Committee on Rules reported out four more closed rules. That is the choice you have made. We have a sense of where you are going. The last time you were in charge, you presided over the most closed Congress in the history of the United States Government. I wouldn't be surprised if you beat your own record.

Madam Speaker, if we defeat the previous question, I will offer an amendment to the rule to ensure that none of the bills in this rule take effect unless it is certified that they do not decrease Social Security benefits.

Madam 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.

Madam 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 it provides should be a priority for this Congress.

As my Republican colleagues demand reckless cuts in exchange for paying our Nation's bills, Democrats will continue taking action to protect Social Security. This is not the first time Social Security has been under attack by my friends on the other side of the aisle.

Don't be fooled by their phraseology that they are only interested in ``protecting Social Security.'' We know that that is code for cutting benefits, for raising the retirement age, for throwing people off the benefit.

Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Larson) to discuss our proposal.

Madam Speaker, I yield an additional 30 seconds to the gentleman.

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

Madam Speaker, oh my God. There are doctors who serve in Congress-- Democrats and Republicans. I hope that they will stand up and correct the misinformation. I mean, really.

The gentleman talks about herd immunity as if somehow that was some panacea here.

Madam Speaker, I include in the Record a letter from Harvard Medical School titled, ``COVID-19 diagnosis raises risks of heart attack, stroke.''

[From Harvard Health Publishing, Nov. 1, 2021]

COVID-19 Diagnosis Raises Risk of Heart Attack, Stroke

(By Julie Corliss)

In one of the largest studies of its kind to date,

researchers found strong evidence that heart attack and

stroke risk rises sharply in the weeks following a COVID-19

diagnosis. The findings were published Aug. 14, 2021, in The

Lancet.

The study included every person in Sweden diagnosed with

COVID-19 from Feb. 1, 2020, to Sept. 14, 2020--a total of

nearly 87,000 people. Their median age was 48, and 57 percent

were women. Researchers compared them with more than 348,000

Swedish people of similar age and sex who did not have the

virus.

In the week after a COVID-19 diagnosis, the risk of a first

heart attack increased by three to eight times. The risk of a

first stroke caused by a blood clot multiplied by three to

six times. In the following weeks, both risks decreased

steadily but stayed elevated for at least a month.

Other bacterial and viral infections (such as influenza)

are known to temporarily boost rates of heart attacks and

strokes. But COVID-19 infections appear to be especially

risky, perhaps because they trigger an exaggerated

inflammatory response that makes blood clots more likely .

Madam Speaker, a study found that in the week after a COVID diagnosis, the risk of a first heart attack increased by three to eight times. The risk of a first stroke caused by a blood clot multiplied by three to six times. In the following weeks, both risks decreased steadily but stayed elevated for at least a month.

Madam Speaker, I include in the Record a USA Today piece titled, ``Fact check: COVID-19 vaccines primarily designed to prevent serious illness, death.''

[From the USA TODAY, Jan. 21, 2022]

Fact Check: COVID-19 Vaccines Primarily Designed To Prevent Serious

Illness, Death

(By Valerie Paviionis)

As the omicron variant surges across the world and the

United States logs case numbers near and over 1 million per

day, the virus is prompting scientists to develop new

treatments and government officials to fight to curb the

spread.

While the Biden administration continues to urge Americans

to get vaccinated, a Jan. 10 Facebook post claims that Dr.

Rochelle Walensky, director of the Centers for Disease

Control and Prevention, said vaccines can't prevent COVID-19

transmission. Other sites have shared the same claim, linking

Walensky's words back to an interview with CNN in August

2021.

``Our vaccines are working exceptionally well,'' Walensky

said to CNN's Wolf Blitzer in the interview. ``They continue

to work well for delta, with regard to severe illness and

death--they prevent it. But what they can't do anymore is

prevent transmission.''

Though Walensky did say these words on CNN, the original

interview was aired in early August, not recently. And while

it's true vaccines can't entirely halt transmission, experts

say they do reduce it--and reduce the chances of

hospitalization and death--as USA TODAY previously reported.

USA TODAY reached out to the original poster of the claim

for comment.

Various websites have written about the same claim,

amassing thousands of interactions on Facebook.

vaccine effects depend on several factors

In an email, Walensky spokesperson Kathleen Conley wrote

that in August 2021--when the interview originally ran--the

delta variant was the dominant variant in the United States.

Experts at that time said it was clear the vaccines

provided protection.

``Vaccines provide significant protection from `getting

it'--infection--and `spreading it'--transmission--even

against the delta variant,'' a professor of immunobiology and

molecular, cellular and developmental biology at Yale

University, told USA TODAY in November.

However, Conley noted data did show vaccines were ``less

effective at preventing infections and transmission with

Delta than with previous other variants.'' Omicron has proven

even more difficult to contain.

While mRNA vaccines--produced by Pfizer and Moderna--

continue to offer some level of protection against

transmission of omicron, other vaccines--such as Johnson &

Johnson, Sinopharm and AstraZeneca--offer ``almost no

defense,'' according to a Dec. 19, 2021, report by the New

York Times.

Other factors beyond variant type, vaccination type and

booster status can also influence whether or not a person

contracts COVID-19.

Dr. David Dowdy, associate professor of epidemiology at

Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, said it's

difficult to succinctly explain the vaccines' nuanced effects

on transmission.

A vaccine might protect you from a passing interaction with

someone at a grocery store, but it may not prevent infection

from someone you live with and share air with for several

hours a day.

``It gets very easy to misconstrue,'' Dowdy said. ``If

someone asks, do vaccines prevent infection, and you have to

give a yes or no answer, then the answer is no, they're not a

perfect blockade. But do the vaccines offer some protection

against infection? The answer is yes.''

vaccines still protect against serious disease

While vaccinations don't offer perfect protection against

the transmission of COVID-19, experts still urge people to

get vaccinated.

According to Conley, COVID-19 vaccination remains effective

against hospitalization and death caused by the virus.

Getting a booster, she added, further decreases these risks,

and the CDC continues to recommend that Americans receive

vaccines and boosters.

Dr. Chris Beyrer, professor of public health and human

rights at the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public

Health, said both the mRNA and J&J vaccines were never

designed to prevent infection entirely.

It's ``very hard'', he said, to prevent infection via an

injected vaccine when you're dealing with a virus that enters

the body through the nose and mouth. Instead, the vaccine

trials were designed to study reduction in serious illness,

hospitalization and death. All three vaccines were highly

effective by this measure, Beyrer said.

``People who say, well, why would I take it if it doesn't

prevent me from getting infected?'' Beyrer said. ``You have

to remember that having a COVID-19 infection can be

everything from completely asymptomatic . . . to a head-cold-

like symptoms or full flu-like symptoms, all the way to

death. So what the vaccines are doing is really dramatically

increasing the likelihood that you will have mild infection.

And that's incredibly important.''

A CDC study released Jan. 21 showed booster shots of the

Pfizer-BioNTech and Moderna vaccines were 90% effective at

preventing hospitalizations from the omicron variant.

our rating: missing context

Because it can be misleading without additional

information, we rate MISSING CONTEXT the claim that the CDC

director says vaccines can't prevent transmission of COVID-

19. While vaccines do not offer 100% protection against

COVID-19 infection, they can still partially defend against

infection. Vaccines remain effective at protecting from

COVID-19-caused serious illness, hospitalization and death.

Madam Speaker, I would highlight one of the quotes that I guess the gentleman was referring to.

``Though Walensky did say these words on CNN, the original interview was aired in early August, not recently. And while it is true vaccines cannot entirely halt transmission, experts say they do reduce it--and reduce the chances of hospitalizations and death.''

Madam Speaker, I include in the Record a study by the Commonwealth

Fund titled, ``Two years of U.S. COVID-19 Vaccines Have Prevented Millions of Hospitalizations and Deaths.''

[The Commonwealth Fund, Dec. 13, 2022]

Two Years of U.S. COVID-19 Vaccines Have Prevented Millions of

Hospitalizations and Deaths

(By Meagan C. Fitzpatrick, Seyed M. Moghadas, Abhishek Pandy, and

Alison P. Galvani)

It has been two years since the first COVID-19 vaccine was

given to a patient in the United States. Since then, the U.S.

has administered more than 655 million doses--80 percent of

the population has received at least one dose--with the

cumulative effect of preventing more than 18 million

additional hospitalizations and more than 3 million

additional deaths. The swift development of the vaccine,

emergency authorization to distribute widely, and rapid

rollout have been instrumental in curbing hospitalization and

death, while mitigating socioeconomic repercussions of the

pandemic.

As more transmissible and immune-evasive variants have

emerged over the past two years, the U.S. has responded by

deploying additional doses and variant-specific boosters. The

Omicron variants caused the largest wave of infections during

the pandemic. COVID-19 monovalent vaccines available at the

time were not as efficacious against the variant as bivalent

boosters introduced later, but the wave would have been more

devastating in the absence of vaccination.

As we mark the second anniversary of the U.S. COVID-19

vaccination campaign, understanding the impact of vaccines on

reducing disease burden is needed to inform future, evidence-

based actions. We therefore used a computer model of disease

transmission to estimate hospitalizations and deaths averted

through the end of November 2022. The model incorporates the

age-stratified demographics, risk factors, and immunological

dynamics of infection and vaccination. We simulated this

model to compare the observed pandemic trajectory to a

counterfactual scenario without a vaccination program.

Findings

From December 2020 through November 2022, we estimate that

the COVID-19 vaccination program in the U.S. prevented more

than 18.5 million additional hospitalizations and 3.2 million

additional deaths. Without vaccination, there would have been

nearly 120 million more COVID-19 infections. The vaccination

program also saved the U.S. $1.15 trillion (Credible

Interval: $1.10 trillion-$1.19 trillion) (data not shown) in

medical costs that would otherwise have been incurred.

Discussion

Our findings highlight the substantial impact of the U.S.

vaccination program on reducing infections, hospitalizations,

and deaths. Curbing hospitalization rates by reducing both

COVID-19 incidence and symptom severity is particularly

important amidst the strain on the health care system caused

by unusually high levels of flu and RSV (respiratory

syncytial virus). COVID-19 vaccination has preserved hospital

resources for individuals who would otherwise have not

received timely care.

Vaccination also has prevented many millions of COVID

infections. Although the acute phase of these infections may

not have required medical attention, each infection carries a

risk of long COVID and debilitating symptoms. Many of the

prevented infections would have been reinfections, which have

higher risk of death compared to initial infections. In

addition, as our previous analysis demonstrated, vaccines

have kept children in school, highlighting the societal value

of the ongoing vaccination program.

The estimated infections, hospitalizations, and deaths

averted by vaccination are particularly striking when

compared to the actual values observed during this time

period. Since December 12, 2020, 82 million infections, 4.8

million hospitalizations, and 798,000 deaths have been

reported in the U.S. In other words, without vaccination the

U.S. would have experienced 1.5 times more infections, 3.8

times more hospitalizations, and 4.1 times more deaths. These

losses would have been accompanied by more than $1 trillion

in additional medical costs that were averted because of

fewer infections, hospitalizations, and deaths.

The impact of the vaccination program is more remarkable

given the challenges posed by the multiple variants that have

arisen. The Omicron variants have been particularly immune-

evasive and drove the largest surge in COVID-19 cases to

date. However, the vaccines provided broader and more durable

protection against severe clinical outcomes, including

hospitalization and death. The reported ``mild'' nature of

Omicron is in large part because of vaccine protection.

A limitation of our study is that we modeled only viral

dynamics within the U.S. However, vaccines developed by the

U.S. were also deployed around the world, changing the

trajectory of the pandemic on a global scale. Without them,

more variants could have emerged or there could have been

greater importation of COVID-19 cases. In this regard, our

study underestimates the true impact of COVID-19 vaccine

development on U.S. outcomes.

The unprecedented pace at which vaccines were developed and

deployed has saved many lives and allowed for safer easing of

COVID-19 restrictions and reopening of businesses, schools,

and other activities. This extraordinary achievement has been

possible only through sustained funding and effective

policymaking that ensured vaccines were available to all

Americans. Moving forward, accelerating uptake of the new

booster will be fundamental to averting future

hospitalizations and deaths.

Madam Speaker, we have lost over 1 million of our fellow citizens to COVID, over 1 million in the United States alone; mothers, fathers, siblings, friends, and children, as well.

But the development of safe vaccines has meant that millions more lives have been saved. There is no question whether or not the vaccination is effective.

Madam Speaker, I would just highlight one of the findings in The Commonwealth Fund report.

It says, ``From December 2020 through November 2022, we estimate that the COVID-19 vaccination program in the United States prevented more than 18.5 million additional hospitalizations and 3.2 million additional deaths. Without vaccination, there would have been nearly 120 million more COVID-19 infections. The vaccination program also saved the U.S. $1.15 trillion in medical costs that would otherwise have been incurred.''

Here we are, after having gone through what we went through, after knowing the benefits of these vaccinations, and to hear what we are hearing on the floor, it really is disappointing.

Madam Speaker, I would ask the doctors in this Chamber, Democrats and Republicans, please stand up. Please correct the Record. Please tell people that vaccinations have been a good thing and that people should get vaccinated. They could save their lives.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

I include in the Record a piece from the New York Post titled: ``GOP unveils `Commitment to America' plan to halt Biden, inflation, and crime.''

[From the New York Post, Sept. 23, 2022]

GOP Unveils `Commitment to America' Plan To Halt Biden, Inflation and

Crime

(By Steve Nelson)

House Republicans pledged Friday to end soaring inflation

and reduce crime by serving as a check on President Biden if

they reclaim power--calling the party's midterm election

platform a ``Commitment to America.''

House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) announced

the big-tent framework inside an HVAC manufacturing plant

outside Pittsburgh, Pa.

``We want to roll [the plan] out to you, to the entire

country, to know exactly what we will do if you would trust

us and give us the ability to take a new direction for this

country,'' McCarthy said.

The kickoff featured a business-casual Q&A where dozens of

GOP legislators took turns fielding questions.

The Republicans vowed to rein in government spending to

lower the worst inflation in 41 years--with consumer prices

up 8.3 percent over 12 months as of August.

Speakers also promised to address crime, including record-

high illegal immigration, rising violent crime in cities and

fentanyl smuggling that's accelerated overdose deaths.

``The sad part is these Democratic policies have already

taken one month of your wages. So now the struggle that you

have is you're living through 12 months with only 11 months'

pay now because inflation is so high,'' McCarthy said,

blasting Biden's $1.9 trillion American Rescue Plan spending

bill.

House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy unveiled the

Republican ``Commitment to America'' agenda at DMI Companies

in Monongahela, Pennsylvania.

``We've watched what's happened to our border--the millions

of people who are just walking across, people on the

terrorist watch list. Now we're watching it create every

community to be a border community,'' McCarthy said.

``Fentanyl is the number one killer of Americans between

the ages of 18 and 45. The poison starts in China and comes

across our border. Do you realize it's killing 300 Americans

every day? It's like an airliner crashing each day.''

No. 3 House Republican Rep. Elise Stefanik of New York said

the GOP would be ``making sure that we stop the trillions and

trillions of reckless government spending that we have seen

under Democrat rule.''

House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy vowed to stop

President Biden's spending policies if Republicans take the

House this fall.

``That will immediately help lower the cost of goods as we

seek to rein in inflation,'' she said at the event.

Rep. Patrick McHenry (R-NC) said, ``We have to have

oversight of what's happening in the administration and go

after the wasteful spending of the last administration and

return to normalcy--that $1 today means $1 tomorrow.''

Rep. Brad Wenstrup (R-Ohio) said Republicans would declare

fentanyl a weapon of mass destruction. ``That's what this is.

It fits the categories completely. And we're going to declare

it as that and use every resource we possibly can,'' he said.

Rep. Jim Jordan promised Republicans will nix President

Biden's plan on hiring more IRS agents over the next decade.

Rep. Guy Reschenthaler (R-Pa.) said that unlike Democrats

under House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), ``we're not

going to have this top-down leadership.''

``Kevin McCarthy is going to rely on all of us to have

bottom-up leadership that comes from the districts,'' he

said. ``We got members here from New York all the way to the

border with Tony Gonzales. We got people that have different

approaches--all the way from David Joyce to Marjorie Taylor

Greene. But we're all united behind Kevin McCarthy.''

Republican speakers vowed various oversight efforts focused

on the Biden administration and hearings on the origins of

the COVID-19 pandemic.

House Minority Whip Steve Scalise said more hearings will

be held on border security.

House Minority Whip Steve Scalise (R-La.) said, ``We were

calling for hearings for over a year on the origin of COVID.

Shouldn't we know that? I mean, this is a basic question.

Millions of people across the globe died.''

Scalise said there would be many hearings on border

security too after more than 2 million people illegally

crossed the southwest border in fiscal 2022.

``We will give [Homeland Security] Secretary [Alejandro]

Mayorkas a reserved parking spot, he will be testifying so

much about this,'' Scalise said.

Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene claimed she will follow the

Republicans' new agenda.

Speakers did not specifically mention expected

investigations of Biden's links to his son Hunter Biden and

brother Jim Biden's multimillion-dollar influence-peddling

businesses in China, Ukraine and other countries.

Rep. Jim Jordan (R-Ohio) said the Republicans decided their

first bill will seek to nullify an IRS crackdown recently

authorized by Democrats to fund an environmental and health

care spending bill. He also mentioned oversight of allegedly

biased Justice Department actions.

``We're gonna look into this weaponization of the DOJ

against the American people . . . not to mention the border.

But specifically to the COVID issue . . . they told us so

many things that turned out not to be accurate,'' Jordan

said.

``They told us this thing [COVID] . . . didn't come from a

lab. Sure it looks like it did,'' he added. ``But they want

us to believe, `No, no, no, it was a bat to a pangolin to Joe

Rogan.' ''

``We are committed to doing the investigations that need to

be done,'' Jordan said.

The ``Commitment to America'' organizes various pledges

under four broad categories: the economy, safety, freedom and

accountability. The outline is an attempt to harness the

historical success of former House Speaker Newt Gingrich's

1994 ``Contract with America,'' which propelled GOP gains

during President Bill Clinton's first term.

Madam Speaker, Republicans promised that as soon as they were in the majority, they would immediately move to address inflation. Well, we are a month into the 118th Congress with zero action to lower costs for families.

My question is, what happened? Why have Republicans spent all of January on messaging bills and trying to get their house in order?

I know it was a tumultuous week to try to elect a Speaker. We made history--4 days and 15 votes. Unprecedented.

Nonetheless, what happened to focusing on issues that were first and foremost on people's minds? Instead, we had abortion bans, and now we are dealing with this. I think we are dealing with a bill on socialism later today. I don't know what the heck prompted that.

In any event, I mean, really? Is that what my Republican friends think the American people want?

Again, I am going to just say that I am urging my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the previous question so that we can have a vote on my proposal, basically, which says that Social Security benefits must be protected, that there is nothing in any of these bills or any bills going forward that would in any way negatively impact Social Security. Protecting the benefits that Social Security provides should be a priority for this Congress.

Quite frankly, none of us are comforted by any of the words that the Speaker has said. We don't know what is in the secret memo. I don't know what was promised on Social Security.

When Republicans say things like they want to protect the integrity of the program, that is code for they want to cut it. That is code for they want to raise the retirement age. That is code for all the things that our constituents, not just Democrats, but Independents and Republicans, fear might be coming down the road.

They are trying to use Social Security. They are trying to hold it hostage as part of this effort to get some sort of a deal on the debt ceiling.

They are basically holding this economy hostage. The good faith and credit of the United States, they are holding it hostage, ready to just throw it into the wind until they get these cuts in programs that help people.

Again, before I yield back at this point and let the gentleman continue with any speakers he has, I would say that the measures that we are dealing with today are concerning to us because there is a right way to wind down and a wrong way to wind down.

What we suggested last night in the Rules Committee as the right way to do this, and you can do it quickly, is to do hearings and make sure there are no unintended consequences, make sure there aren't vulnerable people who could be adversely impacted by your quick change of the rules. The majority would have none of it.

So, again, this isn't a serious effort. This is about messaging, and it is really disappointing.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

I appreciate the gentleman's response, but I am not sure who he is responding to.

The question I asked was for physicians to come down here and to make it clear, contrary to what was said before, that these vaccines are not dangerous, that people should get vaccinated, that it could save lives.

People are still dying of COVID, by the way, and the idea that somehow we should be discouraging people from getting vaccinations by scaring them doesn't make a lot of sense to me. In fact, I think it is irresponsible.

I appreciate the gentleman's service to his patients, and I hope that he understands now his service is to the American people and that service includes getting out the truth and what is accurate and what is not accurate about these vaccinations.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, may I inquire how much time is remaining?

Madam Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, our side isn't afraid to embrace change. We know that living in the 21st century means that we can and should use technology to improve Americans' quality of life.

We know that vaccines save lives, and we know that science is real. We know that ending these emergencies immediately is irresponsible.

Most importantly, we know that we are here to make progress, not to go backward, which is what the four measures this rule includes would do.

Again, let me say none of these bills went through committee. They could have, but none of them did.

Madam Speaker, 94 percent of the rules this Congress has dealt with have been completely closed. That is 15 out of 16 measures with no hearings, no amendments, no markups.

Is this what Speaker McCarthy promised you in his secret memo, that this is the way you will conduct business?

On top of all that, we are deeply concerned that a small minority on the other side of the aisle representing the most extreme elements of the Republican Conference is calling the shots.

We are worried about Social Security, and we are worried about Medicare. That is why we are asking people to vote ``no'' on the previous question, because we want to be able to put in place protections so that a fringe group can't mess around with Social Security, can't take away from people what they have earned.

It is not an entitlement. It is what people have earned in this country.

Madam Speaker, I urge a ``no'' vote on the previous question and a strong ``no'' vote on this rule.

There is a right way to do this and a wrong way to do this. The majority is in control and in charge. Take the time. Do the hearings. Ask the questions. Make sure there are no unintended consequences.

This is about the health and well-being of the American people. They deserve at least a hearing rather than a messaging bill rushed to the floor.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from Indiana for yielding me the time, and I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, it is good to be back on the House floor with the gentlewoman from Indiana. It is great to be with her, and so far, she is allowing me to actually speak and hasn't called for me to be silenced.

The last time we debated, I stated an uncomfortable fact about he who shall not be named and the gentlewoman had me silenced, had my words stricken from the Congressional Record.

You just have to love that, Mr. Speaker. The party of free speech that rails against woke this and cancel culture that, and calls us snowflakes, can't handle it when someone comes down here and tells the truth. They try to silence the people they disagree with. It is really quite stunning.

Here is more of the truth, and let's see if I am allowed to talk this time.

Mr. Speaker, under Republican control, the House of Representatives has become a place where trivial issues get debated passionately and important ones not at all. What we are dealing with today is a bunch of weird, whacky, poorly drafted culture war nonsense.

This is all just a waste of time. These bills aren't going anywhere. It is not even political theater. It is theater of the absurd.

The government shuts down in a few days, and instead of actually working with Democrats to keep the lights on, instead of actually doing something to fix the problems that the American people want us to fix, my Republican friends are doing nothing.

The roof is on fire, and instead of calling 911, they are sweeping the floors. I mean, it is beyond nuts.

Last night in the Rules Committee, during our hearing on this rule, I had some Republican Members telling me they didn't like my tone. They didn't like the fact that I said we don't share the same values.

I am sorry I hurt people's feelings, Mr. Speaker, but the truth is the truth. We don't all believe in the same things. When it comes to my friends on the other side of the aisle in this Chamber, we really don't share the same values. I know many of my friends on the Republican side are nice and good people, but their ideas are not nice and are not good.

Let me just give you a couple of examples.

Democrats want to make sure that our kids go to college and get a good education that prepares them for the workforce, and instead of working with us, Republicans go on and on about woke this and woke that in our schools.

Apparently, anyone who wants to teach facts is woke nowadays. They want colleges to stop being ``woke,'' even though they can't quite define what that even means. It is all political BS, Mr. Speaker.

Here is another example. Democrats actually want an economy that works for everyone, and thanks to the Biden-Harris administration, we are fighting to grow the economy from the bottom up and the middle out, but not Republicans. They are talking about woke economic policies.

I don't even know what they are talking about or what they mean, but do you want to know what people back home talk to me about? They are asking me: Why are Republicans trying to cut taxes for millionaires and billionaires? Why are Republicans trying to go after Social Security and Medicare?

Another example, Mr. Speaker, is that Democrats actually care about strengthening and protecting the Violence Against Women Act, but not Republicans. A majority of their Conference voted against extending the Violence Against Women Act. Let me say that again: A majority of their Conference voted against extending the Violence Against Women Act.

Now, they have the nerve to come down here and talk about violence against women and use it as part of their sick ploy to go after immigrants. Give me a break. Their bill is so poorly written that it could hurt survivors of domestic violence.

I could go right down the list. It is obvious to me that, at some point, the RNC talking points went out to everybody, and those talking points said woke, woke, woke. Now, we have to waste time on this trash.

It is just another week of the GOP circus. As I have said before, calling this a clown show is an insult to actual working clowns.

Most of all, it is an insult to the American people for Republicans to use these hallowed Halls and to spend hours and hours of time this week on these absurd, awful bills. Again, none of them are going anywhere.

The reason to be in Congress is to help people. That means putting people over politics. It means not caving in to the most extreme members of your party. It means getting stuff done, which is a radical idea.

None of these bills, as I said, are going anywhere. Yet, here we are, playing these absurd, ridiculous games.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I enjoyed listening to the chairman of the Rules Committee, but let me just state for the record that nothing he talked about will be at all impacted by any of the stuff that we are talking about here today. None of these bills are going anywhere.

If you want to pass legislation to address some of the issues that were raised, maybe we ought to work in a bipartisan way. Maybe it ought not to be ``my way or the highway.''

These aren't serious pieces of legislation. These are press releases. Let's all be honest with the American people about that. This is not serious legislating. We haven't done serious legislating here in a long time.

Mr. Speaker, I will zoom in a little bit on this Congress in general. I just mentioned that this is the most dysfunctional Congress in history. If anyone wants proof, look no further than this resolution: five more closed rules that allow zero amendments to come to the floor.

Mr. Speaker, for folks who don't know, a closed rule means no amendments. It means: Take it or leave it. If you have a good idea and want to improve a bill, too bad.

This is how they govern in Russia and China, and that is what the Republicans are turning this place into.

With these five closed rules they are bringing to the floor today, Republicans are breaking their own record for shutting down debate. With today's vote, there will be 106 closed rules in this Congress-- 106. This is now officially the most closed Congress in the history of the United States of America.

Mr. Speaker, what gets me is that my friends on the other side have been totally fooled. They were tricked by their own leadership, first by Speaker McCarthy and now Speaker Johnson.

The gentlewoman from Indiana and her colleagues on the Rules Committee were promised a more open process. They were told the Rules Committee was going to be different, more open, would have more regular order and more amendments, and more debate.

Speaker McCarthy was even blackmailed into putting members of the Freedom Caucus on the Rules Committee to guarantee a more open process, but apparently, it didn't matter because he totally broke his promise, and now Speaker Johnson is shredding it.

During the first 9 months under Speaker Johnson, we saw 64 closed rules, even more than the 42 closed rules we saw under Speaker McCarthy. They traded a bad Speaker for an even worse one. Republican leaders have blocked 5,799 amendments from even coming to the floor. Mr. Speaker, 5,799 amendments have been blocked from coming to the floor by the Republican majority.

By the way, they are not just Democratic amendments. They blocked Republican, bipartisan, and Democratic amendments. They blocked an amendment to disrupt the smuggling of U.S. firearms across the Mexican border. They blocked an amendment to combat fentanyl trafficking at ports of entry.

Holy hell, Mr. Speaker, they even blocked my amendment to protect food for seniors who participate in the Meals on Wheels program. They have even blocked over half of their own Republican Members' amendments.

Let me say that again. Most Republican amendments have been blocked by this Congress. These amendments have been prevented from even seeing the light of day or getting a debate on the House floor. There have been 98 amendments that Rules Committee Republicans had either authored or supported that have been blocked by their own majority.

When you are on the Rules Committee, you like to have a little juice, but 98 of your amendments, Republican amendments, have been blocked by your own party. That is almost 100 amendments, and that is just Rules Republicans.

I am sure they would have loved to have had the opportunity to debate their amendments on the floor. If Rules Committee Republicans can't get amendments, how the hell do you think the rest of us are doing?

Republicans said they wanted an open process in this Congress. They want an open process, my foot, Mr. Speaker.

Under this majority, the Rules Committee has become a place where democracy goes to die. Their Members should be outraged with the Speaker and this leadership just as much as Democrats should be. Again, 106 completely closed rules blocked all amendments--a shameful statistic, an all-time authoritarian high set under this Republican majority.

Let's look at the results. Look at what they have to show for it. Republicans had the most unproductive Congress in the history of the United States of America.

Mr. Speaker, 26 days we went without a Speaker because they were fighting with each other. Weeks were wasted with failed rule votes while they argued among themselves instead of negotiating with Democrats.

There were broken promises on the appropriation process where they kicked the can down the road with another failed CR, bringing us to the brink of catastrophic debt default and then asking Democrats to bail them out. Mr. Speaker, 10 months of passing no legislation through the Rules Committee that ever became law.

I congratulate my friends. In addition to being the most incompetent, dysfunctional, unproductive Congress in American history, they now have also presided over the most closed Congress in American history. Well done, well done, and they are not done yet. We have to live through 3 more months of this. God help us.

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

Mr. Speaker, again, I reiterate what the gentleman from South Carolina just said. We have different viewpoints and different values.

I am sorry that he feels he lives in a wrecked country. I don't believe that. I think the United States of America is the greatest country on this planet, and I am proud to serve in Congress to try to help the people of this country. I would never refer to this country as a ``wrecked country.''

Again, the gentleman who just spoke, I thought when he was appointed to the Rules Committee, he was appointed to make sure that we had a more open process.

I regret to inform the gentleman that 106 closed rules slipped by him this Congress. I appreciate him standing in the breach.

By the way, when he refers to all the amendments that were rejected as being dumb, 50 percent of them were Republican amendments.

I think 27 of your amendments were denied. I wouldn't classify them as dumb, even though I may disagree with the intent.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to include in the Record a list of the 106 closed rules issued by the Republican majority in the 118th Congress.

Mr. Speaker, beneath all these statistics about closed rules are actual ideas that are being blocked from being debated on the House floor.

These are thoughtful proposals that Members have worked hard to develop, ideas to help actual people, and they deserved a debate in an up-or-down vote.

They are proposals like this: An amendment to disrupt the smuggling of U.S. guns across the Mexico border to help cartels, an amendment authorizing funding for DHS to combat fentanyl trafficking at our ports of entry, and an amendment to prevent cuts to Meals on Wheels.

Those are home-delivered meals to seniors, Mr. Speaker, and that was my amendment, by the way, so I can assure you that it was a very, very good idea.

They even blocked an amendment to provide postpartum mental health information to pregnant students, and that was a Republican amendment.

Mr. Speaker, Republicans haven't just blocked amendments by reporting out closed rules. Their structured rules, the rules that allowed a few amendments, have also continually blocked thoughtful, rule-complied amendments.

They seem especially focused on blocking Democratic ideas from a debate in an up-or-down vote on the floor. A quarter of their structured rules--get this--blocked all Democratic amendments.

Now, let me quickly just list a few ideas that Republicans were either too afraid to debate or couldn't spare 10 minutes for consideration on the House floor: An amendment to protect children from getting asthma; amendments to ensure the regulation of dark money in politics, and to prevent corrupt pay-to-play political donation deals with Federal contractors; and an amendment to provide cancer screenings to Federal firefighters as part of their DOD annual physicals, when we know they are exposed to cancer-causing chemicals as part of their jobs. There is simply no excuse for this, Mr. Speaker.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, after listening to the gentlewoman from Minnesota, I was confused when she said, you don't offer alternatives. That is what amendments are. They are alternative ideas.

I just went through a list of some of the alternatives we wanted to offer dealing with firefighters and cancer screening, dealing with children with asthma, and dealing with making sure senior citizens have adequate access to nutrition. Those are alternatives. Those are ideas.

My friends, unfortunately, are in control of this place, so they get to bring the bills to the Rules Committee.

We try to present alternatives through the amendment process, but here is another alternative. If we defeat the previous question, I will offer an amendment to the rule to bring up H.R. 16, the American Dream and Promise Act of 2023.

Mr. Speaker, the bigoted hatred that we are seeing directed at immigrants in Ohio and across the country is sickening. According to research done by the Center for the Study of Hate and Extremism, there has been a rise in conspiracy theories that stigmatize minorities and promote hatred of ethnically diverse communities.

Get this. Politicians' use of bigoted rhetoric can also play a role in hate crime incidents. It is sad, but to be frank, we didn't need researchers to tell us this.

We can see and we can hear it from the Republican Party every single day, and it does a grave disservice to the Dreamers, to TPS holders, and to DACA recipients in this country who only know America as their home.

These are taxpayers, small business owners, educators, and critical parts of our communities. Dreamers were brought to the United States as children through no fault of their own, and it is past time to grant them the pathway to citizenship that they rightly deserve.

Mr. Speaker, let me be clear. There is a lot of work that needs to be done to fix our broken immigration system and secure our border, but unlike the messaging bills before us this week, this is a bill that actually does something, and it is actually bipartisan. It sends the message that we are sick of the vitriol and hate crimes against this community and that we value their many contributions that make this country a better place.

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, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Escobar), a great leader, to discuss our proposal.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Garcia), who will also speak on the importance of defeating the previous question.

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

You have got to love when Republicans try to talk tough about immigration reform. I just want to remind my colleagues that one of the most conservative Senators in the United States Senate is from Oklahoma. He wrote a comprehensive immigration reform bill that has some very tough provisions in it. Their standard-bearer, the man who I cannot name on the floor for fear that my words will be taken down, told Republicans to not allow it to come to the floor for debate or a vote.

They would rather have a campaign issue than to solve a problem. I mean, let that sink in. Let that sink in.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to include in the Record an article from the National Institute of Justice titled: ``Undocumented Immigrant Offending Rate Lower Than U.S.-born Citizen Rate.''

Mr. Speaker, all day long, Republicans spout hateful rhetoric about undocumented immigration and crime because they want us to be scared and they want to divide us, but their claims are simply not rooted in truth. In fact, undocumented immigrants are less likely, not more, than U.S.-born citizens to commit crimes, including violent crime.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to include in the Record an article by the CATO Institute titled: ``Sanctuary Jurisdictions in Florida Do Not Have Higher Crime Rates.''

Mr. Speaker, there is no evidence, none, either in Florida or in the rest of the country that sanctuary cities result in more crime. There is none, zero. However, that won't matter to Republicans because they are unmoved by the facts.

Mr. Speaker, earlier I listed some examples of ideas that Republicans blocked from even being considered on the floor. Here are a few more. I just want people to appreciate this.

An amendment that would protect access to IVF for Federal employees, they blocked it.

They blocked an amendment to require a study for Tribal consultations before enactment of an oil and gas bill that could affect their subsistence resources.

An amendment to make critical targeted investments in small-town police departments for the recruitment, retention, mental health support, and training they need to protect themselves and their communities, they blocked that, too.

They blocked an amendment to ensure continued access to emergency care for pregnant servicewomen at military treatment facilities.

Maybe Republicans don't believe in IVF or any of these other ideas, but they can just vote ``no.'' Why block these ideas from even being debated unless they are afraid they would pass?

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

Mr. Speaker, I am not prepared to close yet. There may be someone else.

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

I want to get back to this extraordinary closed House. I just want everybody to appreciate how awful this process is.

Here are yet more examples of ideas that were too scary, too revolutionary, too controversial to even be debated on the House floor, according to this Republican majority:

An amendment to provide grants to organizations that are helping to transition servicemembers to civilian life, including job recruitment training, they blocked that. I mean, what are they thinking? Who does that?

They blocked an amendment to ensure that students with dietary restrictions like lactose intolerance can have an alternative to whole milk at lunch. Is lactose intolerance now woke? I mean, I don't get it. That was blocked.

They blocked an amendment to ensure that a bill wouldn't cause our domestic energy prices to increase.

I ask, again, what is the majority afraid of? I mean, we have our differences. We ought to have substantive debate on the floor and then have votes. I am willing to bet there are some thoughtful Republicans who would support some of these amendments that I mentioned here.

Mr. Speaker, may I inquire as to how much time I have remaining.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time to close.

We have heard a lot about wokeness here today, but I want to focus on the woke Democratic ideas that Republicans have blocked in this record- breaking closed Congress. I mean, ideas like protecting IVF, fighting fentanyl trafficking, and making sure lactose-intolerant students have something nutritious to drink at lunch. Wow. I mean, that those ideas are woke is crazy.

There have been 106 closed rules. That is a big number, a record- breaking number, but much more important is what that number represents. These ideas and all the other blocked amendments I highlighted would have helped everyday Americans. Is that woke? Is it woke to try and keep kids from getting asthma, to provide job training to veterans? To provide cancer screenings to firefighters, is that woke?

Mr. Speaker, I don't know what my Republican colleagues are afraid of. Maybe they are afraid to vote ``no.'' Maybe they are afraid to vote ``yes.'' This is Congress, Mr. Speaker. We are here to take hard votes. This record-breaking number of closed rules is a disservice to the people the Republicans represent.

Mr. Speaker, while Republicans want to talk about being woke, I wish instead that they would wake the hell up and do the people's business. For example, I don't know, maybe pass a bill to prevent a government shutdown. What we are doing today is merely a political exercise. Their obsession with trying to inject politics and culture wars into everything is getting really old, almost as old as the Presidential nominee.

Let me just say I love this place, and I love all the different things that we have been called on to do. I will just say this, Mr. Speaker: I want everybody to join with me and let's end this. I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to try and speak something called commonsense speak, and that is for my colleagues to understand that Americans reject confusion and chaos.

According to The New York Times, ``An abrupt end to the emergency declarations would create wide-ranging chaos and uncertainty throughout the healthcare system--for States, for hospitals and doctors' offices, and, most importantly, for the tens of millions of Americans,'' as evidenced.

This is on the data from the White House, which by the way, under President Joe Biden, crafted a White House COVID task force that began to calm the uncalm waters that we suffered in the last administration.

Does anyone remember, ``maybe we should drink disinfectant'' in the midst of COVID-19?

Well, let me tell you, in Houston, Texas, we remember it. We also know that 6,812,798 persons died around the world from COVID; 1.1 million died in the United States.

It was only after an overwhelming effort by the Biden administration that we began to see the clock move on individuals willing to get their first, second, and third shots; their booster shots. That is why we are living, because we were vaccinated, because we overcame the stigma and the wrongheaded information that was scaring people about vaccines.

We didn't lose 1 million people on vaccines. We lost 1 million people due to not having that vaccination timely. I am struck by this legislation. The pandemic is not over.

Mr. Speaker, 500 people a day die, right now as I am standing here, from COVID. That is a reasonable amount. I know there are other infectious diseases, but doesn't it make sense that if we can have a vaccine and a protocol that allows people, our children, and those with preexisting conditions to live that we want them to do so?

The Biden administration has announced that they intend to reduce this national emergency declaration in May. It will allow our health facilities to get themselves organized for the possible onslaught. It will also deprive impoverished persons from the ability to get free vaccinations, including possibly flu shots, like we are doing in Houston, Texas.

I remember over 70 testing sites that I put in my district with healthcare providers week after week after week so that people could be tested and so we could bring down COVID in Houston, Texas.

I remember vaccination sites where people stood in line, a thousand at a time, to get vaccinated for free. Are we jumping for joy to condemn and now undermine the emergency pandemic that was utilized?

All I can say is that health professionals by and large in hospitals, clinics, doctors' offices will say no. They need their patients healthy. As many people that can get vaccinated with information should get vaccinated and, of course, guided by your healthcare provider.

I don't think it makes any good sense to be able to talk about how you never got tested, how you never got vaccinated. That is all well and good. I applaud an individual who is able to survive not getting tested, not getting vaccinated, but I know of so many of my close friends who died because there was not a vaccination, there was not good healthcare. They came to the end stages of COVID and COVID killed them.

So I don't make a mockery of the hard work of President Biden. I truly believe that his time frame--I might think it is a little too quick, but I adhere to the President's time frame of May 2023. Let us organize so that we can save lives.

Mr. Speaker, at any moment we can have a surge of COVID-19. We saw that at the beginning of the convergence of the flu, which was high this year, and COVID.

So I don't celebrate this legislation. I don't take angst or anger with the individual who thinks this is the right way, but I know that I am on the right side. I am on the dominant side of truth that 6 million-plus died, 1.1 million died here in the United States and 500 are dying every day.

This is not a time to precipitously end the emergency declaration. We should also make sure that we are not creating chaos and confusion.

Mr. Speaker, I again emphasize that we need not have chaos and confusion. Unfortunately, I see no purpose in this bill and will vote against it.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to H.R. 382--the Pandemic is Over Act, which would terminate the COVID-19 public health emergency that was declared on January 31, 2020, on the date of the bill's enactment.

Yesterday President Biden announced that the Public Health Emergency would officially end on May 11, 2023.

The purpose of doing this would be to allow hospitals, health care workers, and health officials the ability to manage changes that will come with ending the public health emergency declaration.

According to the Department of Health and Human Services, a Public Health Emergency declaration occurs when the Secretary of HHS determines that a disease or disorder presents a public health emergency (PHE) or that a public health emergency exists.

Secretary Becerra and the Biden administration have repeatedly said that the decision to terminate the public health emergency would be based on the best available data and science.

Through mass testing and vaccination campaigns, the public health emergency declaration has helped the American public contain the COVID virus, while also keeping the cost low for those seeking treatment.

The public health emergency has required that group health plans and insurers provide patients with COVID vaccines, testing, and treatment; expanded telehealth services, and extended health coverage for Medicaid beneficiaries.

Abruptly ending these pandemic declarations without a transition period would be extremely irresponsible because it would create uncertainty in health care systems; it would end Medicaid programs that have operated under special rules, telehealth would be impacted, and group health insurance plans could potentially change frequency of testing, vaccination, and treatment for patients.

These programs have been incredibly helpful at slowing the spread of COVID, so we must be thoughtful and practical about how we dissolve the public health emergency, which is why we need a transition period as proposed by the President just yesterday.

We must provide stakeholders with time to adjust to the changes that will come from ending the public health emergency.

I urge my colleagues to join me in opposition to legislation that would end the pandemic far too early and would upend some of the flexibilities that we all have benefited from since the start of the pandemic.

Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record a New York Times article, ``U.S. Plans to End Public Health Emergency for COVID in May.''

[From the New York Times, Jan. 30, 2023]

U.S. Plans To End Public Health Emergency for Covid in May

The end of the emergency, planned for May 11, will bring

about a complex set of policy changes and signals a new

chapter in the government's pandemic response.

Washington--The Biden administration plans to let the

coronavirus public health emergency expire in May, the White

House said on Monday, a sign that federal officials believe

the pandemic has moved into a new, less dire phase.

The move carries both symbolic weight and real-world

consequences. Millions of Americans have received free Covid

tests, treatments and vaccines during the pandemic, and not

all of that will continue to be free once the emergency is

over. The White House wants to keep the emergency in place

for several more months so hospitals, health care providers

and health officials can prepare for a host of changes when

it ends, officials said.

An average of more than 500 people in the United States are

still dying from Covid-19 each day, about twice the number of

deaths per day during a bad flu season. But at the three-year

mark, the coronavirus is no longer upending everyday life to

the extent it once did, partly because much of the population

has at least some protection against the virus from

vaccinations and prior infections.

Still, the White House said on Monday that the nation

needed an orderly transition out of the public health

emergency. The administration said it also intended to allow

a separate declaration of a national emergency to expire on

the same day, May 11.

``An abrupt end to the emergency declarations would create

wide-ranging chaos and uncertainty throughout the health care

system--for states, for hospitals and doctors' offices, and,

most importantly, for tens of millions of Americans,'' the

White House said in a statement.

The announcement came on the eve of a scheduled vote in the

House on a bill that would immediately end the public health

emergency. The bill, called the Pandemic Is Over Act, is one

of several pandemic-related measures that the Republican-

controlled chamber is scheduled to consider this week. The

White House issued its statement as the administration's

response to that bill and another measure that would end the

national emergency.

The back and forth signaled what is likely to be a

protracted political battle between House Republicans and the

White House over its handling of the pandemic. Republican

lawmakers hope to put the Biden administration on the

defensive, claiming it spent extravagantly in the name of

battling the coronavirus.

``Rather than waiting until May 11, the Biden

administration should Join us now in immediately ending this

declaration,'' Representative Steve Scalise, Republican of

Louisiana and the majority leader, said in a statement. ``The

days of the Biden administration being able to hide behind

Covid to waste billions of taxpayer dollars on their

unrelated, radical agenda are over.''

The White House argues that it is only because of federal

Covid policies mandating free tests, treatments and vaccines

that the pandemic is now under better control. Covid was the

third-leading cause of death from 2020 through mid-2022; now

it is no longer among the top five killers, federal officials

said.

The public health emergency was first declared by the Trump

administration in January 2020, and it has been renewed every

90 days since then. The Biden administration had pledged to

alert states 60 days before ending it. The emergency was last

renewed earlier in January, and many state health officials

expected it would be allowed to expire in mid-April.

Ending the emergency will prompt complex changes in the

cost of Covid tests and treatments that Americans are

accustomed to getting for free. Any charges they face will

vary depending on whether they have private insurance,

Medicare coverage, Medicaid coverage or no health insurance.

What state they live in could also be a factor.

Still, the consequences may not be quite as dramatic as

public health experts once feared. Medicaid enrollment

expanded greatly during the pandemic because low-income

Americans were kept in the program for as long as the public

health emergency was active.

But a congressional spending package enacted in December

effectively broke that link, instead setting an April

deadline when states will begin losing additional funding for

Medicaid coverage. State officials are likely to gradually

remove Americans from Medicaid rolls this year beginning

then. That transition avoids a more sudden removal of

millions of poor Americans from their health coverage.

By reconfiguring that expensive policy, Congress was able

to use the projected savings to pay for expanded Medicaid

benefits for children, postpartum mothers and residents of

U.S. territories.

The December legislation also extended coverage for

telehealth visits for Medicare recipients through 2024.

Telemedicine proved a lifeline for many during the pandemic,

and that coverage would have ended when the emergency was

lifted.

Still, other services might prove more costly to Americans,

particularly those with no insurance. People with private

health insurance or Medicare coverage have been eligible for

eight free coronavirus tests each month. Insurers were

required to cover tests, even if they were administered by

providers that were not part of their networks. Once the

emergency ends, some Americans will end up paying out of

pocket for those tests.

And while vaccines will continue to be covered for people

with private insurance or Medicare or Medicaid coverage, the

end of the emergency will mean that some Americans may have

to pay out of pocket for Covid treatments, such as Paxlovid,

an antiviral pill. Hospitals will also no longer receive

higher Medicare payment rates for treating Covid patients.

Jennifer Kates, a senior vice president at the Kaiser

Family Foundation, said the emergency declaration had

provided an important reprieve from the American health care

system's typically fractured way of covering the costs of

care, giving more people access to services that might

otherwise not have been covered by insurance.

The White House's decision, she added, could send the wrong

message about how relaxed Americans should be about the

virus.

``To the extent that it might let people let their guard

down from one day to the next, that could raise some

challenges,'' she said.

Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern), pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only.

General Leave

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks.

Mr. Speaker, last night, the Rules Committee met and produced a rule, H. Res. 1455, providing for the House's consideration of seven pieces of legislation.

First, the rule provides for H.R. 3724, the End Woke Higher Education Act, to be considered under a structured rule.

Second, the rule provides for H.R. 4790, the Prioritizing Economic Growth Over Woke Policies Act, under a closed rule.

Third, the rule provides for H.R. 5339, the Protecting Americans' Investments from Woke Policies Act, under a closed rule.

Fourth, the rule provides for H.R. 5179, the Anti-BDS Labeling Act, under a closed rule.

The rule provides for H.R. 7909, the Violence Against Women by Illegal Aliens Act, and H.R. 5717, the No Bailouts for Sanctuary Cities Act.

Mr. Speaker, I support this rule and the underlying legislation, beginning with H.R. 3724, the End Woke Higher Education Act.

As a Member of the Education and the Workforce Committee, we have spent countless hours addressing the serious issues within higher education under the Biden administration, where activism is often prioritized and differing viewpoints are silenced.

These conversations have become increasingly necessary, as we have seen waves of anti-Semitic protests where students are supporting terrorist organizations, and these protests are sweeping the Nation.

Too many institutions of higher education have cowered to the mob of protesters, often compromising the safety and well-being of their students. Freedom of speech is under attack on our campuses nationwide, and it is our students who are paying the price.

This mindset weakens what has historically been the strength of America: free-flowing and open debate at our institutions of learning. We must not let campus activists, woke faculty, and partisan administrators turn post-secondary education into DEI indoctrination camps. Denying speech undermines the very fabric of the Nation and is against everything our Founders intended.

Mr. Speaker, I am glad this legislation includes my Students Bill of Rights Act of 2024, which aims to address the erosion of First Amendment rights faced by students, and provides protections for academic freedom and expression.

Our students should never feel afraid to express their point of view or fear retribution or negative consequences for their future.

This woke mind virus doesn't stop there, which brings me to H.R. 5339, the Protecting American Investments from Woke Policies Act. It protects the retirement savings of workers, retirees, and their families by rolling back woke ESG requirements that have nothing to do with the bottom line.

The bill ensures that financial institutions are focused on maximizing returns in retirement plans rather than advancing the Biden- Harris administration's radical agenda at the expense of American workers. Forcing often underperforming and relatively high-risk investments on our seniors is not what they are asking us to do in this Chamber.

In this spirit, I am glad the bill includes one of my pieces of legislation, the Retirement Proxy Protection Act. The bill ensures that fiduciaries prioritize economic interests of plan beneficiaries when voting on shareholder proposals.

Finally, the rule also provides for consideration of H.R. 4790, a comprehensive bill package targeting unelected bureaucrats.

Time and time again, this administration has prioritized, again, an ESG agenda and initiatives that are against the well-being of workers and American businesses.

Democrat-appointed bureaucrats are attempting to use regulation to create climate and social policy in our financial markets, ultimately raising costs and limiting growth.

This legislation aims to stop unnecessary political reporting requirements for companies, make Federal regulators more transparent, and reduce the SEC's power over shareholders.

I am proud that another one of my bills, the No Expensive, Stifling Governance Act, or No ESG Act, is included as part of this package.

I will also touch on a bill brought forward by the gentleman from New York (Mr. LaLota), my friend, H.R. 5717, the No Bailout for Sanctuary Cities Act.

I am proud to be a cosponsor of this bill. Despite the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 clearly stating that no restrictions can be placed on communication between local or State authorities and Federal immigration officials about someone's immigration status, many cities still choose not to comply.

We have known for years that sanctuary cities create incredible challenges for Federal law enforcement, and in doing so, public safety is endangered.

Let's take Aurora, Colorado, for example. They are experiencing unprecedented gang violence due to a neighboring sanctuary city.

We also know that the Biden-Harris administration has been a master class in how to not handle border security. This administration has totally failed, alongside the sanctuary cities, in enforcing our immigration laws because the crime that finds a home in a sanctuary city spreads to other jurisdictions.

If sanctuary cities choose to operate this way and endanger their own communities, neighboring communities, and, ultimately, the entire Nation, then they must be forced to balance their irresponsible choices with the loss of other Federal support. It is pretty simple: If you fail to comply with the law, you should not expect support.

Our constituents understand and also demand that their tax dollars not support sanctuary cities that actively undermine their public safety and our immigration law.

The rule also provides for consideration of H.J. Res. 136 to push back on EPA overregulation, H.R. 5179 to end anti-Israel boycotts, and H.R. 7909, the Violence Against Women Act, which would crack down on crime caused by the Biden-Harris administration's open-border policies.

Mr. Speaker, I look forward to consideration of these important bills, and I urge the passage of this rule.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Burgess), my colleague and the chair of the Rules Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I note that what my colleague, the ranking member, does not note is that this House has passed under Republican leadership more than 300 bills out of the House of Representatives with 92 percent bipartisan support. Many of these bills go to the Democrat- controlled Senate where they die.

The ranking member also likes to criticize this majority when he knows full well just last Congress when he was chair, the Rules Committee was no bastion of an open process.

For the record, here are some statistics that might help paint a better picture and provide context for the cherry-picked numbers the Member rattled off.

It is true there have been more closed rules, but this majority has reported nearly twice the amount of bills in the last Congress. Considered as a percentage, this majority has reported fewer closed rules than when he had the gavel.

Even more, over a third of the closed rules were because no amendments

were offered, making the rule closed by definition.

Not considering those closed rules brings us still at roughly the same rate as a percentage of closed rules from the last Congress but with significantly more bills offered.

I also remind this body that the previous Congress saw the use and abuse of partisan en bloc amendment votes, which created omnibus-style amendments designed to defeat Republican, or tough amendments, and had the practical effect of stifling the Republican minority.

Even with this procedural atrocity, the ranking member still can't claim a higher ground on making minority amendments in order.

We also needed to keep up with the onslaught of regulations from the Biden-Harris administration that they have unleashed on the American people from unelected bureaucrats.

We have considered numerous disapproval resolutions, which traditionally are carried closed because of how they are written. The ranking member carried on this tradition when he had the gavel.

While the ranking member wants to talk about how we are stifling Democrat amendments, this majority has actually made more minority amendments in order as a percentage than the previous Congress when he was calling the shots.

While the ranking member shakes his finger at the majority for the way this Congress has gone, I point out that he understands the unique difficulties and the tough decisions the Rules Committee is tasked with in moving the majority's agenda.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to my colleague from South Carolina (Mr. Norman).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Minnesota (Mrs. Fischbach).

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

The other side of the aisle won't even deport violent criminals. That is against the very safety of American citizens. In New York City, under Bill de Blasio, they passed a series of sanctuary city policies between 2014 and 2018 that prohibit the New York Police Department and correction and probation departments from cooperating with U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents except under very limited circumstances.

However, now, more than 100,000 migrants have passed through New York City since the spring of 2022, and 58,000 still remain in the city's care. Current Mayor Eric Adams and the Governor of New York, Kathy Hochul, have said: ``We don't have capacity.''

For years, ICE has warned that sanctuary cities create a public safety threat, and they are one of the biggest impediments to public safety efforts. However, under the Biden and Harris administration, the crisis at the southern border has only worsened the consequences of sanctuary policies and made enforcing current immigration laws even more difficult.

H.R. 5717, despite mischaracterizations from my friends on the other side of the aisle, creates an incentive for local jurisdictions to cooperate with Federal immigration officials by prohibiting Federal funds from being used to provide sanctuary for illegal aliens going to sanctuary jurisdictions. Under current law, it creates a perverse incentive for sanctuary cities to willingly flout the law.

H.R. 5717 holds sanctuary cities accountable for exacerbating the Biden-Harris border crisis and flouting Federal immigration law by prohibiting the use of taxpayer dollars to fund housing, healthcare costs, and other benefits for illegal immigrants in such municipalities.

Taxpayers who are at risk due to the border crisis should not be funding local governments not interested in upholding the rule of law. No Bailout for Sanctuary Cities corrects these perverse incentives and ensures that taxpayers are not on the hook for this lawlessness.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to inquire if the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern) is prepared to close.

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

Despite what my colleagues on the left have to say, the American people know that the Biden-Harris administration has been a relentless, woke assault on the American economy, the education system, and even Americans' retirement accounts.

The American people know the Biden-Harris administration has resulted in crippling inflation, a wide-open border, decreasing public safety, and increasing drug overdose deaths.

With the bills before us today, we continue to deliver for the American people. House Republicans are fighting at every turn to secure our borders, restore our economy, and protect free speech and free markets.

The Violence Against Women by Illegal Aliens Act and the No Bailout for Sanctuary Cities Act are commonsense bills that would immediately make our communities safer, something the Biden-Harris administration has repeatedly failed to do. I would hope that our colleagues on both sides of the aisle would support these important bills.

I look forward to moving these bills out of the House this week, and I ask my colleagues to join me in voting ``yes'' on the previous question and ``yes'' on the rule.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution.

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 75, I call up the bill (H.R. 382) to terminate the public health emergency declared with respect to COVID-19, and ask for its immediate consideration in the House.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks on the legislation and to insert extraneous material on H.R. 382.

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

Mr. Speaker, today, I rise to push for immediate and overwhelming passage of my legislation, H.R. 382, the Pandemic is Over Act.

President Biden and I both agree that the COVID-19 pandemic is over. In fact, on the eve of the Pandemic is Over Act going on the House floor, President Biden finally announced that he is going to end the COVID-19 emergency declarations. I am glad that my bill finally forced the Biden administration to act.

However, President Biden has taken too long to act on his statement last September that the pandemic is over, which is why I am moving forward with my bill to end the COVID-19 public health emergency and finally restore checks and balances between Congress and the executive branch.

There was a time and place for the COVID-19 public health emergency. On this day 3 years ago, then-Department of Health and Human Services Secretary Azar first invoked the COVID-19 public health emergency.

The COVID-19 public health emergency was used at the beginning of the pandemic to establish Operation Warp Speed and provide for CMS waivers that led to millions of seniors receiving critical healthcare services through mediums such as telehealth and removing various forms of red tape getting in the way of healthcare providers' ability to care for their patients.

Now, exactly 3 years later to the day of the original disaster public health emergency declaration, we are in a much better position to address COVID-19. We have proven therapeutics in addition to 95 percent of the population either being previously infected with COVID-19 or vaccinated. A senior administration official even stated, ``We are in a pretty good place in the pandemic. . . . Cases are down dramatically from where they were the past two winters,'' according to Politico reporting.

It is long overdue for President Biden to unwind the public health emergency. Despite overwhelming evidence that COVID-19 is now endemic and that

the pandemic is over, Secretary Becerra just renewed the public health emergency for a twelfth time.

The Pandemic is Over Act sends a loud and clear message to President Biden: The American people are tired of living in a perpetual state of emergency, and it is long overdue for Congress to take back the authorities granted under Article I of the Constitution.

The Pandemic is Over Act would immediately terminate the COVID-19 public health emergency. Nothing in my bill ends title 42, despite the administration stating that it will. Let me repeat: Nothing in this bill ends title 42.

The Biden administration alone controls title 42. That statute was written in 1944 before the authority of the public health emergency even existed. If the Biden administration chooses to end title 42 when the public health emergency ends without working with us to secure the border, then that is just another one of his failures to add to the list.

To be clear, we support the ability to declare a public health emergency to address clear and serious public health threats. Maintaining these regulatory flexibilities during a public health emergency is crucial, but these authorities should only be used for limited periods of time based upon the particular circumstances and prevalence or immediacy of the public health threat.

Now, it is time to rescind the President's emergency powers, and Congress can address the present and future needs that may arise with

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

Mr. Speaker, we have been asking for a year for the Secretary of Health and Human Services to start showing us a plan for unwinding the pandemic public health emergency.

Now that we are here doing this today, it seems like we are starting to move in that direction. Unfortunately, we didn't have any hearings last Congress to deal with that, but we are going to begin that, working together today.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Bucshon), my friend.

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

Mr. Speaker, we are ending the emergency powers of the President. We are not conceding that COVID-19 is over in this country, and it is not. People have to take mitigation. We certainly don't want it coming across our southern border, so we support keeping title 42 in place.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Florida (Mrs. Cammack).

Mr. Speaker, I just point out that the omni gave the States clarity in how to deal with the Medicaid situation moving forward. We also extended telehealth, so a lot of things we have been trying to do, we have been asking the administration for a year to address some of the things that my friend from Oregon just brought up.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Iowa (Mrs. Miller-Meeks).

Mr. Speaker, we are trying to end the emergency powers of the President during the pandemic. We recognize COVID is still an issue that people have to deal with. We absolutely know that we are going to be working together over the next few weeks and months to make sure we have in place the proper protections.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Carter), my good friend.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Balderson).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Obernolte).

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute.

Mr. Speaker, I agree with my friend from Michigan that we absolutely have to look at putting things in place and keeping things in place that protect our citizens from COVID-19. We are not dismissing that.

What I am saying, or what we are saying, is it should be a legislative branch-wide issue, that we believe that if things are going to stay in place or be put in place, it should be by an act of Congress, signed by the President, as the Constitution says, instead of just the President making decisions for almost 3 years now--two administrations, almost 3 years now.

That is what we are saying. We look forward to working together to solve these issues and moving forward.

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

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

I think I did use the word ``cut,'' and I think I corrected myself. We are spending less money in Medicare, so you are taking money out of Medicare under the Inflation Reduction Act, but that money wasn't really put back in to shore up Medicare. It was spent in other programs, so there is $288 billion less being spent in Medicare.

Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as she may consume to the gentlewoman from Washington (Mrs. Rodgers), the chairwoman of the Energy and Commerce Committee. As we stated today in our organizational session, she is the first chairwoman in the history of the oldest committee in Congress.

Mr. Speaker, I am prepared to close, and I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Speaker, one of the points that my friend from California just brought up--we have this 3-year running telehealth that is moving forward. We all know that we can't put the genie back in the bottle. We have to work on telehealth, but we know for a fact there have been diversions of controlled substances through telehealth. We know that. So why don't we take back our authority? Let's negotiate moving forward.

Let's think about where this has gone. Three years ago today, Secretary Azar--two administrations--declares a public health emergency. It started doing a lot of things. One is that it allowed emergency use authorization, so we had therapeutics and had all these things come forward.

Also the status--not necessarily every statute under Health and Human Services, but because you have the status of a public health emergency, you can invoke other statutes: the Defense Production Act by President Trump to get respirators and moving a ship outside of New York so the people in New York and New Jersey could have an extra hospital, a mobile hospital.

I mean, all of those things happened. When we delegate our authority, those are the things that we move forward.

On January 20, 2021, almost a million people were being vaccinated. President Biden came in to continue the vaccination process. Then, a year into his administration, we, on our side of the aisle, sent a letter to the Health and Human Services Secretary saying that this needs to end. We can't continue to operate under emergency authority. Let's have a plan.

Everything that they have talked about today, every speaker they have

had: Let's have a plan to end this emergency, and let's do it in a way that we can address the issues that need to be addressed.

We have learned a lot during the pandemic about things that worked. Let's do things that work. Let's fix things that don't work, like the telehealth diversion of controlled substances.

Some of those are the things--we have been a year in, since February 1 tomorrow, almost a year since then, and we haven't seen a plan. We haven't seen anything.

There was some stuff done, I know, in the omnibus with telehealth. That is what we are saying. We don't need to continue to operate the country in an emergency status. We need to end it.

So why bring the bill up? They say this is irresponsible, the bill moving forward. The bill was in Rules last night. We have had no word from anybody in the executive branch that they are going to deal with this.

While the bill was being considered in Rules, they come out that it is going to end on May 11?

So this bill is needed. It is needed because it is moving us forward.

What we can do now, as the bill makes its way to the Senate--I don't know if the Senate is going to take it up or not, but what I will pledge to my friend from New Jersey and my friend from California, who is the ranking Democrat on the Health Subcommittee, is that we will work to make sure we find the areas that we need to continue the lessons that we learned, that we need to put into place, into statute, and to take care of things that need to be taken care of.

What we don't need to do is allow the carte blanche, 3-year open emergency pandemic that we know has had issues, as well. I mean, we always talk about the things we want to keep. We can talk about those and work on them.

The things that we need to address, using telehealth to divert controlled substances, we know that that has taken place. There are examples of that. We absolutely need to address that.

I will pledge that we will work, on our side of the aisle, with our friends on the other side of the aisle to find things to make sure that we continue to address the fact that we still have COVID-19.

One thing to note is we are still going to have COVID-19, and we don't need it coming across our borders. Because we are doing this, we also still need to keep title 42 in place.

I look forward to working together. This is necessary. It has moved this administration, hopefully, forward. We can say that, May 11, we move forward on this. I am proud to be the sponsor of it, and I urge my colleagues to support it.

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