Terminating Cdc Requirement for Proof of Covid-19 Vaccination for Foreign Travelers

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

I rise in opposition to H.R. 185, which once again prioritizes politics over science at the expense of the health of the American people.

To date, COVID-19 has killed more than 1 million of our fellow Americans. Families have been changed forever. Fortunately, today we have vaccines, tests, and treatments that have put the darkest days of the pandemic behind us, but we can't forget that COVID still kills 500 Americans every day.

Variants of concern continue to emerge, and therefore we must be vigilant and data driven in monitoring any uptick in cases. We must follow the science and the guidance of our public health experts.

We are not done with COVID; or, rather, COVID is not done with us. Ending all of our protections and public health measures without a reasoned discussion is downright dangerous. Unfortunately, that is exactly what House Republicans continue to do week after week, bringing bills to the floor that are nothing but political stunts that put politics over science. This is the latest dangerous stunt.

H.R. 185 would terminate the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's order that requires proof of COVID-19 vaccination for foreign air passengers entering the United States.

Vaccination is protective against severe illness and death from COVID-19. It reduces the impact of COVID-19 on our healthcare infrastructure, including hospital capacity and healthcare provider staffing. That is why the CDC order was put in place and why I continue to believe that our public health experts are best positioned to make these kinds of determinations.

This bill would permit unvaccinated individuals to freely enter the United States, even as variants continue to emerge around the world, potentially increasing the risk of circulating new variants of concern. This could potentially stretch our healthcare resources just as our hospitals, providers, and public health infrastructure try to rebuild.

In addition, H.R. 185 would also prohibit the CDC from issuing any successor or subsequent orders to require COVID-19 vaccination for foreign travelers in the future as well. This is dangerous and ties the hands of our public health experts to the political whims of the most ideologically extreme in a way that makes our Nation less safe and more vulnerable in the future.

Imagine if a dangerous new variant that was highly contagious appeared somewhere in the world. This Republican bill would prevent the CDC from restricting people from entering the Nation who are not vaccinated. This simply defies logic, but it is, unfortunately, what happens when you have an extreme Republican majority that is more interested in rushing these bills to the floor as political stunts without any consideration of the implications.

There have been no committee hearings to hear from experts on what this bill could mean for the American people, and without any input from Democratic Members, who remain willing to have reasoned discussions about moving beyond the immediate emergency of COVID-19.

This is also the second bill in just 2 weeks in which Republicans have sought to question the safety and efficacy of the COVID vaccines, despite the unequivocal scientific consensus that COVID-19 vaccination is protective against severe illness and death.

Mr. Chairman, I have now sat through two Rules Committee debates and two floor debates in the House of Representatives where some Republicans have sought to undermine vaccine confidence and contend that vaccines aren't safe and effective. This is extremely dangerous.

It is also deeply disappointing that we have to continue to have these discussions instead of coming together to encourage all Americans to get their vaccinations to protect themselves and their loved ones against severe illness.

That is why I am also disappointed that the Rules Committee and its Republican majority barred consideration of an amendment by the gentleman from California (Mr. Takano) which would have made clear that nothing in this bill shall be construed to cast doubt on the safety and efficacy of COVID-19 vaccines. This would have sent a strong message for us to come together on a bipartisan basis and make clear that this bill is not intended to disparage vaccines and that the House of Representatives stands in support of science and reason.

It is telling that the Rules Committee decided not to make this amendment in order. It is a sad sign that my Republican colleagues continue to cater to the most extremist members of their Conference who would rather spread COVID misinformation than come together to encourage vaccination as our best path out of this pandemic.

Mr. Chairman, Democrats understand that we are entering a new phase of our response to COVID-19 and believe it is reasonable to reconsider some of the pandemic-related policies and whether they are still necessary.

Instead of rushing partisan bills like this to the floor, we are willing to have bipartisan conversations on a path forward. However, we will never--and I stress never--call into question the safety and efficacy of vaccines. We will not undermine the expertise of our public health officials or put politics over science.

Unfortunately, this bill does just that. For that reason, I strongly urge my colleagues to oppose this bill, and I reserve the balance of my time.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute.

Mr. Chair, again, I am not surprised, I guess, but when the gentleman from Kentucky talks about human rights and then he gives the lists of the countries that don't mandate vaccines that include Iran, Russia, Cuba, Syria, and China, these are not countries that care much about human rights.

As I said before in the Rules Committee, Republicans always talk about America first. We have the best healthcare and public health experts in the world, in my opinion. The CDC is so much better than any of the healthcare organizations, in my opinion, certainly better than our adversaries like Russia, Cuba, or China, but even for the other countries that are mentioned.

I understand the World Health Organization is out there, but I think we should be listening to the public health experts in our country and not worrying about some of these other countries that are adversaries.

I would be very concerned about people coming from places like Russia, China, and Cuba not being vaccinated because of the lack of attention to public health in those countries.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

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

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

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

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute.

Mr. Chairman, again, the previous Republican speaker said that we are confusing the public, and I think it is they that are, in fact, confusing the public.

We are hearing all kinds of anti-vaccine misinformation on the floor and in Rules, and I just think it is important to note that CDC, FDA, and nearly all health professionals are near unanimous in recommending that people get vaccinated and that vaccines are safe and effective.

I just think it is very damaging for the public to constantly hear from Members on the other side of the aisle about potential problems with vaccination because then people think that they shouldn't get vaccinated.

I know what your position is, that you don't want it to be mandated which, of course, I disagree with because of what public health experts say for foreign travelers, but please don't continue to give misinformation.

There are over 500 people that die every day from COVID. COVID is still here. COVID continues to spread. The variants could come up and spread at any moment, so we should not give the impression that people should not take vaccines.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute.

The gentleman from Pennsylvania--let me just make it clear. I have not used the word ``conspiracy.'' I am not suggesting there is a conspiracy on the other side of the aisle.

What I just resent is the fact that I do not hear any of my colleagues on the other side, on the Republican side, get up and say that vaccines are safe and effective, and people should take them.

We had an amendment by Mr. Takano before the Rules Committee, which would have made it clear that nothing in this bill shall be construed to cast doubt on the safety and efficacy of COVID-19 vaccines.

This would send a strong message to us that we should come together on a bipartisan basis and make clear that this bill is not intended to disparage vaccines and that the House of Representatives stands in support of science and reason, but my colleagues refuse to say that.

It is not a question of a conspiracy. It is a question of I believe it is your obligation to tell the American people that they should be vaccinated or at least that the vaccines are safe and effective in most cases, but you don't do that.

So the misconception is out there. It is not a conspiracy, but it is a misconception that vaccines are not safe.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time. Again, this is the third in a series of bills over the last 2 weeks that tries to roll back the protections that the Federal Government has put in place to try to stop the pandemic.

Now, granted, the pandemic--we have had a lot of success. I mean, President Biden for the last 2 years in terms of promoting vaccines and testing and all kinds of public health protections, COVID is on the wane. The number of people dying, the number of people hospitalized, all that is on the wane. He has said that he is planning on May 11 to lift the public health emergency.

But all I have been saying, and all the Democrats have been saying for the last 2 weeks on all these bills, is let's go by the science.

Let's be reasonable about this. Let's not assume that we can let foreign travelers in and them not be vaccinated.

Let's not assume that it is a good thing for public health workers to be unvaccinated. Let's not make a decision to end the public health emergency immediately.

Let's leave it up to the agencies and the experts, which again, I believe, are the best in the world. I am not interested in what Russia does or Cuba does or some of these other countries that are mentioned because we have the best experts in the world. If anybody denies that I will prove it to them that we do.

The bottom line is that as Democrats, we understand that the pandemic is on the wane, but we don't want to rush to make decisions or force decisions, if you will, on our public health experts that could be detrimental or make it difficult and tie their hands.

One of the things that is in this bill--and there are going to be a series of amendments now to deal with this--is to say that not only is this vaccine mandate eliminated but that the CDC can't even make any other types of mandates like that in the future.

That is very dangerous to tie their hands when we don't know exactly where COVID and the variants are going to be going in the next few months or the next few years. It is a mistake to do that.

So we will hear about some of these amendments that I think are really important, but the bottom line is this is a bad bill.

It continues this policy of basically eliminating the protections that we have been trying to put in place, that we have had in place, and that have helped us get beyond the COVID pandemic, for the most part.

I urge my colleagues, you know, for the sake of science, for the sake of helping people, for the sake of public health to vote ``no'' on this legislation.

I yield back the balance of my time.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Chair, I demand a recorded vote.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

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

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

The reason I am opposed to the amendment is because I don't think it is necessary or is even helpful to the issue at hand. It talks about a report on the number of visitors denied entry under this policy.

The fact of the matter is that, on the Democratic side, what we are concerned about is the public health. If the gentlewoman wanted to have an amendment that said there would be a report that provides us with public health data to justify lifting the mandate, I could see something like that because the bottom line here is we are concerned about the science.

The CDC says that this mandate is necessary to protect Americans, to reduce the COVID cases, to make sure that people don't get sick and that more people are hospitalized and be taxing on our public health system. So I don't see how this amendment that talks about the number of visitors gets to any of that.

Mr. Chair, I oppose the amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Chair, I demand a recorded vote.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Chair, I demand a recorded vote.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Chair, I demand a recorded vote.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source