On the recordFebruary 8, 2023
I thank the gentleman from Indiana for yielding. I find it somewhat ironic that the other side is complaining about the process during the debate on the amendment that the other side gets to offer by virtue of a decision in the Rules Committee to open up this process. So this is the process. The gentleman from Indiana is correct. It is not a given; it has not been established that the CDC has this authority. There is no need for us to legislate beyond the intent of this bill. The intent of this bill is to eliminate a Presidential order about a COVID vaccine for international travelers. There is no need for us, in this bill, to try and give the CDC additional authority. In fact, the bill is quiet on whether they have this authority, and that is a subject that is being debated in the courts right now. I also want to point out that the order, as well as the gentleman's amendment, doesn't apply to immigrants. The order that the President has put in place on visitors doesn't apply to illegal immigrants to this United States, and neither would this gentleman's amendment. So I think when you talk about science and logic, why is it that somebody who is coming here legally would be more of a threat than somebody who is coming here illegally? So I urge a ``no'' on the amendment, and a ``yes'' on the bill, but mostly, certainly a ``no'' on this amendment.
