[Congressional Record Volume 169, Number 20 (Tuesday, January 31, 2023)]
[House]
[Pages H520-H529]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




  PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.J. RES. 7, RELATING TO A NATIONAL 
 EMERGENCY DECLARED BY THE PRESIDENT ON MARCH 13, 2020; PROVIDING FOR 
  CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 139, STOPPING HOME OFFICE WORK'S UNPRODUCTIVE 
PROBLEMS ACT OF 2023; PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 382, PANDEMIC 
 IS OVER ACT; AND PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 497, FREEDOM FOR 
                        HEALTH CARE WORKERS ACT

  Mr. BURGESS. Madam Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I 
call up House Resolution 75 and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                               H. Res. 75

       Resolved, That upon adoption of this resolution it shall be 
     in order to consider in the House the joint resolution (H.J. 
     Res. 7) relating to a national emergency declared by the 
     President on March 13, 2020. All points of order against 
     consideration of the joint resolution are waived. The joint 
     resolution shall be considered as read. All points of order 
     against provisions in the joint resolution are waived. The 
     previous question shall be considered as ordered on the joint 
     resolution and on any amendment thereto to final passage 
     without intervening motion except: (1) one hour of debate 
     equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking 
     minority member of the Committee on Transportation and 
     Infrastructure or their respective designees; and (2) one 
     motion to recommit.
       Sec. 2.  Upon adoption of this resolution it shall be in 
     order to consider in the House the bill (H.R. 139) to require 
     Executive agencies to submit to Congress a study of the 
     impacts of expanded telework and remote work by agency 
     employees during the COVID-19 pandemic and a plan for the 
     agency's future use of telework and remote work, and for 
     other purposes. All points of order against consideration of 
     the bill are waived. The bill shall be considered as read. 
     All points of order against provisions in the bill are 
     waived. The previous question shall be considered as ordered 
     on the bill and on any amendment thereto to final passage 
     without intervening motion except: (1) one hour of debate 
     equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking 
     minority member of the Committee on Oversight and 
     Accountability or their respective designees; and (2) one 
     motion to recommit.
       Sec. 3.  Upon adoption of this resolution it shall be in 
     order to consider in the House the bill (H.R. 382) to 
     terminate the public health emergency declared with respect 
     to COVID-19. All points of order against consideration of the 
     bill are waived. The bill shall be considered as read. All 
     points of order against provisions in the bill are waived. 
     The previous question shall be considered as ordered

[[Page H521]]

     on the bill and on any amendment thereto to final passage 
     without intervening motion except: (1) one hour of debate 
     equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking 
     minority member of the Committee on Energy and Commerce or 
     their respective designees; and (2) one motion to recommit.
       Sec. 4.  Upon adoption of this resolution it shall be in 
     order to consider in the House the bill (H.R. 497) to 
     eliminate the COVID-19 vaccine mandate on health care 
     providers furnishing items and services under certain Federal 
     health care programs. All points of order against 
     consideration of the bill are waived. The bill shall be 
     considered as read. All points of order against provisions in 
     the bill are waived. The previous question shall be 
     considered as ordered on the bill and on any amendment 
     thereto to final passage without intervening motion except: 
     (1) one hour of debate equally divided and controlled by the 
     chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on Energy 
     and Commerce or their respective designees; and (2) one 
     motion to recommit.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Texas is recognized for 1 
hour.
  Mr. BURGESS. Madam 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. BURGESS. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members 
have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Texas?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. BURGESS. Madam Speaker, last night the Rules Committee met and 
reported a rule, House Resolution 75, providing for the consideration 
of four measures: H.J. Res. 7, H.R. 139, H.R. 382, and H.R. 497.
  The rule provides for consideration of all four measures under closed 
rules, with 1 hour of debate each equally divided and controlled by the 
chair and ranking minority member of the committees of jurisdiction or 
their designees. The rule provides one motion to recommit for each 
measure.
  Madam Speaker, I rise today in support of this rule and in support of 
the underlying bills.
  Today, the Republican majority begins the long process of reversing 
the policy failures of President Biden and the previous Democratic 
majority.
  Madam Speaker, Republicans last week demonstrated that Republicans 
are committed to governing for the American people. Toward that end, 
Madam Speaker, House Republicans have had one of the most productive 
legislative weeks in recent memory. Our new governing majority has 
demonstrated that it is no longer a closed shop, which was business as 
usual in a Democratic House in the last Congress.
  Instead of a lethargic Congress, Republicans, in only 3 short weeks, 
have set a precedent that I hope subsequent Members will emulate. The 
new Republican majority is eager to begin the important work that 
America has sent us here to do.
  Instead of legislating for the few at the expense of the many, 
Republicans are making good on our commitment to America. We are 
dismantling the COVID surveillance state. We are protecting the 
conscience rights of our healthcare workers. We are demanding that 
government employees show up to do their jobs like the rest of America 
has done. We are terminating and rescinding the interminable extensions 
of President Bidens's public health emergency declaration.
  Sometimes, Madam Speaker, I almost feel as if I have been trapped in 
a Dickens novel. In this tale of two cities, it seems the Biden 
administration is clearly of two minds on the COVID pandemic, one being 
the best of times: the administration's policies to combat the pandemic 
have been a resounding success. But then, on the other hand, we are 
still living through a crisis that requires emergency measures that 
have to be prolonged indefinitely.
  The American people spoke in the last election, Madam Speaker. Their 
message was clear enough. Their message by electing Republicans was 
enough is enough.
  Now, thanks to Chairman Graves and H.J. Res. 7, the American people 
can be assured that President Biden's national emergency will be 
rescinded. Americans will finally have a government that recognizes the 
reality across our Nation, the very words spoken by President Biden on 
``60 Minutes'' last September: ``The pandemic is over.''
  Madam Speaker, nowhere is the contrast more evident between 
Republicans and Democrats than what is included in this rule today. The 
Republican majority is already hard at work passing commonsense 
legislation that will benefit our people, that will benefit all 
Americans, not just a connected few.
  Madam Speaker, just like you, one of the most vital services I 
provide to the constituents of the people of the 26th District of Texas 
is communicating with Federal agencies on their behalf. Through this 
communication, I am able to ensure timely services like passport 
services, Social Security benefits, Medicare enrollment, veterans' 
benefits, and many more. Over the past few years, I have seen that 
these services have been severely delayed or even halted--completely in 
some cases--because what do you get? No one answers the phone, or you 
get an out-of-office response from a Federal agency.
  I submit that is entirely unacceptable. In fact, last week, I 
introduced a bill called the REACT Act, in a bipartisan fashion, to 
require a timely response from executive agencies after inquiries from 
Members of Congress. However, in order for the agencies to fulfill 
their responsibilities, they first have to get back to work.
  H.R. 139, the SHOW UP Act, would end the unproductive telework 
policies to ensure that these Federal agencies are back at work for the 
American people.
  Madam Speaker, I strongly support this bill, and I urge other Members 
to support the underlying bill, as well as the rule.
  Madam Speaker, again this September, President Biden, in a candid and 
unguarded moment, officially admitted that the pandemic is over, and 
then for emphasis he repeated it. Despite this declaration, this 
administration just reauthorized the twelfth extension of the COVID-19 
public health emergency.
  I think all of us who were here at the time agreed that, in March 
2020, the country was very much in a public health emergency. However, 
now the landscape has changed, and now the American people are 
transitioning back to their normal routines.
  Today, the Biden administration's lack of transparency has, yet 
again, put our country in a very difficult position. Throughout the 
last 3 years and 12 extensions of this public health emergency, people 
have had ample time to seriously discuss a plan to avoid disruptions to 
patients and providers as we transition out of this pandemic.
  This new House majority has been pressing the administration to come 
up with a plan to make permanent the policies that work and unwind 
those policies that don't. While there were several successful policies 
and innovations that came out of the emergency declaration, not just 
telehealth and hospital at-home flexibilities, this administration has 
repeatedly failed to provide a plan.
  The public health emergency cannot serve as a permanent means for the 
Biden administration to subvert Congress to enact their radical agenda.
  Madam Speaker, I support Congressman Guthrie's efforts to officially 
end this public health emergency, and I look forward to transitioning 
back to regular order.
  Madam Speaker, our healthcare workers across America are still 
subject to President Biden's vaccine mandate enforced by the Centers 
for Medicare and Medicaid Services. The healthcare industry is already 
suffering from a severe workforce shortage that will have drastic 
effects on our ability to take care of patients.
  Republicans have been crystal clear on the issue, Madam Speaker. We 
never have and never will support Federal vaccine mandates. The 
personal health decision of whether to receive a vaccine should be left 
between a patient and their doctor. The Federal Government has no place 
in demanding what an American must do for their personal health and 
certainly as a condition of employment.
  For Texas specifically, one of our hospitals lost over 150 workers 
due to

[[Page H522]]

the Federal vaccine mandate. This decision has deepened the staffing 
shortages back home, especially in rural areas, leaving all of us ill-
equipped to deal with day-to-day functions.
  Madam Speaker, I will conclude by saying that I stand in strong 
support of this rule and the underlying bills that they will allow to 
be debated.
  Madam Speaker, I urge my fellow Members to support the rule, and I 
reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. McGOVERN. 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.

                              {time}  1230

  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.

[[Page H523]]

  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.
  Mr. BURGESS. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  I disagree with everything the gentleman just said, except his kind 
remarks on me being named vice chair of the Rules Committee.
  I do think it is somewhat ironic he brings up redistricting. After 
all, it was Democrats' gerrymandering in the State of New York that led 
to the court throwing out their map. As a consequence of the court map, 
we elected more Republicans from New York than anyone thought possible, 
which delivered the majority.
  Madam Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. 
Roy) to speak on the rule.
  Mr. ROY. Madam Speaker, I would note that last week, for the first 
time in 7 years, we were able to offer amendments on the floor of this 
body with a modified open rule, and for the first time in 10 years, we 
were able to amend a bill other than an appropriations measure.
  I believe the gentleman doth protest too much. The bills we are 
talking about here are one page each, and one is six pages. We have had 
these bills out there for 72 hours. They have been publicly available.
  When the gentleman asks why we are doing this so quickly, I will tell 
you why. Because I am not going to look at another nurse, another 
doctor, another healthcare practitioner in my district who is begging 
to go do his or her job, to go care for the American people that they 
want to take care of, and have to look at them and say: You can't do it 
because the Federal Government is telling you that you can't, without 
any basis in science, without any basis rooted in any defense 
whatsoever.
  Keep this in mind:
  The OSHA mandate put forward by this President: Struck down by 
SCOTUS.
  The Federal employee mandate: Enjoined by the Fifth Circuit.
  Federal contractor mandate: Enjoined by Federal courts.
  Head Start mandate: Enjoined by Federal courts.
  The CMS mandate remaining in effect is making it impossible for some 
of the men and women who want to serve their constituents and take care 
of them to be able to do so.
  Let's just keep in mind what we are operating under, something that 
dates back to September 2021, keeping in mind what Dr. Walensky, the 
CDC Director, said in August 2021: ``What they can't do anymore is 
prevent transmission,'' ``they'' being the vaccines.
  The CDC's own website right now says that the vaccine does nothing 
for transmission, zero. Yet, that was the whole basis for the vaccine 
mandates, the whole reason given. To have the power of the Federal 
Government unconstitutionally and wrongly stepping into the purview of 
American people wanting to carry out their livelihoods, and you have to 
look them in the eye--you being us, broadly--look them in the eye and 
say: Sorry, you can't do your job. You can't do your job because some 
bureaucrats in Washington said so.
  Now, the President of the United States, lo and behold, says: Oh, the 
groundhog has come out, and now, on May 11, suddenly, we can go ahead 
and end these emergencies. We can go ahead and end the public health 
emergencies, end the national emergencies so that we can move on, on 
May 11, the magic date that the groundhog has doth spoken.
  Right now, the American people are dying for us to actually stop the 
madness out of this town interfering with their lives, and the 
Republican Party, the majority in the House, is now doing that.
  With all due respect to the ranking member on the Rules Committee, 
this rule is allowing for us to bring forward four very simple 
measures. They don't need a whole lot of going back and forth in debate 
and discussion. They are four simple measures. We debated them last 
night. They have been put forward. They are one-page bills. The 
American people understand what those bills say, that these emergencies 
need to end.
  Let me be clear: I am an equal opportunity basher of national 
emergencies that have been in existence for too long that shouldn't be 
here. I introduced legislation when President Trump was President, 
saying that we should end 40 years of national emergencies, the ARTICLE 
ONE Act Senator Mike Lee and I introduced.
  I invite my Democratic colleagues to just jump across the aisle. 
Let's work together to end 40-year-old national emergencies because we 
have no business carrying out business under emergency.

  Why aren't we praising and applauding the end of the emergencies? Why 
aren't we saying this is a great day in America that we can move 
forward?
  One last point on the efficacy of the vaccines. There are enormous 
questions that have been raised about the vaccines. There are Americans 
that are around this country that are saying: I don't want to have 
something put into my arm through the force of government mandate.
  Why are we stepping over that for a vaccine that has been admitted by 
our own CDC Director, by the CDC, by the NIH, to do nothing to stop 
transmission?
  My colleagues on the other side of the aisle do not want to address 
that. They want to hide behind ``the science.'' They want to say 
Congress has no role to step over into the executive branch and say, 
wait a minute, on behalf of the American people, enough. But today, the 
Republican majority is saying enough.
  Madam Speaker, we should support this rule.
  Mr. McGOVERN. 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.

                              {time}  1245

  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

[[Page H524]]

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.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Massachusetts?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. McGOVERN. 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.
  Mr. LARSON of Connecticut. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman from 
Massachusetts for yielding.
  Madam Speaker, first and foremost, today should be a day of 
celebration.
  Madam Speaker, 83 years ago today, Ida Mae Fuller received the first 
Social Security check. It is the Nation's number one insurance program. 
It is the Nation's number one antipoverty program for the elderly. It 
is also the Nation's number one program to help children out of 
poverty, as well as the number one disability program, especially for 
veterans and those who utilize Social Security, even more so than the 
VA.
  Looking at this proposal today, I commend the chairman for the 
Committee on Rules for having come up and situated because of 
everything we have heard from the other side. Imagine, holding the 
American economy hostage so you can make cuts to Social Security and 
Medicare, the bedrock insurance policy for the Nation; something that 
impacts your brothers, your sisters, your family members, people you go 
to church with, people you work with on a daily basis.
  You have proposed both, in your study group analysis a 21 percent 
across-the-board cut to Social Security. That is what has got our 
attention.
  In the midst of all of this, and especially amidst this pandemic, 
this global pandemic where more than 1 million people have perished 
here in the United States, over 756,000 are over the age of 65.
  There are 66 million Social Security recipients. They are 
predominantly on fixed incomes and impacted the most by this pandemic 
and the most by inflation. So to call for 21 percent across-the-board 
cuts and to hold hostage the American economy is beyond the pale.
  I hope all of our citizens are aware of this. We are going to 
continue to make everyone around the country aware of what is going to 
happen and the attempt to cut Social Security and Medicare.
  That is what this is about, Madam Speaker. That is why I rise on this 
floor today.
  Madam Speaker, there are 10,000 baby boomers a day who become 
eligible for Social Security. And Congress has done nothing to enhance 
Social Security in more than 51 years.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I yield an additional 30 seconds to the 
gentleman.
  Mr. LARSON of Connecticut. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for 
yielding.
  I appreciate the passion on this other side. I think this passion and 
engagement has to be brought forward to the Nation's number one 
insurance program. It is not an entitlement. It is an earned benefit, 
and the citizens of this country know it.
  Mr. BURGESS. Madam Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds for the purpose 
of response.
  First off, the Speaker has been very clear that it is not negotiable. 
There will be no cuts to the Social Security and Medicare. But more 
importantly, the only person who is cutting Medicare right now is 
President Biden.

  Ask any doctor in this country: Has your pay been cut in the last 4 
years? And they will answer resoundingly in the affirmative.
  Madam Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. 
Massie), to speak on this rule, another new member of the House 
Committee on Rules.
  Mr. MASSIE. Madam Speaker, I rise in support of this resolution 
because it would facilitate the passage of H.R. 497, the Freedom for 
Health Care Workers Act.
  What does that bill do? It ends the unscientific, illogical, immoral, 
unconstitutional, unethical, vaccine mandate on healthcare workers that 
is predicated on lies.
  What are some of those lies? Let's start with the first one.
  The first lie: The vaccine prevents spread. Who says that it doesn't 
prevent spread? Is this an internet conspiracy? Well, it is on the 
internet, but it is the CDC director, Rochelle Walensky, who said 1 
year ago, ``What the vaccines can't do anymore is prevent 
transmission.''
  Pfizer admitted they were not asked by regulators to assess whether 
their shots reduced transmission, nor did their trials measure whether 
the shots reduced transmission.
  What is the second lie that this mandate is predicated on?
  The vaccines don't cause any harm, can't cause any harm. They are 
safe. They are completely safe. You have nothing to worry about. No 
side effects. No adverse reactions.
  Who disputes that? Is it an internet conspiracy? It is the CDC 
website. Yes, it is on the internet.
  The CDC website acknowledges that the vaccines can cause myocarditis, 
pericarditis, blood clots, and even death.
  CDC and FDA recently announced they had identified a preliminary 
vaccine safety signal for persons 65 and older for the bivalent 
vaccine, that it could increase their chance of stroke in the 21 days 
following vaccination with Pfizer's new bivalent vaccine.
  What is the third lie that this is predicated on, this vaccine 
mandate for healthcare workers?
  That it is scientific. That it makes sense.
  How does it make sense? To require somebody to have two shots 
targeted at a variant of the virus that is no longer circulating; to 
have two shots that wear off after 8 months, two shots that were taken 
2 years ago.
  The CDC acknowledges that those vaccines that are mandated taken two 
years ago have worn off by now. Why would you mandate them?
  What is the fourth lie that this vaccine mandate is predicated on?
  It ignores natural immunity.
  When the vaccines first came out, the CDC said that the Pfizer trial 
showed

[[Page H525]]

that the vaccine was 92 percent efficacious for those who had already 
had COVID.
  Guess what? It showed no such thing.
  I called the CDC. They admitted to me it was wrong. They said they 
would fix the website.
  Here we are over 2 years later, they haven't fixed that lie on their 
website. They know it is a lie. I have them on a recording if anybody 
over there wants to hear it.
  Finally, who is liable for the damage that this could cause? Nobody 
is liable.
  We are living under medical malpractice martial law right now under 
the PREP Act in the EUAs.
  Madam Speaker, let me close with this: This vaccine mandate affects 
nurses; 85 percent of nurses are female.
  Joe Biden's COVID vaccine mandate for healthcare workers have forced 
many from the workplace. Many of them quit nursing as a career, retired 
early, or didn't pursue it as a degree.
  This is the epitome of hypocrisy. Nobody in this room was mandated to 
take a vaccine, and we are voting on whether we are going to force 
people who want to take care of people, whether they have to take the 
vaccine.
  End the hypocrisy. None of us were mandated. None of the staff in 
this room were mandated to take this vaccine. End it now. Support this 
rule.
  Mr. McGOVERN. 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 .

  Mr. McGOVERN. 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.

  Mr. McGOVERN. 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

[[Page H526]]

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.

  Mr. McGOVERN. 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.

                              {time}  1300

  Mr. BURGESS. Madam Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from 
Arizona (Mr. Gosar) to speak on the rule.
  Mr. GOSAR. Madam Speaker, I rise in support of my own bill, H.J. Res. 
7, terminating the COVID national emergency declaration.
  It is the same bill text that I sponsored in the 117th Congress and 
the same bill text that passed the Senate twice last year, most 
recently in November with the bipartisan support of all Republican 
Senators and 12 Democratic Senators.
  Emergency powers were created to give the executive branch 
flexibility to respond to a range of crises facing the United States, 
and the National Emergencies Act was passed in 1974 to rein in the 
Presidential emergency powers that are activated when a formal 
emergency is declared.
  As I have said before, good process builds good policies builds good 
politics. So, let's look at the timeline. On March 13, 2020, President 
Trump rightfully declared a national emergency concerning COVID-19. Mr. 
Biden has since abused Presidential authorities by repeatedly extending 
pandemic powers beyond their timeline and scope.
  Section 202 of the National Emergencies Act requires Congress to 
review termination of all national emergencies, stating that 6 months 
after declaration, and every 6 months after the emergency continues, 
Congress must--must--meet to consider a resolution of termination.
  Sadly, rather than debate and vote on terminating the emergency 
declaration, the former Speaker changed the rules of the entire House 
of Representatives and handicapped Congress' ability to perform its 
most basic constitutional duty: check the powers of the executive 
branch and the power of the purse.
  As a result, Mr. Biden continues to extend the COVID national 
emergency into perpetuity. Until now, there has been zero oversight 
from the House, even though Federal law requires congressional review.
  By now, and by any measure, the COVID-19 pandemic in the United 
States has ended, but Biden has dubiously continued to extend his 
pandemic power. Why? Under the continued COVID national emergency 
extension, more than 120 special statutory powers only meant for times 
of actual emergency continue to be available to Mr. Biden, including 
the power to draft Americans without consent, barricade the United 
States Capitol, place the Public Health Service under military control, 
and, yes, even move money around.

[[Page H527]]

  Biden's unwillingness to let go of the temporary pandemic powers is 
tyranny, and the former Speaker is complicit.
  Thankfully, with our new Republican majority and restored House 
rules, Members of Congress and millions of Americans that they 
represent are finally able to weigh in on their concerns with continued 
pandemic powers.
  The COVID pandemic emergency in the U.S. has ended, and most 
Americans have returned to prepandemic normalcy. Biden himself stated: 
``The pandemic is over.''
  So, why does Biden continue to extend the COVID national emergency? 
The answer is simple: To force Americans to live under extreme measures 
that deprive us of our freedoms.
  It is sad to hear the other side talk about all this lack of tyranny 
and not following the rules. We were forbidden to do our job.
  The National Emergencies Act requires, demands, that Congress, every 
6 months, look at this national emergency and decide whether to go up 
or down. That is all it did.
  In the 2 years since he has been President, we have done neither. It 
is high time that we answer that call and do our job. At least the 
Senate has done it twice.
  I think we need to get back to getting back the power of the purse 
and holding this administration accountable. Time is up. I ask that 
everybody vote for these bills.
  Mr. McGOVERN. 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.

  Mr. McGOVERN. 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.

[[Page H528]]

  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.
  Mr. BURGESS. Madam Speaker, may I inquire how much time is remaining?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Texas has 7\1/2\ minutes 
remaining.
  Mr. BURGESS. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Georgia (Mr. McCormick), a new Member elected last November, to speak 
on the rule.
  Mr. McCORMICK. Well, sir, you asked for a physician to stand. I am a 
physician. I am an emergency medicine physician who served during the 
entire COVID pandemic from before the pandemic began.
  I am sure I was exposed to it over a thousand times with thousands of 
patients that I treated for COVID, some of which I intubated.
  We had healthcare workers who had decades of experience exposed over 
and over again before there even was a vaccination. People went home 
sick. They had fevers.
  It may surprise you that I was never tested for COVID. Not in the 
entire career that I have had as an emergency physician have I ever 
been tested for COVID.
  I came to work time and time again, putting my life on the line. I 
lost friends. I watched people put their lives on the line and come to 
work when everybody else got to call in or stay home based on 
congressional mandates or congressional exceptions because we were 
essential, because we understand our profession.
  We understand how important it is to public service, to save lives, 
to learn and to continue to grow, to have the debate over what would 
and would not work for patients, and we evolved.
  It wasn't just one size fits all for medicine. People are not treated 
the same because people are different. Different exposures require 
different treatments.
  Once you have had the disease, you develop an immunity. If you have 
immunity, and you are exposed to a vaccination within a certain time, 
you can have a hyperimmune response that can be harmful.
  This is not taken into account by congressional people who do not 
understand medicine, who have not been to medical school, who have not 
had a residency, who have not had decades of experience either as a 
doctor, a nurse, a mid-level, or some other healthcare professional who 
understands healthcare far more than anybody who sits in these seats, 
who have never treated one patient or read one book or had one test 
concerning the outcome of a patient. They have never held the hand of a 
patient who is dying.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. BURGESS. Madam Speaker, I yield an additional 1 minute to the 
gentleman from Georgia.
  Mr. McCORMICK. So, I would challenge you, sir, to consider a 
healthcare professional, when they get to determine their own fate as 
they continue to put their lives on the line to serve the very people 
that we are supposed to be serving here in Congress.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Members are reminded to direct their remarks 
to the Chair.
  Mr. McGOVERN. 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.
  Mr. BURGESS. Madam Speaker, I have no further speakers, and I reserve 
the balance of my time.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, may I inquire how much time is 
remaining?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Massachusetts has 4\1/2\ 
minutes remaining.
  Mr. McGOVERN. 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.
  Mr. BURGESS. Madam Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  In preparing for this debate today on the rule, I reflected on the 
iconic photograph of the sailor kissing his girlfriend on the streets 
of New York at the end of the Second World War. Think about that for a 
moment.
  My parents were married in 1946. My wife's parents were married in 
1945. The end of the Second World War, the optimism of that couple on 
the streets of New York, then gave rise to basically my generation, the 
baby boom generation.
  I was thinking back to about a year ago when there was a video making 
the rounds on the internet of an elementary school class where the 
teacher said masks are no longer required and the unbridled joy of 
those young students as they ripped off their masks, never to have to 
put them on again.
  We are standing on the precipice of just such a moment today, and 
this truly is a historic moment. It is one that the American people 
should look back on and say this was the time. This is the time for 
optimism and to, without fear, embrace the future because

[[Page H529]]

we know the good things of which our country is capable.

                              {time}  1315

  Now, I do need to thank some of our fellow Members; specifically, the 
chairwoman of my committee, the Energy and Commerce Committee, 
Chairwoman Rodgers, Chairman Sam Graves of the Transportation and 
Infrastructure Committee, and Chairman Comer of the Oversight and 
Government Reform Committee for their hard work in delivering for the 
American people by bringing these bills to the floor and helping ensure 
that commitment to America and the future.
  The Republican majority has again demonstrated that our governing 
agenda will be devoted to improving the lives of our Nation's citizens. 
Our governing majority will continue to focus on the issues that matter 
most to our people: combating the rising energy costs, sky-high 
inflation, rampant crime, our porous southern border, and the fentanyl 
crisis.
  These are the issues that the American voters rightfully demand that 
their Representatives address. The Republican majority is committed to 
solving the crises that the previous Democratic majority has inflicted 
on our Nation.
  Ms. JACKSON LEE. Madam Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to the 
rule providing for consideration of H.R. 382--Pandemic is Over Act, 
H.R. 497--Freedom for Health Care Workers Act, H.R. 139--SHOW UP Act of 
2023, and H.J. Res. 7--Relating to a national emergency declared by the 
Presidenton March 13, 2020.
  House Republicans have professed a commitment to transparency and 
fairness that allows all voices to be heard in the legislative process.
  Yet, by House Republicans choosing a closed rule, have denied this 
body the right to weigh in on the rules or these bills.
  Republicans are attempting to push through statements of principle 
that represent the entirety of the House without any reasonable 
consideration.
  These bills have not been adequately considered in committee hearing 
by the committee of jurisdiction.
  Amendments to these bills have not been raised or debated.
  Now, with this closed Rule, members are unable to offer any 
amendments to each of these bills.
  The business of the House is of the utmost importance to the American 
people.
  Democrats remain committed to putting people over politics.
  During 2020 within my District, the COVID-19 pandemic was surging and 
I worked desperately to bring COVID-19 testing and then vaccines to 
communities in need throughout my district.
  At the time many Republican leaders refused to even acknowledge the 
reality of the pandemic.
  Now the Republicans are furthering their narrative and lack of action 
on COVID-19 by attempting to normalize and even deny the horrors of the 
pandemic.
  We should never forget the lives lost and all that we have learned 
for the pandemic.
  In Harris County, over 11 thousand people have died of COVID-19 since 
2020. Every one of those lives was important and we must work together 
to save every life possible.
  Vaccines have saved lives and continue to save lives.
  The issue of the pandemics' ongoing nature is a complex one that will 
need to consider potential seasonal surges and the need for annual 
vaccines.
  The Republicans today barely secured a majority in the House and only 
chose a Speaker from their party after 14 votes. They cannot claim to 
have any mandate from the public.
  We must continue to keep COVID-19 front of mind and create a plan of 
shifting to living with COVID-19 rather than these brash political 
statements.
  I, for one, care about the safety of healthcare works, the safety of 
my constituents, and the safety of workers.
  The fact is that we must continue to identify the best way out of the 
COVID-19 pandemic with careful consideration of the science, and 
strategic plans that consider the uniqueness of each of the communities 
that we represent.
  The rule before us makes bold unsubstantiated claims that threaten 
the safety of our healthcare workers, teleworkers, and the constituents 
in each of our districts.
  There is a better way forward.
  We must have more discussion and debate.
  I cannot in good conscious support this rule.
  The material previously referred to by McGovern is as follows:

                    Amendment to House Resolution 75

       Strike all after the resolving clause and insert the 
     following:
       That upon adoption of this resolution, it shall be in order 
     to consider in the House the joint resolution (H.J. Res. 7) 
     relating to a national emergency declared by the President on 
     March 13, 2020. All points of order against consideration of 
     the joint resolution are waived. The amendment printed in 
     section 5 of this resolution shall be considered as adopted. 
     The joint resolution, as amended, shall be considered as 
     read. All points of order against provisions in the joint 
     resolution, as amended, are waived. The previous question 
     shall be considered as ordered on the joint resolution, as 
     amended, and on any further amendment thereto, to final 
     passage without intervening motion except: (1) one hour of 
     debate equally divided and controlled by the chair and 
     ranking minority member of the Committee on Transportation 
     and Infrastructure or their respective designees; and (2) one 
     motion to recommit.
       Sec. 2. Upon adoption of this resolution, it shall be in 
     order to consider in the House the bill (H.R. 139) to require 
     Executive agencies to submit to Congress a study of the 
     impacts of expanded telework and remote work by agency 
     employees during the COVID-19 pandemic and a plan for the 
     agency's future use of telework and remote work, and for 
     other purposes. All points of order against consideration of 
     the bill are waived. The amendment printed in section 5 of 
     this resolution shall be considered as adopted. The bill, as 
     amended, shall be considered as read. All points of order 
     against provisions in the bill, as amended, are waived. The 
     previous question shall be considered as ordered on the bill, 
     as amended, and on any further amendment thereto, to final 
     passage without intervening motion except: (1) one hour of 
     debate equally divided and controlled by the chair and 
     ranking minority member of the Committee on Oversight and 
     Accountability or their respective designees; and (2) one 
     motion to recommit.
       Sec. 3. Upon adoption of this resolution, it shall be in 
     order to consider in the House the bill (H.R. 382) to 
     terminate the public health emergency declared with respect 
     to COVID-19. All points of order against consideration of the 
     bill are waived. The amendment printed in section 5 of this 
     resolution shall be considered as adopted. The bill, as 
     amended, shall be considered as read. All points of order 
     against provisions in the bill, as amended, are waived. The 
     previous question shall be considered as ordered on the bill, 
     as amended, and on any further amendment thereto, to final 
     passage without intervening motion except: (1) one hour of 
     debate equally divided and controlled by the chair and 
     ranking minority member of the Committee on Energy and 
     Commerce or their respective designees; and (2) one motion to 
     recommit.
       Sec. 4. Upon adoption of this resolution, it shall be in 
     order to consider in the House the bill (H.R. 497) to 
     eliminate the COVID-19 vaccine mandate on health care 
     providers furnishing items and services under certain Federal 
     health care programs. All points of order against 
     consideration of the bill are waived. The amendment printed 
     in section 5 of this resolution shall be considered as 
     adopted. The bill, as amended, shall be considered as read. 
     All points of order against provisions in the bill, as 
     amended, are waived. The previous question shall be 
     considered as ordered on the bill, as amended, and on any 
     further amendment thereto, to final passage without 
     intervening motion except: (1) one hour of debate equally 
     divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority 
     member of the Committee on Energy and Commerce or their 
     respective designees; and (2) one motion to recommit.
       Sec. 5. The amendment referred to in each of the other 
     sections of this resolution is as follows:
       ``At the end, add the following:
       ``This Act shall not be effective unless and until the date 
     on which the Director of the Congressional Budget Office 
     certifies that this Act will not result in a decrease to 
     Social Security benefits.''.

  Mr. BURGESS. Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and 
I move the previous question on the resolution.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on ordering the previous 
question.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, further 
proceedings on this question are postponed.

                          ____________________