[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.
____________________