[Congressional Record Volume 169, Number 44 (Wednesday, March 8, 2023)]
[House]
[Pages H1161-H1173]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 140, PROTECTING SPEECH FROM
GOVERNMENT INTERFERENCE ACT; PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.J. RES.
27, PROVIDING FOR CONGRESSIONAL DISAPPROVAL OF A RULE SUBMITTED BY THE
DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY, CORPS OF ENGINEERS, DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE AND
THE ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY; AND S. 619, COVID-19 ORIGIN ACT OF
2023
Mr. MASSIE. Madam Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I
call up House Resolution 199 and ask for its immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:
H. Res. 199
Resolved, That at any time after adoption of this
resolution the Speaker may, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule
XVIII, declare the House resolved into the Committee of the
Whole House on the state of the Union for consideration of
the bill (H.R. 140) to amend title 5, United States Code, to
prohibit Federal employees from advocating for censorship of
viewpoints in their official capacity, and for other
purposes. The first reading of the bill shall be dispensed
with. All points of order against consideration of the bill
are waived. General debate shall be confined to the bill and
shall not exceed one hour equally divided and controlled by
the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on
Oversight and Accountability or their respective designees.
After general debate the bill shall be considered for
amendment under the five-minute rule. In lieu of the
amendment in the nature of a substitute recommended by the
Committee on Oversight and Accountability now printed in the
bill, it shall be in order to consider as an original bill
for the purpose of amendment under the five-minute rule an
amendment in the nature of a substitute consisting of the
text of Rules Committee Print 118-1. That amendment in the
nature of a substitute shall be considered as read. All
points of order against that amendment in the nature of a
substitute are waived. No amendment to that amendment in the
nature of a substitute shall be in order except those printed
in the report of the Committee on Rules accompanying this
resolution. Each such amendment may be offered only in the
order printed in the report, may be offered only by a Member
designated in the report, shall be considered as read, shall
be debatable for the time specified in the report equally
divided and controlled by the proponent and an opponent,
shall not be subject to amendment, and shall not be subject
to a demand for division of the question in the House or in
the Committee of the Whole. All points of order against such
amendments are waived. At the conclusion of consideration of
the bill for amendment the Committee shall rise and report
the bill to the House with such amendments as may have been
adopted. Any Member may demand a separate vote in the House
on any amendment adopted in the Committee of the Whole to the
bill or to the amendment in the nature of a substitute made
in order as original text. The previous question shall be
considered as ordered on the bill and amendments thereto to
final passage without intervening motion except one motion to
recommit.
Sec. 2. Upon adoption of this resolution it shall be in
order to consider in the House the joint resolution (H.J.
Res. 27) providing for congressional disapproval under
chapter 8 of title 5, United States Code, of the rule
submitted by the Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers,
Department of Defense and the Environmental Protection Agency
relating to ``Revised Definition of `Waters of the United
States' ''. 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. 3. Upon adoption of this resolution it shall be in
order to consider in the House the bill (S. 619) to require
the Director of National Intelligence to declassify
information relating to the origin of COVID-19, 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 Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence or
their respective designees; and (2) one motion to commit.
Sec. 4. The provisions of section 7 of the War Powers
Resolution (50 U.S.C. 1546) shall not apply to a concurrent
resolution introduced during the first session of the One
Hundred Eighteenth Congress pursuant to
[[Page H1162]]
section 5 of the War Powers Resolution (50 U.S.C. 1544) with
respect to Syria.
Sec. 5. If a veto message is laid before the House on
House Joint Resolution 30, then after the message is read and
the objections of the President are spread at large upon the
Journal, further consideration of the veto message and the
joint resolution shall be postponed until the legislative day
of March 23, 2023; and on that legislative day, the House
shall proceed to the constitutional question of
reconsideration and dispose of such question without
intervening motion.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Kentucky is recognized
for 1 hour.
Mr. MASSIE. 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. MASSIE. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members
may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their
remarks.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Kentucky?
There was no objection.
Amendment Offered by Mr. Massie
Mr. MASSIE. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to amend the
pending resolution with an amendment that I have placed at the desk.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will report the amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
Strike section 4 of the resolution and redesignate the
subsequent section accordingly.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Kentucky?
There was no objection.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The resolution is amended.
Mr. MASSIE. Madam Speaker, last night, the Rules Committee met and
reported House Resolution 199, providing for consideration of three
measures: H.R. 140, H.J. Res. 27, and S. 619.
The rule provides for H.R. 140 to be considered under a structured
rule with 1 hour of debate equally divided and controlled by the chair
and the ranking minority member of the Committee on Oversight and
Accountability or their designees.
The rule further provides for consideration of H.J. Res. 27 under a
closed rule with 1 hour of debate equally divided and controlled by the
chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on Transportation
and Infrastructure.
{time} 1230
Additionally, the rule provides for consideration of S. 619, under
closed rule, with 1 hour of debate equally divided and controlled by
the chair and ranking minority member of the Select Committee on
Intelligence.
Finally, the rule postpones the vote on a potential veto message from
the President on H.J. Res. 30 until the legislative day of March 23.
Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from
Texas (Mr. Roy).
Mr. ROY. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Kentucky for
yielding me time.
I thank our colleagues on the other side of the aisle for working
with us on that unanimous consent, which I think is important. It is
important for us to have a full debate and a full airing of the use of
war powers in the United States.
As James Madison pointed out, it was critically important that we put
that power in Congress. We should have this debate. If we are going to
have troops in Syria, this body, this House of Representatives, this
Congress ought to speak to it; and we shouldn't hide behind a 2001
authorization of the use of military force and not update that
authorization of the use of military force.
I am not here to say whether we should or should not be in Syria. I
am here to say that Congress should speak to it. We should debate it.
We should decide. We should have an actual conversation in this body,
on this floor, when we are going to place our men and women in uniform
in harm's way. That is the point that we should be considering.
I very much believe that the gentleman from Florida has brought
something forward using privileged tools that we have here in the body,
and that we should take that under consideration. We should support the
resolution the gentleman has brought forward, and if we have concerns,
we should then have a debate, a full-throated debate, about the use of
military force and our men and women in uniform in Syria.
Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Last night, the Rules Committee met and reported out a rule for three
bills.
First, let me just say, this is an awful rule; and I don't want to
hear my Republican colleagues talk about fairness or openness ever
again. We got lecture after lecture about how they wanted to be more
open and more inclusive.
Well, guess what? So far, in this Congress, 22 of the 26 rules have
been completely closed. I mean, there are more closed rules in this
rule than Democratic amendments made in order.
Speaker McCarthy promised he would open things up, but he has locked
things down more than ever.
My colleague from Kentucky (Mr. Massie) said that he joined the Rules
Committee to be our conscience. So I would ask him, I mean, does he
think this is okay?
Madam Speaker, 43 of 44 amendments submitted by Democrats were
blocked by his majority; is that right? Is that the openness that we
were promised by his Speaker?
The bottom line is the last time Republicans controlled the House
they had more closed rules than any other time in the history of our
country, and they are on track to beating their own record.
Our first bill today, considered under a closed rule, is S. 619, the
COVID-19 Origin Act of 2023.
I think I speak for everyone when I say that we all want to know how
COVID started. But I also want to point out, for the Record, that
Donald Trump was President when COVID started, not Joe Biden.
Donald Trump said: ``China has been working very hard to contain the
coronavirus. The United States greatly appreciates their efforts and
transparency. It will all work out well.'' Joe Biden didn't say that.
What Joe Biden actually did do is he ordered this investigation, and
thanks to his investigation and the work of the intelligence community,
we now have a report that gives us some answers.
The gentleman from Kentucky says, Democrats all believe this was a
conspiracy theory. Yet, strangely enough, it was a Democratic President
who told the intelligence community to look into the origins of COVID.
So I am just a bit confused here as to his logic.
I will quickly mention two other bills. H.J. Res 27, also considered
under a closed rule, seeks to roll back a majority of the protections
on rivers, lakes, and streams that have been implemented since the
creation of the Clean Water Act.
I find it particularly ironic that Republicans go to East Palestine,
Ohio, saying, we stand with you, we are with you, while here in
Congress, they are passing a bill that makes it easier for the company
that dumped toxic waste into their rivers to get off scot-free.
Finally, we have H.R. 140, the Protecting Speech from Government
Interference Act, which does not protect free speech from government
interference. In fact, it seeks to expand the First Amendment to
include Vladimir Putin and the Chinese Communist Party, while telling
America's own Federal law enforcement agencies that they are now
forbidden from even notifying social media companies of attempts by
Russia and the CCP to spread propaganda.
But there is one more thing I want to bring up today, Madam Speaker,
and it is not in this rule, but it is just as important and
consequential for our democracy.
On Monday of this week, FOX News aired an offensive, dishonest,
shameful representation about what happened on January 6, 2021. For
nearly an hour, Tucker Carlson said that January 6 was not, in fact, a
violent attack on American democracy. In fact, he said it was not an
attack at all.
He called it a peaceful sightseeing day; downplayed what happened;
tried to sanitize and gloss over the first responders who were attacked
and died; called the people attacking our Capitol Police officers meek;
ran interference
[[Page H1163]]
for a racist mob that came into these Halls that day to overturn an
election.
I am furious because I was here that day. I was literally in this
room. I was one of the last ones off the House floor. I sat in the
Speaker's chair that day. I saw how close we came to disaster, and I
don't need Tucker Carlson or anyone else to tell me what happened that
day.
I am not just furious for me; I am furious for the people he lied to.
I am furious for the memory of the officers he insulted. I am furious
for the police officers who were beaten and injured that day. I am
furious for the staff who thought that they were going to die.
January 6 was an attack on our democracy, and now Tucker Carlson has
chosen to side with the enemies of democracy.
But what is most alarming about all of this, what is most dangerous,
is that he was aided and abetted by Republican Speaker of the House
Kevin McCarthy.
I have to say, this is a new low. Speaker McCarthy's treacherous
decision to coordinate with Tucker Carlson to deliberately distort what
happened that day is beyond the pale; and the worst part is the blatant
lying.
On November 21, 2020, Carlson said in a private text that lies about
voter fraud were shockingly reckless and called the very conspiracy
theories he was promoting on the air as insane and absurd to his
colleagues.
He called those propagating the big lie dangerous as hell. He knew
that claims the election was stolen were dangerous lies.
But instead of owning up to the truth, he went on TV, and with zero
respect for his viewers and for the people of this country, zero
respect for the truth, zero respect for our democracy, he sold those
dangerous lies to the American people. He should be ashamed.
Speaker McCarthy's disgraceful decision to help him spread these lies
will forever be a stain on this institution.
So my question for the Speaker is: Was it worth it?
Was the backroom deal with the far right to help Tucker Carlson lie
about what happened that day worth the damage done to our democracy?
Was it worth insulting the memory of the law enforcement officers who
died defending this building and what it symbolizes?
The family of fallen Officer Brian Sicknick doesn't think so. I want
to enter their full statement into the Record today, but our rules
prevent me from doing that. So let me just read a part of it here:
``The Sicknick family is outraged at the ongoing attack on our family
by the unscrupulous and outright sleazy so-called news network of FOX
News who will do the bidding of Trump or any of his sycophant
followers, no matter what damage is done to the families of the fallen,
the officers who put their lives on the line, and all who suffered on
January 6 due to the lies started by Trump and spread by sleaze-
slinging outlets like FOX.''
They go on to say: ``Every time the pain of that day seems to have
ebbed a bit, organizations like FOX rip our wounds wide open again and
we are frankly sick of it.''
That is what Speaker McCarthy is doing here. It is sick. It is
indefensible. Frankly, I find it disgusting.
So when the hell will House Republicans stand up here and say this is
wrong?
At least some Senate Republicans, to their credit, have actually
denounced Carlson's lies.
Senator John Kennedy said: ``I was here. It was not peaceful. It was
an abomination.''
Senator Thom Tillis says: Tucker's depiction was B.S. He called it
indefensible.
Senator Mitt Romney says: ``You can't hide the truth by selectively
picking a few minutes out of tapes and saying this is what went on.
It's so absurd. It's nonsense. It's a very dangerous thing to do. . . .
`'
But all we get out of this side of the Capitol is deafening silence;
and every moment House Republicans do not come out and condemn these
evil lies, more damage is done to the fabric of our democracy because,
mark my words, January 6 will happen again if we do not correct the
record and tell the truth about what happened that day.
It was an attempt to overthrow the government of the United States,
based on lies spread by the former President of the United States. So
for the sake of this institution, for the sake of the country, it is
time to tell the truth.
For my Republican colleagues, it is time for you to condemn these
lies.
Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. MASSIE. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Madam Speaker, I rise in support of this rule and in support of the
underlying legislation, H.R. 140, which went through regular order,
which was marked up in the Oversight and Reform Committee, where
Democrats had copious opportunities to offer amendments and to change
the bill, as did Republicans.
H.R. 140 is called the Protecting Speech from Government Interference
Act, and would prohibit Federal employees from using their official
authority to censor a private entity, including outside of normal duty
hours or away from an employee's normal duty post.
Under President Biden, administration officials and Federal
bureaucrats have abused their positions, authority, and influence to
encourage censorship and erode Americans' First Amendment rights.
Recently released reports have uncovered efforts by the Federal
Bureau of Investigation, the Centers for Disease Control, the
Department of Homeland Security, and other government agencies to
pressure social media companies and internet providers to censor and
remove speech posted on social media platforms.
Advocates for this censorship flag certain posts and users as
spreading misinformation on various topics, including COVID-19, racial
justice, and the U.S. withdrawal from Afghanistan.
Executives at Facebook and Twitter have admitted that prior to the
2020 Presidential election, after a warning from the FBI, they censored
the sharing of news regarding Hunter Biden's laptop leak, which has
since been proven true. It was not a Russian disinformation campaign.
Even former White House Press Secretary Jen Psaki, during a July 2021
press briefing, called on Facebook to ban specific accounts from its
platform.
Congress should recognize that the biggest spreader of misinformation
over the last several years, whether it has been about elections or
about COVID, has been the Federal Government.
The censorship must stop. Congress must restore constitutional
protections enshrined in the First Amendment.
H.R. 140, and the amendments that are pending votes here as well, are
critical to ensure that government officials can never again promote
censorship and pressure private entities to suppress Americans' First
Amendment rights.
Additionally, the rule before us provides for consideration of H.J.
Res. 27, a resolution ``providing for congressional disapproval under
chapter 8 of Title 5, United States Code, of the rules submitted by the
Department of the Army Corps of Engineers, Department of Defense, and
the Environmental Protection Agency relating to ``Revised definition of
`Waters of the United States.' ''
It is Groundhog Day again in America. Every time the administration
changes, this rule changes.
The Biden administration's new rule would radically redefine the term
``Waters of the United States'' to expand the Federal Government's
authority in regulating bodies of water.
Specifically, Biden's EPA would expand the term to include
impoundments of jurisdictional waters, tributaries, adjacent wetlands,
and additional waters.
{time} 1245
To be clear, what the Biden administration is pushing through here
will heap serious burdens on farmers, small businesses, homebuilders,
and rural communities across our country.
In 1972, Congress didn't tell the EPA and the Army Corps of
Engineers: Do whatever you think is necessary to protect water. That is
not what the bill said. Yet, that is what they have taken as their
directive.
The Clean Water Act was never intended to be applied as broadly as
the
[[Page H1164]]
Biden administration is proposing. Every Member of Congress should be
concerned about the EPA's attempt to expand its authority over
individuals' private property and regulate farms and communities, even
those which lie far away from any lakes, rivers, or streams and very
far away from Washington, D.C.
Congress has the constitutional authority and responsibility to
provide oversight and to review regulations issued by the executive
branch. If the executive branch promulgates rules that could overstep
their authority, as President Biden is doing here, it is vital that we
exercise our oversight authority in Congress.
Finally, the rule before us provides for consideration of S. 619, the
COVID-19 Origin Act of 2023, which would finally declassify any
information relating to potential links between the Wuhan Institute of
Virology and the origin of COVID-19.
In 2020, at the height of the pandemic, anyone who spoke out
questioning whether COVID-19 might have come from the Wuhan lab in
China was denounced as a conspiracy theorist, and their words were
labeled as ``dangerous misinformation.'' People were censored online,
their accounts were suspended, and their reputations were damaged for
questioning the origins of COVID-19.
What is the difference between COVID-19 conspiracy theory and the
truth? About 2 years. We have seen them called natural immunity
conspiracy theories. We have seen people who said masks don't work
called conspiracy theorists. Now, we are finding out that all of those
conspiracy theories, so-called, were accurate.
Fast-forward to today. Even the government admits it. The Department
of Energy and the FBI have both publicly reported their conclusions
that COVID-19 likely emerged as a result of a lab leak from the Wuhan
Institute of Virology, a research institute in Wuhan, China, controlled
by the People's Republic of China and, ultimately, the Chinese
Communist Party.
Was it funded in part by our government? Yes, it was.
This legislation is long overdue and is necessary to expose the truth
about the origins of COVID-19. Americans deserve to see the
information. President Biden could have released this information at
any point. It could have been released a year ago. It could be released
today without this resolution. But this resolution is important because
the President has not released this information. The last Congress, led
by Speaker Pelosi, could have voted to do what we are doing here today.
But no, they wanted it to remain hidden from the American public. I
fear the Federal Government has been involved in a coverup about the
origins of COVID-19 because they are afraid of being exposed as
culpable in the creation of the disease at the center of the pandemic.
To my colleague's point about the videos that were released on
Monday, I think the other side of the aisle is out of touch and out of
step with the American public on this.
A recent poll by Rasmussen showed that 81 percent of likely voters
believe that all of the tapes should be released. The Democrats had 2
years to release these tapes. But 81 percent of voters believe that.
Is that just Republicans? No.
Madam Speaker, 86 percent of Republicans and 78 percent of
Democrats--they are out of step with their own party--believe that
these videotapes should be released because Americans deserve to know
the truth and the defendants in these trials deserve to have the
evidence they need to present their defense.
Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this rule, and I
reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert into the Record a
USA Today piece titled: ``Fact check: COVID-19 vaccines primarily
designed to prevent serious illness, death.''
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Massachusetts?
There was no objection.
[From 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.
``Qur 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 Modema--
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 percent
effective at preventing hospitalizations from the omicron
variant.
Our rating: Missing context
Because it can be misleding without additional information,
we rate MISSING CONTEXT the claim that the CDC director says
vaccines can't prevent transmission of
[[Page H1165]]
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 ask unanimous consent to insert into
the Record an AP News article titled: ``Ex-Twitter execs deny pressure
to block Hunter Biden story.''
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Massachusetts?
There was no objection.
[From the AP News, Feb. 8, 2023]
Ex-Twitter Execs Deny Pressure To Block Hunter Biden Story
(By Farnoush Amiri and Barbara Ortutay)
Washington (AP).--House Republicans are expected to
question former Twitter executives about the platform's
handling of reporting on Hunter Biden, the president's son,
fulfilling a party promise to investigate what they have long
asserted is anti-conservative bias at social media companies.
Three former executives will be appearing Wednesday before
the House Oversight and Accountability Committee to testify
for the first time about the company's decision in the weeks
before the 2020 election to initially block from Twitter a
New York Post article about the contents of a laptop
belonging to Hunter Biden.
The witnesses Republicans subpoenaed to testify are Vijaya
Gadde, Twitter's former chief legal officer; James Baker, the
company's former deputy general counsel; and Yoel Roth,
former head of safety and integrity.
Democrats have a witness of their own, Anika Collier
Navaroli, a former employee with Twitter's content moderation
team. She testified last year to the House committee that
investigated the Capitol riot about Twitter's preferential
treatment of Donald Trump until the then-president was banned
from Twitter two years ago.
The hearing is the GOP's opening act into what lawmakers
promise will be a widespread investigation into President Joe
Biden and his family, with the tech companies another
prominent target of their oversight efforts.
``Americans deserve answers about this attack on the First
Amendment and why Big Tech and the Swamp colluded to censor
this information about the Biden family selling access for
profit,'' Rep. James Comer of Kentucky, the committee
chairman, said in a statement announcing the hearing.
The New York Post first reported in October 2020, weeks
before the presidential election, that it had received from
Trump's personal lawyer, Rudy Giuliani, a copy of a hard
drive from a laptop that Hunter Biden had dropped off 18
months earlier at a Delaware computer repair shop and never
retrieved. Twitter blocked people from sharing links to the
story for several days.
Months later, Twitter's then-CEO, Jack Dorsey, called the
company's communications around the Post article ``not
great.'' He added that blocking the article's URL with ``zero
context'' around why it was blocked was ``unacceptable.''
The newspaper story was greeted at the time with skepticism
due to questions about the laptop's origins, including
Giuliani's involvement, and because top officials in the
Trump administration had already warned that Russia was
working to denigrate Joe Biden before the White House
election.
The Kremlin had interfered in the 2016 race by hacking
Democratic emails that were subsequently leaked, and fears
that Russia would meddle again in the 2020 race were
widespread across Washington.
Just last week, lawyers for the younger Biden asked the
Justice Department to investigate people who say they
accessed his personal data. But they did not acknowledge that
that data came from a laptop that Hunter Biden is purported
to have dropped off at a computer repair shop.
The issue was also reignited recently after Elon Musk took
over Twitter as CEO and began to release a slew of company
information to independent journalists, what he has called
the ``Twitter Files.''
The documents and data largely show internal debates among
employees over the decision to temporarily censor the story
about Hunter Biden. The tweet threads lacked substantial
evidence of a targeted influence campaign from Democrats or
the FBI, which has denied any involvement in Twitter's
decision-making.
Nonetheless, Comer and other Republicans have used the Post
story, which has not been independently verified by The
Associated Press, as the basis for what they say is another
example of the Biden family's ``influence peddling.''
One of the witnesses on Wednesday, Baker, is expected to be
the target of even more Republican scrutiny.
Baker was the FBI's general counsel during the opening of
two of the bureau's most consequential investigations in
history: the Hillary Clinton investigation and a separate
inquiry into potential coordination between Russia and
Trump's 2016 presidential campaign. Republicans have long
criticized the FBI's handling of both investigations.
For Democrats, Navaroli is expected to counter the GOP
argument by testifying about how Twitter allowed Trump's
tweets despite the misinformation they sometimes contained.
Navaroli testified to the Jan. 6 committee last year that
Twitter executives often tolerated Trump's posts despite them
including false statements and violations of the company's
own rules because executives knew the platform was his
``favorite and most-used . . . and enjoyed having that sort
of power.''
The Jan. 6 committee used Navaroli's testimony in one of
its public hearings last summer but did not identify her by
name.
Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, Twitter itself is saying the government
isn't telling them to suppress anything. This is yet, unfortunately,
just another Republican conspiracy theory.
Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert into the Record an
article from The Hill titled: ``Trump officials roll back Obama oil
train safety rule.''
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Massachusetts?
There was no objection.
[From The Hill, Sept. 24, 2018]
Trump Officials Roll Back Obama Oil Train Safety Rule
(By Timothy Cama)
The Trump administration on Monday repealed a mandate that
would have required trains carrying crude oil to use special
brakes with new technology.
The Department of Transportation's Pipelines and Hazardous
Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA) said it undertook a
congressionally mandated analysis of the provision in a 2015
regulation under which oil trains would have had to use
electronically controlled pneumatic (ECP) brakes.
``The Department [of Transportation] determined that the
expected benefits, including safety benefits, of implementing
ECP brake system requirements do not exceed the associated
costs of equipping tank cars with ECP brake systems, and
therefore are not economically justified,'' PHMSA said.
The mandate to phase out traditional air brakes for crude
oil use was part of a comprehensive rule that the Obama
administration wrote in 2015 to try to improve the safety of
crude oil trains.
Transporting crude oil by rail has increased dramatically
in recent years due to a boost in domestic and Canadian oil
production. But with the increased traffic have come major
crashes and explosions, like one in 2013 in Lac-Megantic,
Quebec, that killed 47, one in 2013 in North Dakota and one
in Oregon in 2016.
The rule was mainly meant to implement a new design for
tank cars that carry crude, with new requirements for metal
thickness and fire protection. The brake mandate and speed
limits were also in the new regulation.
The brake requirement was a top target for the railroad and
oil industries in pushing back against parts of the 2015
rule.
Congress, in the bipartisan Fixing America's Surface
Transportation Act of 2016, told the PHMSA to conduct a new
cost-benefit analysis of the brake provision. If the costs
outweighed the benefits, the PHMSA was required to repeal it.
``Despite the additional testing and modeling, we still
believe that there is insufficient data demonstrating that
ECP braking systems provide a demonstrable increase in safety
over other more widely used braking systems,'' the American
Petroleum Institute told the PHMSA after it proposed Monday's
action in December.
Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, on February 3, 2023, a train with 38
cars derailed in East Palestine, Ohio, and the full devastating
aftermath of that tragedy is ongoing. The affected community needs
answers and change to make sure that something like this does not
happen again.
The Trump administration rolled back train safety rules. Now,
Republicans want to make it easier for polluters to pollute. They put a
chemical industry lobbyist in charge of the EPA office in charge of
chemical safety. I mean, you can't make this stuff up. They rolled back
regulations on train brakes, and they reduced rail inspections.
I just want to say one thing to my colleague from Kentucky. I have no
problem with releasing all the tapes, but that is not what happened.
The Speaker of the House selectively and carefully released them to one
person, to one news agency, who then deliberately cherrypicked things
to advance a distortion of what happened that day, an insult to the
people who work here, an insult to the Capitol Police officers who were
injured that day. That is not transparency. That is propaganda. That is
deliberately distorting a horrific event in which this Capitol was
attacked, our democracy was attacked. So, please, give me a break.
Madam Speaker, I urge that we defeat the previous question, and if we
do, I will offer an amendment to the rule to provide for consideration
of a resolution that affirms the House's unwavering commitment to
protect and
[[Page H1166]]
strengthen Social Security and Medicare and states that it is the
position of the House to reject any cuts in the program.
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 and Medicare are the
bedrocks of our Nation's social safety net. Yet, as my Republican
colleagues demand reckless cuts in exchange for paying our Nation's
bills, these programs are under threat.
Despite recent rhetoric to the contrary, Republicans claim that they
won't cut Social Security and Medicare benefits. Well, Madam Speaker,
today, Democrats are yet again giving Republicans another chance to
back up that claim with action by providing them a chance to reassure
the American people not just with their words, but with their votes.
Today, they can vote unequivocally that they will not cut these vital
programs. Anything short of that is an empty promise.
Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Alaska (Mrs.
Peltola), to discuss our proposal.
Mrs. PELTOLA. Madam Speaker, with enactment of the Social Security
Act in 1935, this country promised Americans that if they worked hard
and contributed to the program to support others, when they retire or
become disabled or lose a spouse, they will be taken care of, too.
Social Security helps us provide for retirees but also disabled
workers, widows and widowers, spouses, and children.
Franklin Delano Roosevelt claimed that Social Security would
``promote the common welfare and the economic stability of the
Nation,'' and it has.
Social Security has kept millions of seniors out of poverty and
continues to do so. Today, Social Security provides monthly checks to
more than 65 million beneficiaries who rely on it for food and other
necessities.
For over 85 years now, trusting in the promise of Social Security,
millions of Americans have worked hard, paying into the program out of
every single paycheck for decades.
In 2019, Social Security had helped 31,146 Alaskans stay out of
poverty. A report from a few years ago found that without Social
Security the elderly poverty rate in Alaska would have increased from
7.6 percent to 28 percent. As of 2021, over 110,000 Alaskans were
receiving monthly Social Security benefits, including 84,796 who are 65
and older. In total, that is over 13 percent of Alaskan residents.
I was raised, as I think many others were, with the value of treating
elders with great deference and respect, to care for them as they have
cared for us. I can think of no better way to do that than to ensure
that they have a safe and secure retirement. Simply, this program
reflects our values. All Americans deserve to retire with dignity.
We must support our senior citizens by strengthening Social Security
and not slashing it. We need to protect and expand Social Security.
Despite the many demonstrated successes of the Social Security
program, there have been no benefit increases to the program in over 50
years. I hear from many Alaskans back home who are scared that they
will not receive the Social Security benefits they have worked so hard
for all their lives.
Alaskans worry that the checks they depend on will suddenly
disappear, and they have no plan B. They count on receiving this earned
benefit that they rely on to pay for essentials like heating. My own
monthly heating bill in my hometown of Bethel, Alaska, is over $1,000 a
month, and my understanding is that is a low bill.
People do not deserve to live with this kind of uncertainty and
insecurity. That is why safeguarding and reforming Social Security must
be a priority for this Congress.
Social Security was a solemn promise made to Americans by its
government in full faith and credit. I commit to protecting this
promise for Alaska and all Americans and implore my colleagues to do
the same.
Mr. MASSIE. Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
New York (Mr. Langworthy).
Mr. LANGWORTHY. Madam Speaker, I rise in support of the rule, which
provides consideration for three important pieces of legislation to
restore trust and certainty for millions of Americans.
Specifically, I will highlight H.J. Res. 27, which would provide for
congressional disapproval of the Biden administration's overreaching
new Waters of the United States, or WOTUS, rule that threatens the
livelihoods and survival of our Nation's farmers and rural communities.
The Biden EPA's new reinterpretation of WOTUS is a complete rejection
of the Clean Water Act's decades-long, broadly accepted jurisdiction.
The new rule gives the Federal Government sweeping authority over
private lands and unleashes the Federal regulatory machine on private
property owners, over bodies of water as small as ditches, low spots,
and ephemeral drainages. And God forbid, if a farmer is perceived to
have violated the EPA's vague new WOTUS regulatory framework, they
could find themselves tangled in years of expensive litigation and red
tape threatening their very survival as an operation.
Now, my district in western New York, in the Southern Tier, has over
800 dairy operations. These are generational farms with deep roots in
our surrounding communities. My farmers, as in the case with farmers
across this country, are deeply worried about how the Biden EPA's new
WOTUS rule will impact the long-term survival of their operations.
Our farmers should be focused on production and growing and
maintaining their operations, not hiring outside, expensive consultants
to help them navigate a maze of new burdensome government regulations.
They shouldn't be worried about whether farming a certain part of their
land will lead to thousands, hundreds of thousands, or even millions of
dollars in penalties, enough to put these family farms out of business.
But under the Biden administration, sadly, this is just considered the
cost of doing business.
Now, some might say I am speaking in hyperbole. But we have seen this
play out before in 2015. We saw what an overly broad interpretation of
WOTUS meant to our farmers, many of whom suffered devastating fines
from an overzealous Obama-era EPA for having the audacity to manage and
farm their own private lands.
So the question before us with this resolution isn't how to best
regulate a pond versus a stream or a low spot. It isn't how far we
should turn the dial up on regulation, forward or backward, so as to
not inflict too much pain on rural America. It is a question of whether
we stand for the long-term survival of American agriculture and
domestic food security or whether we are willing to regulate the
American farmer out of business and out of existence.
Congress has a duty to review and oppose this radical interpretation
of WOTUS. I strongly support the rule, and I urge my colleagues to do
the same.
{time} 1300
Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Madam Speaker, I don't want to be lectured about farms and our
farmers. I represent a district with thousands of farms in it.
The bottom line is my farmers care about things like clean water.
They care about the environment because they know that contaminated
water can contaminate the food supply, among other things. My farmers
are worried about climate change and the impact it is having on their
ability to grow crops.
I don't want to be lectured about farms or what farmers want. I don't
know of any farmer who wants to create a situation where polluters are
basically not held accountable for the pollution they cause.
Think about what happened in East Palestine, Ohio. Is it the position
of the Republicans that the railroad should not be required to pay for
the damage that they have done, that the community should assume those
costs, or the Federal Government? I don't know who should pay for it.
The farmers should pay for that? Come on.
We can hear a lot about, ``This does X, Y, and Z,'' when we know it
is an exaggeration.
[[Page H1167]]
Putting that aside, I will say for the record that I represent a lot
of farmers. I talk to my farmers all the time. I do farm tours every
single year. What they talk to me about is making sure that we have a
clean environment, that they have access to clean water, and that we
actually start paying attention to climate change, which is destroying
their ability to be profitable and to be able to thrive.
Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. MASSIE. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to include in the Record an
article in the New York Post titled: ``10 myths told by COVID experts--
and now debunked,'' by Marty Makary, a professor at Johns Hopkins
School of Medicine.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Kentucky?
There was no objection.
[From the New York Post, Feb. 27, 2023]
10 Myths Told by COVID Experts--and Now Debunked
(By Marty Makary)
In the past few weeks, a series of analyses published by
highly respected researchers have exposed a truth about
public health officials during COVID:
Much of the time, they were wrong.
To be clear, public health officials were not wrong for
making recommendations based on what was known at the time.
That's understandable. You go with the data you have.
No, they were wrong because they refused to change their
directives in the face of new evidence.
When a study did not support their policies, they dismissed
it and censored opposing opinions.
At the same time, the Centers for Disease Control and
Prevention weaponized research itself by putting out its own
flawed studies in its own non-peer-reviewed medical journal,
MMWR.
In the final analysis, public health officials actively
propagated misinformation that ruined lives and forever
damaged public trust in the medical profession.
Here are 10 ways they misled Americans:
Misinformation #1: Natural immunity offers little protection compared
to vaccinated immunity
A Lancet study looked at 65 major studies in 19 countries
on natural immunity. The researchers concluded that natural
immunity was at least as effective as the primary COVID
vaccine series.
Public health officials downplayed concerns about vaccine-
induced myocarditis--or inflammation of the heart muscle.
In fact, the scientific data was there all along--from 160
studies, despite the findings of these studies violating
Facebook's ``misinformation'' policy.
Since the Athenian plague of 430 BC, it has been observed
that those who recovered after infection were protected
against severe disease if reinfected.
That was also the observation of nearly every practicing
physician during the first 18 months of the COVID pandemic.
Most Americans who were fired for not having the COVID
vaccine already had antibodies that effectively neutralized
the virus, but they were antibodies that the government did
not recognize.
Misinformation #2: Masks prevent COVID transmission
Cochran Reviews are considered the most authoritative and
independent assessment of the evidence in medicine.
And one published last month by a highly respected Oxford
research team found that masks had no significant impact on
COVID transmission.
When asked about this definitive review, CDC Director Dr.
Rochelle Walensky downplayed it, arguing that it was flawed
because it focused on randomized controlled studies.
A study recently found that masks didn't have much of an
effect on preventing COVID-19 transmission.
But that was the greatest strength of the review.
Randomized studies are considered the gold standard of
medical evidence.
If all the energy used by public health officials to mask
toddlers could have been channeled to reduce child obesity by
encouraging outdoor activities, we would be better off.
Misinformation #3: School closures reduce COVID transmission
The CDC ignored the European experience of keeping schools
open, most without mask mandates.
Transmission rates were no different, evidenced by studies
conducted in Spain and Sweden.
Misinformation #4: Myocarditis from the vaccine is less common than
from the infection
Public health officials downplayed concerns about vaccine-
induced myocarditis--or inflammation of the heart muscle.
They cited poorly designed studies that under-captured
complication rates. A flurry of well-designed studies said
the opposite.
We now know that myocarditis is six to 28 times more common
after the COVID vaccine than after the infection among 16- to
24-year-old males.
Tens of thousands of children likely got myocarditis,
mostly subclinical, from a COVID vaccine they did not need
because they were entirely healthy or because they already
had COVID.
Misinformation #5: Young people benefit from a vaccine booster
Boosters reduced hospitalizations in older, high-risk
Americans.
But the evidence was never there that they lower COVID
mortality in young, healthy people.
That's probably why the CDC chose not to publish its data
on hospitalization rates among boosted Americans under 50,
when it published the same rates for those over 50.
Ultimately, White House pressure to recommend boosters for
all was so intense that the FDA's two top vaccine experts
left the agency in protest, writing scathing articles on how
the data did not support boosters for young people.
Misinformation #6: Vaccine mandates increased vaccination rates
President Biden and other officials demanded that
unvaccinated workers, regardless of their risk or natural
immunity, be fired.
They demanded that soldiers be dishonorably discharged and
nurses be laid off in the middle of a staffing crisis.
The mandate was based on the theory that vaccination
reduced transmission rates--a notion later proven to be
false.
But after the broad recognition that vaccination does not
reduce transmission, the mandates persisted, and still do to
this day.
A recent study from George Mason University details how
vaccine mandates in nine major U.S. cities had no impact on
vaccination rates.
They also had no impact on COVID transmission rates.
Misinformation #7: COVID originating from the Wuhan lab is a conspiracy
theory
Google admitted to suppressing searches of ``lab leak''
during the pandemic.
Dr. Francis Collins, head of the National Institutes of
Health, claimed (and still does) he didn't believe the virus
came from a lab.
Ultimately, overwhelming circumstantial evidence points to
a lab leak origin--the same origin suggested to Dr. Anthony
Fauci by two very prominent virologists in a January 2020
meeting he assembled at the beginning of the pandemic.
According to documents obtained by Bret Baier of Fox News,
they told Fauci and Collins that the virus may have been
manipulated and originated in the lab, but then suddenly
changed their tune in public comments days after meeting with
the NIH officials.
The virologists were later awarded nearly $9 million from
Fauci's agency.
The theory that COVID-19 originated from a Chinese lab in
Wuhan proved to be true.
Misinformation #8: It was important to get the second vaccine dose
three or four weeks after the first dose
Data were clear in the spring of 2021, just months after
the vaccine rollout, that spacing the vaccine out by three
months reduces complication rates and increases immunity.
Spacing out vaccines would have also saved more lives when
Americans were rationing a limited vaccine supply at the
height of the epidemic.
Misinformation #9: Data on the bivalent vaccine is `crystal clear'
Dr. Ashish Jha famously said this, despite the bivalent
vaccine being approved using data from eight mice.
To date, there has never been a randomized controlled trial
of the bivalent vaccine. In my opinion, the data are crystal
clear that young people should not get the bivalent vaccine.
It would have also spared many children myocarditis.
Misinformation #10: One in five people get long COVID
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention claims that
20% of COVID infections can result in long COVID.
But a UK study found that only 3% of COVID patients had
residual symptoms lasting 12 weeks. What explains the
disparity?
It's often normal to experience mild fatigue or weakness
for weeks after being sick and inactive and not eating well.
Calling these cases long COVID is the medicalization of
ordinary life.
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention claims that
20% of COVID infections can result in long COVID, but other
studies say differently.
What's most amazing about all the misinformation conveyed
by CDC and public health officials is that there have been no
apologies for holding on to their recommendations for so long
after the data became apparent that they were dead wrong.
Public health officials said ``you must'' when the correct
answer should have been ``we're not sure.''
Early on, in the absence of good data, public health
officials chose a path of stem paternalism.
Today, they are in denial of a mountain of strong studies
showing that they were wrong.
At minimum, the CDC should come clean and the FDA should
add a warning label to COVID vaccines, clearly stating what
is now known.
A mea culpa by those who led us astray would be a first
step to rebuilding trust.
[[Page H1168]]
Marty Makary MD, MPH is a professor at the Johns Hopkins
University School of Medicine and author of ``The Price We
Pay.''
Mr. MASSIE. Madam Speaker, in this article that I have just
referenced, misinformation No. 7 was that ``COVID originating from the
Wuhan lab is a conspiracy theory.'' It is not. I think we are going to
find that out when this resolution passes, and I expect a lot of
Democrat support for the resolution. It passed by unanimous consent in
the Senate.
``Google admitted to suppressing searches of `lab leak' during the
pandemic. Dr. Francis Collins, head of the National Institutes of
Health, claimed, and still does, he didn't believe the virus came from
a lab.
``Ultimately, overwhelming circumstantial evidence points to a lab
leak origin, the same origin suggested to Dr. Anthony Fauci by two very
prominent virologists in a January 2020 meeting he assembled at the
beginning of the pandemic. According to documents obtained by Bret
Baier of FOX News, they told Fauci and Collins that the virus may have
been manipulated and originated in the lab, but then suddenly changed
their tune in public comments days after meeting with the NIH
officials. The virologists were later awarded nearly $9 million from
Fauci's agency.''
Maybe this is why we are not getting the truth yet. We will get the
truth if this rule passes and the subsequent S. 619 passes here in the
House. I think it is very important.
Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Madam Speaker, I don't think there is any controversy over the bill
to make as much of the classified report unclassified that is possible.
There is no controversy over that.
I want to make sure that people understand who is responsible for
actually doing the investigation. It was Joe Biden, not the previous
President.
I want people to remember what the previous President said. On
January 24, 2020, Donald Trump said: ``China has been working very hard
to contain the coronavirus. The United States greatly appreciates their
efforts and transparency. It will all work out well. In particular, on
behalf of the American people, I want to thank President Xi.'' Really?
On February 7, 2020, Trump said: ``I just spoke to President Xi last
night, and, you know, we are working on the problem, the virus. It is a
very tough situation, but I think he is going to handle it. I think he
has handled it really well. We are helping wherever we can.''
On February 7, he said: ``Just had a long and very good conversation
by phone with President Xi of China. He is strong, sharp, and
powerfully focused on leading the counterattack on the coronavirus. He
feels they are doing very well, even building hospitals in a matter of
only days. . . . Great discipline is taking place in China, as
President Xi strongly leads what will be a very successful operation.
We are working closely with China to help.''
Then he also said: ``Late last night, I had a very good talk with
President Xi, and we talked about--mostly about the coronavirus. They
are working really hard, and I think they are doing a very professional
job. They are in touch with the world organization--CDC also. We are
working together, but World Health is working with them. CDC is working
with them. I had a great conversation last night with President Xi. It
is a tough situation. I think they are doing a very good job.''
Then he said on February 10: ``I think China is very, you know,
professionally run, in the sense that they have everything under
control,'' Trump said. ``I really believe they are going to have it
under control fairly soon. You know, in April, supposedly, it dies with
the hotter weather, and that is a beautiful date to look forward to.
But China, I can tell you, is working very hard.''
On February 13: ``I think they have handled it professionally, and I
think they are extremely capable. And I think President Xi is extremely
capable, and I hope that it is going to be resolved.''
On February 23, President Trump said: ``I think President Xi is
working very, very hard. I spoke to him. He is working very hard. I
think he is doing a very good job. It is a big problem, but President
Xi loves his country. He is working very hard to solve the problem, and
he will solve the problem. Okay?''
Then, on February 29, he said: ``China seems to be making tremendous
progress. Their numbers are way down. . . . I think our relationship
with China is very good. We just did a big trade deal. We are starting
on another trade deal with China, a very big one, and we have been
working very closely. They have been talking to our people. We have
been talking to their people, having to do with the virus.''
Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to include in the Record an
article from Politico titled: ``15 times Trump praised China as
coronavirus was spreading across the globe.''
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Massachusetts?
There was no objection.
[Politico, Apr. 15, 2020]
15 Times Trump Praised China as Coronavirus Was Spreading Across the
Globe
(By Myah Ward)
The president has lambasted the WHO for accepting Beijing's
assurances about the outbreak, but he repeated them, as well.
President Donald Trump yanked U.S. funding for the World
Health Organization on Tuesday, complaining that the United
Nations public health agency was overly deferential to China
and had put too much faith in Beijing's assertions that it
had the coronavirus outbreak there was under control.
``Had the WHO done its job to get medical experts into
China to objectively assess the situation on the ground and
to call out China's lack of transparency, the outbreak could
have been contained at its source with very little death,''
the president said Tuesday. ``Instead, the W.H.O. willingly
took China's assurances to face value.''
Trump, however, echoed many of those same assurances
regarding China and its response to the virus throughout
January and February, as the unique coronavirus began to
infiltrate countries around the world. Just days before the
U.S. recorded its first death from Covid-19, Trump touted
China's government for its transparency and hard work to
defeat the coronavirus that causes the illness.
POLITICO has compiled a list of 15 times the president
hailed China for its push to prevent a pandemic in the early
months of 2020--an effort that ultimately failed:
Jan. 22, Twitter:
``One of the many great things about our just signed giant
Trade Deal with China is that it will bring both the USA &
China closer together in so many other ways. Terrific working
with President Xi, a man who truly loves his country. Much
more to come.''
Jan. 24, Twitter:
``China has been working very hard to contain the
Coronavirus. The United States greatly appreciates their
efforts and transparency. It will all work out well. In
particular, on behalf of the American People, I want to thank
President Xi.''
Jan. 29, Remarks at signing ceremony for the United States-
Mexico-Canada Agreement:
``And, honestly, I think, as tough as this negotiation was,
I think our relationship with China now might be the best
it's been in a long, long time. And now it's reciprocal.
Before, we were being ripped off badly. Now we have a
reciprocal relationship, maybe even better than reciprocal
for us.''
Jan. 30, Fox News interview:
``China is not in great shape right now, unfortunately. But
they're working very hard. We'll see what happens. But we're
working very closely with China and other countries.''
Feb. 7, Remarks at North Carolina Opportunity Now Summit in
Charlotte, N.C.:
``I just spoke to President Xi last night, and, you know,
we're working on the--the problem, the virus. It's a--it's a
very tough situation. But I think he's going to handle it. I
think he's handled it really well. We're helping wherever we
can.''
Feb. 7, Twitter:
``Just had a long and very good conversation by phone with
President Xi of China. He is strong, sharp and powerfully
focused on leading the counterattack on the Coronavirus. He
feels they are doing very well, even building hospitals in a
matter of only days . . . Great discipline is taking place in
China, as President Xi strongly leads what will be a very
successful operation. We are working closely with China to
help.
Feb. 7, Remarks before Marine One departure:
``Late last night, I had a very good talk with President
Xi, and we talked about--mostly about the coronavirus.
They're working really hard, and I think they are doing a
very professional job. They're in touch with World--the
World--World Organization. CDC also. We're working together.
But World Health is working with them. CDC is working with
them. I had a great conversation last night with President
Xi. It's a tough situation. I think they're doing a very good
job.''
[[Page H1169]]
Feb. 10, Fox Business interview:
``I think China is very, you know, professionally run in
the sense that they have everything under control,'' Trump
said. ``I really believe they are going to have it under
control fairly soon. You know in April, supposedly, it dies
with the hotter weather. And that's a beautiful date to look
forward to. But China I can tell you is working very hard.''
Feb. 10, campaign rally in Manchester, N.H.:
``I spoke with President Xi, and they're working very, very
hard. And I think it's all going to work out fine.''
Feb. 13, Fox News interview:
``I think they've handled it professionally and I think
they're extremely capable and I think President Xi is
extremely capable and I hope that it's going to be
resolved.''
Feb. 18, remarks before Air Force One departure:
``I think President Xi is working very hard. As you know, I
spoke with him recently. He's working really hard. It's a
tough problem. I think he's going to do--look, I've seen them
build hospitals in a short period of time. I really believe
he wants to get that done, and he wants to get it done fast.
Yes, I think he's doing it very professionally.''
Feb. 23, remarks before Marine One departure:
``I think President Xi is working very, very hard. I spoke
to him. He's working very hard. I think he's doing a very
good job. It's a big problem. But President Xi loves his
country. He's working very hard to solve the problem, and he
will solve the problem. OK?''
Feb. 26, remarks at a business roundtable in New Delhi,
India:
``China is working very, very hard. I have spoken to
President Xi, and they're working very hard. And if you know
anything about him, I think he'll be in pretty good shape.
They're--they've had a rough patch, and I think right now
they have it--it looks like they're getting it under control
more and more. They're getting it more and more under
control.''
Feb. 27, Coronavirus Task Force press conference:
``I spoke with President Xi. We had a great talk. He's
working very hard, I have to say. He's working very, very
hard. And if you can count on the reports coming out of
China, that spread has gone down quite a bit. The infection
seems to have gone down over the last two days. As opposed to
getting larger, it's actually gotten smaller.''
Feb. 29, Coronavirus Task Force press conference:
``China seems to be making tremendous progress. Their
numbers are way down. . . . I think our relationship with
China is very good. We just did a big trade deal. We're
starting on another trade deal with China--a very big one.
And we've been working very closely. They've been talking to
our people, we've been talking to their people, having to do
with the virus.''
Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I remind my Republican colleagues that
the leader of their own party repeatedly applauded China during the
peak of the pandemic.
The bottom line is that we should all be grateful that we have a
President now that has actually launched an investigation to get to the
bottom of this.
Today, hopefully, we will, in a bipartisan way, vote to make as much
of that investigation declassified as possible.
Let's not forget the history here. Let's not forget who was praising
China's reaction to the coronavirus because I think it is important
that we keep that in mind, especially listening to some of the rhetoric
coming from the other side.
Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. MASSIE. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Madam Speaker, although it is not the subject of today's resolution
or any of the bills covered by this resolution, the Democrats just
can't avoid talking about the release of the January 6 videos. They
keep going back to it during this debate.
Madam Speaker, I would remind them that 78 percent of Democrats out
in America support the release of all of these videos.
The fact that they are apoplectic about the few minutes of video that
Tucker Carlson released on Monday shows that Tucker Carlson is over the
target. For 2 years, they have been selectively releasing information
and videos to set a narrative. In just a few minutes, the entire
narrative was challenged--might I say it collapsed under the scrutiny,
under the review of just a few minutes of undoctored video that came
from this body.
I applaud Tucker Carlson for releasing that. The American people are
right. If the Democrats are so upset that only a few of these videos
were released, I would remind them that they were able to release these
at any point in the past.
Moving on to something that is the subject of this resolution, I want
to talk about the repeal of Joe Biden's 2023 WOTUS ruling, the waters
of the U.S. ruling. Like I said before, it is ``Groundhog Day'' again.
Under President Bush, we had one set of rules that farmers,
homebuilders, and landowners came to understand. They were a little
hard to comply with because every division of the Army Corps of
Engineers might interpret them differently, or different States would
interpret them differently, or different bureaucrats at the EPA would
interpret them differently.
Then, Obama came along with a rule to expand the definition of waters
of the U.S., and then Trump came into office and the rules changed
again. Now, Biden is here trying, once again, to change the rules on
what are the waters of the U.S.
The farmers and homebuilders I talk to don't say they don't want any
regulations. Nobody in this body has said no regulation is what we
want.
The question is, give us clear, precise, understandable regulations
we can follow that do not change. Frankly, those should be written by
Congress. They shouldn't be made up by every administration that comes
into power. Yet, that is what we are doing, or that is what has
happened.
Today, we are talking about repealing those onerous changes and
unclear changes. For instance, Susan Bodine testified in front of the
Transportation and Infrastructure Committee this year on this topic,
and she talked about the significant nexus test that they apply in
WOTUS 2023, waters of the U.S. To support expanded jurisdiction under
this rule, the agencies now claim that isolated water can affect the
biological integrity of navigable water.
What does that mean? If you have a puddle of water that a bird lands
in and drinks from and takes some seeds or some larvae, and when it
drinks and flies to a river and deposits it in its bird droppings, or
maybe as it flies over the river and it doesn't even visit the river,
if there is any kind of biological connection--and as we have found,
everything is biologically connected on this planet. If there is any
biological connection that they can establish between a puddle of water
on your property and a navigable water, then they say, this is now
covered under waters of the U.S. This is ridiculous.
The only certainty that our farmers and our landowners are going to
get from Biden's 2023 WOTUS rule is the certainty that if a raindrop
has fallen on your property, a government agent will show up someday
and tell you what you can and can't do with that property under this
rule.
That is why it is important for us to repeal that, and that is why
this resolution is so important.
Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Madam Speaker, this is the second time the gentleman has said that
all the tapes of what happened on January 6 were released. Maybe he can
tell us where the general public can find them. How do they get access
to them?
Mr. MASSIE. Madam Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentleman.
Mr. MASSIE. Madam Speaker, I said that the other side could have
released them.
Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, reclaiming my time, the gentleman said
that all the tapes had been released. The only person who got the tapes
was a political hack at FOX News who used them to distort the reality
and the truth and to insult the service of the people who work up here,
including our Capitol Police officers.
I am for releasing as much as can be released so long as it doesn't
violate any security protocols. Let's listen to what the U.S. Capitol
Police chief said in response to Tucker Carlson's coverage of January
6. He said: ``Last night, an opinion program aired commentary that was
filled with offensive and misleading conclusions about the January 6
attack. The opinion program never reached out to the department to
provide accurate context.
``One false allegation is that our officers helped the rioters and
acted as
[[Page H1170]]
`tour guides.' This is outrageous and false. The department stands by
the officers in the video that was shown last night. I don't have to
remind you how outnumbered our officers were on January 6. Those
officers did their best to use deescalation tactics to try to talk
rioters into getting each other to leave the building.
``The program conveniently cherry-picked from the calmer moments of
our 41,000 hours of video. The commentary fails to provide context
about the chaos and violence that happened before or during these less
tense moments.
``Finally, the most disturbing accusation from last night was that
our late friend and colleague Brian Sicknick's death had nothing to do
with his heroic actions on January 6. The department maintains, as
anyone with common sense would, that had Officer Sicknick not fought
valiantly for hours on the day he was violently assaulted, Officer
Sicknick would not have died the next day.
``As some people select from 41,000 hours of video clips that
seemingly support the narrative they want to push, those of you who
were here on January 6, those of you who were in the fight, those of
you who ensured that no Member of Congress was hurt, those of you who
contributed to the effort to allow this country's legislative process
to continue know firsthand what actually happened.''
I would just simply say, Madam Speaker, if we want to make sure that
we do not see another January 6 ever again occur in our country's
future, then we all ought to speak with one voice, condemn what
happened that day, and characterize it for what it was: an attack on
our democracy.
Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
{time} 1315
Mr. MASSIE. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Madam Speaker, I surely didn't expect this to turn into a debate on
the January 6 videotapes or to hear the Democrats propose that it
sounds like they are in favor of all of the tapes being released
instead of just some of them.
I think if the gentleman would review the transcript, and I could be
wrong, but I think he will find out that I said Tucker Carlson only
released a few minutes of that, and those few minutes were able to
destroy the narrative that had been constructed over 2 years.
But if the gentleman cares to answer a question, then maybe we have
come to some bipartisan agreement that all of the tapes should be
released.
Madam Speaker, I would ask if the gentleman when he speaks next if he
would speak to that topic and if he would be in favor of releasing all
of the tapes instead of releasing them partially.
Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Madam Speaker, when the gentleman says that what Tucker Carlson aired
somehow destroyed the narrative, I mean, give me a break, he is
essentially basically saying what happened on January 6 conforms with
what Tucker Carlson said. It is offensive to everybody who was here
that day. It is offensive to the staff, and it is offensive to the
Capitol Police officers. It is offensive to everybody.
Madam Speaker, let me just say to the gentleman that what I said
before was that I favored releasing tapes so long as they did not--it
is my personal opinion--so long as they do not at all compromise any
security. That is what I said.
But it is so sad to be on this House floor after what happened on
that day and to hear Members of Congress basically try to cover up the
horrendous atrocity that occurred that day, the attack on our
democracy. It is shameful.
Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. MASSIE. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, may I inquire how much time I have
remaining?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Massachusetts has 5\1/2\
minutes remaining.
Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Madam Speaker, what is just as revealing as what we are debating this
week is what we are not talking about.
We are now 3 months into the Republican majority. They haven't passed
a single bill into law yet, and, in fact, rather than debating things
that people care about, we are spending week after week passing bills
that are designed to get Facebook likes and retweets instead of making
an actual difference with the people back home.
Three out of four Americans say that the Republicans in Congress do
not have the right agenda.
Madam Speaker, if you want proof that they are right, then look no
further than what so much of today's debate was focused on.
Democrats passed bills to bring jobs back from China and take on
Putin's war of aggression. Republicans are passing bills to make it
easier for Russia and China to spread their propaganda here in the
United States.
Democrats passed laws holding polluters accountable, took action to
get rid of lead pipes and clean up our rivers and lakes. Republicans
are passing bills to protect the polluters that dump toxic chemicals
into our water.
The American people expect more. They expect us to pass bills that
actually matter to our families. Democrats have been putting people
over politics to do it. We get stuff done while Republicans are chasing
down the approval of the hyper online far right that spends all their
time on Twitter trying to own the libs.
So that is why I am asking my colleagues to join me in defeating the
previous question so we can get this House on record as saying that we
are going to protect Social Security and Medicare.
Finally, Madam Speaker, again, the idea that the leadership on the
Republican side was complicit with FOX News and with Tucker Carlson to
spread lies and distortions about what happened on January 6 and to
insult the service of the brave men and women who protect this building
and all of us who are in it is unconscionable.
It would be so refreshing for Republicans to join us in condemning
the distortions that were on FOX News. It is stunning to me that we
can't get any of them to condemn. Some of them--their Senate
counterparts--did, and I praise them for it. But the silence here is
deafening, and it is offensive. It is offensive.
Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. MASSIE. Madam Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
Madam Speaker, it is somewhat serendipitous, but in the context of
this debate on a rule about other bills, it seems we have come to some
agreement, it appears to me, with the American people, 81 percent of
whom believe that all of the tapes should be released. It seems as if
we have come to some agreement that we all would be better off if we
get to the bottom of the truth and all of the truth comes out and all
of the tapes come out so that no one side can distort what actually
happened that day, and then let the American people decide.
So in the interest of transparency and in the interest of getting
back to the subject matter at hand, which are three bills covered by
this rule, I want to talk about S. 619, which is so important. It is
transparency, and it is the transparency that the American people
deserve. It passed by unanimous consent in the Senate. Even though it
seems like there is some opposition on the other side, I suspect we are
going to get a lot of votes from Democrats on S. 619.
I think it is important to go on the record for elected
Representatives to say whether or not they believe their constituents
are entitled to the truth which our government possesses or at least
information that they possess that would help somebody come to a
conclusion of what the origins of this virus were and did they come
from Wuhan.
The President could do this at any time. He could have done it at any
time in the past 2 years. He hasn't done it. It is time to put him on
the spot and say: You either veto this or you release that information
that you have withheld from the American public for 2 years, which is
too long. I suspect we could overcome his veto.
[[Page H1171]]
Next, Madam Speaker, I want to talk about the Waters of the U.S.
rule.
Why is this timely?
Because on March 20 this goes into effect. That is why it is so
urgent to repeal the 2023 Waters of the U.S. rule.
These are laws.
Were they written by lawmakers?
No. Our Founding Fathers created three branches of government. We
have the executive branch which enforces laws, we have the judicial
branch which resolves disputes, and we have the legislative branch
which is supposed to make the laws. Yet, here we sit abdicating that
authority and that responsibility. You can delegate authority, but you
can't delegate responsibility, Madam Speaker.
We have a responsibility to the American people to make sure that
these laws are concise, that they don't change on the whim of an
executive who gets in the White House, that they are not onerous, that
they have their intended effect, and that they are applied uniformly
across the country.
Yet we have abdicated that responsibility. But we will take that
responsibility back by the passage of this rule and the subsequent
legislation to repeal the WOTUS, Waters of the United States 2023, by
Joe Biden. We, the American people, deserve that.
Finally, I will close by talking about H.R. 140. This is a bill that
went through regular order. What a wonderful thing. We have talked
about it so much. It is a bill that covers one topic only. We have
talked about that so much. Here we are, and we even have a chance--even
though it was amended in the committee--to amend it here on the floor
to perfect it even more for Members and by Members who aren't members
of that committee.
Are these amendments that are not germane?
Are these the kind of amendments that the American people hate where
Members offer an amendment and then they stick something into a bill
that is completely unrelated to it?
No. Every one of these amendments is germane to this bill. We have
made sure of that in the Rules Committee. The gentleman serves on the
Rules Committee, and he had plenty of time to voice his concerns there.
So we have a lot of amendments that are great. I think they will
improve the bill. But what is most important is that people have a
chance to have their point made and to get a vote on this.
Finally, I will talk about what H.R. 140 would fix. It would fix this
loophole that they think they have constructed that allows the Federal
Government to violate the Constitution.
Obviously, Federal agents can't take away our First Amendment rights,
and, obviously, the Constitution wasn't meant to bind social media
companies. It was meant to bind the administration.
What we have is a loophole where the administration leans on a social
media company that they are paying money to. Millions of dollars have
gone to these social media companies from the CDC and from the FBI.
So when they say:
Would you pretty please ban this user?
Or:
Would you pretty please take down these posts? There is a
whole series of these posts.
The government doesn't get in line. They have a back door that they
can trot to every day and submit lists of people whom they think should
be banned because they don't like what they have said.
This is dangerous to our Republic. If the other side wants to call it
a democracy, then it is dangerous to the democracy. But this is a
republic.
Our government has built an elaborate but constitutionally unsound
framework for violating these natural rights.
As we have seen with the Twitter files, they boldly work in close
cooperation with private-sector actors who aren't subject to
constitutional restrictions imposed on government by our Founders.
But they also claim foreign influence and national security so they
can target U.S. citizens with agencies in the government under the
military chain of command whose missions are ostensibly directed at
foreign actors who have no constitutional rights.
Elected lawmakers be damned, legions of government lawyers create
shaky legal scaffolding and ad hoc doctrine to indemnify the actors
within our government who eagerly exploit these loopholes.
In this way, government actors can claim everything they do is legal.
They have a bunch of lawyers to back them:
Oh, we didn't do anything illegal, it is all legal. Here,
look at our doctrine. The lawyers have gone through it, it is
all legal.
Here is the problem, Madam Speaker: much of what they do is
unconstitutional.
So whose job is it to resolve that difference?
It is actually not the Supreme Court's job. We are entrusted with
oversight. We all here swore an oath to the Constitution, and if we
know that authorizations that we have made or that funding that we have
appropriated has been twisted in a way to get around the Constitution
or to drive through a loophole that some lawyers in the administrative
branch have created, then it is our obligation--we owe it to the
American people, we swore an oath to the Constitution--to fix that--not
to make them go to court to get some remedy--but to fix it, to stop it
in its tracks.
H.R. 140 with its pending amendments is a good down payment on that
promise to the American people.
Madam Speaker, I support this rule, I urge my colleagues to vote for
it.
The material previously referred to by Mr. McGovern is as follows:
Amendment to House Resolution 199
At the end of the resolution, add the following:
Sec. 5. Immediately upon adoption of this resolution, the
House shall proceed to the consideration in the House of the
resolution (H. Res. 178) affirming the House of
Representatives' commitment to protect and strengthen Social
Security and Medicare. The resolution shall be considered as
read. The previous question shall be considered as ordered on
the resolution and preamble to adoption without intervening
motion or demand for division of the question except one hour
of debate equally divided and controlled by the chair and
ranking minority member of the Committee on Ways and Means or
their respective designees.
Sec. 6. Clause 1(c) of rule XIX shall not apply to the
consideration of H. Res. 178.
Mr. MASSIE. Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I
move the previous question on the resolution, as amended.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on ordering the previous
question on the resolution, as amended.
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 9 of rule XX, the Chair
will reduce to 5 minutes the minimum time for any electronic vote on
the question of adoption of the resolution.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 217,
nays 205, not voting 12, as follows:
[Roll No. 134]
YEAS--217
Aderholt
Alford
Allen
Amodei
Armstrong
Arrington
Babin
Bacon
Baird
Balderson
Banks
Barr
Bean (FL)
Bentz
Bergman
Bice
Biggs
Bilirakis
Bishop (NC)
Bost
Brecheen
Buchanan
Buck
Bucshon
Burchett
Burgess
Burlison
Calvert
Cammack
Carey
Carl
Carter (GA)
Carter (TX)
Chavez-DeRemer
Ciscomani
Cline
Cloud
Clyde
Cole
Collins
Comer
Crane
Crawford
Crenshaw
Curtis
D'Esposito
Davidson
De La Cruz
DesJarlais
Diaz-Balart
Donalds
Duarte
Duncan
Dunn (FL)
Edwards
Ellzey
Emmer
Estes
Ezell
Fallon
Feenstra
Ferguson
Finstad
Fischbach
Fitzgerald
Fitzpatrick
Fleischmann
Flood
Foxx
Franklin, C. Scott
Fry
Fulcher
Gaetz
Gallagher
Garbarino
Garcia, Mike
Gimenez
Gonzales, Tony
Good (VA)
Gooden (TX)
Gosar
Granger
Graves (LA)
Graves (MO)
Green (TN)
Greene (GA)
Griffith
Grothman
Guest
Guthrie
Hageman
Harris
Harshbarger
Hern
Higgins (LA)
Hill
Hinson
Houchin
Hudson
Huizenga
Hunt
Issa
Jackson (TX)
James
Johnson (LA)
Johnson (OH)
Johnson (SD)
Jordan
Joyce (OH)
Joyce (PA)
Kean (NJ)
Kelly (MS)
Kelly (PA)
Kiggans (VA)
Kiley
Kim (CA)
Kustoff
LaHood
LaLota
LaMalfa
Lamborn
Langworthy
Latta
LaTurner
Lawler
Lee (FL)
Lesko
Letlow
Loudermilk
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Luna
Luttrell
Mace
Malliotakis
Mann
Massie
Mast
McCaul
McClain
McClintock
McCormick
McHenry
[[Page H1172]]
Meuser
Miller (IL)
Miller (OH)
Miller (WV)
Miller-Meeks
Mills
Molinaro
Moolenaar
Mooney
Moore (AL)
Moore (UT)
Moran
Murphy
Nehls
Newhouse
Norman
Nunn (IA)
Obernolte
Ogles
Owens
Palmer
Pence
Perry
Pfluger
Posey
Reschenthaler
Rodgers (WA)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rose
Rosendale
Rouzer
Roy
Rutherford
Salazar
Santos
Scalise
Schweikert
Scott, Austin
Self
Sessions
Simpson
Smith (MO)
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smucker
Spartz
Stauber
Steel
Stefanik
Steil
Stewart
Strong
Tenney
Tiffany
Timmons
Turner
Valadao
Van Drew
Van Duyne
Van Orden
Wagner
Walberg
Waltz
Webster (FL)
Wenstrup
Westerman
Williams (NY)
Williams (TX)
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Womack
Yakym
Zinke
NAYS--205
Adams
Aguilar
Allred
Auchincloss
Balint
Barragan
Beatty
Bera
Beyer
Bishop (GA)
Blumenauer
Blunt Rochester
Bonamici
Bowman
Boyle (PA)
Brown
Brownley
Budzinski
Bush
Caraveo
Carbajal
Cardenas
Carson
Carter (LA)
Cartwright
Casar
Case
Casten
Castor (FL)
Cherfilus-McCormick
Chu
Cicilline
Clark (MA)
Clarke (NY)
Clyburn
Cohen
Connolly
Correa
Costa
Courtney
Craig
Crockett
Crow
Cuellar
Davids (KS)
Davis (IL)
Davis (NC)
Dean (PA)
DeGette
DeLauro
DelBene
Deluzio
DeSaulnier
Dingell
Doggett
Escobar
Eshoo
Espaillat
Evans
Fletcher
Foster
Foushee
Frankel, Lois
Frost
Gallego
Garamendi
Garcia (IL)
Garcia (TX)
Garcia, Robert
Golden (ME)
Goldman (NY)
Gomez
Gonzalez, Vicente
Gottheimer
Green, Al (TX)
Grijalva
Harder (CA)
Hayes
Higgins (NY)
Himes
Horsford
Houlahan
Hoyle (OR)
Huffman
Ivey
Jackson (IL)
Jackson (NC)
Jackson Lee
Jacobs
Jayapal
Jeffries
Johnson (GA)
Kamlager-Dove
Kaptur
Keating
Kelly (IL)
Khanna
Kildee
Kilmer
Kim (NJ)
Krishnamoorthi
Kuster
Landsman
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lee (CA)
Lee (NV)
Lee (PA)
Levin
Lofgren
Lynch
Magaziner
Manning
Matsui
McBath
McClellan
McCollum
McGarvey
McGovern
Meeks
Menendez
Meng
Mfume
Moore (WI)
Morelle
Moskowitz
Moulton
Mrvan
Mullin
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Neguse
Nickel
Norcross
Ocasio-Cortez
Omar
Pallone
Panetta
Pappas
Pascrell
Payne
Pelosi
Peltola
Perez
Peters
Pettersen
Pingree
Pocan
Porter
Pressley
Quigley
Ramirez
Raskin
Ross
Ruiz
Ruppersberger
Ryan
Salinas
Sanchez
Sarbanes
Scanlon
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schneider
Scholten
Scott (VA)
Scott, David
Sewell
Sherman
Sherrill
Slotkin
Smith (WA)
Sorensen
Soto
Spanberger
Stansbury
Stanton
Stevens
Strickland
Swalwell
Sykes
Takano
Thanedar
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Titus
Tlaib
Tokuda
Tonko
Torres (CA)
Torres (NY)
Trahan
Trone
Underwood
Vargas
Vasquez
Veasey
Velazquez
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watson Coleman
Wexton
Wild
Williams (GA)
NOT VOTING--12
Boebert
Castro (TX)
Cleaver
Hoyer
Leger Fernandez
Lieu
Phillips
Schrier
Steube
Thompson (PA)
Weber (TX)
Wilson (FL)
{time} 1354
Messrs. GALLEGO, KRISHNAMOORTHI, Mses. SALINAS, WILD, Mr. DAVIS of
North Carolina, Mses. BROWN, and WATERS changed their vote from ``yea''
to ``nay.''
Messrs. POSEY, GARBARINO, and BANKS changed their vote from ``nay''
to ``yea.''
So the previous question was ordered.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Stated for:
Mr. THOMPSON of Pennsylvania. Madam Speaker, had I been present, I
would have voted ``yea'' on rollcall No. 134.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the adoption of the
resolution, as amended.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Recorded Vote
Mr. McGOVERN. On that, I demand a recorded vote.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. This is a 5-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 216,
noes 206, not voting 12, as follows:
[Roll No. 135]
AYES--216
Aderholt
Alford
Allen
Amodei
Armstrong
Arrington
Babin
Bacon
Baird
Balderson
Banks
Barr
Bean (FL)
Bentz
Bergman
Bice
Biggs
Bilirakis
Bishop (NC)
Boebert
Bost
Brecheen
Buchanan
Buck
Bucshon
Burchett
Burgess
Burlison
Calvert
Cammack
Carey
Carl
Carter (GA)
Carter (TX)
Chavez-DeRemer
Ciscomani
Cline
Cloud
Clyde
Cole
Collins
Comer
Crane
Crawford
Crenshaw
Curtis
D'Esposito
Davidson
De La Cruz
DesJarlais
Diaz-Balart
Donalds
Duarte
Duncan
Dunn (FL)
Edwards
Ellzey
Emmer
Ezell
Fallon
Feenstra
Ferguson
Finstad
Fischbach
Fitzgerald
Fitzpatrick
Fleischmann
Flood
Foxx
Franklin, C. Scott
Fry
Fulcher
Gaetz
Gallagher
Garbarino
Garcia, Mike
Gimenez
Gonzales, Tony
Good (VA)
Gooden (TX)
Gosar
Granger
Graves (LA)
Graves (MO)
Green (TN)
Greene (GA)
Griffith
Grothman
Guest
Guthrie
Hageman
Harris
Harshbarger
Hern
Higgins (LA)
Hill
Hinson
Houchin
Hudson
Huizenga
Hunt
Issa
Jackson (TX)
James
Johnson (LA)
Johnson (OH)
Johnson (SD)
Jordan
Joyce (OH)
Joyce (PA)
Kean (NJ)
Kelly (MS)
Kelly (PA)
Kiggans (VA)
Kim (CA)
Kustoff
LaHood
LaLota
LaMalfa
Lamborn
Langworthy
Latta
LaTurner
Lawler
Lee (FL)
Lesko
Letlow
Loudermilk
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Luna
Luttrell
Mace
Malliotakis
Mann
Massie
Mast
McCaul
McClain
McClintock
McCormick
McHenry
Meuser
Miller (IL)
Miller (OH)
Miller (WV)
Miller-Meeks
Mills
Molinaro
Moolenaar
Mooney
Moore (AL)
Moore (UT)
Moran
Murphy
Nehls
Newhouse
Norman
Nunn (IA)
Obernolte
Ogles
Owens
Palmer
Pence
Perry
Pfluger
Posey
Reschenthaler
Rodgers (WA)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rose
Rosendale
Rouzer
Roy
Rutherford
Santos
Scalise
Schweikert
Scott, Austin
Self
Sessions
Simpson
Smith (MO)
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smucker
Spartz
Stauber
Steel
Stefanik
Steil
Stewart
Strong
Tenney
Thompson (PA)
Tiffany
Timmons
Turner
Valadao
Van Drew
Van Duyne
Van Orden
Wagner
Walberg
Waltz
Webster (FL)
Wenstrup
Westerman
Williams (NY)
Williams (TX)
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Womack
Yakym
Zinke
NOES--206
Adams
Aguilar
Allred
Auchincloss
Balint
Barragan
Beatty
Bera
Beyer
Bishop (GA)
Blumenauer
Blunt Rochester
Bonamici
Bowman
Boyle (PA)
Brown
Brownley
Budzinski
Bush
Caraveo
Carbajal
Cardenas
Carson
Carter (LA)
Cartwright
Casar
Case
Casten
Castor (FL)
Cherfilus-McCormick
Chu
Cicilline
Clark (MA)
Clarke (NY)
Clyburn
Cohen
Connolly
Correa
Costa
Courtney
Craig
Crockett
Crow
Cuellar
Davids (KS)
Davis (IL)
Davis (NC)
Dean (PA)
DeGette
DeLauro
DelBene
Deluzio
DeSaulnier
Dingell
Doggett
Escobar
Eshoo
Espaillat
Evans
Fletcher
Foster
Foushee
Frankel, Lois
Frost
Gallego
Garamendi
Garcia (IL)
Garcia (TX)
Garcia, Robert
Golden (ME)
Goldman (NY)
Gomez
Gonzalez, Vicente
Gottheimer
Green, Al (TX)
Grijalva
Harder (CA)
Hayes
Higgins (NY)
Himes
Horsford
Houlahan
Hoyle (OR)
Huffman
Ivey
Jackson (IL)
Jackson (NC)
Jackson Lee
Jacobs
Jayapal
Jeffries
Johnson (GA)
Kamlager-Dove
Kaptur
Keating
Kelly (IL)
Khanna
Kildee
Kilmer
Kim (NJ)
Krishnamoorthi
Kuster
Landsman
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lee (CA)
Lee (NV)
Lee (PA)
Levin
Lofgren
Lynch
Magaziner
Manning
Matsui
McBath
McClellan
McCollum
McGarvey
McGovern
Meeks
Menendez
Meng
Mfume
Moore (WI)
Morelle
Moskowitz
Moulton
Mrvan
Mullin
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Neguse
Nickel
Norcross
Ocasio-Cortez
Omar
Pallone
Panetta
Pappas
Pascrell
Payne
Pelosi
Peltola
Perez
Peters
Pettersen
Pingree
Pocan
Porter
Pressley
Quigley
Ramirez
Raskin
Ross
Ruiz
Ruppersberger
Ryan
Salinas
Sanchez
Sarbanes
Scanlon
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schneider
Scholten
Scott (VA)
Scott, David
Sewell
Sherman
Sherrill
Slotkin
Smith (WA)
Sorensen
Soto
Spanberger
Stansbury
Stanton
Stevens
Strickland
Swalwell
Sykes
Takano
Thanedar
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Titus
Tlaib
Tokuda
Tonko
Torres (CA)
Torres (NY)
Trahan
Trone
Underwood
Vargas
Vasquez
Veasey
Velazquez
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watson Coleman
Wexton
Wild
Williams (GA)
Wilson (FL)
[[Page H1173]]
NOT VOTING--12
Castro (TX)
Cleaver
Estes
Hoyer
Kiley
Leger Fernandez
Lieu
Phillips
Salazar
Schrier
Steube
Weber (TX)
Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore
The SPEAKER pro tempore (during the vote). There is 1 minute
remaining.
{time} 1402
So the resolution, as amended, was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
Stated for:
Mr. ESTES. Madam Speaker, I was not present for rollcall No. 135, on
agreeing to the resolution, as amended. Had I been present, I would
have voted ``aye.''
____________________