[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.''

                          ____________________