Providing for Consideration of H.J. Res. Relating to A National Emergency Declared By the President on March Providing for Consideration of H.R. Stopping Home Office Work's Unproductive Problems Act of Providing for Consideration of H.R. Pandemic is Over Act; and Providing for Consideration of H.R. Freedom for Health Care Workers Act

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, let me thank the gentleman from Texas, now the new vice chair of the Rules Committee, for yielding me the customary 30 minutes.

Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Madam Speaker, there is a lot to take in from the opening remarks the gentleman has provided. I want to say one thing. He says that the Republicans have a mandate. I think the message of the last two elections was that the overwhelming number of people in this country said no to extremism.

And mandate? Democrats picked up a seat in the Senate. The red wave that was predicted by my Republican friends turned into a pink splash.

The reason why was because people were turned off by their extremism, and this in spite of all kinds of gerrymandering, crazy redistricting plans, and money like we have never seen in an election before, and we have the narrowest of narrow margins.

So if the gentleman thinks that there is a mandate here to embrace extremism, I beg to differ with that.

Madam Speaker, there is no denying that the situation with COVID has improved. Cases are down, deaths are down, and most of us have returned to the lifestyles we had before the pandemic. That is because of the incredible steps we have taken to keep people safe: vaccines, expanded healthcare, telework flexibilities, and other programs and initiatives that ensure Americans can lead healthy, full lives.

The rule before us today allows for the consideration of four measures, four reckless and regressive measures, to turn back the clock on all that we have gone through and learned over these last 3 years, and all under closed rules. Let me repeat that: all under closed rules.

H.J. Res. 7 would terminate, effective immediately, the COVID national emergency declared in 2020 by President Trump and renewed by President Biden in 2021.

This immediate reversal offers no off-ramps for relief programs and benefits, threatening aid for nursing homes and hospitals, additional support for the VA, as well as help for small businesses and more. It would end flexibilities to ensure more food-insecure people have access to SNAP, our Nation's first line of defense against hunger.

H.R. 382, the Pandemic is Over Act, would similarly repeal Health and Human Services' public health emergency declarations. This would roll back significant expansions to healthcare access and services for millions across the country.

H.R. 139, the SHOW UP Act, would force Federal agencies to return to prepandemic telework policies, despite the fact that the pandemic demonstrated workers from many industries could complete their jobs remotely.

H.R. 497, the Freedom for Health Care Workers Act, would remove COVID vaccine requirements for Medicare and Medicaid healthcare workers.

Now, if you take a second to think about these bills, not a single one makes things easier, safer, or more effective. They are sound bites. That is what my Republican friends are good at, sound bites, not legislating. They are good at making political statements but not solving problems.

Eliminating vaccine mandates for healthcare providers will not help healthcare providers. Instead, it increases their chances of getting sick, increases their patients' chances of getting sick.

COVID vaccines are safe and effective. You wouldn't know that if you listened to some of the commentary in the Rules Committee last night, but they are. They have protected millions of healthcare workers and their families from infections, hospitalization, and death.

Pulling the plug on the national and public health emergency declarations will throw Federal programs in our healthcare system into chaos. No longer will Americans be able to receive free COVID testing and treatments. Hospitals that already struggle to stock their shelves with proper PPE will face an even greater uphill battle.

I am not saying that these declarations should continue indefinitely. Nobody is saying that. President Biden announced yesterday that he plans to end the declarations on May 11. But we need time to understand the impact that ending the declarations will have on our country.

The responsible thing to do is to provide an orderly off-ramp for these agencies so that essential benefits aren't suddenly ripped away from those who need them most.

Essentially, getting rid of telework for Federal agencies when it has allowed our Nation and government to function through this historic pandemic is nonsense. Studies have shown that telework has been largely beneficial, resulting in increased productivity, reduced absences, reduced turnover, and reduced office costs. If corporate America has chosen to harness the net positive effects of teleworking, government agencies should, too.

Madam Speaker, my Republican friends who are screaming against teleworking provisions, I point out, for the Record, that Republicans voted by proxy more than 14,500 times in the last Congress.

Let me repeat that. Republicans voted by proxy--that means they were operating remotely--more than 14,500 times in the last Congress.

It was kind of comical. Last night, my friend from Texas in the Rules Committee said that Republicans were voting by proxy because they felt Democrats pressured them, that Democrats made them do that. Really? I mean, I have heard a lot of crazy things in my life, but I have never heard that used as an excuse. Give me a break.

I find it outrageous that some Members are so worried about government workers getting their work done from home while they themselves took advantage of proxy voting over the last 3 years. Guess what? Proxy voting is called telework, and my friends are okay with telework for themselves, but when it comes to Federal workers, no, they are not okay. I guess for House Republicans, it is do as I say, not as I do.

We had the chair of the Oversight Committee testify very passionately against telework last night, and he voted by proxy--get this--83 times. You can't make this stuff up.

We all know that COVID has moved into a new phase, and thanks to the use of safe, effective vaccines and other prevention tools, we are moving forward. We are learning to live with it, but let's not forget that over a million of our fellow Americans have died from it.

We should not ignore the fact that COVID continues to spread and mutate. It still poses a danger to people.

It is clear that House Republicans just want to pretend that COVID isn't still a problem, that science doesn't exist, and that telework doesn't have a place in the 21st century.

At the end of the day, these measures were introduced really out of spite. Our colleagues across the aisle are looking to undo everything we did, even if that means getting rid of important, effective measures that help American workers, families, and patients.

In closing, Madam Speaker, none of these have gone through committee. There were no hearings, not a single hearing.

Again, there were lots of questions raised about these bills in the Rules Committee last night, including whether or not title 42 would be overturned. The administration has one opinion, and the Republicans have another opinion. I don't know what the truth is. A hearing would have made a difference, but they couldn't even wait a couple of days to do a hearing. They just wanted to rush this to the floor to get a press release out.

There were not only no markups, but there were no amendments. We had amendments submitted to the Rules Committee last night not just by Democrats but by Republicans. They said: No. Closed. Can't even have a debate on the floor. Can't have an up-or-down vote.

Fifteen out of the 16 measures that this Congress has considered so far have been totally closed. I am thinking I need to call the Office of Attending Physician and get a neck brace because I have whiplash trying to reconcile what my friends said they were going to do and what they are actually doing.

I mean, the last time the Republicans controlled Congress, they presided over the most closed Congress in the history of the United States of America. Let me repeat that. The last time they were in control, they presided over the most closed Congress in the history of our country, and they are on track to try to beat their own record.

This is not what the Speaker promised. I didn't see the secret memo that Speaker McCarthy was circulating to get votes. Maybe there was some stuff in the secret memo that basically said that, you know, say one thing and do another.

The bottom line is this is not what anyone was promised, and there is absolutely no reason that we couldn't have waited a few days to do hearings on this stuff so we could decide whether or not any of these measures were the responsible thing to do or whether or not there were some additions that we could have made to these measures to make them responsible.

We all want to move on, but we want to do so responsibly. We all want to move beyond the national emergency, but we want to make sure that there are not unintended consequences. This is not serious legislating. This is political posturing, and it is a lousy way to begin the new Congress.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

There is a lot to unpack here, but let me just tell the gentleman on the issue of national emergencies--by the way, I will add war powers-- we did a hearing in the Rules Committee on that in the last Congress. I did it with now-Chairman Cole. We thought that it was appropriate to do a hearing because we wanted to avoid any unintended consequences. So, we have done that.

It is now becoming very clear to me how this Congress is going to operate in the Rules Committee. The gentleman just made it clear that everything should go through regular order except what he thinks is important. If he thinks it is important, we can come here with a closed rule.

Then I am a little confused over the gentleman's pontificating on the fact these are only one-page bills and, therefore, they shouldn't be amended. I point out that the bill that they had the modified open rule on was a three-page bill, but is the number of pages of the bill going to be determinative of whether or not we have amendments or not?

The bottom line is people had some good ideas that they offered to the Rules Committee last night. Not only that, but people also had a lot of questions. If you read the President's Statement of Administration Policy, he raises issues about title 42 that we seem to have a dispute on, but, boy, if you did a hearing and you did a markup, you might have been able to address those things.

I'm not saying we are moving too quickly. I am just saying we are not moving responsibly. Once your committees are constituted, you can have a hearing immediately. You can bring this to the floor next Monday or Tuesday if you want; but you chose to shut the system down.

Notwithstanding all of your rhetoric, not notwithstanding all of the pontificating on the need for more amendments to be made in order, a more open process, a more transparent process, you are beginning this session with closed rule after closed rule after closed rule.

Last night, the Committee on Rules reported out four more closed rules. That is the choice you have made. We have a sense of where you are going. The last time you were in charge, you presided over the most closed Congress in the history of the United States Government. I wouldn't be surprised if you beat your own record.

Madam Speaker, if we defeat the previous question, I will offer an amendment to the rule to ensure that none of the bills in this rule take effect unless it is certified that they do not decrease Social Security benefits.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, Social Security is the bedrock of our Nation's social safety net. Since its inception, it has lifted millions of our seniors out of poverty. Protecting the benefits it provides should be a priority for this Congress.

As my Republican colleagues demand reckless cuts in exchange for paying our Nation's bills, Democrats will continue taking action to protect Social Security. This is not the first time Social Security has been under attack by my friends on the other side of the aisle.

Don't be fooled by their phraseology that they are only interested in ``protecting Social Security.'' We know that that is code for cutting benefits, for raising the retirement age, for throwing people off the benefit.

Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Larson) to discuss our proposal.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I yield an additional 30 seconds to the gentleman.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Madam Speaker, oh my God. There are doctors who serve in Congress-- Democrats and Republicans. I hope that they will stand up and correct the misinformation. I mean, really.

The gentleman talks about herd immunity as if somehow that was some panacea here.

Madam Speaker, I include in the Record a letter from Harvard Medical School titled, ``COVID-19 diagnosis raises risks of heart attack, stroke.'' [From Harvard Health Publishing, Nov. 1, 2021] COVID-19 Diagnosis Raises Risk of Heart Attack, Stroke (By Julie Corliss)

In one of the largest studies of its kind to date, researchers found strong evidence that heart attack and stroke risk rises sharply in the weeks following a COVID-19 diagnosis. The findings were published Aug. 14, 2021, in The Lancet.

The study included every person in Sweden diagnosed with COVID-19 from Feb. 1, 2020, to Sept. 14, 2020--a total of nearly 87,000 people. Their median age was 48, and 57 percent were women. Researchers compared them with more than 348,000 Swedish people of similar age and sex who did not have the virus.

In the week after a COVID-19 diagnosis, the risk of a first heart attack increased by three to eight times. The risk of a first stroke caused by a blood clot multiplied by three to six times. In the following weeks, both risks decreased steadily but stayed elevated for at least a month.

Other bacterial and viral infections (such as influenza) are known to temporarily boost rates of heart attacks and strokes. But COVID-19 infections appear to be especially risky, perhaps because they trigger an exaggerated inflammatory response that makes blood clots more likely .

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, a study found that in the week after a COVID diagnosis, the risk of a first heart attack increased by three to eight times. The risk of a first stroke caused by a blood clot multiplied by three to six times. In the following weeks, both risks decreased steadily but stayed elevated for at least a month.

Madam Speaker, I include in the Record a USA Today piece titled, ``Fact check: COVID-19 vaccines primarily designed to prevent serious illness, death.'' [From the USA TODAY, Jan. 21, 2022]

Fact Check: COVID-19 Vaccines Primarily Designed To Prevent Serious Illness, Death (By Valerie Paviionis)

As the omicron variant surges across the world and the United States logs case numbers near and over 1 million per day, the virus is prompting scientists to develop new treatments and government officials to fight to curb the spread.

While the Biden administration continues to urge Americans to get vaccinated, a Jan. 10 Facebook post claims that Dr. Rochelle Walensky, director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, said vaccines can't prevent COVID-19 transmission. Other sites have shared the same claim, linking Walensky's words back to an interview with CNN in August 2021.

``Our vaccines are working exceptionally well,'' Walensky said to CNN's Wolf Blitzer in the interview. ``They continue to work well for delta, with regard to severe illness and death--they prevent it. But what they can't do anymore is prevent transmission.''

Though Walensky did say these words on CNN, the original interview was aired in early August, not recently. And while it's true vaccines can't entirely halt transmission, experts say they do reduce it--and reduce the chances of hospitalization and death--as USA TODAY previously reported.

USA TODAY reached out to the original poster of the claim for comment.

Various websites have written about the same claim, amassing thousands of interactions on Facebook. vaccine effects depend on several factors

In an email, Walensky spokesperson Kathleen Conley wrote that in August 2021--when the interview originally ran--the delta variant was the dominant variant in the United States.

Experts at that time said it was clear the vaccines provided protection.

``Vaccines provide significant protection from `getting it'--infection--and `spreading it'--transmission--even against the delta variant,'' a professor of immunobiology and molecular, cellular and developmental biology at Yale University, told USA TODAY in November.

However, Conley noted data did show vaccines were ``less effective at preventing infections and transmission with Delta than with previous other variants.'' Omicron has proven even more difficult to contain.

While mRNA vaccines--produced by Pfizer and Moderna-- continue to offer some level of protection against transmission of omicron, other vaccines--such as Johnson & Johnson, Sinopharm and AstraZeneca--offer ``almost no defense,'' according to a Dec. 19, 2021, report by the New York Times.

Other factors beyond variant type, vaccination type and booster status can also influence whether or not a person contracts COVID-19.

Dr. David Dowdy, associate professor of epidemiology at Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, said it's difficult to succinctly explain the vaccines' nuanced effects on transmission.

A vaccine might protect you from a passing interaction with someone at a grocery store, but it may not prevent infection from someone you live with and share air with for several hours a day.

``It gets very easy to misconstrue,'' Dowdy said. ``If someone asks, do vaccines prevent infection, and you have to give a yes or no answer, then the answer is no, they're not a perfect blockade. But do the vaccines offer some protection against infection? The answer is yes.'' vaccines still protect against serious disease

While vaccinations don't offer perfect protection against the transmission of COVID-19, experts still urge people to get vaccinated.

According to Conley, COVID-19 vaccination remains effective against hospitalization and death caused by the virus. Getting a booster, she added, further decreases these risks, and the CDC continues to recommend that Americans receive vaccines and boosters.

Dr. Chris Beyrer, professor of public health and human rights at the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, said both the mRNA and J&J vaccines were never designed to prevent infection entirely.

It's ``very hard'', he said, to prevent infection via an injected vaccine when you're dealing with a virus that enters the body through the nose and mouth. Instead, the vaccine trials were designed to study reduction in serious illness, hospitalization and death. All three vaccines were highly effective by this measure, Beyrer said.

``People who say, well, why would I take it if it doesn't prevent me from getting infected?'' Beyrer said. ``You have to remember that having a COVID-19 infection can be everything from completely asymptomatic . . . to a head-cold- like symptoms or full flu-like symptoms, all the way to death. So what the vaccines are doing is really dramatically increasing the likelihood that you will have mild infection. And that's incredibly important.''

A CDC study released Jan. 21 showed booster shots of the Pfizer-BioNTech and Moderna vaccines were 90% effective at preventing hospitalizations from the omicron variant. our rating: missing context

Because it can be misleading without additional information, we rate MISSING CONTEXT the claim that the CDC director says vaccines can't prevent transmission of COVID- 19. While vaccines do not offer 100% protection against COVID-19 infection, they can still partially defend against infection. Vaccines remain effective at protecting from COVID-19-caused serious illness, hospitalization and death.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I would highlight one of the quotes that I guess the gentleman was referring to.

``Though Walensky did say these words on CNN, the original interview was aired in early August, not recently. And while it is true vaccines cannot entirely halt transmission, experts say they do reduce it--and reduce the chances of hospitalizations and death.''

Madam Speaker, I include in the Record a study by the Commonwealth Fund titled, ``Two years of U.S. COVID-19 Vaccines Have Prevented Millions of Hospitalizations and Deaths.'' [The Commonwealth Fund, Dec. 13, 2022] Two Years of U.S. COVID-19 Vaccines Have Prevented Millions of Hospitalizations and Deaths (By Meagan C. Fitzpatrick, Seyed M. Moghadas, Abhishek Pandy, and Alison P. Galvani)

It has been two years since the first COVID-19 vaccine was given to a patient in the United States. Since then, the U.S. has administered more than 655 million doses--80 percent of the population has received at least one dose--with the cumulative effect of preventing more than 18 million additional hospitalizations and more than 3 million additional deaths. The swift development of the vaccine, emergency authorization to distribute widely, and rapid rollout have been instrumental in curbing hospitalization and death, while mitigating socioeconomic repercussions of the pandemic.

As more transmissible and immune-evasive variants have emerged over the past two years, the U.S. has responded by deploying additional doses and variant-specific boosters. The Omicron variants caused the largest wave of infections during the pandemic. COVID-19 monovalent vaccines available at the time were not as efficacious against the variant as bivalent boosters introduced later, but the wave would have been more devastating in the absence of vaccination.

As we mark the second anniversary of the U.S. COVID-19 vaccination campaign, understanding the impact of vaccines on reducing disease burden is needed to inform future, evidence- based actions. We therefore used a computer model of disease transmission to estimate hospitalizations and deaths averted through the end of November 2022. The model incorporates the age-stratified demographics, risk factors, and immunological dynamics of infection and vaccination. We simulated this model to compare the observed pandemic trajectory to a counterfactual scenario without a vaccination program. Findings

From December 2020 through November 2022, we estimate that the COVID-19 vaccination program in the U.S. prevented more than 18.5 million additional hospitalizations and 3.2 million additional deaths. Without vaccination, there would have been nearly 120 million more COVID-19 infections. The vaccination program also saved the U.S. $1.15 trillion (Credible Interval: $1.10 trillion-$1.19 trillion) (data not shown) in medical costs that would otherwise have been incurred. Discussion

Our findings highlight the substantial impact of the U.S. vaccination program on reducing infections, hospitalizations, and deaths. Curbing hospitalization rates by reducing both COVID-19 incidence and symptom severity is particularly important amidst the strain on the health care system caused by unusually high levels of flu and RSV (respiratory syncytial virus). COVID-19 vaccination has preserved hospital resources for individuals who would otherwise have not received timely care.

Vaccination also has prevented many millions of COVID infections. Although the acute phase of these infections may not have required medical attention, each infection carries a risk of long COVID and debilitating symptoms. Many of the prevented infections would have been reinfections, which have higher risk of death compared to initial infections. In addition, as our previous analysis demonstrated, vaccines have kept children in school, highlighting the societal value of the ongoing vaccination program.

The estimated infections, hospitalizations, and deaths averted by vaccination are particularly striking when compared to the actual values observed during this time period. Since December 12, 2020, 82 million infections, 4.8 million hospitalizations, and 798,000 deaths have been reported in the U.S. In other words, without vaccination the U.S. would have experienced 1.5 times more infections, 3.8 times more hospitalizations, and 4.1 times more deaths. These losses would have been accompanied by more than $1 trillion in additional medical costs that were averted because of fewer infections, hospitalizations, and deaths.

The impact of the vaccination program is more remarkable given the challenges posed by the multiple variants that have arisen. The Omicron variants have been particularly immune- evasive and drove the largest surge in COVID-19 cases to date. However, the vaccines provided broader and more durable protection against severe clinical outcomes, including hospitalization and death. The reported ``mild'' nature of Omicron is in large part because of vaccine protection.

A limitation of our study is that we modeled only viral dynamics within the U.S. However, vaccines developed by the U.S. were also deployed around the world, changing the trajectory of the pandemic on a global scale. Without them, more variants could have emerged or there could have been greater importation of COVID-19 cases. In this regard, our study underestimates the true impact of COVID-19 vaccine development on U.S. outcomes.

The unprecedented pace at which vaccines were developed and deployed has saved many lives and allowed for safer easing of COVID-19 restrictions and reopening of businesses, schools, and other activities. This extraordinary achievement has been possible only through sustained funding and effective policymaking that ensured vaccines were available to all Americans. Moving forward, accelerating uptake of the new booster will be fundamental to averting future hospitalizations and deaths.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, we have lost over 1 million of our fellow citizens to COVID, over 1 million in the United States alone; mothers, fathers, siblings, friends, and children, as well.

But the development of safe vaccines has meant that millions more lives have been saved. There is no question whether or not the vaccination is effective.

Madam Speaker, I would just highlight one of the findings in The Commonwealth Fund report.

It says, ``From December 2020 through November 2022, we estimate that the COVID-19 vaccination program in the United States prevented more than 18.5 million additional hospitalizations and 3.2 million additional deaths. Without vaccination, there would have been nearly 120 million more COVID-19 infections. The vaccination program also saved the U.S. $1.15 trillion in medical costs that would otherwise have been incurred.''

Here we are, after having gone through what we went through, after knowing the benefits of these vaccinations, and to hear what we are hearing on the floor, it really is disappointing.

Madam Speaker, I would ask the doctors in this Chamber, Democrats and Republicans, please stand up. Please correct the Record. Please tell people that vaccinations have been a good thing and that people should get vaccinated. They could save their lives.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

I include in the Record a piece from the New York Post titled: ``GOP unveils `Commitment to America' plan to halt Biden, inflation, and crime.'' [From the New York Post, Sept. 23, 2022] GOP Unveils `Commitment to America' Plan To Halt Biden, Inflation and Crime (By Steve Nelson)

House Republicans pledged Friday to end soaring inflation and reduce crime by serving as a check on President Biden if they reclaim power--calling the party's midterm election platform a ``Commitment to America.''

House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) announced the big-tent framework inside an HVAC manufacturing plant outside Pittsburgh, Pa.

``We want to roll [the plan] out to you, to the entire country, to know exactly what we will do if you would trust us and give us the ability to take a new direction for this country,'' McCarthy said.

The kickoff featured a business-casual Q&A where dozens of GOP legislators took turns fielding questions.

The Republicans vowed to rein in government spending to lower the worst inflation in 41 years--with consumer prices up 8.3 percent over 12 months as of August.

Speakers also promised to address crime, including record- high illegal immigration, rising violent crime in cities and fentanyl smuggling that's accelerated overdose deaths.

``The sad part is these Democratic policies have already taken one month of your wages. So now the struggle that you have is you're living through 12 months with only 11 months' pay now because inflation is so high,'' McCarthy said, blasting Biden's $1.9 trillion American Rescue Plan spending bill.

House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy unveiled the Republican ``Commitment to America'' agenda at DMI Companies in Monongahela, Pennsylvania.

``We've watched what's happened to our border--the millions of people who are just walking across, people on the terrorist watch list. Now we're watching it create every community to be a border community,'' McCarthy said.

``Fentanyl is the number one killer of Americans between the ages of 18 and 45. The poison starts in China and comes across our border. Do you realize it's killing 300 Americans every day? It's like an airliner crashing each day.''

No. 3 House Republican Rep. Elise Stefanik of New York said the GOP would be ``making sure that we stop the trillions and trillions of reckless government spending that we have seen under Democrat rule.''

House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy vowed to stop President Biden's spending policies if Republicans take the House this fall.

``That will immediately help lower the cost of goods as we seek to rein in inflation,'' she said at the event.

Rep. Patrick McHenry (R-NC) said, ``We have to have oversight of what's happening in the administration and go after the wasteful spending of the last administration and return to normalcy--that $1 today means $1 tomorrow.''

Rep. Brad Wenstrup (R-Ohio) said Republicans would declare fentanyl a weapon of mass destruction. ``That's what this is. It fits the categories completely. And we're going to declare it as that and use every resource we possibly can,'' he said.

Rep. Jim Jordan promised Republicans will nix President Biden's plan on hiring more IRS agents over the next decade.

Rep. Guy Reschenthaler (R-Pa.) said that unlike Democrats under House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), ``we're not going to have this top-down leadership.''

``Kevin McCarthy is going to rely on all of us to have bottom-up leadership that comes from the districts,'' he said. ``We got members here from New York all the way to the border with Tony Gonzales. We got people that have different approaches--all the way from David Joyce to Marjorie Taylor Greene. But we're all united behind Kevin McCarthy.''

Republican speakers vowed various oversight efforts focused on the Biden administration and hearings on the origins of the COVID-19 pandemic.

House Minority Whip Steve Scalise said more hearings will be held on border security.

House Minority Whip Steve Scalise (R-La.) said, ``We were calling for hearings for over a year on the origin of COVID. Shouldn't we know that? I mean, this is a basic question. Millions of people across the globe died.''

Scalise said there would be many hearings on border security too after more than 2 million people illegally crossed the southwest border in fiscal 2022.

``We will give [Homeland Security] Secretary [Alejandro] Mayorkas a reserved parking spot, he will be testifying so much about this,'' Scalise said.

Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene claimed she will follow the Republicans' new agenda.

Speakers did not specifically mention expected investigations of Biden's links to his son Hunter Biden and brother Jim Biden's multimillion-dollar influence-peddling businesses in China, Ukraine and other countries.

Rep. Jim Jordan (R-Ohio) said the Republicans decided their first bill will seek to nullify an IRS crackdown recently authorized by Democrats to fund an environmental and health care spending bill. He also mentioned oversight of allegedly biased Justice Department actions.

``We're gonna look into this weaponization of the DOJ against the American people . . . not to mention the border. But specifically to the COVID issue . . . they told us so many things that turned out not to be accurate,'' Jordan said.

``They told us this thing [COVID] . . . didn't come from a lab. Sure it looks like it did,'' he added. ``But they want us to believe, `No, no, no, it was a bat to a pangolin to Joe Rogan.' ''

``We are committed to doing the investigations that need to be done,'' Jordan said.

The ``Commitment to America'' organizes various pledges under four broad categories: the economy, safety, freedom and accountability. The outline is an attempt to harness the historical success of former House Speaker Newt Gingrich's 1994 ``Contract with America,'' which propelled GOP gains during President Bill Clinton's first term.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, Republicans promised that as soon as they were in the majority, they would immediately move to address inflation. Well, we are a month into the 118th Congress with zero action to lower costs for families.

My question is, what happened? Why have Republicans spent all of January on messaging bills and trying to get their house in order?

I know it was a tumultuous week to try to elect a Speaker. We made history--4 days and 15 votes. Unprecedented.

Nonetheless, what happened to focusing on issues that were first and foremost on people's minds? Instead, we had abortion bans, and now we are dealing with this. I think we are dealing with a bill on socialism later today. I don't know what the heck prompted that.

In any event, I mean, really? Is that what my Republican friends think the American people want?

Again, I am going to just say that I am urging my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the previous question so that we can have a vote on my proposal, basically, which says that Social Security benefits must be protected, that there is nothing in any of these bills or any bills going forward that would in any way negatively impact Social Security. Protecting the benefits that Social Security provides should be a priority for this Congress.

Quite frankly, none of us are comforted by any of the words that the Speaker has said. We don't know what is in the secret memo. I don't know what was promised on Social Security.

When Republicans say things like they want to protect the integrity of the program, that is code for they want to cut it. That is code for they want to raise the retirement age. That is code for all the things that our constituents, not just Democrats, but Independents and Republicans, fear might be coming down the road.

They are trying to use Social Security. They are trying to hold it hostage as part of this effort to get some sort of a deal on the debt ceiling.

They are basically holding this economy hostage. The good faith and credit of the United States, they are holding it hostage, ready to just throw it into the wind until they get these cuts in programs that help people.

Again, before I yield back at this point and let the gentleman continue with any speakers he has, I would say that the measures that we are dealing with today are concerning to us because there is a right way to wind down and a wrong way to wind down.

What we suggested last night in the Rules Committee as the right way to do this, and you can do it quickly, is to do hearings and make sure there are no unintended consequences, make sure there aren't vulnerable people who could be adversely impacted by your quick change of the rules. The majority would have none of it.

So, again, this isn't a serious effort. This is about messaging, and it is really disappointing.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

I appreciate the gentleman's response, but I am not sure who he is responding to.

The question I asked was for physicians to come down here and to make it clear, contrary to what was said before, that these vaccines are not dangerous, that people should get vaccinated, that it could save lives.

People are still dying of COVID, by the way, and the idea that somehow we should be discouraging people from getting vaccinations by scaring them doesn't make a lot of sense to me. In fact, I think it is irresponsible.

I appreciate the gentleman's service to his patients, and I hope that he understands now his service is to the American people and that service includes getting out the truth and what is accurate and what is not accurate about these vaccinations.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, may I inquire how much time is remaining?

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, our side isn't afraid to embrace change. We know that living in the 21st century means that we can and should use technology to improve Americans' quality of life.

We know that vaccines save lives, and we know that science is real. We know that ending these emergencies immediately is irresponsible.

Most importantly, we know that we are here to make progress, not to go backward, which is what the four measures this rule includes would do.

Again, let me say none of these bills went through committee. They could have, but none of them did.

Madam Speaker, 94 percent of the rules this Congress has dealt with have been completely closed. That is 15 out of 16 measures with no hearings, no amendments, no markups.

Is this what Speaker McCarthy promised you in his secret memo, that this is the way you will conduct business?

On top of all that, we are deeply concerned that a small minority on the other side of the aisle representing the most extreme elements of the Republican Conference is calling the shots.

We are worried about Social Security, and we are worried about Medicare. That is why we are asking people to vote ``no'' on the previous question, because we want to be able to put in place protections so that a fringe group can't mess around with Social Security, can't take away from people what they have earned.

It is not an entitlement. It is what people have earned in this country.

Madam Speaker, I urge a ``no'' vote on the previous question and a strong ``no'' vote on this rule.

There is a right way to do this and a wrong way to do this. The majority is in control and in charge. Take the time. Do the hearings. Ask the questions. Make sure there are no unintended consequences.

This is about the health and well-being of the American people. They deserve at least a hearing rather than a messaging bill rushed to the floor.

Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

The yeas and nays were ordered.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source