Jim McGovern

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, my two sisters are public school teachers. They taught me that school breakfast and lunches are every bit as important as a textbook or a laptop to that child's ability to learn. During the pandemic, Congress wisely provided 30 million kids free meals at school, but last spring that provision expired. Most schools had to go back to onerous paperwork and millions of kids stopped getting free meals. I urge USDA to make it easier for States to adopt universal school meals, including by lowering the threshold for community eligibility. California, Maine, and soon Colorado already made universal school meals permanent. Three other States, including Massachusetts, have extended universal meals through this school year. Massachusetts is working to make the program permanent with legislation recently introduced by State Rep. Andy Vargas and State Senator Sal DiDomenico. Madam Speaker, we have a sacred responsibility to keep kids fed, and I am hopeful that one day soon we can pass a universal school meals bill here in the United States Congress. Together, we can end hunger now.

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I include in the Record a piece from the New York Post titled: ``GOP unveils `Commitment to America' plan to halt Biden, inflation, and crime.'' [From the New York Post, Sept. 23, 2022] GOP Unveils `Commitment to America' Plan To Halt Biden, Inflation and Crime (By Steve Nelson) House Republicans pledged Friday to end soaring inflation and reduce crime by serving as a check on President Biden if they reclaim power--calling the party's midterm election platform a ``Commitment to America.'' House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) announced the big-tent framework inside an HVAC manufacturing plant outside Pittsburgh, Pa. ``We want to roll [the plan] out to you, to the entire country, to know exactly what we will do if you would trust us and give us the ability to take a new direction for this country,'' McCarthy said. The kickoff featured a business-casual Q&A where dozens of GOP legislators took turns fielding questions. The Republicans vowed to rein in government spending to lower the worst inflation in 41 years--with consumer prices up 8.3 percent over 12 months as of August. Speakers also promised to address crime, including record- high illegal immigration, rising violent crime in cities and fentanyl smuggling that's accelerated overdose deaths. ``The sad part is these Democratic policies have already taken one month of your wages. So now the struggle that you have is you're living through 12 months with only 11 months' pay now because inflation is so high,'' McCarthy said, blasting Biden's $1.9 trillion American Rescue Plan spending bill. House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy unveiled the Republican ``Commitment to America'' agenda at DMI Companies in Monongahela, Pennsylvania. ``We've watched what's happened to our border--the millions of people who are just walking across, people on the terrorist watch list. Now we're watching it create every community to be a border community,'' McCarthy said. ``Fentanyl is the number one killer of Americans between the ages of 18 and 45. The poison starts in China and comes across our border. Do you realize it's killing 300 Americans every day? It's like an airliner crashing each day.'' No. 3 House Republican Rep. Elise Stefanik of New York said the GOP would be ``making sure that we stop the trillions and trillions of reckless government spending that we have seen under Democrat rule.'' House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy vowed to stop President Biden's spending policies if Republicans take the House this fall. ``That will immediately help lower the cost of goods as we seek to rein in inflation,'' she said at the event. Rep. Patrick McHenry (R-NC) said, ``We have to have oversight of what's happening in the administration and go after the wasteful spending of the last administration and return to normalcy--that $1 today means $1 tomorrow.'' Rep. Brad Wenstrup (R-Ohio) said Republicans would declare fentanyl a weapon of mass destruction. ``That's what this is. It fits the categories completely. And we're going to declare it as that and use every resource we possibly can,'' he said. Rep. Jim Jordan promised Republicans will nix President Biden's plan on hiring more IRS agents over the next decade. Rep. Guy Reschenthaler (R-Pa.) said that unlike Democrats under House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), ``we're not going to have this top-down leadership.'' ``Kevin McCarthy is going to rely on all of us to have bottom-up leadership that comes from the districts,'' he said. ``We got members here from New York all the way to the border with Tony Gonzales. We got people that have different approaches--all the way from David Joyce to Marjorie Taylor Greene. But we're all united behind Kevin McCarthy.'' Republican speakers vowed various oversight efforts focused on the Biden administration and hearings on the origins of the COVID-19 pandemic. House Minority Whip Steve Scalise said more hearings will be held on border security. House Minority Whip Steve Scalise (R-La.) said, ``We were calling for hearings for over a year on the origin of COVID. Shouldn't we know that? I mean, this is a basic question. Millions of people across the globe died.'' Scalise said there would be many hearings on border security too after more than 2 million people illegally crossed the southwest border in fiscal 2022. ``We will give [Homeland Security] Secretary [Alejandro] Mayorkas a reserved parking spot, he will be testifying so much about this,'' Scalise said. Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene claimed she will follow the Republicans' new agenda. Speakers did not specifically mention expected investigations of Biden's links to his son Hunter Biden and brother Jim Biden's multimillion-dollar influence-peddling businesses in China, Ukraine and other countries. Rep. Jim Jordan (R-Ohio) said the Republicans decided their first bill will seek to nullify an IRS crackdown recently authorized by Democrats to fund an environmental and health care spending bill. He also mentioned oversight of allegedly biased Justice Department actions. ``We're gonna look into this weaponization of the DOJ against the American people . . . not to mention the border. But specifically to the COVID issue . . . they told us so many things that turned out not to be accurate,'' Jordan said. ``They told us this thing [COVID] . . . didn't come from a lab. Sure it looks like it did,'' he added. ``But they want us to believe, `No, no, no, it was a bat to a pangolin to Joe Rogan.' '' ``We are committed to doing the investigations that need to be done,'' Jordan said. The ``Commitment to America'' organizes various pledges under four broad categories: the economy, safety, freedom and accountability. The outline is an attempt to harness the historical success of former House Speaker Newt Gingrich's 1994 ``Contract with America,'' which propelled GOP gains during President Bill Clinton's first term.

Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, 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. Madam Speaker, I urge a ``no'' vote on the rule and a ``no'' vote on the underlying legislation, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. 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. 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.

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. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, Social Security is the bedrock of our Nation's social safety net. Since its inception, it has lifted millions of our seniors out of poverty. Protecting the benefits it provides should be a priority for this Congress. As my Republican colleagues demand reckless cuts in exchange for paying our Nation's bills, Democrats will continue taking action to protect Social Security. This is not the first time Social Security has been under attack by my friends on the other side of the aisle. Don't be fooled by their phraseology that they are only interested in ``protecting Social Security.'' We know that that is code for cutting benefits, for raising the retirement age, for throwing people off the benefit. Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Larson) to discuss our proposal.

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

Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Madam Speaker, oh my God. There are doctors who serve in Congress-- Democrats and Republicans. I hope that they will stand up and correct the misinformation. I mean, really. The gentleman talks about herd immunity as if somehow that was some panacea here. Madam Speaker, I include in the Record a letter from Harvard Medical School titled, ``COVID-19 diagnosis raises risks of heart attack, stroke.'' [From Harvard Health Publishing, Nov. 1, 2021] COVID-19 Diagnosis Raises Risk of Heart Attack, Stroke (By Julie Corliss) In one of the largest studies of its kind to date, researchers found strong evidence that heart attack and stroke risk rises sharply in the weeks following a COVID-19 diagnosis. The findings were published Aug. 14, 2021, in The Lancet. The study included every person in Sweden diagnosed with COVID-19 from Feb. 1, 2020, to Sept. 14, 2020--a total of nearly 87,000 people. Their median age was 48, and 57 percent were women. Researchers compared them with more than 348,000 Swedish people of similar age and sex who did not have the virus. In the week after a COVID-19 diagnosis, the risk of a first heart attack increased by three to eight times. The risk of a first stroke caused by a blood clot multiplied by three to six times. In the following weeks, both risks decreased steadily but stayed elevated for at least a month. Other bacterial and viral infections (such as influenza) are known to temporarily boost rates of heart attacks and strokes. But COVID-19 infections appear to be especially risky, perhaps because they trigger an exaggerated inflammatory response that makes blood clots more likely .

Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, a study found that in the week after a COVID diagnosis, the risk of a first heart attack increased by three to eight times. The risk of a first stroke caused by a blood clot multiplied by three to six times. In the following weeks, both risks decreased steadily but stayed elevated for at least a month. Madam Speaker, I include in the Record a USA Today piece titled, ``Fact check: COVID-19 vaccines primarily designed to prevent serious illness, death.'' [From the USA TODAY, Jan. 21, 2022] Fact Check: COVID-19 Vaccines Primarily Designed To Prevent Serious Illness, Death (By Valerie Paviionis) As the omicron variant surges across the world and the United States logs case numbers near and over 1 million per day, the virus is prompting scientists to develop new treatments and government officials to fight to curb the spread. While the Biden administration continues to urge Americans to get vaccinated, a Jan. 10 Facebook post claims that Dr. Rochelle Walensky, director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, said vaccines can't prevent COVID-19 transmission. Other sites have shared the same claim, linking Walensky's words back to an interview with CNN in August 2021. ``Our vaccines are working exceptionally well,'' Walensky said to CNN's Wolf Blitzer in the interview. ``They continue to work well for delta, with regard to severe illness and death--they prevent it. But what they can't do anymore is prevent transmission.'' Though Walensky did say these words on CNN, the original interview was aired in early August, not recently. And while it's true vaccines can't entirely halt transmission, experts say they do reduce it--and reduce the chances of hospitalization and death--as USA TODAY previously reported. USA TODAY reached out to the original poster of the claim for comment. Various websites have written about the same claim, amassing thousands of interactions on Facebook. vaccine effects depend on several factors In an email, Walensky spokesperson Kathleen Conley wrote that in August 2021--when the interview originally ran--the delta variant was the dominant variant in the United States. Experts at that time said it was clear the vaccines provided protection. ``Vaccines provide significant protection from `getting it'--infection--and `spreading it'--transmission--even against the delta variant,'' a professor of immunobiology and molecular, cellular and developmental biology at Yale University, told USA TODAY in November. However, Conley noted data did show vaccines were ``less effective at preventing infections and transmission with Delta than with previous other variants.'' Omicron has proven even more difficult to contain. While mRNA vaccines--produced by Pfizer and Moderna-- continue to offer some level of protection against transmission of omicron, other vaccines--such as Johnson & Johnson, Sinopharm and AstraZeneca--offer ``almost no defense,'' according to a Dec. 19, 2021, report by the New York Times. Other factors beyond variant type, vaccination type and booster status can also influence whether or not a person contracts COVID-19. Dr. David Dowdy, associate professor of epidemiology at Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, said it's difficult to succinctly explain the vaccines' nuanced effects on transmission. A vaccine might protect you from a passing interaction with someone at a grocery store, but it may not prevent infection from someone you live with and share air with for several hours a day. ``It gets very easy to misconstrue,'' Dowdy said. ``If someone asks, do vaccines prevent infection, and you have to give a yes or no answer, then the answer is no, they're not a perfect blockade. But do the vaccines offer some protection against infection? The answer is yes.'' vaccines still protect against serious disease While vaccinations don't offer perfect protection against the transmission of COVID-19, experts still urge people to get vaccinated. According to Conley, COVID-19 vaccination remains effective against hospitalization and death caused by the virus. Getting a booster, she added, further decreases these risks, and the CDC continues to recommend that Americans receive vaccines and boosters. Dr. Chris Beyrer, professor of public health and human rights at the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, said both the mRNA and J&J vaccines were never designed to prevent infection entirely. It's ``very hard'', he said, to prevent infection via an injected vaccine when you're dealing with a virus that enters the body through the nose and mouth. Instead, the vaccine trials were designed to study reduction in serious illness, hospitalization and death. All three vaccines were highly effective by this measure, Beyrer said. ``People who say, well, why would I take it if it doesn't prevent me from getting infected?'' Beyrer said. ``You have to remember that having a COVID-19 infection can be everything from completely asymptomatic . . . to a head-cold- like symptoms or full flu-like symptoms, all the way to death. So what the vaccines are doing is really dramatically increasing the likelihood that you will have mild infection. And that's incredibly important.'' A CDC study released Jan. 21 showed booster shots of the Pfizer-BioNTech and Moderna vaccines were 90% effective at preventing hospitalizations from the omicron variant. our rating: missing context Because it can be misleading without additional information, we rate MISSING CONTEXT the claim that the CDC director says vaccines can't prevent transmission of COVID- 19. While vaccines do not offer 100% protection against COVID-19 infection, they can still partially defend against infection. Vaccines remain effective at protecting from COVID-19-caused serious illness, hospitalization and death.

Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I would highlight one of the quotes that I guess the gentleman was referring to. ``Though Walensky did say these words on CNN, the original interview was aired in early August, not recently. And while it is true vaccines cannot entirely halt transmission, experts say they do reduce it--and reduce the chances of hospitalizations and death.'' Madam Speaker, I include in the Record a study by the Commonwealth Fund titled, ``Two years of U.S. COVID-19 Vaccines Have Prevented Millions of Hospitalizations and Deaths.'' [The Commonwealth Fund, Dec. 13, 2022] Two Years of U.S. COVID-19 Vaccines Have Prevented Millions of Hospitalizations and Deaths (By Meagan C. Fitzpatrick, Seyed M. Moghadas, Abhishek Pandy, and Alison P. Galvani) It has been two years since the first COVID-19 vaccine was given to a patient in the United States. Since then, the U.S. has administered more than 655 million doses--80 percent of the population has received at least one dose--with the cumulative effect of preventing more than 18 million additional hospitalizations and more than 3 million additional deaths. The swift development of the vaccine, emergency authorization to distribute widely, and rapid rollout have been instrumental in curbing hospitalization and death, while mitigating socioeconomic repercussions of the pandemic. As more transmissible and immune-evasive variants have emerged over the past two years, the U.S. has responded by deploying additional doses and variant-specific boosters. The Omicron variants caused the largest wave of infections during the pandemic. COVID-19 monovalent vaccines available at the time were not as efficacious against the variant as bivalent boosters introduced later, but the wave would have been more devastating in the absence of vaccination. As we mark the second anniversary of the U.S. COVID-19 vaccination campaign, understanding the impact of vaccines on reducing disease burden is needed to inform future, evidence- based actions. We therefore used a computer model of disease transmission to estimate hospitalizations and deaths averted through the end of November 2022. The model incorporates the age-stratified demographics, risk factors, and immunological dynamics of infection and vaccination. We simulated this model to compare the observed pandemic trajectory to a counterfactual scenario without a vaccination program. Findings From December 2020 through November 2022, we estimate that the COVID-19 vaccination program in the U.S. prevented more than 18.5 million additional hospitalizations and 3.2 million additional deaths. Without vaccination, there would have been nearly 120 million more COVID-19 infections. The vaccination program also saved the U.S. $1.15 trillion (Credible Interval: $1.10 trillion-$1.19 trillion) (data not shown) in medical costs that would otherwise have been incurred. Discussion Our findings highlight the substantial impact of the U.S. vaccination program on reducing infections, hospitalizations, and deaths. Curbing hospitalization rates by reducing both COVID-19 incidence and symptom severity is particularly important amidst the strain on the health care system caused by unusually high levels of flu and RSV (respiratory syncytial virus). COVID-19 vaccination has preserved hospital resources for individuals who would otherwise have not received timely care. Vaccination also has prevented many millions of COVID infections. Although the acute phase of these infections may not have required medical attention, each infection carries a risk of long COVID and debilitating symptoms. Many of the prevented infections would have been reinfections, which have higher risk of death compared to initial infections. In addition, as our previous analysis demonstrated, vaccines have kept children in school, highlighting the societal value of the ongoing vaccination program. The estimated infections, hospitalizations, and deaths averted by vaccination are particularly striking when compared to the actual values observed during this time period. Since December 12, 2020, 82 million infections, 4.8 million hospitalizations, and 798,000 deaths have been reported in the U.S. In other words, without vaccination the U.S. would have experienced 1.5 times more infections, 3.8 times more hospitalizations, and 4.1 times more deaths. These losses would have been accompanied by more than $1 trillion in additional medical costs that were averted because of fewer infections, hospitalizations, and deaths. The impact of the vaccination program is more remarkable given the challenges posed by the multiple variants that have arisen. The Omicron variants have been particularly immune- evasive and drove the largest surge in COVID-19 cases to date. However, the vaccines provided broader and more durable protection against severe clinical outcomes, including hospitalization and death. The reported ``mild'' nature of Omicron is in large part because of vaccine protection. A limitation of our study is that we modeled only viral dynamics within the U.S. However, vaccines developed by the U.S. were also deployed around the world, changing the trajectory of the pandemic on a global scale. Without them, more variants could have emerged or there could have been greater importation of COVID-19 cases. In this regard, our study underestimates the true impact of COVID-19 vaccine development on U.S. outcomes. The unprecedented pace at which vaccines were developed and deployed has saved many lives and allowed for safer easing of COVID-19 restrictions and reopening of businesses, schools, and other activities. This extraordinary achievement has been possible only through sustained funding and effective policymaking that ensured vaccines were available to all Americans. Moving forward, accelerating uptake of the new booster will be fundamental to averting future hospitalizations and deaths.

Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, we have lost over 1 million of our fellow citizens to COVID, over 1 million in the United States alone; mothers, fathers, siblings, friends, and children, as well. But the development of safe vaccines has meant that millions more lives have been saved. There is no question whether or not the vaccination is effective. Madam Speaker, I would just highlight one of the findings in The Commonwealth Fund report. It says, ``From December 2020 through November 2022, we estimate that the COVID-19 vaccination program in the United States prevented more than 18.5 million additional hospitalizations and 3.2 million additional deaths. Without vaccination, there would have been nearly 120 million more COVID-19 infections. The vaccination program also saved the U.S. $1.15 trillion in medical costs that would otherwise have been incurred.'' Here we are, after having gone through what we went through, after knowing the benefits of these vaccinations, and to hear what we are hearing on the floor, it really is disappointing. Madam Speaker, I would ask the doctors in this Chamber, Democrats and Republicans, please stand up. Please correct the Record. Please tell people that vaccinations have been a good thing and that people should get vaccinated. They could save their lives. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I appreciate the gentleman's response, but I am not sure who he is responding to. The question I asked was for physicians to come down here and to make it clear, contrary to what was said before, that these vaccines are not dangerous, that people should get vaccinated, that it could save lives. People are still dying of COVID, by the way, and the idea that somehow we should be discouraging people from getting vaccinations by scaring them doesn't make a lot of sense to me. In fact, I think it is irresponsible. I appreciate the gentleman's service to his patients, and I hope that he understands now his service is to the American people and that service includes getting out the truth and what is accurate and what is not accurate about these vaccinations. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. Madam Speaker, our side isn't afraid to embrace change. We know that living in the 21st century means that we can and should use technology to improve Americans' quality of life. We know that vaccines save lives, and we know that science is real. We know that ending these emergencies immediately is irresponsible. Most importantly, we know that we are here to make progress, not to go backward, which is what the four measures this rule includes would do. Again, let me say none of these bills went through committee. They could have, but none of them did. Madam Speaker, 94 percent of the rules this Congress has dealt with have been completely closed. That is 15 out of 16 measures with no hearings, no amendments, no markups. Is this what Speaker McCarthy promised you in his secret memo, that this is the way you will conduct business? On top of all that, we are deeply concerned that a small minority on the other side of the aisle representing the most extreme elements of the Republican Conference is calling the shots. We are worried about Social Security, and we are worried about Medicare. That is why we are asking people to vote ``no'' on the previous question, because we want to be able to put in place protections so that a fringe group can't mess around with Social Security, can't take away from people what they have earned. It is not an entitlement. It is what people have earned in this country. Madam Speaker, I urge a ``no'' vote on the previous question and a strong ``no'' vote on this rule. There is a right way to do this and a wrong way to do this. The majority is in control and in charge. Take the time. Do the hearings. Ask the questions. Make sure there are no unintended consequences. This is about the health and well-being of the American people. They deserve at least a hearing rather than a messaging bill rushed to the floor. Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, in the decades-long fight to end hunger, last September's White House Conference on Hunger, Nutrition, and Health was a major turning point. I thank the Biden-Harris administration for convening antihunger and nutrition stakeholders from across America to come up with an ambitious yet achievable plan to end hunger and reduce diet-related illnesses by 2030. The national strategy put forward will serve as our guide. Now, it is time to put plans into action. I am thrilled that the Biden-Harris administration remains laser-focused on maintaining the momentum coming out of the conference. We have already achieved big wins, like permanently expanding summer food benefits for families with kids and signing into law the Food Donation Improvement Act, a bill I championed to make it easier for businesses to donate food. Our work is just beginning, and I urge every American to join us in creating a healthier, hunger-free future for all. I have more faith than ever that, working together, we can and will end hunger now.

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to celebrate Julie Jacobson's lifetime of devoted service to Central Massachusetts. Thanks to her leadership, the people of Worcester and Auburn, Massachusetts have seen incredible improvements in our communities. After graduating from Worcester's College of the Holy Cross, Ms. Jacobson began her career in service at the Massachusetts State House working alongside State Representative Thomas P. White. It was with State Representative White where she discovered her passion and talent for public service. In 1985, Ms. Jacobson began working for the City of Worcester, quickly ascending to the role of Director of Economic Development. During her 15-year tenure, she oversaw more than 200 major development projects, all targeted toward the success of Worcester business and improving the lives of all who live and work here. An incredible leader, Ms. Jacobson coordinated programs across the private sector with help from small business grant programs to drive economic growth in our city. Mr. Speaker, Ms. Jacobson's impact on the Worcester community cannot be understated. In 2001, Ms. Jacobson began to lead the Worcester Regional Chamber of Commerce's Economic Development and Public Policy program. Quickly, she was chosen to lead the Regional Chamber of Commerce as Interim President and CEO. Under her guidance, she steered the second largest chamber of commerce in New England to roaring success. Ms. Jacobson then went to serve the Worcester community at large, holding three critical offices: CEO of Worcester's Redevelopment Authority, Chief Development Officer, and Assistant City Manager. She uplifted communities through neighborhood development, urban renewal, and investments in transportation infrastructure. Ms. Jacobson's most critical work, though, combined her visionary leadership with her passion for local communities. In 2011, she began her 12-year tenure as Town Manager in Auburn, revitalizing the town's government, streamlining services, and improving her community. Under her leadership, she steered Auburn toward improved sustainability and more transparent governance. Mr. Speaker, Ms. Jacobson's commitment to solid and effective governance should serve as an example for local leaders across the country. Few have dedicated their expertise so consistently to the communities in which they live. On behalf of the United States Congress and all the people of Central Massachusetts whose lives she touched, it is my great privilege to thank and recognize Ms. Jacobson for her service.

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, there were at least six House Members who sought pardons from President Trump following the January 6 insurrection, and many of them would like to be on this committee, we are told. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler).

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record an article from The Hill titled: ``January 6 panel names six House GOP lawmakers who asked for pardons.'' [From The Hill, June 23, 2022] Jan. 6 Panel Names Six House GOP Lawmakers Who Asked for Pardons (By Mychael Schnell and Emily Brooks) The Jan. 6 committee investigating the attack on the Capitol revealed Thursday that at least a half-dozen Republican lawmakers asked for presidential pardons for their role in voting to overturn election results in certain states on Jan. 6, 2021, according to testimony from former Trump aides. Testimony from Trump aides named Reps. Matt Gaetz (Fla.) Mo Brooks (Ala.) Louie Gohmert (Texas), Andy Biggs (Ariz.), and Scott Perry (PA.) as seeking pardons. An aide also said that Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (Ga.) contacted the White House Counsel's office seeking a pardon. Rep. Adam Kinzinger (R-Ill.), a member of the panel who played an elevated role in Thursday's proceedings, presented an email from Brooks, dated Jan. 11, 2021, in which the congressman asked for presidential pardons for himself, Gaetz, and lawmakers who objected to the Electoral College vote for Arizona and Pennsylvania. ``President Trump asked me to send you this letter. This letter is also pursuant to a request from Matt Gaetz,'' the email reads. ``As such, I recommend that President give general (all purpose) pardons to the following groups of people:,'' the email adds. ``Every Congressman and Senator who voted to reject the electoral vote submission of Arizona and Pennsylvania.'' A spokesman for Brooks forwarded a full copy of the email, which included a concern that Democrats would ``abuse America's judicial system by targeting numerous Republicans with sham charges.'' ``The email request says it all. There was a concern Democrats would abuse the judicial system by prosecuting and jailing Republicans who acted pursuant to their Constitutional or statutory duties under 3 USC 15,'' Brooks said in a statement. ``Fortunately, with time passage, more rational forces took over and no one was persecuted for performing their lawful duties, which means a pardon was unnecessary after all.'' The panel also showed a video of former special assistant to the president Cassidy Hutchinson, saying Gaetz and Brooks ``both advocated for there to be a blanket pardon'' for members of Congress involved with a meeting that took place on Dec. 21, 2020, presumably the huddle at the White House that focused on overturning the 2020 presidential election. She also said Gaetz and Brooks advocated for a blanket pardon for ``a handful of other members that weren't at the Dec. 21 meeting.'' Those were meant to be ``preemptive pardons,'' she noted. Additionally, Hutchinson said ``Gaetz was personally pushing for a pardon, and he was doing so since early December,'' but said she did not know why. Gaetz reached out to Hutchinson asking for a meeting with Meadows ``about receiving a presidential pardon,'' according to her closed-door testimony presented at Thursday's hearing. Hutchinson said Biggs, Gohmert and Perry also asked for pardons, but did not reveal more details. And she said Rep. Jim Jordan (R-Ohio), a fierce defender of Trump, ``talked about congressional pardons, but he never asked me for one,'' noting that he was largely inquiring about whether or not the White House was going to grant the lawmaker pardons. Brooks, Biggs, Perry and Jordan were all issued subpoenas by the select committee in May. Perry previously denied that he asked for a pardon, and stood by that in light of new testimony. ``I stand by my statement that I never sought a Presidential pardon for myself or other Members of Congress. At no time did I speak with Miss Hutchinson, a White House scheduler, nor any White House staff about a pardon for myself or any other Member of Congress--this never happened,'' Perry said in a statement. A spokesman for Perry previously denied that he asked for a pardon, calling it ``laughable, ludicrous, and a thoroughly soulless lie.'' In a statement Thursday night, Gohmert said he requested pardons for U.S. service members and military contractors-- not himself. He called the claim that he requested a pardon for himself ``malicious, despicable and unfit for a U.S. Congressional hearing.'' ``I requested pardons for brave U.S. service members and military contractors who were railroaded by the justice system due to superiors playing politics, as well as a civilian leader who was also wronged by a despicable injustice,'' Gohmert said. ``These requests were all far prior to, and completely unrelated to January 6.'' Biggs also objected to the committee's assertion that he sought a parton, writing in a statement Thursday night that Hutchinson ``is mistaken.'' He said the testimony of Hutchinson discussing the pardons was ``deceptively edited to make it appear as if I personally asked for her a presidential pardon.'' Greene, Hutchinson said, did not contact her directly, but she said she had heard that Greene contacted the White House Counsel's office for a pardon. Greene pushed back on the testimony in a tweet, but did not directly deny asking for a pardon. ``Saying `I heard' means you don't know,'' Greene said. ``Spreading gossip and lies is exactly what the January 6th Witch Hunt Committee is all about.'' Eric Herschmann, a former Trump White House attorney, was also asked by the Jan. 6 committee in a deposition if Gaetz was seeking a pardon. ``Believe so,'' Herschmann said in a video presented at the hearing. ``The general tone was, `we may get prosecuted because we were defensive of, you know, the President's positions on these things.'' Herschmann said that Gaetz's pardon request was ``for any and all things,'' and that Gaetz had mentioned former President Richard Nixon's pardon. Herschmann said that Nixon's pardon was not that broad. Trump adviser John McEntee also testified that Gaetz told him he asked Meadows for a pardon. A spokesman for Gaetz responded to testimony about the pardon request by pointing to a tweet from Gaetz calling the committee a ``political sideshow.''

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, today, we will consider the creation of a new subcommittee here in the House that Republicans call the Select Subcommittee on the Weaponization of the Federal Government. I call it the McCarthy committee, and I am not talking about Kevin. I am talking about Joe. Mr. Speaker, this committee is nothing more than a deranged ploy by the MAGA extremists who have hijacked the Republican Party and now want to use taxpayer money to push their far-right conspiracy nonsense. Let's start with the subcommittee's mandate, which is recklessly broad. Speaker McCarthy is essentially handing Mr. Jordan the power to target anyone and anything he doesn't like, anything and anyone he deems unconstitutional, illegal, or unethical. Who decides what is unconstitutional, illegal, or unethical? Mr. Jordan does. Why don't we just be blunt here? Republicans claim to care about law enforcement, but this new committee is about attacking law enforcement. It is about going after people. It is about destroying people's careers and lives. It is about undermining the Department of Justice, defunding the police, and settling scores on behalf of the twice-impeached and disgraced former occupant of the Oval Office. The MAGA extremist fringe of the Republican Party will use this committee to push QAnon conspiracy theories and lies from Truth Social. They are going to use it to gin up fake investigations into nonexistent scandals. I think we need to just start calling this the tinfoil hat committee. Speaker McCarthy even changed the language at the last minute to provide unprecedented authority for the subcommittee to interfere in ongoing criminal investigations. Let me repeat: The Republican Party, the party that claims to care about law and order, has created a committee not just to defund the police based on their wacky conspiracy theories, but to actually try to shut down ongoing investigations, including into domestic terrorists, phony electors, insurrectionists, people who are on trial for sedition because they tried to overthrow the government, and even disgraced former President Donald Trump. This is outrageous. We are a country of laws, but this committee seeks to undermine the law, undermine the police, and make a complete mockery of the investigative and oversight powers of the House. As seen on this week's Sunday shows, some sitting Republicans being investigated right now by the FBI and the Department of Justice want to serve on this committee. I mean, what? I mean, come on. Give me a break. I know my Republican friends have some ethically challenged members who asked for pardons from the former President, but this is beyond the pale. This is unconscionable. This is a conflict of interest. First, they gut the Office of Congressional Ethics. Now, they give Members of Congress the ability to investigate and to try to shut down criminal investigations that they are subjects in. One set of rules for the American people, another set of rules for Republican Members of Congress. It is incredibly offensive. On their first real week in the majority, this is what my Republican friends are pushing through? Not a bill to fight inflation. Not a bill to raise wages for people. A bill for Republican Members of Congress to shut down investigations into their own wrongdoings. What is wrong with these people? On top of all of that, this subcommittee expects to use the power of the subpoena to advance their delusional QAnon conspiracy theories and harass Federal law enforcement agents. I would say it is almost comical if it wasn't so disturbing that Speaker McCarthy and Mr. Jordan refused to comply with bipartisan subpoenas issued by the January 6th Committee. So I guess for them, it is do as I say, not as I do. In my mind, it speaks volumes that House Republicans are choosing to prioritize this kind of dangerous partisan garbage instead of actually trying to help everyday Americans. Whatever happened to Republicans' commitment to America? They promised to tackle inflation, end the opioid crisis, reduce the national debt, and more. None of those issues are addressed in their first 12 bills. In fact, the very first bill they passed last night doesn't reduce the deficit, it adds $114 billion to the deficit by making it easier for billionaires to cheat on their taxes. This is where we are week 2 of the 118th Congress, and we are creating a witch-hunt committee where Republicans plan to air their grievances and further incite crazy fringe conspiracy theories from the internet at the taxpayers' expense. Senator Joseph McCarthy would be very proud of what Republicans are doing today. Putting their own personal power and partisan politics over the needs of the American people. Just like Senator McCarthy looking for imaginary communists, they are going to find QAnon conspiracies everywhere they look because that is what they want to find. Just like the McCarthy committee, this will become another shameful, disgraceful moment for the Congress of the United States. This has nothing to do with the rule of law, nothing to do with proper oversight of government. It is simply about revenge. It is about disrupting and destroying rather than collaborating and creating. It is about putting politics over people instead of putting people over politics to build a better future for America. This subcommittee is an awful idea, and I urge my colleagues, in the strongest possible terms, to vote ``no'' on this monstrosity that will further empower the extremists at the expense of the American people. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I think before I begin, I would just like to ask any of my Republican colleagues whether anybody found the secret three-page memo detailing all the concessions that were made to the most extreme elements of their Republican Conference? Anyone? Mr. Speaker, I heard that Speaker McCarthy told Members during a closed conference meeting that there is no official document or three- page addendum to the House rules package detailing these concessions. None of us ever said it was official. If it was official, it would have been in the official rules package. I also took note of the fact that in Axios today we saw this. It says: ``One thing the document doesn't contain, according to NRCC Chair Richard Hudson, who said he's seen it, is promised committee chairmanships for specific Members: `No names, just representation on panels.' '' So we were able to find out from Mr. Hudson what is not in that secret memo, but it would be helpful maybe before the end of the day if we could actually get the document so that the American people know what was promised. Mr. Speaker, China has the second largest economy in the world, and there is no doubt that their government seeks to extend their sphere of influence and export their model of authoritarianism abroad. The question is: How should the United States respond? For the past 4 years, I have served as chair and co-chair of the Congressional-Executive Commission on China. We have monitored China's compliance with international human rights and rule of law standards. Under my leadership, alongside Senators Jeff Merkley, Marco Rubio, and Congressman Chris Smith, the Commission has continued to draw attention to the Chinese Government's human rights violations and technology-enhanced authoritarianism. We passed my bill, the Uyghur Forced Labor Prevention Act, which seeks to address the genocide in Xinjiang, and we hope can serve as a model for future human rights legislation. We passed the Tibet Policy and Support Act to support the people of Tibet in their struggle against Chinese repression, and the Hong Kong Human Rights and Democracy Act to require the U.S. Government to impose sanctions against mainland China and Hong Kong officials considered responsible for human rights abuses in Hong Kong. Now, everything that we accomplished at the CECC has been because that Commission operates in a bipartisan manner with nonpartisan staff. Our comprehensive annual reports are widely respected by government officials, academics, and the advocacy community because they are well- researched and they are fact-based. That brings us to today. Mr. Speaker, we are here to consider the creation of a select committee. This select committee on China would investigate and submit policy recommendations on the status of China's economic, technological, and security progress, as well as its ongoing competition with the United States. I will be honest. I have reservations here. Many of us have concerns about this turning into a committee that focuses on pushing Republican conspiracy theories and partisan talking points. We certainly don't want it to turn into a place that perpetuates anti-Asian hate. We cannot and will not tolerate that. But, instead, I would hope that this new committee would work in a similar fashion as the CECC--producing bipartisan work with a fact- based tone and approach that could be received by the international community seriously and substantively. There are a few things that I think the select committee needs to keep in mind if they truly want to be effective. First, President Trump repeatedly mislabeled COVID with racist language. Such rhetoric coincided with spikes in hate-based acts of violence and discrimination against people of Chinese or Asian origin across the country. This language has no place on this committee or anywhere in Congress. Second, this committee should not seek to focus solely on military solutions. Yes, China's military modernization is a legitimate issue, but that does not demand a military-first policy response. Third, I am concerned that a committee focused myopically on the economic, technological, and security challenges of China could distract us from the need to build a holistic approach in many of these policy areas. We need to remember that the United States faces economic, technological, and security challenges from many different regions across the globe, not just China. To focus solely on China, whether it be policy related to trade, technology, authoritarianism, or anything else, is neither analytically sound nor effective. Fourth, and finally, the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Gallagher) said if he were to chair this committee, he would focus on ``ideological competition and human rights.'' I would just like to say that human rights are not ideological. Human rights are fundamental and universal, protected by a vast body of international law codified at the United Nations and widely adjudicated. They apply to every person in every country and territory on Earth. It is the Chinese Communist Party, in fact, that portrays human rights along an ideological divide. That falsely portrays Chinese values as something distinct from Western values in an effort to justify its repression of the people of China. It is important that the committee does not adopt the rhetoric of Chinese officials. While I do have concerns here, after reading the resolution itself, I will be voting yes. The Democratic Party has led the way in implementing efforts to monitor China's compliance with international human rights and rule of law standards, and we will continue to do so here. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the Speaker for his assurances. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Bera).

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Takano).

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Foster).

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer).