COVID Lab Leak Bill Introduced, Senate Version Signed Into Law

Chances aren’t bad that a person’s position or “belief” regarding how the COVID-19 pandemic originated is influenced by their political leanings. Still, I don’t want this introductory paragraph to sound too partisan. I don’t know with any certainty whatsoever how COVID-19 began, and I’m aware of multiple sources offering different explanations.

Rep. Mike Gallagher

In March, Rep. Mike Gallagher, R-Wisconsin’s 8th District, introduced H.R. 1346, titled the “Covid-19 Origin Act of 2023.” In the bill section called “Sense of Congress,” which reads like the “legislative declaration” sections from State of Colorado bills I’m familiar with, H.R. 1346 very directly said “there is reason to believe the COVID–19 pandemic may have originated at the Wuhan Institute of Virology…”

The bill did not directly call out any other possible explanations for COVID-19, but did call for the U.S. to identify an origin as quickly as possible. H.R. 1346 called for declassifying information relating to activities of the Wuhan Institute of Virology, including information regarding Wuhan researchers who might have fallen ill from COVID during 2019.

Gallagher is an ex-Marine who serves as Chairman of the Select Committee on the Strategic Competition Between the United States and the Chinese Communist Party, as Chairman of the House Armed Services Subcommittee, and on the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence.

I am trying to focus on the House in this blog, but members of the House and Senate might run bills that are very similar or identical to those introduced in the other chamber. Sen. Josh Hawley of Missouri introduced a Covid-19 Origin Act of 2023 (S.619) two days before Gallagher’s version was introduced, and the House and Senate bills had identical language. President Joseph R. Biden signed S.619 into law in late March.

From Biden’s signing statement: “We need to get to the bottom of COVID-19’s origins to help ensure we can better prevent future pandemics.  My Administration will continue to review all classified information relating to COVID–19’s origins, including potential links to the Wuhan Institute of Virology.”

Pat Schroeder Passes

Former Rep. Pat Schroeder, speaking on C-SPAN against the Defense Of Marriage Act

Former U.S. Rep. Pat Schroeder, D-Colorado’s 1st District, passed away in early March.

I intend with this project to mostly follow what’s happening in the 118th Congress, but had to give a quick shout-out to the extremely influential Rep. Schroeder.

I’ve met a handful of members of Congress and a larger handful of Congressional candidates during my time working in civic affairs. Nothing against any of the rest of them, but meeting Pat Schroeder was among my personal high points, and I wrote a news story (linked here) about her appearance at an event for current Colorado Governor and then-Congressional candidate Jared Polis.

Readers can search the web for tons of information about Schroeder’s career, but for a few brief points:

  • Served 12 terms in the House, 1973-1997
  • First woman to serve on the House Armed Services Committee
  • Part of a group of women who founded the Congresswomen’s Caucus (now the Congressional Caucus for Women’s Issues)
  • Chaired the Select Committee on Children, Youth and Families
  • Coined the phrase “Teflon President” to make light of how nothing ever stuck to former President Reagan
  • Briefly considered running for President herself in 1987
  • Author of a book titled “24 Years of Housework … and the Place is Still a Mess. My Life in Politics?

Pat Schroeder will be remembered for the right reasons – as a trailblazer for women in positions of power, as a tireless advocate for the causes she believed in, and as an extremely witty and quotable personality. And I think she’ll be remembered for a long time!

House Trio Wants To Investigate Trump Prosecutor

One of the significant differences between having a Republican majority in the House and a Democratic majority is the type of issues each side will choose to investigate.

In late March, national news spent a lot of time discussing whether Alvin Bragg, the Manhattan District Attorney, would bring formal charges against former President Donald Trump over the hush money paid to porn star Stormy Daniels. Trump himself fueled some of the media attention by writing that he was about to be arrested, and Bragg did bring formal charges against Trump in early April.

Rep. Jim Jordan

However, this section is really intended to be about Congressional action, not really about Trump or Daniels. In a Congressional letter to Bragg dated March 20, a team of Republicans admonished Bragg for what they said “plainly appears to be a politically motivated prosecutorial decision.” Bragg is a Democrat.

The letter requested Bragg to supply the following:

  • All documents and communications between or among the New York County District Attorney’s Office and the U.S. Department of Justice, its component entities, or other federal law enforcement agencies referring or relating to your office’s investigation of President Donald Trump;
  • All documents and communications sent or received by former employees Carey Dunne
    and Mark Pomerantz referring or relating to President Donald Trump; and
  • All documents and communications referring or relating to the New York County District
    Attorney Office’s receipt and use of federal funds.

The letter was signed by:

  • Rep. Jim Jordan, (R-Ohio’s 4th District), Chair of the Committee on Judiciary
  • Rep. Bryan Steil, (R-Wisconsin’s 1st District), Chair of the Committee on House Administration, and
  • Rep. James Comer, (R-Kentucky’s 1st District), Chair of the Committee on Oversight and Accountability.

As of at least April 5, the Congressional trio had yet to issue subpoenas to Bragg, and it’s tough for me to say whether this course of investigation will yield information either damaging or helpful to Bragg. According to this New York Times story, Speaker of the House Kevin McCarthy was involved in attempts to get information from Bragg and his office.

Gun Advocate Rep. Andy Ogles Has Mass Killing In His District

Much of America seems almost numbed to regular mass shootings, but mass shootings still get our attention when they involve young children. In late March, a woman attacked the Covenant School in Nashville, Tennessee, killing three nine-year-old children and three adult school staffers. Law enforcement officers reportedly later killed the shooter.

Rep. Andy Ogles

Since this blog is about Congress, Rep. Andy Ogles, R-Tennessee’s 5th District, is the Representative for Nashville. Nearly immediately after the shooting, social media lit up with pictures of a Christmas card Ogles sent out in 2021, showing every member of his family except the youngest child holding a rifle.

In no way do I intend to suggest that Ogles is directly responsible for the Nashville shootings. With 300-400 million firearms privately owned in America, a robust gun culture, and whatever personal or mental issues that might lead to shootings, I don’t believe any one Congressman should be blamed for single incidents.

But Ogles does have a pretty extensive and visible record of support for weapons ownership. For a tiny sample:

  • He was Mayor of Maury County in Tennessee before being elected to office, and signed a resolution while in office declaring the region a sanctuary community for the constitutional right to bear arms, according to the Columbia Daily Herald.
  • Ogles’ website includes a position statement saying in part “I will fight tirelessly to ensure that your constitutional rights are protected and never infringed upon. Disarming the people is the most effective way to enslave them (emphasis added), and we must remain vigilant when anyone seeks to erode our civil liberties.”
  • The 2021 family Christmas card reportedly offered the following words: “The very atmosphere of firearms anywhere and everywhere restrains evil interference — they deserve a place of honor with all that’s good.”

The absolutist parts of the third statement deserve a closer look, in my opinion. “Firearms anywhere and everywhere?” “A place of honor with all that’s good?” Now, contrast these with Ogles’ official statement after the Nashville mass slaughter.

“We are sending our thoughts and prayers to the families of those lost,” he said. “As a father of three, I am utterly heartbroken by this senseless act of violence.”

Again, in my opinion nobody should directly blame Ogles for what happened in Nashville. But how about dialing back the weapons publicity anyway? Ceasing with the “Fully Armed Family” greeting cards from elected officials might be a nice place to start – I’ve seen them from U.S. Reps. Lauren Boebert and Thomas Massie, along with former Colorado state Sen. Greg Brophy, and I would not be surprised if there were a bunch more.

In fairness, statements made in a late March press conference said the shooter was under a doctor’s care for an “emotional disorder.” But another report said the shooter was still able to obtain weapons from at least five separate dealers before the slaughter. Tennessee also does not have a “red flag” law to keep weapons from a person who’s a known threat to commit acts of violence.

On social media, influencers of different persuasions fairly predictably tried to get people to believe the Nashville massacre was the fault of: guns or gun culture; mental health; gun laws or lack thereof; school security measures; or even that the shooter was transgendered. I’m really only mentioning Ogles for his role in gun culture, and wishing a whole bunch of people would dial back on spreading unnecessary messaging.

A Tale of Two H.R. 1s

When I worked in state politics, the bills given “number 1” each year (HB 1001, SB 001) normally signified that a caucus gave the bills very high priority. I will assume that this is true at the federal level, and will also say two bills called H.R. 1, from two different Congresses, illustrate the stark differences between our major political parties.

This year’s H.R. 1 passed the House during the month of March, by a mostly party-line margin of 225-204. Four Democrats voted in favor (Henry Cuellar, Texas-28th; Jared Golden, Maine-2nd; Vicente Gonzales, Texas-34; Marie Perez, Washington-3rd), and one Republican voted against (Brian Fitzpatrick, Pennsylvania-1).

Rep. Steve Scalise

The bill was titled the “Lower Energy Costs Act.” Rep. Steve Scalise, R-Louisiana’s 1st District, was the prime sponsor of this year’s H.R. 1. Rep. Lauren Boebert of Colorado was once of the 49 co-sponsors, all Republican. While if it went into effect it might or might not actually lower costs to consumers (there are numerous factors that determine energy pricing), it would certainly cut back on regulations and make business easier in some ways for those in extractive industries.

Read the entire bill at this link if you wish, although it’s quite long. For now, I’ll stick with an excerpt from the bill summary. Astute readers might notice some semblance to a fossil fuel developer’s wish list, since the bill:

  • Waives environmental review requirements and other specified requirements under certain environmental laws
  • Eliminates certain restrictions on the import and export of oil and natural gas
  • Prohibits the President from declaring a moratorium on the use of hydraulic fracturing (fracking)
  • Directs the Department of the Interior to conduct sales for the leasing of oil and gas resources on federal lands and waters as specified by the bill
  • Limits the authority of the President and executive agencies to restrict or delay the development of energy on federal land
  • Reduces royalties for oil and gas development on federal land and eliminates charges on methane emissions
  • Eliminates a variety of funds, such as funds for energy efficiency improvements in buildings as well as the greenhouse gas reduction fund

H.R. 1 from the 117th Congress, when the House was under Democratic control, was shall we say “something completely different” compared to H.R. 1 in the 118th Congress. Titled the “For the People Act of 2021,” the bill would have expanded or protected voting rights across the nation. Since I called the oil and gas bill a “wish list,” I can see how opponents might consider the voting bill a voting activist’s wish list as well, though I happen to like this H.R. 1 better than the other. It would have, in super-brief:

  • Established online voter registration systems for all federal elections, literally making it easier for people to register to vote
  • Established Automatic Voter Registration (AVR), which would have automatically registered people to vote when they provide information to government agencies like the Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV). According to the Brennan Center, AVR could register up to 50 million new eligible voters and make voter rolls more accurate
  • Required states to offer same-day voter registration
  • Prohibit and create penalties for people who interfere with voter registration
  • Provide funding to get voter registration information to high school seniors
  • Prohibit “voter caging”—the practice of sending mail to people on the voter rolls, compiling a list of the mail that is returned undelivered, and using that list to purge or challenge voters’ registrations.

But as the voting rights H.R. 1 went nowhere in the Senate, it’s fair to guess the oil and gas H.R. 1 will at the bare minimum face tough sledding, if not defeat, in our current Senate. President Biden is also on the record saying this year’s H.R. 1 would be vetoed if it should pass the Senate.

GOP Congressional Roster: Not A Complete Monolith

While Republican members of Congress might rationally vote as a bloc on high-priority bills, voting records suggest the entire caucus is not completely ideologically identical.

Rep. Kat Cammock was among about a dozen GOP legislators scoring 100% on ACU’s latest scorecard, and holding a 100% lifetime score

The New York times ran a feature illustrating the ideological spectrum, based on a 2021 voting record scorecard from the American Conservative Union. Legislators were scored based on whether or not their votes matched ACU’s position on any of about 35 or more bills. First-year legislators were not included in this scorecard because they had no voting record yet. For the world’s most basic run-down, including both members of the House and Senate:

  • 24 GOP members scored 100%
  • 73 members were at 90% or above (including the 24 at 100%)
  • 136 were at 80% or above (including those at 90% or 100%)
  • 216 total were at 70% or above, including Speaker Kevin McCarthy at 74%

The scorecard included Senators, and the highest-ranking Democrat was Sen. Joe Manchin of West Virginia with a 32% rating, followed by Rep. Jared Golden (D-Maine’s 2nd District) at 19%. No Republicans scored below Manchin’s rating, but Rep. Brian Fitzpatrick (R-Pennsylvania’s 1st District) came close at 33%.

If this type of scorecard shows anything, it’s that it still might be effective for people to contact certain members of Congress about legislation. A pretty large number of Republicans scored between 70% and 90%, indicating they might be willing to vote against the prevailing conservative position at least some of the time. No guarantees, though.