The first event that I attended was a hearing on “Pathway to a vaccine: Efforts to develop a safe, effective and accessible COVID-19 vaccine” on July 21 held by the Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations of the Committee on Energy and Commerce, U.S. House of Representatives (House Committee on Energy & Commerce, 2020). Lawmakers had to hear testimonies of five companies’ representatives. It was evident that the U.S. House of Representatives tried to push companies to make a vaccine in record time and introduce it in the market.
Legislators asked the representatives vital questions related to their business, including whether they will profit from vaccines, how they will establish the distribution, and how companies can ensure the effectiveness, affordability, and safety of drugs. Representatives of businesses had to comply with specific rules during a hearing, such as declaring that they will tell only the truth according to the Constitution of the U.S. and presenting their full name and position at the company (House Committee on Energy & Commerce, 2020). Companies had different testimonies prepared, but they had a similar structure that was supposedly given by the lawmakers and the Chairman of the Subcommittee.
I have learned from the event that political discussions are strictly regulated and have guidelines that all participants must follow precisely. When some of the Subcommittee members talked for more than several minutes, according to time limits, the Chairman asked them to end the question immediately, the same rules applied to drugmakers’ employees. I learned how crucial it is to follow the rules and respect others in political discussions and provide information eloquently so that authorities can get the necessary information.
The second event I attended was a hearing of the Subcommittee on Communications and Technology of the Committee on Energy and Commerce held remotely on September 17, 2020, at the U.S. House of Representatives. The hearing’s name was “Trump FCC: Four years of lost opportunities” (House Committee on Energy & Commerce, 2020). Legislators aimed to assess the impact of Trump’s four years as a President of the U.S. and his endeavors in the field of communications. Lawmakers stated that the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) failed to create affordable and reliable broadband for consumers amidst COVID-19.
During the discussion, the Chairman of FCC and commissioners of the organization prepared testimonies and presented them to legislators. It was clear that a hearing was established to criticize the FCC’s performance and ask the commissioner uncomfortable questions. Representatives of FCC provided prepared truthful testimonies in limited time to deliver and answer questions of Committee members (House Committee on Energy & Commerce, 2020). It was interesting to hear that legislators can freely express their dissatisfaction with the FCC’s performance and reasonably address their concerns to strive for better political and social outcomes.
The hearing had a clear timeline with testimonies’ presentations and Q&A sessions, where legislators could ask questions. I learned that while creating such discussions, authorities can pressure business representatives and officials to openly answer critical questions and ensure that they do everything possible to achieve positive results for American society. Opposing views can be presented in the American political arena, and different representatives can question the decisions and actions of officials to challenge the status quo and ensure that people comply with laws and create valuable choices.
References
House Committee on Energy & Commerce. (2020). Hearing on “Pathway to a vaccine: Efforts to develop a safe, effective and accessible covid-19 vaccine.” Web.
House Committee on Energy & Commerce. (2020). Hearing on “Trump FCC: Four years of lost opportunities.” Web.