[Congressional Record Volume 169, Number 21 (Wednesday, February 1, 2023)]
[House]
[Pages H590-H598]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H. CON. RES. 9, DENOUNCING THE HORRORS
OF SOCIALISM; AND PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H. RES. 76, REMOVING A
CERTAIN MEMBER FROM A CERTAIN STANDING COMMITTEE OF THE HOUSE
Mr. RESCHENTHALER. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on
Rules, I call up House Resolution 83 and ask for its immediate
consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:
H. Res. 83
Resolved, That upon adoption of this resolution it shall be
in order to consider in the House the concurrent resolution
(H. Con. Res. 9) denouncing the horrors of socialism. All
points of order against consideration of the concurrent
resolution are waived. The concurrent resolution shall be
considered as read. All points of order against provisions in
the concurrent resolution are waived. The previous question
shall be considered as ordered on the concurrent resolution
and preamble to adoption without intervening motion except
one hour of debate equally divided and controlled by the
chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on
Financial Services or their respective designees.
Sec. 2. Upon adoption of this resolution it shall be in
order without intervention of any point of order to consider
in the House the resolution (H. Res. 76) removing a certain
Member from a certain standing committee of the House. The
resolution shall be considered as read. The previous question
shall be considered as ordered on the resolution and preamble
to adoption without intervening motion except one hour of
debate equally divided and controlled by the chair and
ranking minority member of the Committee on Ethics or their
respective designees.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Pennsylvania is
recognized for 1 hour.
Mr. RESCHENTHALER. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I
yield the customary 30 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from
Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern), who is my good friend, pending which I
yield myself such time as I may consume. During consideration of this
resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only.
General Leave
Mr. RESCHENTHALER. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all
Members have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Pennsylvania?
There was no objection.
Mr. RESCHENTHALER. Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 83 provides for
consideration of two resolutions under a closed rule. They are H. Con.
Res. 9 and H. Res. 76.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this rule and in support of the
underlying resolutions.
H. Con. Res. 9 is a simple resolution denouncing the horrors of
socialism in all forms and opposes the implementation of socialist
policy here in the United States.
This resolution should not be controversial. Socialism is a harmful
ideology that is opposed to everything the United States stands for.
Karl Marx and Vladimir Lenin both described and demonstrated how
socialism is a transition period between capitalism and communism.
We have seen this time and time again. Socialist ideology creates a
concentration of power that leads to communist regimes, totalitarian
rule, and brutal dictatorships that deprive their citizens of basic
freedoms and human rights.
We have seen the horrors of communism through the tens of millions
killed by regimes in China, the Soviet Union, North Korea, Cambodia,
and elsewhere, horrors that some of my colleagues across the aisle
refused to even condemn yesterday during the Rules Committee hearing on
this.
Even today, hundreds of thousands of Russians, Chinese, Cambodians,
Koreans, Cubans, and Venezuelans have fled from murderous communist
dictatorships and have legally resettled here in the United States.
They are a living testament to the barbarity of these socialist regimes
and the promise of the American Dream.
It is essential for Congress to condemn the atrocities committed in
the name of socialism and prevent any socialist policies from being
implemented in the United States.
Additionally, the rule before us provides for consideration H. Res.
76, a resolution that would remove Representative Ilhan Omar from her
seat on the Committee on Foreign Affairs.
Representative Omar has a repeated history of making deplorable and
despicable anti-Semitic remarks and does not deserve to sit on the
committee directly overseeing U.S. international policy, partnerships,
and national security.
In fact, the former chairman of the Foreign Affairs Committee, a
Democrat, Representative Eliot Engel, claimed that such comments made
by Representative Omar have ``no place in the Foreign Affairs Committee
or the House of Representatives.''
Compared to the actions taken by my Democratic colleagues last
Congress, I think that we Republicans are being incredibly generous in
only removing Representative Ilhan Omar from the Foreign Affairs
Committee instead of from all her committee assignments, which we are
clearly in our right to do.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues support this rule, and I reserve
the balance of my time.
{time} 1230
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Pennsylvania
(Mr. Reschenthaler), my good friend, for yielding me the customary 30
minutes, and I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I am confused, Mr. Speaker, because after months of hearing from
Republicans that they want to address bread
[[Page H591]]
and butter issues, that they want to do something about the issues
facing everyday people in this country, the issues that we hear about
when we go home, we are here instead wasting the time of this body with
two useless, stupid, political stunts which are about dividing people,
distracting people.
Make no mistake, these are FOX News talking points, Tucker Carlson
sound bites, press releases. That is what they are. And the reason why
is clear.
When Democrats were in charge, we had one of the most productive
Congresses in history. We passed the biggest climate change bill ever.
We passed the biggest infrastructure bill since the interstate highways
were built. We passed a bipartisan gun violence bill, stood up to
greedy corporations, lifted kids out of poverty, and brought jobs and
manufacturing back to America.
What are Republicans doing? What are they pushing instead of kitchen-
table issues?
Conspiracy theories, nationwide abortion bans, a 30 percent national
sales tax on groceries and gas, cuts to Social Security and Medicare,
giveaways to billionaire corporations so they can cheat on their taxes;
that is the kind of garbage that they are wasting the American people's
time on.
H. Con. Res. 9 claims to denounce the horrors of socialism. What is
this, the Red Scare?
I have to say, this is about the stupidest bill I have ever seen.
Just a stupid, stupid, stupid bill.
Let me just say to my Democratic colleagues, vote however you want on
this. It doesn't matter because it does nothing at all.
Oh, it denounces Pol Pot. Of course, we denounce Pol Pot. I have
never heard anyone say anything nice about him.
We denounce Stalin. I didn't know that that needed a resolution.
We denounce Kim Jong-Un. Well, not all of us actually, because, in
fact, if I remember correctly, it was the leader of the Republican
Party, Donald Trump, who said he fell in love with him, who talked
about how talented he was, who called him a great leader, who bragged
about their chemistry.
Did any of my Republican colleagues speak up when a brutal tyrant
named in this resolution was applauded on the world stage by the
President of the United States? Did they denounce that?
What is interesting, Mr. Speaker, one name I notice was missing from
this list: Vladimir Putin. What is up with that?
I mean, we condemn Lenin and Stalin but not Putin? Is that a Trump
thing? Did he put in a call? Seriously, why is Putin left out?
By the way, this isn't just a stupid bill, it is a badly written
stupid bill. It lays out all of these awful people and then says, ``We
are rejecting the implementation of socialist policies in the United
States of America.''
Nobody, not a single person so far, has been willing to clarify for
me what exactly that means, what the hell they are talking about.
Are we talking about public schools here? Fire departments? Roads?
What about Medicare and Social Security?
Republicans have called Medicare and Social Security socialist
programs for years.
We would just like a little clarification here, and we got none last
night in the Rules Committee. None. We even tried to include an
amendment to clarify that the language here does not imply cuts to
Social Security and Medicare. Every Republican, every single Republican
on the Rules Committee voted ``no.'' There is our answer. There is our
answer.
Here is what I think: I think this is about scaring people, and it is
about dividing people, and it is about distracting people.
That brings me to our next resolution, which removes our colleague
Congresswoman Ilhan Omar from the House Foreign Affairs Committee. I
mean, the hypocrisy here is staggering. It literally takes my breath
away.
Congresswoman Omar has apologized for the things that she said. She
said she wants to be an ally in the fight against anti-Semitism. She
even voted to condemn anti-Semitism. Every Democrat did, as well.
You know who voted ``no''? Twenty-three Republicans. Twenty-three
Republicans voted against condemning anti-Semitism. Maybe the gentleman
can explain whether or not they should be removed from their
committees.
Then we gave our colleagues on the Rules Committee the chance to add
an amendment to their socialism resolution condemning the mass murder
of 6 million Jewish people by the Nazis, also known as the National
Socialist German Workers' Party.
Guess what? They all voted ``no.'' They all voted ``no.'' Oh my God.
Wow.
I keep hearing this both sides stuff, trying to make false
equivalencies, saying the Democrats opened the door to removing her.
Give me a break.
Congresswoman Omar never posted a video pretending to kill another
Member of Congress. She never advocated putting a bullet in the head of
the Speaker of the House of Representatives. She never had dinner with
Neo-Nazis Nick Fuentes and Kanye West. She never spoke at a white
supremacy conference. She never said that she would have won January 6
because she was armed. No, those are things Republicans have done and
have said.
I will ask again, why aren't those Members being removed, too?
Please, to my friends on the other side, please spare us the absurd
comparisons and lectures about anti-Semitism. Republicans refuse to
condemn anti-Semitism. Republicans refused to add an amendment
condemning Nazis to this socialism resolution. Republicans have been
silent while members of their Conference say things that are blatantly
anti-Semitic and appear beside Holocaust deniers and bigots.
These are awful, awful bills designed to divide and distract people.
I get it. I mean, I get why. I would want to divide and distract
people, too, if my agenda was as extreme as the agenda that the Speaker
of the House is now advocating for.
They have spent their entire time in power so far pushing for higher
gas prices, higher middle-class taxes, higher inflation, and higher
drug costs. They are screwing working families, screwing poor people,
and using stupid BS like this to distract from their plans to reward
billionaire corporations and hurt working families.
In the middle of it all, they are threatening to trigger a default if
we don't cut Social Security and Medicare. We can waste all the time in
the world on these resolutions--and on the socialist resolution, again,
I don't even care. This is such a waste of time. People can vote any
way they want. I have just made it a habit to always vote ``no'' on
stupid bills. This is a waste of our time and a waste of the American
people's time.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. RESCHENTHALER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
I remind my good friend from Massachusetts that I don't think you
will find anybody on this side of the aisle or in this Chamber that is
more of a hawk on Russia than me, and I would gladly condemn Vladimir
Putin. Let's not forget, Putin is a Communist. This is a man who
started his career as a KGB agent, so this resolution clearly covers
Vladimir Putin. We all condemn him.
Additionally, I remind the gentleman that the first time I ever spoke
on the House floor--I waited weeks to speak as a freshman. The first
time I spoke, though, was on anti-Semitism. I spoke to condemn the
shooting at the Tree of Life Synagogue in Squirrel Hill, Pennsylvania.
I remind my friends across the aisle that we have been mischaracterized
by some of the comments that were just said.
But let's talk about who won't condemn socialists. We had a ranking
member, Democratic ranking member in the Rules Committee hearing
yesterday who was given the chance to condemn. She would not do it. She
was given a chance to condemn Putin, would not do it; a chance to
condemn Pol Pot, wouldn't do it; and a litany of other socialists and
Communists. I just remind my friend from across the aisle that Members
on his side refuse to condemn socialists and Communist dictators.
I find it rich that there is a question over the definition of
socialism. Remember, for the last 2 years, my friends across the aisle
couldn't even define the term ``woman.'' We had that rigmarole where
they couldn't define ``woman'' and refused to acknowledge
[[Page H592]]
science, that there were different sexes. Now they split hairs between
the difference between socialism and communism? It is absolutely
laughable.
Let's just define ``socialism,'' since we are here having this
debate. Socialism is a political and economic theory of social
organization which advocates that means of production, distribution,
and exchange should be owned by the community as a whole, and it is not
me saying that socialism leads to communism. That is Marx saying that.
That is Lenin saying that. Part of their entire theory was you had a
transition period between capitalism and communism. That transition
period they called, again, Lenin and Marx, they called that socialism.
Let's be very clear what we are talking about. Let's not play games
with language, especially when you can't even define incredibly basic
terms that even kindergarten students could define.
Let's talk about what Representative Omar has said, talking about
that because I think it is important to put this in context.
In February of 2019 Representative Omar tweeted, ``It's all about the
Benjamins baby'' in reference to American support for Israel. She said
that AIPAC was buying U.S. Representatives. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi
and the entire Democratic leadership actually condemned Representative
Omar for these anti-Semitic comments.
Then, again, just to show this is a pattern, this isn't some one-off
incident: February 27, 2019, she doubled down on her stance at a forum
in Washington, D.C., when she said, ``I want to talk about the
political influence in this country that says it is okay for people to
push for allegiance to a foreign country.''
Clearly, she is going back to the trope that Jewish Americans have a
dual loyalty between the United States and Israel. That offended
Chairman Eliot Engel, who at the time was the Democratic chairman of
the Foreign Affairs Committee, and he said, ``It is unacceptable and
deeply offensive to call into question the loyalty of fellow American
citizens because of their political views, including support for the
U.S.-Israel relationship. We all take the same oath. Worse,
Representative Omar's comments leveled that charge by invoking a vile
anti-Semitic slur.'' Again, that is not me saying that. That is a
former Democratic chair of the House Foreign Affairs Committee.
Further, in March 2019, Representative Omar trivialized the terrorist
attacks of September 11 that killed just about 3,000 U.S. citizens by
describing it as, ``Some people did something.'' Her words.
In 2021, a few months before the death of 13 servicemembers during
the botched withdrawal from Afghanistan, Representative Omar compared
servicemembers of the United States and the Israel Defense Forces to
terrorist groups like Hamas and the Taliban. She tweeted, ``We have
seen unthinkable atrocities committed by the U.S., Hamas, Israel,
Afghanistan, and the Taliban.''
To think that a Representative here in this body would equate the
Israel Defense Forces and American servicemembers to Hamas and the
Taliban speaks volumes. It is unacceptable. That person should not be
on the Foreign Affairs Committee.
Representative Omar's Democratic colleagues sent a statement asking
her to clarify those remarks because it was offensive and misguided.
Again, the words of my colleagues across the aisle about Representative
Ilhan Omar's words, and she refused to apologize.
In May of 2021, Representative Omar accused Israel of committing war
crimes following days of conflict between Israel and Hamas, where Hamas
was launching rockets into Israel that saw thousands of missiles fired
indiscriminately at Jerusalem and Tel Aviv, killing civilians. She
described Israel's defensive posture as war crimes, saying nothing
about the terrorist attacks of Hamas.
So spare me the false outrage over her comments. She has proven time
and time again that she should not be on the Foreign Affairs Committee.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms.
Salazar).
Ms. SALAZAR. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the rule to bring up
H. Con. Res. 9, denouncing the horrors of socialism.
Why am I bringing this resolution to the floor of the United States
House of Representatives?
Because young people in America are being brainwashed by the news
media and academia into believing that socialism is an economic model
for the greater good of all Americans. The problem is that they are
falling for it. They are believing it.
Here is the proof: Almost 40 percent of Gen Z and millennials think
``The Communist Manifesto,'' written by Karl Marx, the father of
Marxism, is a better defense of freedom and equality than the
Declaration of Independence, written by Thomas Jefferson, one of the
creators of the American experiment, American exceptionalism, and the
document which gave birth to the most prosperous and resilient
democracy in the history of the world, ours, the United States of
America.
Worse yet, a recent poll shows that 40 percent of Americans of all
ages, not only the youth, 40 percent believe that socialism is good,
while 33 percent of them say that they are likely to support a member
of the Democratic Socialists of America, the organization that has
shaped the ideology of many of our colleagues with the poison of neo-
Marxism. If you go to the Democratic Socialists of America website, you
will read their neo-Marxist positions with pride.
{time} 1245
I represent the 27th District in Florida, the city of Miami, a
bastion of hundreds of thousands of Cubans, Nicaraguans, and
Venezuelans who have fled, who have escaped from the despicable horrors
that you cannot imagine produced by that ideology.
So why did the Venezuelans flee? Well, because Venezuela--why would
they do that, if Venezuela has almost 20 percent of the world's oil? In
other words, that means the largest reserves of oil in the world. The
Venezuelans have more oil than the Saudis in Saudi Arabia. In the 1950s
and 1960s, they had the same GDP as Germany. Now, inflation is 156
percent a year, the third largest in the world.
The average Venezuelan has lost 15 pounds for lack of food. In the
last 20 years, over 7 million Venezuelans have escaped the democratic
socialist paradise to anywhere they could go. That is more people than
have fled the violence in Syria. So that indicates that socialism is
more devastating than a civil war.
Another country who has lost everything is Nicaragua. In the 1970s,
it was the breadbasket of Central America. Then the Sandinistas
arrived, Daniel Ortega took power under the guidance of Fidel Castro in
Cuba. He expropriated almost 30,000 properties in a few years. Right
now, their citizens are poorer than they were in 1977. Ortega promised
democratic socialism but delivered a dictatorship.
In the last Presidential election, seven people dared to run for
President, and he put them all in jail. Still today, they are either
under house arrest or in jail.
Every socialist is a dictator in disguise.
In Cuba, after 60 years of living the socialist paradise, the average
Cuban, 70 percent of Cubans eat only once a day. The average Cubans
makes $23 a month. That is 40 cents a day. And the retirees, the
seniors, make $12.
Cuba, in 1960, had the highest per capita income in the hemisphere,
and it was comparable to Italy. We know that because there is hunger--
hunger is a very powerful motivator.
So today, Cubans by the thousands throw themselves to the sharks in
the Straits of Florida looking for freedom and hoping to get to the
district that I represent on this floor. That is just in this
hemisphere.
In China, 55 million died. In Cambodia, 1 million. In the USSR, 10
million froze to death in the Gulags.
Socialists are in the business of power, and it only takes one
generation to believe their false promise and lose their freedom. It is
a lie that socialism will solve your problems, economic or social.
Democratic socialism is socialism, and socialism is always socialism.
Mr. Speaker, we cannot let this evil ideology take hold in this
country. We are in the United States, the stronghold of freedom. That
is why we must pass this resolution.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
[[Page H593]]
I listen to this debate, and I get more and more confused.
The gentleman from Pennsylvania said that Vladimir Putin was not put
on this list because he is a Communist, yet the gentleman mentioned
communism several times.
The gentlewoman just talked about the Communist Manifesto, and I am
looking at the list of people that are mentioned. Among them is Pol
Pot, who I think everybody believes was viewed as a Communist.
So again, I am trying to figure out why wasn't Putin included on this
list. Did somebody get a call from the Mar-a-Lago prison line that you
couldn't put Putin on this list? I don't quite get it.
Again, I am also just stunned that last night, I mean, we offered the
Gottheimer amendment. The language basically said that fascism led to
the murder of 6 million Jewish people by the Nazi regime.
Everybody on the Republican side voted ``no.''
Again, we asked for some clarification on really what the guts of the
bill were, which is the resolved clause.
What are you talking about? What policies are you against here in the
United States? We asked to make the Takano amendment in order, which
would have basically said that Social Security and Medicare would be
exempt from any cuts if this was not what the intention was. Every one
of the Republicans--every one of them--voted ``no.''
There was a gentleman who just came down on the floor saying, ``I
don't know why everybody is saying Republicans want to cut Social
Security and Medicare.''
You know why? Because of what happened last night in the Committee on
Rules.
Mr. Speaker, as I mentioned, last night in the Committee on Rules,
the Democrats offered an amendment that would clarify that any
opposition to socialist policy implementation in the United States does
not include existing Federal programs such as Medicare, Social
Security, TRICARE, VA Healthcare, the VA Home Loan program, VA burial
benefits, and VA homelessness programs.
My Republican colleagues voted against it. We want to give them a
second chance to get this right.
Mr. Speaker, if we defeat the previous question, I will offer an
amendment to this rule to include this important amendment and give
every Member on the floor the opportunity to clarify that existing
Federal programs like Social Security and Medicare are not under attack
by this new Congress. Forgive us if we are concerned by rhetoric from
many Members on the other side of the aisle past and present, give us
pause.
Republicans have called Social Security a socialist program. I
remember when Newt Gingrich wanted Medicare to wither on the vine.
Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of my
amendment into the Record along with any extraneous materials
immediately prior to the vote on the previous question.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Massachusetts?
There was no objection.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. 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 and other
programs provide, should be a priority for this Congress. As my
Republican colleagues demand reckless cuts in exchange for paying for
our Nation's bills, we on the Democratic side are going to remain
unified in doing everything we can to protect these important programs.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr.
Takano), the amendment sponsor, to discuss our proposal.
Mr. TAKANO. Mr. Speaker, I thank Ranking Member McGovern for
yielding.
Mr. Speaker, I had hoped to rise today to offer an amendment which
was a clarifying amendment, which would have clarified what the
resolution before us today meant by the words ``socialist'' and
``socialism.''
None of us have any objection to, in fact, embrace the whereas
clauses that we condemn egregious examples of totalitarian
authoritarianism and the excesses thereof. But we are very concerned
about what the resolved clause means and the way ``socialism'' is
defined. There are many ways to look at socialism.
My amendment simply was to clarify that the implementation of any
opposition of socialist policy in the United States does not include
Federal programs such as Medicare, Social Security, TRICARE, VA
Healthcare, the VA Loan program, VA burial benefits, and VA
homelessness programs.
But you know what? Unfortunately, the Committee on Rules last night
blocked my amendment. The rejection of my amendment sends a clear
message to the American people under this Republican majority.
Social Security and Medicare and veterans benefits are not safe
because they construe those to be socialist programs.
This resolution being considered today is really ridiculous. It
dishonestly conflates any effort to improve the lives of Americans with
the violence of totalitarian Communist regimes. Without my amendment,
it could only be read as an attack on Social Security, Medicare, and
veterans' benefits.
The programs my amendment specifies helps veterans receive
healthcare, aid struggling families who have fallen on hard times, and
support millions of Americans by ensuring they receive the benefits
they have spent their life working and paying for.
Medicare, Social Security, TRICARE, VA Healthcare, the VA Home Loan
program, VA burial benefits, and efforts to end veteran homelessness
are programs every Member of this body should be proud to support. But
instead, my colleagues on the other side have spent years attempting to
undermine and dismantle them, and they are doing it again with this so-
called resolution. This so-called anti-socialism resolution is simply
the latest volley in an assault that goes back decades.
Despite these attacks, the programs my amendment defends are
overwhelmingly supported by the American people. Americans know that
these policies work. They are practical. They are beyond ideology. They
are simply common sense. The people want us to join together to bolster
and expand them, not to denigrate and defund them and play stupid games
to distract and propose red herring amendments such as this to get us
off the track of working for the American people.
Mr. RESCHENTHALER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
We all know why we are here today. We are here to condemn socialism.
Let's not play games. We know what socialism is.
Despite knowing what socialism and communism is, you are going to see
Democrat after Democrat come down here on the floor and refuse to vote
to condemn socialism and communism.
Let's talk about what that means. Mao Zedong, in the socialist
revolution in China, you had 55 million people starve to death in the
wake of famine and devastation caused by the so-called Great Leap
Forward in China.
You are going to have Democrats come to the floor and refuse to
condemn that.
Let's talk about Joseph Stalin. By the way, a history lesson: FDR, a
Democrat, would refer to Joseph Stalin as ``Uncle Joe'' when he was
trying to make this ruthless thug more palatable to the American
people.
Again, a Democrat praising Joseph Stalin; but I digress.
Under Stalin, tens of millions died in the Bolshevik revolution.
At least 10 million people were sent to the Gulags in the USSR; and
millions starved to death in Ukraine due to forced famine. Pol Pot
eliminated one-fourth of the population in Cambodia.
Again, you are going to have Democrats come to the floor and refuse
to condemn that.
Due to socialist and totalitarian policies, over 75 percent of
Venezuelans currently live in poverty. Only 3 percent of Venezuelans
consider themselves food secure. This was the largest GDP in South
America before Chavez took over, and now they are literally eating
their pet dogs to stop starvation.
Marxist socialist policies and communism regimes are responsible for
hundreds of millions of deaths worldwide. Again, my Democratic
colleagues
[[Page H594]]
will come to this floor later today and refuse to condemn it. It is
truly astounding.
Mr. Speaker, 3.5 million have starved to death in North Korea just
since the 1990s alone. In the current Communist regime in Cuba, the
government continues to repress and punish virtually all forms of
dissent and public criticism as Cubans endure the worst economic crisis
seen in decades.
Again, Democrats will come to the floor and refuse to condemn that.
During Castro's rule, thousands of Cubans have been incarcerated in
abysmal prisons; thousands more were harassed and intimidated; and
entire generations were denied basic freedoms.
Again, my Democratic colleagues, some of them will refuse to condemn
that.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Missouri (Mr.
Alford), my good friend.
Mr. ALFORD. Mr. Speaker, there seems to be a lot of confusion today,
a lot of bewilderment, a lot of dismay from my friends on the other
side of the aisle on exactly why we are here today.
I am here to tell you it is a shame we have to be here today, that we
have to publicly put everyone on record to denounce socialism. I rise
today in somber support of this resolution, a resolution to denounce
the evils, the horrors of socialism.
Mr. Speaker, this is a somber issue because our Nation was founded on
the principles of liberty and freedom, enshrined in our founding
documents as the thesis of our very Nation.
However, my colleagues on the other side of the aisle here have made
light of the horrors of socialism and at times have advocated for this
radical ideology to the point that the youth of our Nation have been
deceived.
{time} 1300
They have begun falling away from the true ideals of the freedoms on
which our Nation was founded, that being liberty and democracy.
Let me clear up some of this confusion for our good friends: This
cannot happen. We can never let it happen again.
Socialism has created famine, mass murders, and the killing of over
100 million humans around the world.
Many of the worst crimes in history were committed by socialist
ideologues: Stalin, Mao Zedong, Castro, Kim Jong-un, and Maduro.
Yes, I am here today to tell you that we also condemn categorically
any form of socialism, including Vladimir Putin.
This history cannot be forgotten, as socialist regimes have
indefinitely led to the destruction of personal liberties and are still
a constant threat.
Future generations must be taught. They must understand the horrors
of socialism.
So, we stand here today. It is a shame we have to be here to do this,
to teach this lesson, to denounce the horrors of socialism, and to
protect the freedoms of our great Nation and take a stand for personal
liberty.
Our young people have been led astray. Our Nation has been blinded to
some degree, and it is time to lift the scales off those blind eyes. It
is time that every American take a stand.
It is time to tell the truth. The truth is the only thing that
matters, and the truth is that socialism is evil.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, this is a strange debate. I am glad the gentleman said
that he personally condemns Vladimir Putin, but it still doesn't
explain why Putin is not on this list.
I mean, if everybody condemns Vladimir Putin, then why isn't he on
this list? There are other communists on this list. If we are going to
condemn communism, fine, but communism isn't mentioned in this
resolution.
People were talking about supporting capitalism, and capitalism isn't
even mentioned in this resolution.
This is a stupid resolution that was written poorly to begin with.
Again, I would say to my colleagues that we gave you an opportunity
to expand the list to include the National Socialist German Workers'
Party, which is the Nazis, who are responsible for the killing of 6
million Jews, and everybody voted ``no'' on the Republican side. I just
can't get my head around why that was such a controversial addition.
This is an interesting back and forth on history. By the way, when I
go home, people are not bringing up Stalin and Lenin and Pol Pot all
the time. They are bringing up Putin, and they are concerned about what
he is doing in Ukraine.
Maybe the reason Putin is not on this list is because the other side
of the aisle is divided in their support to help protect the
sovereignty of the Ukrainian people. Maybe that is what we are going to
see coming down the road, in terms of budget cuts.
I include in the Record a piece by Roll Call titled: ``House GOP
overlooks internal anti-Semitism, points at Democrats.''
[From Roll Call, Dec. 1, 2022]
House GOP Overlooks Internal Antisemitism, Points at Democrats
(By Rachel Oswald)
House Republican leaders on Capitol Hill are declining to
condemn and punish antisemitism within their own party,
preferring instead to argue that Democrats have the prejudice
problem.
This comes amid the rise and mainstreaming of antisemitic
rhetoric in the United States in recent months, including by
major entertainers and top athletes, not to mention a sharp
uptick in the last year of assaults on American Jews. Hate
speech, threats and violence against American Jews are at
their highest documented level in decades.
The issue came into focus in the last week after former
President Donald Trump welcomed to his Mar-a-Lago club in
Florida for dinner the well-known white power leader and
antisemite Nicholas Fuentes, an organizer and speaker at many
``Stop the Steal'' protests after the 2020 presidential
election.
``Anyone who engages in antisemitic tropes or makes
antisemitic remarks should face the consequences of his or
her actions. It's not enough to just call out someone on the
other side of the aisle when it meets your political aims,''
Jonathan Greenblatt, CEO of the Anti-Defamation League, said
in a statement. ``Frankly, what we need to see more of, is
leaders of both parties standing up to antisemitism within
their own ranks.''
Some Republican leaders like Senate Minority Leader Mitch
McConnell of Kentucky denounced Trump's dinner with Fuentes
while others, such as House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy of
California, offered milder criticism.
``I don't think anybody should be spending any time with
Nick Fuentes. He has no place in this Republican Party,''
said McCarthy to reporters outside the White House on
Tuesday. He went on to defend Trump, claiming the former
president was ignorant of Fuentes' well-known racist and
antisemitic views when he had him over for dinner.
At the same breaking-bread affair, Trump also hosted the
hip-hop superstar Kanye West, who now goes by Ye and drew
national scorn in recent weeks for verbal attacks on Jews on
social media.
``I condemn his [Fuentes'] ideology. It has no place in
society at all,'' said McCarthy, who is struggling to lock
down the votes he needs from his caucus to become the next
House speaker in January. Like other Republicans, McCarthy
has stopped short of directly saying Trump has supported
antisemitism with his actions.
In part to boost support for his candidacy with the
conservative House Freedom Caucus, McCarthy has promised if
he becomes speaker he will hold a House floor vote to remove
Rep. Ilhan Omar, D-Minn., from the Foreign Affairs Committee.
As a freshman lawmaker in 2019, Omar was roundly criticized
for comments that elevated common antisemitic tropes about
dual loyalty and Jewish influence over American politics.
Notably, however, House Democratic leaders led the
criticism of Omar and she apologized. Though there have been
other moments of tension in the ensuing years between Omar
and the House's Jewish Democrats over her criticism of
Israel's treatment of the Palestinians, she hasn't repeated
the antisemitic tropes she made in early 2019.
The expected next chairman of the House Foreign Affairs
Committee, Michael McCaul, said he would likely support
Omar's removal from the panel.
``The Foreign Affairs Committee has always been very pro-
Israel, pro-Jewish, and I don't think she's a perfect fit,''
the Texas Republican said on Tuesday.
Omar in a statement rebuked McCarthy and House Republican
leaders.
``Whether it is Marjorie Taylor Greene holding a gun next
to my head in campaign ads or Donald Trump threatening to
`send me back' to my country . . . this constant stream of
hate has led to hundreds of death threats and credible plots
against me and my family,'' she said of Taylor Greene.
``Instead of doing anything to address the open hostility
towards religious minorities in his party, McCarthy is now
lifting up people like Marjorie Taylor Greene, Emmer and so
many others,'' Omar said. ``If he cared about addressing the
rise in hate, he would apologize and make sure others in his
party apologized.''
In contrast to Omar, some House Republicans haven't
apologized, repeating antisemitic conspiracy theories and
amplifying Holocaust deniers--including in the last year.
[[Page H595]]
`Keeping that promise'
McCarthy indicated he sees removing Omar from the panel as
fair play for the treatment Taylor Greene and Gosar received
from House Democrats. . . .
``Last year, I promised that when I became Speaker, I would
remove Rep. Ilhan Omar from the House Foreign Affairs
Committee based on her repeated antisemitic and anti-American
remarks. I'm keeping that promise,'' McCarthy said in a Nov.
19 Twitter post.
Gosar was also removed from his committee assignments a
little over a year ago as punishment for circulating an
animated video depicting him killing Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-
Cortez, D-N.Y. . . .
Though he reportedly privately reprimanded Gosar for
publicizing the video, McCarthy didn't support taking away
his committee assignments, nor did the rest of the GOP House
caucus save for two members.
Rep. Tom Emmer, R-Minn., who earlier this month won a
contested caucus election for the position of majority whip
in the next Congress, made a similar reference in a letter he
sent as National Republican Congressional Committee chairman
that accused Bloomberg, Soros and Steyer of having ``bought''
control of Congress for Democrats.
``One of the most popular unfortunately antisemitic tropes
is the idea that Jews are pulling the strings,'' said Rabbi
Jill Jacobs, the executive director of T'ruah: The Rabbinic
Call for Human Rights.
``People aren't expected to know everything about
antisemitism, but when something gets called out the right
response is, `Thank you for letting me know. I didn't know
that. I won't do that again.' We have not seen that from
McCarthy and others. We have just seen deflecting and
rejecting,'' she added.
And Rep. Elise Stefanik, R-N.Y., the No. 3 House
Republican, this year ran a series of Facebook ads through
her campaign committee that accused Democrats of supporting
citizenship for millions of undocumented immigrants in order
to ``overthrow our current electorate and create a permanent
liberal majority.''
hate and violence
That phrasing echoes the ``great replacement theory,'' a
far-right idea that is itself rooted in antisemitic tropes.
``When you look at white nationalist online chatter, it's
very much all about this supposed Jewish plot. We saw it in
the person who murdered Jews in a synagogue in Pittsburgh,''
said Jacobs, referring to the 2018 antisemitic terrorist
attack at the Tree of Life synagogue that killed 11 people.
``His rationale was that Jews were bringing in refugees to
destroy America.''
Antisemitism has been rising among both the far right and
the far left, although experts said it is the far right that
is statistically more likely to commit violent acts against
Jews.
Last year, the Anti-Defamation League, which tracks and
condemns antisemitism, documented 2,717 antisemitic incidents
in the United States, a 34 percent increase over the prior
year and the highest number recorded since the organization
began its monitoring work in 1979. That figure included 88
incidents of violent assault, a 167 percent increase from
2020.
In New York City last month, police arrested two young men,
one of whom said he ran a white supremacist Twitter group and
had been posting threats to imminently shoot up a synagogue.
According to news reports, the duo appeared to have recently
been gathering weapons and ammunition for the thwarted
terrorist attack.
Democrats and progressives are still divided over how to
calibrate criticism from their side of the aisle about the
Israeli government's human rights abuses of the Palestinians
without crossing the line into antisemitic tropes.
``To fight antisemitism, you really need people from across
the political spectrum. If you look at the violence against
Jews in the last three or four years, it mostly comes from
the extreme right. But if you know anything about
antisemitism you know that it could someday come from other
parts of society,'' said Ira Forman, a former special envoy
to monitor and combat antisemitism in the Obama
administration. ``Democrats should be calling out Democrats
and liberals and Republicans ought to be calling out
conservatives.''
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, House Republican leaders have repeatedly
declined to condemn and punish anti-Semitism, hate, and violence pushed
by Members within their own party.
Again, I don't care how people voted. This is a meaningless,
ridiculous waste of time, but my particular concern with this
resolution is not all the whereas clauses. It is the resolved clause.
Many of us are concerned because of the rhetoric on the other side of
the aisle because so many of you have referred to Medicare as a
socialist program and Social Security as a socialist program.
We asked you last night simply to reassure us, and we had an
amendment. You heard the amendment--Mr. Takano spoke about it--that
none of this has anything to do with Social Security and Medicare.
Guess what, everybody? They all voted ``no.''
That is what our concern is about, and people can say whatever they
want on this. I mean, I can't believe, with all that is going on in the
world, we are spending a day talking about this, but whatever.
This is the new Republican list of priorities, and there is no wonder
why a poll just came out showing that the majority of American people
do not share the views, values, and priorities of this current
Republican House.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. RESCHENTHALER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Mr. Speaker, it is nice to hear that people in Massachusetts are not
talking about communism. Do you know where they are talking about
communism? Places like south Florida. Places like Miami.
It is because, unlike those in Massachusetts, they have experienced
communism. They have experienced socialism. Ask any Cuban refugee.
That is why you have individuals here like Mario Diaz-Balart, like
Maria Salazar, like Carlos Gimenez who represent those districts.
This is an issue for a lot of Americans because they never want to
see the horrors of socialism and communism here on our shores.
It is not just Cuba. Let's talk about China because my friends across
the aisle always hesitate to criticize and condemn China. It is quite
remarkable.
China has deprived 1.4 billion human beings of their fundamental
human rights. Since March 2017, China has detained and persecuted 1.8
million Turkic Muslims, the Uyghurs.
They put them in so-called political reeducation camps. We all know
what those are. Those are death camps. Those are gulags. The Chinese
have them in their western province. The world is silent on it, and my
colleagues from across the aisle refuse to condemn socialism.
Those Uyghurs are being held in the western province without due
process. They are being forced to engage in labor and forced organ
harvesting. They are suffering atrocities like torture, and yet again,
my Democrat colleagues will refuse to condemn socialism today.
The CCP hasn't just violated the rights of the Uyghurs in western
China. They have also subjugated Tibet.
It used to be a cause celebre for my friends across the aisle to talk
about freeing Tibet. When I was growing up in the 1990s, you saw the
bumper stickers everywhere. Where is that outrage now from my
Democratic colleagues? Why won't they call out China?
In Tibet, the CCP has engaged in severe repression of the Tibetans'
unique religious, cultural, and linguistic heritage and is engaged in
gross human rights violations in Tibet, including but not limited to
extrajudicial detentions, disappearances, and torture.
Elsewhere, the CCP is widely alleged to be a major harvester and
trafficker of forcibly acquired organs. Organ harvesting targets
minorities, including the Falun Gong, Uyghurs, Tibetan Muslims, and
Christians in China.
Yet, where is the outrage from my friends across the aisle? Why won't
they condemn socialism here today on the House floor?
The CCP attempts to eliminate minority peoples through forced
abortion and sterilization. Where is the outrage from across the aisle?
There are 30 million more men in China than women due to forced
abortions and the one-child policy, the result of Big Government
socialism. Yet, again, my friends across the aisle will refuse to
condemn socialism.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr.
McCormick), my good friend and a good doctor.
Mr. McCORMICK. Mr. Speaker, I can understand why there is some
confusion. I understand why we can get distracted by foreign nations
and communism, which most of us agree is a bad thing.
What I think is enlightening, though, is how we opened. What was
stated, in my understanding or recollection, was that it was just said
that the last Democratic-controlled Congress was the most effective and
productive in recent history, which you just agreed to.
The standard that the statement was made and measured by, though,
shows
[[Page H596]]
why we are having this discussion, why my Democratic colleagues are
confused.
They equate record spending, record debt, and unprecedented control
by government over private business as success. That is why they are
confused about what this bill is about and why it is germane.
They do not understand what socialism is or, worse, don't recognize
that their policies are in direct support of socialist leanings. Their
policies have continuously placed government in a position to control
businesses, picking winners and losers, deciding what is moral and
immoral, and continue to advance the idea that government somehow
should have been empowered to solve the very problems that it created.
To clear up things and create less confusion, we are trying to
counter a movement that is moving toward something we have never been,
a socialist nation.
We are a unique government created by the people, for the people,
empowered to protect, not to provide for, and not to determine the
outcome of people's endeavors.
We are uniquely positioned to benefit our citizens by empowering
them, not through more government. I believe that we the people are far
more valuable than we the government. That is why we speak against
bigger government and socialism.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
To the gentleman who just spoke, who talked about record debt, yes,
we worry about that, as well. I would remind him that 25 percent of
this Nation's debt was accumulated in the 4 years of Donald Trump.
Let me repeat that: A quarter of our Nation's debt in all of our
history was accumulated in the 4 years of Donald Trump.
If increasing debt is the standard where you say a President failed,
then there is no question that the previous President, Mr. Trump, was a
miserable failure.
Let me say to my colleague from Pennsylvania who brought up China--
again, I am having trouble following this debate. I will not be
lectured by anybody on commitment to human rights in China. I co-
chaired the Congressional-Executive Commission on China. I co-chair the
Tom Lantos Human Rights Commission.
I authored the bill, the Uyghur Forced Labor Prevention Act, by the
way, which died in a Republican Senate. We managed to get it passed in
a Democratic House and a Democratic Senate.
I have passed major legislation on behalf of the Tibetan people.
By the way, this is all happening now under President Xi of China. I
am looking in this resolution, and there is no mention of President Xi.
We are debating issues that aren't even in this resolution. I mean,
this is nuts.
I do want to get back to the other bill, the bill that my colleagues
are bringing to take Representative Ilhan Omar off the Foreign Affairs
Committee.
I read in some of the publications that, to get votes, the Republican
leaders apparently promised some of their Republican Members who were
concerned about this process that there would be some due process put
in place.
I include in the Record the statement released yesterday by
Representative Spartz about what supposedly is in this resolution.
[Press Release, Jan. 31, 2023]
Spartz Issues Statement on Omar: I Will Support Resolution With Equal
Treatment Under Rules and Due Process
Washington, D.C.--Today, Rep. Spartz issued the statement
below on the resolution to remove Rep. Omar from the Foreign
Affairs Committee.
``I appreciate Speaker McCarthy's willingness to address
legitimate concerns and add due process language to our
resolution. Deliberation and debate are vital for our
institution, not top-down approaches,'' Spartz said. ``The
rule of law, freedom of speech, and due process are
fundamental to our Constitutional Republic. Our founding
fathers understood that pure democracy is dangerous and can
lead to the tyranny of majority, mob rule and dictatorship.
As to my fellow conservatives, I think setting a precedent of
allowing an appeal process for the Speaker's and majority-
party removal decisions is particularly important to freedom-
loving legislators who usually are on the receiving end of
issues like this.''
Mr. McGOVERN. The statement touts due process language that was
supposedly added to the resolution. I have to admit, I am completely
lost here.
There is nothing--let me repeat that, nothing; one more time,
nothing--in this resolution that provides due process.
Don't take my word for it. I have a nice quote here for people to
follow along with me. There is a quote in Politico today: ``The whereas
clause added merely references an existing process and in no way begins
an appeal procedure or guarantees her committee seat will be
reconsidered. It is non-binding and not actionable.''
That is according to a senior GOP aide in a comment that they made to
Politico. To whoever that senior GOP aide is, let me just say thank you
for your candor. I think it is appreciated.
To people like the gentlewoman from Indiana and others who somehow
think that they negotiated some sort of due process here, you didn't
get anything. If you think you did, then you are a cheap date.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. RESCHENTHALER. Mr. Speaker, I have no further speakers at this
time. I am prepared to close, and I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
Mr. Speaker, I am not going to reiterate the long list of reasons
that these resolutions are a waste of time. Quite frankly, they are an
insult to the intelligence of the American people.
Let me be clear: The socialism resolution is useless. It does
nothing. It does not matter. Who the hell cares how anybody votes on
it?
We are here for one reason, and we are here for one reason only. My
Republican colleagues are pushing an extreme far-right agenda that
benefits the rich and powerful and screws over working families and
everyone else.
They are not paying attention to the problems of everyday people, and
that is clear based on the recent polling that has come out that shows
just how out of touch they are with where people are at all around this
country.
They are not paying attention to the kitchen table issues that people
anguish over every night. I can assure you, and I don't care what part
of the country you come from, people aren't sitting around the table
talking about Pol Pot.
Anyway, that is what my Republican friends think is a national
priority. I mean, we are talking about socialism in this resolution,
but we are not talking about a definition or what it is. Are we talking
about public schools? Are we talking about roads? Are we talking about
Social Security?
I mean, give me a break. We have been hearing this stuff for decades
and decades, Republicans saying Democrats want socialism. It is always
some big, scary takeover that is just over the horizon that everyone
needs to be afraid of.
{time} 1315
When you don't have any good issues on your side and fear is all you
have, that is what you run with, I guess. That is the Republican
playbook.
You know what is funny is that the same Republicans who decry
anything that government does as socialism never seem to have a problem
when it comes to huge handouts for billionaire corporations. They want
socialism for the rich but capitalism for the poor.
Call me crazy, but here is what I think: This resolution is not about
socialism. It is about scaring people. It is about dividing people and,
quite frankly, I think, based on what happened in the Rules Committee
last night, it is about setting the stage to go after the social safety
net in this country, which includes Social Security and Medicare.
If that wasn't the case, why in the world would my Republican friends
not allow a clarifying amendment to make it clear that that was not the
intent? They all voted ``no.''
When it comes to Congresswoman Omar, a good Congresswoman who fights
hard for her district and for her values, this isn't about punishing
her for anything she said. It is about scoring political points.
If this was about condemning anti-Semitism, Republicans would be
condemning the folks on your side who dine with Holocaust deniers and
appear at white supremacy rallies.
[[Page H597]]
If this was about condemning anti-Semitism, Republicans would have
accepted our amendment to condemn the Nazis who slaughtered 6 million
Jews during World War II; and every one of them voted ``no.''
So please spare us the false equivalence. This is total BS, and I
urge all of my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this rule.
This is, really, a sad day for this Chamber. With all that needs to
be done, with all that needs to be done, this is the priority. This is
the priority, and, I should add for good measure, all of this is being
brought to you under closed rules.
All the amendments that were offered, all the suggestions that were
brought on this and other bills by Democrats and Republicans, were all
ruled out of order. Some of this is noncontroversial stuff, all closed.
The issue with Congresswoman Omar was brought to the Rules Committee
as an emergency. An emergency? Really? I don't get it.
You shouldn't be surprised because the last time the Republicans were
in charge they brought a bill to the floor as an emergency to deal with
cheese curd, so I get it. Everything is an emergency, especially when
it comes to messaging and making political statements.
But look, we have to get back to the people's business, Mr. Speaker.
We have to get back to focusing on kitchen-table issues, the stuff that
people worry about every night. This is not it. This is not it.
I really regret that we are wasting this time on these poorly crafted
bills that do nothing to help anybody in this country.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. RESCHENTHALER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my
time.
Just in the spirit of rebuttal, I would like to address some of the
comments made by my friend across the aisle.
The spending under President Trump; there was spending under
President Trump.
But you know what? He also had a pandemic, a pandemic that we haven't
seen in the last 100 years.
So where is the excuse for the $1.7 trillion that was just rammed
through?
You want to talk about closed rules, things not going through regular
order?
That $1.7 trillion was rammed through. It was architected--didn't
even go through the Senate Appropriations Committee. It was rammed
through by two Senators that are no longer here who had zero
accountability to the American public.
What about Build Back Better? Where is the excuse for that?
All Build Back Better did was increase inflation, hurt workers who
have wages that aren't keeping pace with inflation.
What about the Inflation Reduction Act? Where is the excuse for that
and why we had rampant spending there?
There is no excuse for it.
Let's talk about China. To paraphrase Marcus Aurelius, it is not
about one's words; it is about their deeds.
Let's talk about the deeds of my friends across the aisle. Three
years ago or so, my good friend, the Speaker of the House, put
together--he wanted to put together a select committee on China, and he
was strung along by my friends across the aisle.
Finally, the Speaker had to move forward on his own as the minority
Republican leader to put together the China Task Force. I was
privileged to be on the China Task Force. You know how many Democrats
were on that task force? Exactly zero. Zero Democrats joined that task
force.
So it is quite amazing how I hear that the Democrats want to condemn
China; but when they had the chance to have a select committee to
address the threat of China, they won't go along with. When they had
the chance to join a task force explicitly put together to combat China
and their malign influences on the world, zero of them joined that task
force. So spare me the talk on China. We have seen how you treated
China.
Let's talk about definitions; playing these silly games that we can't
define ``socialism'' and ``communism.'' We are all educated. We all
know what socialism is. We all know what communism is. So spare me the
fact that ``socialism'' isn't defined in this bill.
This is especially rich from the party, my friends across the aisle
who, for the last 2 years, couldn't even define basic terms like what
is a woman. That is not just me saying that.
Let's talk about Justice Brown Jackson. She was asked during
confirmation to define a woman; and you know what her response was?
``No, I can't.''
So the party that can't define a woman now wants to sit here and say
that we can't define ``socialism'' and ``communism.'' We all know what
this is.
Let's talk about, lastly, Representative Ilhan Omar and due process.
I know there was a display put up regarding due process.
It is quite amazing how my friends across the aisle have now
discovered the principle of due process after 4 years--I'm sorry--2
years of one-party rule here in Washington, D.C., 2 years where due
process wasn't followed at all.
Where was the due process for my good friend from Georgia when she
was removed from all her committees? Again, that is all her committees.
We are only removing Representative Ilhan Omar from the Committee on
Foreign Affairs.
Where was the due process for my good friend, Dr. Gosar, when he was
removed, again, from all his committees?
There wasn't one Democrat who stood up and talked about due process.
But miraculously, now we have found due process when the Republicans
are removing somebody from a committee, one committee, for anti-Semitic
remarks, and a pattern of anti-Semitic remarks for that.
But let's just go back and talk about socialism. Let me be clear.
Socialism must never take root in America. President Trump himself said
America will never be a socialist Nation. These are words we should all
rally around. We should all support that.
But for too long, Democrats have fought this far-left authoritarian
agenda, regardless of the regimes across the globe that commit acts of
violence and oppression against their own people in its name.
Experiments with socialism have led to painful human tragedy. We are
talking about starvation, imprisonment, imprisonment without due
process, I might add, and mass murder.
Capitalism has lifted more people out of poverty than any other
system. It is capitalism that is the way out of poverty, not socialism,
not communism.
Two hundred years ago, at the birth of capitalism, there were only
about 600 million people in the world who were not living in extreme
poverty. Today, due to the advance of capitalism, there are more than
6.5 billion people who are not living in extreme poverty. It was free-
market capitalism that led the way here, not government-controlled
socialism.
Since 1970, the percentage of the world's population living on the
equivalent of less than $1 a day has fallen by more than 80 percent.
Instead of millions starving to death due to socialism and communism,
capitalism has pulled hundreds of millions of people out of despair.
Socialism and anti-Semitism have absolutely no place in America.
For those reasons, I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on the
previous question and ``yes'' on the rule.
The material previously referred to by Mr. McGovern is as follows:
Amendment to House Resolution 83
Strike the first section after the resolving clause and
insert the following:
That upon adoption of this resolution it shall be in order
to consider in the House the concurrent resolution (H. Con.
Res. 9) denouncing the horrors of socialism. All points of
order against consideration of the concurrent resolution are
waived. The amendment printed in section 3 of this resolution
shall be considered as adopted. The concurrent resolution, as
amended, shall be considered as read. All points of order
against provisions in the concurrent resolution, as amended,
are waived. The previous question shall be considered as
ordered on the concurrent resolution and preamble, as
amended, to adoption without intervening motion or demand for
division of the question except one hour of debate equally
divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority
member of the Committee on Financial Services or their
respective designees.
At the end of the resolution, insert the following:
Sec. 3. The amendment referred to in the first section of
this resolution is as follows:
``Page 3, line 4, add at the end the following:
``For purposes of the previous sentence, the term
`socialism' does not include existing
[[Page H598]]
Federal programs and policies such as Medicare, Social
Security, TRICARE, VA Healthcare, the VA Home Loan program,
VA burial benefits, and VA homelessness programs.''.''
Mr. RESCHENTHALER. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time,
and I move the previous question on the resolution.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on ordering the previous
question.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, further
proceedings on this question are postponed.
____________________