[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.

                          ____________________