Removing a certain Member from a certain standing committee of the House.

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

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. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

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.

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. 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.

`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. 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. 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.''

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. 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.

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.

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. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from Indiana for yielding me the time, and I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, it is good to be back on the House floor with the gentlewoman from Indiana. It is great to be with her, and so far, she is allowing me to actually speak and hasn't called for me to be silenced.

The last time we debated, I stated an uncomfortable fact about he who shall not be named and the gentlewoman had me silenced, had my words stricken from the Congressional Record.

You just have to love that, Mr. Speaker. The party of free speech that rails against woke this and cancel culture that, and calls us snowflakes, can't handle it when someone comes down here and tells the truth. They try to silence the people they disagree with. It is really quite stunning.

Here is more of the truth, and let's see if I am allowed to talk this time.

Mr. Speaker, under Republican control, the House of Representatives has become a place where trivial issues get debated passionately and important ones not at all. What we are dealing with today is a bunch of weird, whacky, poorly drafted culture war nonsense.

This is all just a waste of time. These bills aren't going anywhere. It is not even political theater. It is theater of the absurd.

The government shuts down in a few days, and instead of actually working with Democrats to keep the lights on, instead of actually doing something to fix the problems that the American people want us to fix, my Republican friends are doing nothing.

The roof is on fire, and instead of calling 911, they are sweeping the floors. I mean, it is beyond nuts.

Last night in the Rules Committee, during our hearing on this rule, I had some Republican Members telling me they didn't like my tone. They didn't like the fact that I said we don't share the same values.

I am sorry I hurt people's feelings, Mr. Speaker, but the truth is the truth. We don't all believe in the same things. When it comes to my friends on the other side of the aisle in this Chamber, we really don't share the same values. I know many of my friends on the Republican side are nice and good people, but their ideas are not nice and are not good.

Let me just give you a couple of examples.

Democrats want to make sure that our kids go to college and get a good education that prepares them for the workforce, and instead of working with us, Republicans go on and on about woke this and woke that in our schools.

Apparently, anyone who wants to teach facts is woke nowadays. They want colleges to stop being ``woke,'' even though they can't quite define what that even means. It is all political BS, Mr. Speaker.

Here is another example. Democrats actually want an economy that works for everyone, and thanks to the Biden-Harris administration, we are fighting to grow the economy from the bottom up and the middle out, but not Republicans. They are talking about woke economic policies.

I don't even know what they are talking about or what they mean, but do you want to know what people back home talk to me about? They are asking me: Why are Republicans trying to cut taxes for millionaires and billionaires? Why are Republicans trying to go after Social Security and Medicare?

Another example, Mr. Speaker, is that Democrats actually care about strengthening and protecting the Violence Against Women Act, but not Republicans. A majority of their Conference voted against extending the Violence Against Women Act. Let me say that again: A majority of their Conference voted against extending the Violence Against Women Act.

Now, they have the nerve to come down here and talk about violence against women and use it as part of their sick ploy to go after immigrants. Give me a break. Their bill is so poorly written that it could hurt survivors of domestic violence.

I could go right down the list. It is obvious to me that, at some point, the RNC talking points went out to everybody, and those talking points said woke, woke, woke. Now, we have to waste time on this trash.

It is just another week of the GOP circus. As I have said before, calling this a clown show is an insult to actual working clowns.

Most of all, it is an insult to the American people for Republicans to use these hallowed Halls and to spend hours and hours of time this week on these absurd, awful bills. Again, none of them are going anywhere.

The reason to be in Congress is to help people. That means putting people over politics. It means not caving in to the most extreme members of your party. It means getting stuff done, which is a radical idea.

None of these bills, as I said, are going anywhere. Yet, here we are, playing these absurd, ridiculous games.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I enjoyed listening to the chairman of the Rules Committee, but let me just state for the record that nothing he talked about will be at all impacted by any of the stuff that we are talking about here today. None of these bills are going anywhere.

If you want to pass legislation to address some of the issues that were raised, maybe we ought to work in a bipartisan way. Maybe it ought not to be ``my way or the highway.''

These aren't serious pieces of legislation. These are press releases. Let's all be honest with the American people about that. This is not serious legislating. We haven't done serious legislating here in a long time.

Mr. Speaker, I will zoom in a little bit on this Congress in general. I just mentioned that this is the most dysfunctional Congress in history. If anyone wants proof, look no further than this resolution: five more closed rules that allow zero amendments to come to the floor.

Mr. Speaker, for folks who don't know, a closed rule means no amendments. It means: Take it or leave it. If you have a good idea and want to improve a bill, too bad.

This is how they govern in Russia and China, and that is what the Republicans are turning this place into.

With these five closed rules they are bringing to the floor today, Republicans are breaking their own record for shutting down debate. With today's vote, there will be 106 closed rules in this Congress-- 106. This is now officially the most closed Congress in the history of the United States of America.

Mr. Speaker, what gets me is that my friends on the other side have been totally fooled. They were tricked by their own leadership, first by Speaker McCarthy and now Speaker Johnson.

The gentlewoman from Indiana and her colleagues on the Rules Committee were promised a more open process. They were told the Rules Committee was going to be different, more open, would have more regular order and more amendments, and more debate.

Speaker McCarthy was even blackmailed into putting members of the Freedom Caucus on the Rules Committee to guarantee a more open process, but apparently, it didn't matter because he totally broke his promise, and now Speaker Johnson is shredding it.

During the first 9 months under Speaker Johnson, we saw 64 closed rules, even more than the 42 closed rules we saw under Speaker McCarthy. They traded a bad Speaker for an even worse one. Republican leaders have blocked 5,799 amendments from even coming to the floor. Mr. Speaker, 5,799 amendments have been blocked from coming to the floor by the Republican majority.

By the way, they are not just Democratic amendments. They blocked Republican, bipartisan, and Democratic amendments. They blocked an amendment to disrupt the smuggling of U.S. firearms across the Mexican border. They blocked an amendment to combat fentanyl trafficking at ports of entry.

Holy hell, Mr. Speaker, they even blocked my amendment to protect food for seniors who participate in the Meals on Wheels program. They have even blocked over half of their own Republican Members' amendments.

Let me say that again. Most Republican amendments have been blocked by this Congress. These amendments have been prevented from even seeing the light of day or getting a debate on the House floor. There have been 98 amendments that Rules Committee Republicans had either authored or supported that have been blocked by their own majority.

When you are on the Rules Committee, you like to have a little juice, but 98 of your amendments, Republican amendments, have been blocked by your own party. That is almost 100 amendments, and that is just Rules Republicans.

I am sure they would have loved to have had the opportunity to debate their amendments on the floor. If Rules Committee Republicans can't get amendments, how the hell do you think the rest of us are doing?

Republicans said they wanted an open process in this Congress. They want an open process, my foot, Mr. Speaker.

Under this majority, the Rules Committee has become a place where democracy goes to die. Their Members should be outraged with the Speaker and this leadership just as much as Democrats should be. Again, 106 completely closed rules blocked all amendments--a shameful statistic, an all-time authoritarian high set under this Republican majority.

Let's look at the results. Look at what they have to show for it. Republicans had the most unproductive Congress in the history of the United States of America.

Mr. Speaker, 26 days we went without a Speaker because they were fighting with each other. Weeks were wasted with failed rule votes while they argued among themselves instead of negotiating with Democrats.

There were broken promises on the appropriation process where they kicked the can down the road with another failed CR, bringing us to the brink of catastrophic debt default and then asking Democrats to bail them out. Mr. Speaker, 10 months of passing no legislation through the Rules Committee that ever became law.

I congratulate my friends. In addition to being the most incompetent, dysfunctional, unproductive Congress in American history, they now have also presided over the most closed Congress in American history. Well done, well done, and they are not done yet. We have to live through 3 more months of this. God help us.

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

Mr. Speaker, again, I reiterate what the gentleman from South Carolina just said. We have different viewpoints and different values.

I am sorry that he feels he lives in a wrecked country. I don't believe that. I think the United States of America is the greatest country on this planet, and I am proud to serve in Congress to try to help the people of this country. I would never refer to this country as a ``wrecked country.''

Again, the gentleman who just spoke, I thought when he was appointed to the Rules Committee, he was appointed to make sure that we had a more open process.

I regret to inform the gentleman that 106 closed rules slipped by him this Congress. I appreciate him standing in the breach.

By the way, when he refers to all the amendments that were rejected as being dumb, 50 percent of them were Republican amendments.

I think 27 of your amendments were denied. I wouldn't classify them as dumb, even though I may disagree with the intent.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to include in the Record a list of the 106 closed rules issued by the Republican majority in the 118th Congress.

Mr. Speaker, beneath all these statistics about closed rules are actual ideas that are being blocked from being debated on the House floor.

These are thoughtful proposals that Members have worked hard to develop, ideas to help actual people, and they deserved a debate in an up-or-down vote.

They are proposals like this: An amendment to disrupt the smuggling of U.S. guns across the Mexico border to help cartels, an amendment authorizing funding for DHS to combat fentanyl trafficking at our ports of entry, and an amendment to prevent cuts to Meals on Wheels.

Those are home-delivered meals to seniors, Mr. Speaker, and that was my amendment, by the way, so I can assure you that it was a very, very good idea.

They even blocked an amendment to provide postpartum mental health information to pregnant students, and that was a Republican amendment.

Mr. Speaker, Republicans haven't just blocked amendments by reporting out closed rules. Their structured rules, the rules that allowed a few amendments, have also continually blocked thoughtful, rule-complied amendments.

They seem especially focused on blocking Democratic ideas from a debate in an up-or-down vote on the floor. A quarter of their structured rules--get this--blocked all Democratic amendments.

Now, let me quickly just list a few ideas that Republicans were either too afraid to debate or couldn't spare 10 minutes for consideration on the House floor: An amendment to protect children from getting asthma; amendments to ensure the regulation of dark money in politics, and to prevent corrupt pay-to-play political donation deals with Federal contractors; and an amendment to provide cancer screenings to Federal firefighters as part of their DOD annual physicals, when we know they are exposed to cancer-causing chemicals as part of their jobs. There is simply no excuse for this, Mr. Speaker.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, after listening to the gentlewoman from Minnesota, I was confused when she said, you don't offer alternatives. That is what amendments are. They are alternative ideas.

I just went through a list of some of the alternatives we wanted to offer dealing with firefighters and cancer screening, dealing with children with asthma, and dealing with making sure senior citizens have adequate access to nutrition. Those are alternatives. Those are ideas.

My friends, unfortunately, are in control of this place, so they get to bring the bills to the Rules Committee.

We try to present alternatives through the amendment process, but here is another alternative. If we defeat the previous question, I will offer an amendment to the rule to bring up H.R. 16, the American Dream and Promise Act of 2023.

Mr. Speaker, the bigoted hatred that we are seeing directed at immigrants in Ohio and across the country is sickening. According to research done by the Center for the Study of Hate and Extremism, there has been a rise in conspiracy theories that stigmatize minorities and promote hatred of ethnically diverse communities.

Get this. Politicians' use of bigoted rhetoric can also play a role in hate crime incidents. It is sad, but to be frank, we didn't need researchers to tell us this.

We can see and we can hear it from the Republican Party every single day, and it does a grave disservice to the Dreamers, to TPS holders, and to DACA recipients in this country who only know America as their home.

These are taxpayers, small business owners, educators, and critical parts of our communities. Dreamers were brought to the United States as children through no fault of their own, and it is past time to grant them the pathway to citizenship that they rightly deserve.

Mr. Speaker, let me be clear. There is a lot of work that needs to be done to fix our broken immigration system and secure our border, but unlike the messaging bills before us this week, this is a bill that actually does something, and it is actually bipartisan. It sends the message that we are sick of the vitriol and hate crimes against this community and that we value their many contributions that make this country a better place.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of my amendment into the Record along with any extraneous material immediately prior to the vote on the previous question.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Escobar), a great leader, to discuss our proposal.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Garcia), who will also speak on the importance of defeating the previous question.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

You have got to love when Republicans try to talk tough about immigration reform. I just want to remind my colleagues that one of the most conservative Senators in the United States Senate is from Oklahoma. He wrote a comprehensive immigration reform bill that has some very tough provisions in it. Their standard-bearer, the man who I cannot name on the floor for fear that my words will be taken down, told Republicans to not allow it to come to the floor for debate or a vote.

They would rather have a campaign issue than to solve a problem. I mean, let that sink in. Let that sink in.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to include in the Record an article from the National Institute of Justice titled: ``Undocumented Immigrant Offending Rate Lower Than U.S.-born Citizen Rate.''

Mr. Speaker, all day long, Republicans spout hateful rhetoric about undocumented immigration and crime because they want us to be scared and they want to divide us, but their claims are simply not rooted in truth. In fact, undocumented immigrants are less likely, not more, than U.S.-born citizens to commit crimes, including violent crime.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to include in the Record an article by the CATO Institute titled: ``Sanctuary Jurisdictions in Florida Do Not Have Higher Crime Rates.''

Mr. Speaker, there is no evidence, none, either in Florida or in the rest of the country that sanctuary cities result in more crime. There is none, zero. However, that won't matter to Republicans because they are unmoved by the facts.

Mr. Speaker, earlier I listed some examples of ideas that Republicans blocked from even being considered on the floor. Here are a few more. I just want people to appreciate this.

An amendment that would protect access to IVF for Federal employees, they blocked it.

They blocked an amendment to require a study for Tribal consultations before enactment of an oil and gas bill that could affect their subsistence resources.

An amendment to make critical targeted investments in small-town police departments for the recruitment, retention, mental health support, and training they need to protect themselves and their communities, they blocked that, too.

They blocked an amendment to ensure continued access to emergency care for pregnant servicewomen at military treatment facilities.

Maybe Republicans don't believe in IVF or any of these other ideas, but they can just vote ``no.'' Why block these ideas from even being debated unless they are afraid they would pass?

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

Mr. Speaker, I am not prepared to close yet. There may be someone else.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

I want to get back to this extraordinary closed House. I just want everybody to appreciate how awful this process is.

Here are yet more examples of ideas that were too scary, too revolutionary, too controversial to even be debated on the House floor, according to this Republican majority:

An amendment to provide grants to organizations that are helping to transition servicemembers to civilian life, including job recruitment training, they blocked that. I mean, what are they thinking? Who does that?

They blocked an amendment to ensure that students with dietary restrictions like lactose intolerance can have an alternative to whole milk at lunch. Is lactose intolerance now woke? I mean, I don't get it. That was blocked.

They blocked an amendment to ensure that a bill wouldn't cause our domestic energy prices to increase.

I ask, again, what is the majority afraid of? I mean, we have our differences. We ought to have substantive debate on the floor and then have votes. I am willing to bet there are some thoughtful Republicans who would support some of these amendments that I mentioned here.

Mr. Speaker, may I inquire as to how much time I have remaining.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time to close.

We have heard a lot about wokeness here today, but I want to focus on the woke Democratic ideas that Republicans have blocked in this record- breaking closed Congress. I mean, ideas like protecting IVF, fighting fentanyl trafficking, and making sure lactose-intolerant students have something nutritious to drink at lunch. Wow. I mean, that those ideas are woke is crazy.

There have been 106 closed rules. That is a big number, a record- breaking number, but much more important is what that number represents. These ideas and all the other blocked amendments I highlighted would have helped everyday Americans. Is that woke? Is it woke to try and keep kids from getting asthma, to provide job training to veterans? To provide cancer screenings to firefighters, is that woke?

Mr. Speaker, I don't know what my Republican colleagues are afraid of. Maybe they are afraid to vote ``no.'' Maybe they are afraid to vote ``yes.'' This is Congress, Mr. Speaker. We are here to take hard votes. This record-breaking number of closed rules is a disservice to the people the Republicans represent.

Mr. Speaker, while Republicans want to talk about being woke, I wish instead that they would wake the hell up and do the people's business. For example, I don't know, maybe pass a bill to prevent a government shutdown. What we are doing today is merely a political exercise. Their obsession with trying to inject politics and culture wars into everything is getting really old, almost as old as the Presidential nominee.

Let me just say I love this place, and I love all the different things that we have been called on to do. I will just say this, Mr. Speaker: I want everybody to join with me and let's end this. I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 83 and ask for its immediate consideration.

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. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks.

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.

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

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).

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

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. 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. Speaker, I have no further speakers at this time. I am prepared to close, and I reserve the balance of my time.

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.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution.

Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern), 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. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks.

Mr. Speaker, last night, the Rules Committee met and produced a rule, H. Res. 1455, providing for the House's consideration of seven pieces of legislation.

First, the rule provides for H.R. 3724, the End Woke Higher Education Act, to be considered under a structured rule.

Second, the rule provides for H.R. 4790, the Prioritizing Economic Growth Over Woke Policies Act, under a closed rule.

Third, the rule provides for H.R. 5339, the Protecting Americans' Investments from Woke Policies Act, under a closed rule.

Fourth, the rule provides for H.R. 5179, the Anti-BDS Labeling Act, under a closed rule.

The rule provides for H.R. 7909, the Violence Against Women by Illegal Aliens Act, and H.R. 5717, the No Bailouts for Sanctuary Cities Act.

Mr. Speaker, I support this rule and the underlying legislation, beginning with H.R. 3724, the End Woke Higher Education Act.

As a Member of the Education and the Workforce Committee, we have spent countless hours addressing the serious issues within higher education under the Biden administration, where activism is often prioritized and differing viewpoints are silenced.

These conversations have become increasingly necessary, as we have seen waves of anti-Semitic protests where students are supporting terrorist organizations, and these protests are sweeping the Nation.

Too many institutions of higher education have cowered to the mob of protesters, often compromising the safety and well-being of their students. Freedom of speech is under attack on our campuses nationwide, and it is our students who are paying the price.

This mindset weakens what has historically been the strength of America: free-flowing and open debate at our institutions of learning. We must not let campus activists, woke faculty, and partisan administrators turn post-secondary education into DEI indoctrination camps. Denying speech undermines the very fabric of the Nation and is against everything our Founders intended.

Mr. Speaker, I am glad this legislation includes my Students Bill of Rights Act of 2024, which aims to address the erosion of First Amendment rights faced by students, and provides protections for academic freedom and expression.

Our students should never feel afraid to express their point of view or fear retribution or negative consequences for their future.

This woke mind virus doesn't stop there, which brings me to H.R. 5339, the Protecting American Investments from Woke Policies Act. It protects the retirement savings of workers, retirees, and their families by rolling back woke ESG requirements that have nothing to do with the bottom line.

The bill ensures that financial institutions are focused on maximizing returns in retirement plans rather than advancing the Biden- Harris administration's radical agenda at the expense of American workers. Forcing often underperforming and relatively high-risk investments on our seniors is not what they are asking us to do in this Chamber.

In this spirit, I am glad the bill includes one of my pieces of legislation, the Retirement Proxy Protection Act. The bill ensures that fiduciaries prioritize economic interests of plan beneficiaries when voting on shareholder proposals.

Finally, the rule also provides for consideration of H.R. 4790, a comprehensive bill package targeting unelected bureaucrats.

Time and time again, this administration has prioritized, again, an ESG agenda and initiatives that are against the well-being of workers and American businesses.

Democrat-appointed bureaucrats are attempting to use regulation to create climate and social policy in our financial markets, ultimately raising costs and limiting growth.

This legislation aims to stop unnecessary political reporting requirements for companies, make Federal regulators more transparent, and reduce the SEC's power over shareholders.

I am proud that another one of my bills, the No Expensive, Stifling Governance Act, or No ESG Act, is included as part of this package.

I will also touch on a bill brought forward by the gentleman from New York (Mr. LaLota), my friend, H.R. 5717, the No Bailout for Sanctuary Cities Act.

I am proud to be a cosponsor of this bill. Despite the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 clearly stating that no restrictions can be placed on communication between local or State authorities and Federal immigration officials about someone's immigration status, many cities still choose not to comply.

We have known for years that sanctuary cities create incredible challenges for Federal law enforcement, and in doing so, public safety is endangered.

Let's take Aurora, Colorado, for example. They are experiencing unprecedented gang violence due to a neighboring sanctuary city.

We also know that the Biden-Harris administration has been a master class in how to not handle border security. This administration has totally failed, alongside the sanctuary cities, in enforcing our immigration laws because the crime that finds a home in a sanctuary city spreads to other jurisdictions.

If sanctuary cities choose to operate this way and endanger their own communities, neighboring communities, and, ultimately, the entire Nation, then they must be forced to balance their irresponsible choices with the loss of other Federal support. It is pretty simple: If you fail to comply with the law, you should not expect support.

Our constituents understand and also demand that their tax dollars not support sanctuary cities that actively undermine their public safety and our immigration law.

The rule also provides for consideration of H.J. Res. 136 to push back on EPA overregulation, H.R. 5179 to end anti-Israel boycotts, and H.R. 7909, the Violence Against Women Act, which would crack down on crime caused by the Biden-Harris administration's open-border policies.

Mr. Speaker, I look forward to consideration of these important bills, and I urge the passage of this rule.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Burgess), my colleague and the chair of the Rules Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I note that what my colleague, the ranking member, does not note is that this House has passed under Republican leadership more than 300 bills out of the House of Representatives with 92 percent bipartisan support. Many of these bills go to the Democrat- controlled Senate where they die.

The ranking member also likes to criticize this majority when he knows full well just last Congress when he was chair, the Rules Committee was no bastion of an open process.

For the record, here are some statistics that might help paint a better picture and provide context for the cherry-picked numbers the Member rattled off.

It is true there have been more closed rules, but this majority has reported nearly twice the amount of bills in the last Congress. Considered as a percentage, this majority has reported fewer closed rules than when he had the gavel.

Even more, over a third of the closed rules were because no amendments

were offered, making the rule closed by definition.

Not considering those closed rules brings us still at roughly the same rate as a percentage of closed rules from the last Congress but with significantly more bills offered.

I also remind this body that the previous Congress saw the use and abuse of partisan en bloc amendment votes, which created omnibus-style amendments designed to defeat Republican, or tough amendments, and had the practical effect of stifling the Republican minority.

Even with this procedural atrocity, the ranking member still can't claim a higher ground on making minority amendments in order.

We also needed to keep up with the onslaught of regulations from the Biden-Harris administration that they have unleashed on the American people from unelected bureaucrats.

We have considered numerous disapproval resolutions, which traditionally are carried closed because of how they are written. The ranking member carried on this tradition when he had the gavel.

While the ranking member wants to talk about how we are stifling Democrat amendments, this majority has actually made more minority amendments in order as a percentage than the previous Congress when he was calling the shots.

While the ranking member shakes his finger at the majority for the way this Congress has gone, I point out that he understands the unique difficulties and the tough decisions the Rules Committee is tasked with in moving the majority's agenda.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to my colleague from South Carolina (Mr. Norman).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Minnesota (Mrs. Fischbach).

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

The other side of the aisle won't even deport violent criminals. That is against the very safety of American citizens. In New York City, under Bill de Blasio, they passed a series of sanctuary city policies between 2014 and 2018 that prohibit the New York Police Department and correction and probation departments from cooperating with U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents except under very limited circumstances.

However, now, more than 100,000 migrants have passed through New York City since the spring of 2022, and 58,000 still remain in the city's care. Current Mayor Eric Adams and the Governor of New York, Kathy Hochul, have said: ``We don't have capacity.''

For years, ICE has warned that sanctuary cities create a public safety threat, and they are one of the biggest impediments to public safety efforts. However, under the Biden and Harris administration, the crisis at the southern border has only worsened the consequences of sanctuary policies and made enforcing current immigration laws even more difficult.

H.R. 5717, despite mischaracterizations from my friends on the other side of the aisle, creates an incentive for local jurisdictions to cooperate with Federal immigration officials by prohibiting Federal funds from being used to provide sanctuary for illegal aliens going to sanctuary jurisdictions. Under current law, it creates a perverse incentive for sanctuary cities to willingly flout the law.

H.R. 5717 holds sanctuary cities accountable for exacerbating the Biden-Harris border crisis and flouting Federal immigration law by prohibiting the use of taxpayer dollars to fund housing, healthcare costs, and other benefits for illegal immigrants in such municipalities.

Taxpayers who are at risk due to the border crisis should not be funding local governments not interested in upholding the rule of law. No Bailout for Sanctuary Cities corrects these perverse incentives and ensures that taxpayers are not on the hook for this lawlessness.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to inquire if the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern) is prepared to close.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.

Despite what my colleagues on the left have to say, the American people know that the Biden-Harris administration has been a relentless, woke assault on the American economy, the education system, and even Americans' retirement accounts.

The American people know the Biden-Harris administration has resulted in crippling inflation, a wide-open border, decreasing public safety, and increasing drug overdose deaths.

With the bills before us today, we continue to deliver for the American people. House Republicans are fighting at every turn to secure our borders, restore our economy, and protect free speech and free markets.

The Violence Against Women by Illegal Aliens Act and the No Bailout for Sanctuary Cities Act are commonsense bills that would immediately make our communities safer, something the Biden-Harris administration has repeatedly failed to do. I would hope that our colleagues on both sides of the aisle would support these important bills.

I look forward to moving these bills out of the House this week, and I ask my colleagues to join me in voting ``yes'' on the previous question and ``yes'' on the rule.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this resolution, and I yield myself such time as I may consume.

I rise as the ranking member of the Ethics Committee, a body that I am proud to have served on throughout my entire time in Congress. I also rise as a member of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, which I have also served on throughout my time in Congress.

Many people don't understand the nature of the Ethics Committee. It is a unique body within this Congress. It consists of an equal number of Democrats and Republicans, and it offers a mechanism by which complaints against Members of Congress and high-ranking staff can be vetted, investigated, and adjudicated on pretty much a confidential basis by the members of the committee.

I am very pleased that--and this may really surprise people to know-- that we often come to completely unanimous decisions in that very bipartisan committee.

So, with that said, I am disappointed that my colleagues in the majority are choosing as one of their very first exercises of authority in this Congress to pursue vengeance over governance.

Governance would be to allow this resolution, which has been referred to the Ethics Committee, to proceed through the committee's regular process.

The Ethics Committee is charged with determining whether Member behavior violates the Code of Official Conduct and, when warranted by a violation, recommending that the House adopt sanctions or restrict certain privileges like service on committees.

I strongly urge a return to the days of civility, which would be nice to see here in this body, and which I think the American people would very much welcome. One of the ways of doing that is to have this Chamber allow the Ethics Committee to do its work, so that we avoid a situation where every couple of years, when there is a transfer of power between one party to the other, we don't see these constant efforts to boot people from committees based on past actions.

If a Member does something egregious that is worthy of a complaint, any Member can bring a complaint to the Ethics Committee, and it can be dealt with there.

The majority is seeking to advance this resolution before the Ethics Committee, and yet, the Ethics Committee has not yet even adopted its rules, held an organizational meeting, or convened for the first time this Congress.

I want to address the issue of due process. During the Rules Committee meeting leading up to today's vote, a number of concerns were expressed, and it has been reported in the media as well, concerns about due process.

The resolution, H. Res. 76, claims that any Member reserves the right to

bring a case before the Committee on Ethics as grounds for an appeal to the Speaker of the House for reconsideration of any committee removal decision. Notably, that language is contained in one of the whereas clauses, not in the resolved clause, which is the only binding part of this resolution.

By the way, it has even been conceded by Members of the GOP that the whereas clause, the quote is, ``merely references an existing process and in no way begins an appeal procedure or guarantees her committee seat will be reconsidered. It's nonbinding and not actionable,'' a senior GOP aide told Politico on Tuesday.

Well, in fact, I agree with that quote, with the exception of where it says that the clause references an existing process. There is no such existing process. There is no due process at all afforded to the Member who is being sought to be removed from a committee, and that is not due process.

I say that to address the many, many concerns that I have heard from Members on the other side of the aisle, from members of the Rules Committee. There is no due process in this House Resolution.

Once the full House votes to strip a Member of a right or privilege, only the full House can restore that right or privilege. Allowing Representative Omar to appeal to the Ethics Committee after the House has already voted to deny her a seat on the House Foreign Affairs Committee would be nonsensical and it would be a defective process.

It is the wrong order of things, and it violates how the Ethics Committee has operated ever since its creation as a standing committee of the House in 1967, where the committee recommends a sanction after a full investigation and adjudication, and the Member is allowed to present evidence and make their case, and then the full House votes on the committee's recommendation for sanctions.

H. Res. 76 violates the spirit of how our unique committee, the House's only evenly divided, truly bipartisan standing committee operates.

This is about partisanship, Mr. Speaker, not principle. This is about payback, not process.

H. Res. 76 is wholly transparent for what it is, and I firmly oppose its passage.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Phillips), also a member of the House Foreign Affairs Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Massachusetts (Ms. Clark), the minority whip.

Mr. Speaker, I yield the gentlewoman from Massachusetts an additional 30 seconds.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer), the former majority leader.

Mr. Speaker, I yield the gentleman from Maryland an additional 30 seconds.

Madam Speaker, I completely concur with the gentlewoman from Indiana that we need a better process, and one that affords due process, but this resolution does not.

Madam Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Meeks), the ranking member of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, the former chairman.

Madam Speaker, I yield an additional 15 seconds to the gentleman from New York.

Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Ocasio-Cortez).

Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Massachusetts (Ms. Pressley).

Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Missouri (Ms. Bush).

Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California (Mr. Swalwell).

How much time is remaining, Madam Speaker?

Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from the State of Washington (Ms. Jayapal).

Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California (Mr. Schiff).

Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Pocan).

Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Illinois (Ms. Schakowsky).

Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Michigan (Ms. Tlaib).

Madam Speaker, how much time remains on my side of the aisle?

Madam Speaker, for the purpose of closing, I yield the balance of my time to the gentlewoman from Minnesota (Ms. Omar).

Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.