Jim McGovern

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Burgess) for yielding me the customary 30 minutes, and I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I congratulate our Republican colleagues on finally releasing their big plan to end inflation. What a day. We have all been home for 2 weeks. We know inflation is a big problem. We hear about it at the supermarket. We see it in our communities. It is a global problem impacting every single country. Now over the last 2 years, Democrats here in the House, alongside President Biden, have taken aggressive action to fight inflation and lower prices, and at every step Republicans have voted ``no,'' ``no,'' ``no.'' At every step, they have boasted about their own alternative comprehensive plan to stop inflation in its tracks. It has got to be big. It has got to be really big; can't wait to read it. Wow, wait until you hear about the Republican plan to stop inflation in its tracks. Forgive me if I am confused today, because after months of waiting with bated breath, after all your announcements and after all your press releases and all your tweets about inflation, we finally find out what your big plan to stop inflation really is, your big bill to address the American people's number one concern. It is a report. More government paperwork. Great. I mean, will people be able to print out the report and trade it in for cheaper gas or lower food prices? Because unless they can, and I am not an economist here, but I don't think this is going to make a difference. The bill, and I hesitate to call it a bill, because it might as well be a tweet or a press release, does nothing. Maybe it should be an amendment to an actual bill that fights inflation--just a suggestion. Don't try to pass this off as a real plan. Don't pretend this actually does anything. I am embarrassed. I am embarrassed for my Republican colleagues, to be honest. Mr. Speaker, it took 2 years to put this together? The number one issue for the American people and this is what they come up with? A book report on inflation. It reminds me of the time last year when they tried to solve crime with a report. This is what happens when you try to write a bill for Twitter instead of a bill that actually helps everyday people. The audacity, the sheer audacity of saying all this inflation was caused by President Biden when the guy before him added nearly $8 trillion to the national debt, when the guy before him presided over a 39 percent increase in the national debt, when the guy before him accumulated 25 percent of the total debt in American history. The hypocrisy is incredible. Now, just contrast that with what Democrats did to rein in inflation and lower costs for people. Democrats capped insulin at $35 per month. Democrats reduced the price of prescription drugs for seniors. Democrats, for the first time in history, are making sure that Big Pharma faces penalties for raising their prices faster than inflation. Democrats are saving families money with special tax credits for making good investments--all things that Republicans voted against. Mr. Speaker, 100 percent of Republicans voted against reducing drug prices; 100 percent of them voted against cheaper insulin for our senior citizens; 100 percent of them voted against lower gas prices. I guess we could give them some credit because only 95 percent of them voted against lower food prices. Hear me out here. Maybe Republicans don't want to solve inflation. Maybe they know that addressing inflation takes on greedy CEOs, Big Oil, and billionaire corporations. Maybe they know it means standing up to Putin, who is driving up energy prices with his war in Ukraine. Maybe Republicans are too scared to fight inflation, but Democrats are ready to go to bat against corporate greed, because we stand with everyday families who are being hurt by rising costs. Today, Leader Jeffries is introducing the PRO Act, a bill empowering workers to unionize and hold their employers accountable for improper work practices. Because while Republicans continue standing with the billionaire corporations responsible for price gouging, Democrats stand with workers hurt by inflation. We support their right to organize for better wages. Instead of wasting time writing a bill that only requires a book report on inflation, we spent the last 2 years taking action to actually stop inflation in the long term by bringing jobs and manufacturing back to America. Democrats secured over $300 billion in investments in U.S. manufacturing to move supply chains back to America. We voted to lower food and fuel prices, made the most robust updates in 70 years to the Buy American Act to boost domestic manufacturing, and after the Ocean Shipping Reform Act to cut costs for American families and bring down shipping prices, oversaw the largest 1-year decrease in the Federal deficit in American history. That is the Democratic record. Now, we don't claim its perfect. Prices are still too high. Inflation is hurting people. I know it. Joe Biden knows it. Democratic leadership knows it. So there is a difference here. There is a difference here, and it is a big one. Democrats are fighting for the families being hurt by inflation and taking on the greedy corporations who are driving prices up. And Republicans, their solution is to blame Democrats, blame Biden, and write a book report. Now, I guess when you have no plans, when you have no real ideas, you will do anything to say you did something. That is all this is: a talking point, a press release, and a total waste of time. Apparently, the bar is on the ground for this new House majority, and it is a real shame. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, if we defeat the previous question, I will offer an amendment to the rule to provide for consideration of a resolution that affirms the House's unwavering commitment to protect and strengthen Social Security and Medicare and states that it is the position of the House to reject any cuts to the programs. 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. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, Social Security and Medicare are the bedrock of our Nation's social safety net. Yet, as many of my Republican colleagues demand reckless cuts in exchange for paying our Nation's bills, these programs are under threat. Despite recent rhetoric to the contrary, Republicans claim that they won't cut Social Security and Medicare benefits. Well, Mr. Speaker, today, Democrats are giving Republicans a chance to back up that claim with action by providing them a chance to reassure the American people not just with their words, but with their votes. Today, they can vote unequivocally that they won't cut these vital programs. Anything short of that is an empty promise. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, it is interesting that none of my fellow Republican colleagues want to come down and join in with my colleague from Texas to talk about how great this bill is to fight inflation. I would be embarrassed to be here defending this measure, as well. Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record an article from The Washington Post titled, ``What should the White House do to combat inflation? Experts weighed in with 12 ideas. [From the Washington Post, Jan. 26, 2022] What Should the White House Do To Combat Inflation? Experts Weighed in With 12 Ideas (By Jeff Stein and Rachel Siegel) The United States is experiencing its most dramatic burst of inflation in four decades, as rising prices hit nearly every sector of the economy and create new political hurdles for the Biden administration. As the country frets over inflation and the administration weighs how to react, The Washington Post asked independent experts from across the ideological spectrum how they would respond if they controlled the White House. Their 12 ideas include using antitrust to break up large corporations, relaxing the trade war with China, and massively scaling up U.S. manufacturing production, among other proposals. Some of the experts blamed President Biden for increasing economic demand, while others insisted that concerns about inflation have been overblown. The proposals are not meant as exhaustive, and many of these economists support each other's ideas. 1: make america produce again We can once again make the United States the world's workshop for democracy (By Robert C. Hockett) It should have been obvious even in February 2020 that the coronavirus was going to present the American economy with both demand-side and supply-side challenges. It should therefore also have been obvious that measures to boost demand with government programs--such as stimulus checks and unemployment benefits--would fuel inflationary pressures if not accompanied by measures to boost supply and the availability of goods and products. Almost two years after our pandemic began, policymakers are now finally talking about supply chains, as they should have done early in 2020. But thus far they are talking almost solely about improving the domestic transport links in those chains--not the production of what is being consumed. Attention to truck routes, warehouses and loading docks is helpful, but it isn't nearly enough in our present environment--not in a world where we needlessly import so much of what we used to produce. This presents all of us with a grand opportunity now--to reverse inflation in a manner that restores American production and world leadership in the industries of today and tomorrow. We can, in other words, make our war on inflation a war on national decline. For instance, America invented the semiconductor industry and then globally dominated it for decades until the turn of the millennium. Yet since we relinquished our lead over microchips to insecure sources such as China and Taiwan, the importance of this ubiquitous input to all modern products has only grown. That is why so many supply shortage stories we read about now--from autos to homes to appliances--boil down to chip shortage stories. Next, consider electric vehicles and their lithium-ion batteries, as well as other related forms of high-capacity power storage, such as the big battery packs used by power generation stations nationwide. Here, too, production lines are bottlenecked, slowing product availability, lengthening product waitlists and raising product prices. Similar stories to these can be told about solar power cells; hydrogen fuel cells; steel, concrete and other housing materials; essential medical equipment; affordable cutting- edge pharmaceuticals; rare-earth metals; and a host of other essential inputs to modern life. If we want to end inflation and reclaim the mantle of ``workshop of the free world'' in one stroke, there can be no better way forward than to invest massively in restoring U.S. productive prowess. It can be done. When Nazi Germany rolled over France in but six weeks in 1940, President Franklin D. Roosevelt demanded that our aircraft industry, which had produced just over 3,000 planes the previous year, produce at least 50,000 planes that year. Roosevelt then directly set about building the factories, in consultation with public officials and private-sector industries, to produce U.S. planes, ships, tanks, trucks, munitions, synthetic rubber and other materiel. The government then cheaply leased these facilities to manufacturers with plausible production plans, selling them once the war had been won. Roosevelt also built entire neighborhoods for workers wishing to move near the new factories, schools for their children, clinics for their health and power lines for their domestic needs, making the United States the world's ``arsenal of democracy.'' This massive expansion provided the productive foundation for America's global economic leadership from the end of the war to the late 1970s. We lost that edge only when we began massively ``outsourcing'' in the 1980s and 1990s. We have all the tools Roosevelt had. The president and White House Cabinet, in consultation with experts from industry, should plan a national reindustrialization across industries in every region of the country, and the Federal Financing Bank within Treasury can fund projects devised by all relevant federal agencies. We can once again make the United States the world's workshop for democracy. That will reverse not only inflation, but also four decades of decline. --Robert C. Hockett is a law professor at Cornell Law School. 2: stop the spending This surge in spending is a key driver of other prices (By Brian Riedl) A year ago, the Federal Reserve forecast that inflation would increase by 1.8 percent in 2021. Instead, consumer prices jumped 7 percent--the highest rate since 1982. Some of this unanticipated inflation was driven by knotty issues such as supply chain disruptions, rising energy prices, and shifts in demand to sectors with less capacity to maintain low prices. Yet Washington poured gasoline on this fire by enacting the $1.9 trillion American Rescue Plan in March. This surge in spending is a key driver of higher prices faced by consumers. To combat it, lawmakers should begin paring back portions of the remaining $500 billion in scheduled spending from the rescue plan, put Biden's Build Back Better legislation on the back burner and resist new spending sprees. The critics of Biden's rescue plan were ignored, mocked-- and ultimately vindicated. A year ago, the Congressional Budget Office estimated that the baseline economy would operate $420 billion below capacity in 2021, and then gradually close that output gap by 2025. Biden and congressional Democrats--believing that the Great Recession had been unnecessarily lengthened by insufficient stimulus-- overlearned their lesson and decided to shoot a $1.9 trillion bazooka at a $420 billion output gap. The problem is that once America's output capacity taps out, any additional stimulus will simply bring inflation rather than additional production--especially when financed in part by Federal Reserve bond purchases. Economists on the left and right warned lawmakers that ARP would accelerate inflation, with top Clinton and Obama White House economist Lawrence Summers leading the charge. With the word ``trillion'' becoming commonplace, it is easy to downplay the sheer size of the American Rescue Plan. It is the most expensive spending law of the past 50 years, including the Cares Act approved under President Donald Trump. In its first seven months, ARP spent $1.2 trillion--which exceeds the entire cost of the 2017 tax cuts from their enactment through the same late 2021 date. All this spending is on top of the December 2020 stimulus bill that poured in $900 billion. The inflation damage created by Biden's stimulus would be more justifiable if it was necessary to end the pandemic. However, just 1 percent of its cost went toward vaccines and 5 percent had any direct relation to health care. Instead, the law gave state and local governments $350 billion for budget deficits that did not exist. Schools received $129 billion even as they sat on $50 billion in unused relief funds from earlier emergency bills. The unemployment bonuses were so large and self-defeating that 26 states took the rare step of refusing federal assistance and canceling the bonuses before they expired. Even the popular relief checks--which, combined with earlier checks, amounted to $11,400 for a typical family of four--contributed to the very inflation that ultimately eroded their value. Moving forward, combating inflation requires addressing supply chains, reducing tariffs and gradually tightening Federal Reserve policy. Yet it makes no sense to push one foot on the gas and one foot on the brake. Lawmakers should explore options to pare back the $500 billion in scheduled ARP spending, such as rescinding extraneous assistance to K- 12 education, businesses and private pension bailouts. They should also reject BBB legislation that would spend trillions more upfront, yet delays many of its disinflationary taxes until later years. BBB's subsidies and regulations would also drive drastic price increases in child care, and thus should be rejected. --Brian Riedl is a senior fellow at the Manhattan Institute. 3: Control the covid pandemic `Covid's fingerprints on inflation are unmistakable` (By Claudia Sahm) Consumer prices rose 7 percent in 2021--the fastest pace in 40 years--and covid deaths doubled to more than 800,000. These two facts are bound together. The solution to today's high inflation, as with labor shortages and supply chain disruptions, is clear: Contain the pandemic. Federal Reserve Chair Jerome H. Powell agrees. Asked at his reconfirmation hearing by Sen. Catherine Cortez Masto (D- Nev.) if he believes containing the pandemic is the best way to fight inflation, Powell said: ``I do. And imagine a world in which we no longer have to deal with the pandemic. . . . . We would quickly see the supply-side problems alleviate. We'd probably see significantly more labor supply. So these issues are still related to the pandemic.'' The data supports Powell and experts like me who focus on covid. As one example, economists at the Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco estimate that the price increases in the spending categories most sensitive to covid disruptions accounted for about half of the total inflation (excluding food and energy) before the pandemic. Now they account for three-quarters of it. Of course, what's pandemic-related and what's not is impossible to know for certain. But covid's fingerprints on inflation are unmistakable. We do not have a monetary policy crisis. We have a covid crisis. In fact, up to this point, fiscal and monetary policy have been a relatively bright spot in the pandemic and notably better than after the Great Recession. Yes, inflation is high. Consumer spending, even with the higher prices, is strong. The unemployment rate dropped below 4 percent in December, less than two years after the recession began. Overall, the economy is moving rapidly in the right direction. But the pandemic is moving rapidly in the wrong direction with the omicron variant. To fight inflation, the Biden White House must end the pandemic. The goals the administration set in January 2021, including ``expanding masking, testing, treatment, data, workforce and clear public health standards'' and ``protect[ing] those most at risk,'' are the right ones. Julia Raifman, a public health professor at Boston University, argues: ``That's what we need to do now that will help us navigate our way out of this pandemic. If we don't have that, we will continue to have the virus manage us.'' High inflation and labor shortages will continue too. The White House must use all its influence to push business leaders, community organizers, members of Congress, governors and mayors across the political spectrum to join in these public health efforts. Instead, administration officials used their bully pulpit to bust a strike by the Chicago teachers union over a lack of coronavirus protections, saying that they ``do not believe people should be sitting at home'' and should go to unsafe workplaces. That won't solve our economic problems, but it will kill people. The Fed is not ``behind the curve'' in fighting inflation. It's the White House that's behind on ``bending the curve'' of covid cases, and it's falling further behind every day. --Claudia Sahm is the director of macroeconomic research at the Jain Family Institute. 4: Invest in child care Child-care policies `can boost the capacity, productivity and the potential of our economy' (By Lauren Melodia) Although the unemployment rate is falling faster than expected, the pandemic continues to fundamentally disrupt our economy. Many people are choosing to remain out of the labor market altogether until public health conditions and disruptions subside, which in turn limits productive capacity and can raise prices. One policy that could address many of these issues across sectors at once has already passed the House and is waiting for Senate action: public investment in our child-care system. Child care is the backbone of our economy and can enable all parents--who historically have some of the highest labor force participation rates across all genders, races and education levels--to get and keep a job. But as of 2018, many communities across the country are child-care deserts--a result of our nation's complex history of underfunding, undervaluing and under-compensating care work and women's labor more broadly. The covid pandemic has further decimated this infrastructure. As of this time last year, 20,000 child-care providers were estimated to have permanently shut down. And yet ample evidence exists that access to even part-time day care and preschool programming has a dramatic impact on parents' labor force participation. Private markets and existing policies will not solve these problems on their own, for many reasons. First, America's historical and continued reliance on unpaid care workers drives women's wages down throughout the economy. This is one of the major dynamics of the gender pay gap and makes the choice of paying for child care unaffordable for many families. Because care work traditionally done by women is unpaid, women are undervalued in the labor market--where they make 83 cents on the dollar to men. That disincentivizes them from entering the labor market. What results is a cycle in which women are unable to secure jobs that allow them to pay for the cost of child care, which in turn keeps the pay for child-care providers low. Second, because of this dynamic, the child-care industry is built around low wages and thin, unsustainable profits that have contributed to the failure of the market to deliver a greater supply of child-care centers to meet demand. Lastly, the government's existing consumer subsidies program, while making child care more affordable for many, has not resulted in the growth of the supply of child care. A 2021 Government Accountability Office report found that 78 percent of families eligible for child-care subsidies do not use them, often because there are no available spaces at local child-care facilities or because they live in a child- care desert. By making supply-side child-care investments--building new child-care centers; offering loans and grants to existing or recently closed small-business child-care providers; and offering universal pre-K--we could both enable parents to reenter the workforce and create new jobs in child care. Those new jobs would disproportionately go to Black and Brown women, who have been hit hardest by the pandemic and are still suffering from some of the lowest employment rates. Black women, who historically have some of the highest labor force participation rates in the country, currently experience the largest gap (3.5 percent) in their employment rate, comparing December 2021 with pre-pandemic levels. Many of these policies were passed by the House in the Build Back Better Act and are now on the table in the Senate. And once they are passed and implemented, we can boost the capacity, productivity and the potential of our economy and reduce future economic disruptions--all of which can be deflationary and stabilizing. Insofar as today's inflation--or the fear of future inflation--is linked to labor market tightness or dynamics, investment in child care is critical for minimizing ongoing disruptions and expanding people's ability to work across all industries in our economy. --Lauren Melodia is the deputy director of macroeconomic analysis at the Roosevelt Institute. 5: Tax wealthy investors The richest 10 percent consume as much as the bottom 40 percent combined (By William Spriggs) The economy proved far less resilient to the shock of the global coronavirus crisis than most people had expected. We need to focus on measures that increase the supply of goods and target price inflation--particularly in markets where inequality is helping drive prices--rather than taking measures that would destroy jobs and weaken growth. One way to do so would be to raise capital gains taxes on investors and levy new taxes on income from stock dividends. Consumption in America is currently extraordinarily ``top- heavy,'' meaning the wealthy consume far more than most people. In fact, the richest 10 percent consume as much as the bottom 40 percent combined, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics. Instead of taking measures that would hurt growth and cost jobs, policymakers could temper demand amid massive supply chain disruptions by slowing down the consumption of those at the very top with modest taxes on the rich. A tax on short-term capital gains and dividends would disproportionately target wealthy Americans who are currently responsible for very high demand. This would alleviate the pressures on the supply chain without leading to a broader economic slowdown. Encouraging longer-term savings--and having companies retain earnings--will keep balance sheets strong and result in investments that can help the economy become more resilient. It's worth stressing the potential danger of alternative approaches. Using the blunt instrument of raising interest rates, the tool of the Federal Reserve, would be an attempt at price controls. But that mechanism for lowering prices would broadly shrink demand across the income distribution. Lower demand would lower prices, at the cost of even lower production. In the case of automobiles, for instance, that would be disastrous, because the unprecedented spike in used- car prices is caused by the collapse in the current auto supply; domestic production in November was at 58 percent of its February 2020 level. We do not want to solve inflation by starving the economy and causing production to plummet. Policymakers should remember that inflationary trends are caused in part by numerous factors outside higher demand, and we need to be careful if we are attempting to tame it. We have seen a rapid recovery in demand for consumer goods, but weak demand for services. This switch in consumption has helped protect employment by facilitating the movement of workers forced out of the service sector, but it comes with higher prices for some goods. In addition to exacting a devastating human toll, the lack of protections for workers has led to millions getting sick, creating disruptions that lead to supply shocks that drive up prices. And it's not clear exactly how broad-based inflation is. For instance, rental costs have been relatively stable--well within the Federal Reserve's target level for inflation--in another sign that price pressures have more to do with supply shocks and demand shifts than an overheating economy.

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, maybe my friends on the other side of the aisle should take a look at this article. While I don't agree with all the ideas in here, at least this article has actual ideas to bring down inflation, instead of the Republican plan to write a book report on inflation to Congress. Mr. Speaker, all I can say is that the American people deserve better. They deserve more than a book report. They deserve action that will make a positive difference in their lives. I encourage my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this rule and vote ``no'' on the underlying bill. Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record an article from The Hill titled, ``Five actions Biden has taken in response to high gas prices.'' [From The Hill, Apr. 22, 2022] Five Actions Biden has Taken in Response to High Gas Prices (By Zack Budryk) Gas prices are both a top concern for American consumers and a consistent drag on President Biden's approval rating, prompting the administration to take several measures to counter pain at the pump. An ABC News/Ipsos poll in March indicated widespread approval for the president's decision to ban oil imports from Russia over its invasion of Ukraine, which Biden has warned could exacerbate energy costs. However, the same poll indicated 70 percent of respondents disapprove of Biden's handling of gas prices. A number of factors impact gas prices, and experts note many of them are outside the White House's control. Still, the administration has taken several steps in hopes of providing some temporary or near-term relief. Here are five actions the Biden administration has taken so far on gas prices: 1. Releasing oil from the strategist reserve Biden initially announced a release of 50 million barrels of oil from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve in November in response to rising gas prices. However, after a further spike around the time of Russia's invasion of Ukraine earlier this year, Biden announced another one-time release of 30 million barrels followed by an average daily release of 1 million barrels over the next six months--or about 180 million barrels overall. Biden told reporters in late March that the price of gas ``could come down fairly significantly'' as a result of the move. In the days after, gas prices fell about eight cents, according to AAA, although they have since crept up. However, during the same period, some regions of China imposed lockdowns in response to new COVID-19 outbreaks, which reduced overall demand. ``This is a wartime bridge to increase oil supply until production ramps up later this year. And it is by far the largest release from our national reserve in our history,'' Biden said as he announced the release. ``It will provide a historic amount of supply for a historic amount of time--a six-month bridge to the fall.'' 2. Removing restrictions on sale of higher-ethanol fuel In an executive order last week, Biden removed restrictions on the sale of E15, or fuel that is 15 percent ethanol, between June and September of this year. Ethanol-heavy fuel is sold at a limited number of stations concentrated in corn-producing states, and sales are normally restricted during the summer months due to concerns that another mix, E10, could contribute to increased air pollution. Ethanol and renewable fuel industries, however, maintain that tailpipe emissions, rather than fuel volatility, is a bigger contributor to smog, and that E15 is less of a contributor than E10. Biden administration officials projected at the time that the availability of E15 could save a family about 10 cents per gallon on average. ``This will also help us bridge towards real energy independence and implementing the emergency fuel waiver the [Environmental Protection Agency] EPA will work with states across the country to ensure there are no significant air quality impacts in the summer driving season,'' an official said on a call with reporters. ``EPA is also considering additional action to facilitate the use of E15 year-round, including continued discussions with states who have expressed interest in allowing year-round use of E15.'' 3. Asking oil-producing nations to increase production The U.S. has appealed to members of OPEC to step up production and exports to cover demand, including Saudi Arabia in particular. However, this plan has encountered difficulties due to the rocky Washington-Riyadh relationship. The Biden administration has faced tensions with the Saudis due to America's vocal criticism of the Gulf kingdom's human rights record, particularly the Yemen civil war and the 2018 killing of dissident journalist Jamal Khashoggi. Meanwhile, human rights advocates have called it inconsistent to seek closer ties with Saudi Arabia while seeking to isolate Russia over its invasion of Ukraine. ``I hate that the Biden administration has to figure out how to leverage our relationship with Saudi Arabia to get them to do that so that my constituents aren't being squeezed at the pump,'' Rep. Tom Malinowski (D-N.J.) told reporters in March. Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman, who numerous intelligence agencies have concluded ordered Khashoggi's killing, reportedly refused a call from Biden soon after the Russian invasion. White House press secretary Jen Psaki has denied the report. 4. Pressuring U.S. oil companies Republicans have vocally blamed the Biden administration's energy policies, in particular an executive order freezing new oil and gas leasing on public lands, for gas prices and insufficient supply. That pause has been in limbo since a court order halting it last summer, and the Biden administration last Friday officially announced a forthcoming lease sale. In the meantime, however, the administration has sought to shift the blame to oil companies and accused them of gouging customers, pointing to the industry's numerous currently unused leases, which include some 9,000 approved drilling permits. Biden has called for Congress to enact a ``use it or lose it'' policy that would impose fees on companies that do not make use of their leased land. ``I have no problem with corporations turning a good profit. But companies have an obligation that goes beyond just their shareholders to their customers, their communities and their country,'' Biden told reporters in late March. ``No American company should take advantage of a pandemic or [Russian President] Vladimir Putin's actions to enrich themselves at the expense of American families.'' 5. Promoting the transition to renewable energy Amid concrete steps to bring down consumer prices, the Biden administration has emphasized the necessity for increased support and infrastructure for renewable fuels, saying the current market illustrates the need for less volatile resources. In a fact sheet distributed to reporters, the administration presented its steps to increase access to clean energy as a key tenet of its response to gas prices. Specifically, officials pointed to sales of offshore wind leases, with a goal of 30 gigawatts of offshore wind installed by the end of the decade. Officials further cited the Interior Department's road map this week that sets a target of doubling clean energy permits, with a goal of 25 gigawatts installed by 2025.

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, President Biden has taken steps to lower prices at the pump for the American people. Since prices began to rise, President Biden released 50 million barrels of oil from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve, removed restrictions on the sale of higher ethanol fuel, and called out oil companies for taking advantage of their customers, communities, and their country. He also continues to promote a transition to renewable energy. So President Biden has acted to try to lower prices. My Republican colleagues cannot do the same. Mr. Speaker, I will say finally that we have some serious challenges in this country. Inflation is one of them. The idea that after all the buildup, after all the talk of, We have a comprehensive plan to fight inflation. This is it? This is it? This is an embarrassment, Mr. Speaker. There are things that we can do together to lower costs for the American people. A book report doesn't lower the cost for anybody. By the way, under this bill, the book report that is required for executive orders, it is not even required to be published. They could write a book report, and no one gets to see it. I mean, this is not what the American people had hoped for. They had hoped we would come together and kind of rally around ideas that would actually make a difference in their lives. So, yeah. You can pass this and say, we just passed this big plan to fight inflation and then hope that nobody realizes that you did nothing. I will say, Mr. Speaker, this is a missed opportunity. This was a time, quite frankly, where committees of jurisdiction should have come together, done hearings, heard ideas, Republican ideas and Democratic ideas, and taken the best of them and brought them to the floor; ideas that would have made a difference in people's lives. This does nothing. This does nothing. So I guess you can tweet out that you voted for a book report on inflation and hope that your constituents will think that somehow you accomplished something big, but I would say that my constituents certainly would not be satisfied with this. Mr. Speaker, all this talk about bringing down the deficit--and do I need to remind everybody that the first Republican bill passed this year when we came into the majority, their first bill added $114 billion to the national debt. I mean, come on. Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record an article from The Hill titled, ``CBO: GOP's IRS bill will add $114 billion to deficit.'' [From The Hill, Jan. 9, 2023] CBO: GOP's IRS Bill Will Add $114B to Deficit (By Mike Lillis and Aris Folley) The Republican proposal to eliminate billions of dollars in IRS funding will pile more than $100 billion onto federal deficits, according to a new estimate from Congress's official budget scorekeeper. The bill, which is slated to hit the House floor Monday night as the first legislative act of the new GOP majority, would claw back most of the almost $80 billion in new IRS funding provided under the Democrats' massive climate, health and tax package, which was signed by President Biden last year. Almost $46 billion of that spending would go toward agency enforcement efforts designed to prevent certain taxpayers-- largely corporations and wealthy individuals--from paying less than they owe. The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimated Monday that the legislation would cut federal spending by $71 billion, but would reduce tax revenue to the tune of almost $186 billion. The net effect would be a $114 billion increase in deficits over the next decade. The numbers were not overlooked by Democrats, who wasted no time hammering Republicans for vowing to rein in deficit spending, then defying that promise in their first act of business. ``It's a giant tax cut for rich tax cheats,'' White House chief of staff Ron Klain tweeted on Monday. ``Bill #1 from the new House GOP. Adds to the deficit.'' Republicans had made the IRS funding cut a top promise on the midterm campaign trail, warning that the money would lead to the hiring of 87,000 new tax collectors to target middle- income Americans. Some Republicans said those agents would be armed. Those claims were highly misleading, however, as much of the funding will go to hire thousands of customer service agents and other employees with no auditing responsibilities. And the 87,000 figure is a reference to the total number of employees--not just auditors--the IRS hopes to hire over the next decade, when 52,000 workers are expected to retire. Additionally, Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen has said that, while the new funding is crucial to streamline processing and eliminate the backlog of returns, the agency will not increase audit rates for those taxpayers making less than $400,000. Still, few government agencies are less popular than the IRS, and the Republican message appeared to resonate with the GOP base. ``On our very first bill, we're going to repeal 87,000 IRS agents,'' Rep. Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.), who was newly elected as Speaker, said last year as he unveiled the Republicans' agenda. ``Our job is to work for you, not go after you.'' Zach Moller, who previously worked as a Senate Democratic budget aide, says the GOP's bill would violate previous House rules targeting legislation that would add to the deficit, known as PAYGO, that were in effect when Democrats held control. Under the prior rules, Moller explained, it wouldn't be in order for lawmakers to ``have a bill on the floor that increases the deficit over the first five or seven or first 10 years.'' The PAYGO rules were often waived, but aimed at fiscal responsibility, Moller said. The Republican majority is expected on Monday to pass a new set of rules governing the new Congress, to include a so- called ``CUTGO'' rule that exempts tax cuts from the deficit spending prohibitions.

Mr. McGOVERN. So anyway, look, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the previous question, and again, I want to repeat that. The reason why you want to vote ``no'' is because the previous question basically would allow us to bring up an amendment that basically says it is not the intention of this House to do anything to cut Social Security or Medicare. My friends, they are all upset, notwithstanding their rhetoric, that they want to go after Social Security and Medicare. Yeah, they were all upset that they were being called out on their words. Well, here is an opportunity to put that to rest; very, very simple. We are not going to cut Social Security. We are not going to cut Medicare. So if you vote ``no'' on the previous question, we can do that. I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this rule, ``no'' on the underlying bill. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, this week, millions of Americans will see their SNAP benefits drastically reduced when emergency allotments end. These supplemental benefits have been a lifeline for families, and I am deeply disappointed they are ending. In Massachusetts, SNAP benefits will be reduced by $100 per person per month. One family in western Massachusetts, for example, says the reduction will mean having to choose between healthy foods or therapies for their young son with Down syndrome. There are thousands of other heart-wrenching stories just like this. Thankfully, our incredible Governor, Maura Healey, has a proposal to extend 3 months of State-level partial payments. I support the Massachusetts State legislature acting as quickly as possible on her proposal. I encourage other States to look for ways to help ease the cliff for SNAP recipients. In the upcoming farm bill, Congress must thoroughly examine benefit adequacy. The average benefit of $2 a meal just is not enough. We can and must do more to end hunger now.

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I have had it up to here with lies coming from the other side about food assistance programs like SNAP. This weekend, five of my Republican colleagues said that they could save $400 billion by cutting SNAP and instituting tougher work requirements for folks on the program. Clearly, they didn't do their homework. Let me correct the record. First, 9 out of 10 SNAP recipients are in households with children, seniors, and people with disabilities. Second, there are already strict work requirements for SNAP. Let me repeat that. Most of the people receiving SNAP who can work actually do work. They come home when their shift ends and count pennies because the average benefit is only a couple of bucks. I am sick and tired of Republicans coming down to the floor and going on social media to beat up on poor people. Members of Congress are not on SNAP. Do you know who is? Children, seniors, veterans, people with disabilities. For the record, there is a special place in hell for those who want to take food out of the mouths of vulnerable Americans.

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Chair, I know that some of my colleagues on the other side may think a degree from google.com makes them a public health expert, but the truth is it doesn't. I am sick and tired of coming down here to the floor wasting time on anti-vaxxer junk science dug up from the darkest corners of the internet and brought to the House floor. Once again, it should be no surprise to anybody, we are bringing this bill to the floor in which lots of questions have been raised without a single hearing, without a markup. By the way, the Energy and Commerce Committee today is having a hearing but, unfortunately, this bill is not the subject of that hearing because here we are on the House floor. The amendment I am offering today is simple. All we are saying is the CDC should continue to have the authority in the future to demand that visitors to the United States show proof of vaccination for diseases other than COVID. It is not complicated. It is not a radical idea. We already require multiple vaccines for people who are immigrating or seeking refuge in this country for diseases like smallpox, polio, measles, and mumps. Why? Because they work. My colleagues on the other side seem to think that if there is a polio or smallpox outbreak in another country, they don't want the CDC requiring proof of vaccination for people traveling from those countries to the United States. But using their logic, that is where we are headed. We have wasted 2 weeks now on these ridiculous anti-vaxxer conspiracy theory bills. We have Members that watched a few YouTube videos, and they think they know more about all the medical research than the experts on this subject. They think they know more than all the scientists, all the doctors, and all the public health professionals. It is embarrassing and, quite frankly, it is alarming. But what is even more disappointing is that we have doctors in Congress who, shamefully, stood in silence while anti-science and anti- safety rhetoric has run rampant. The majority says that this bill doesn't apply to other vaccines. Well, if they believe that, they should vote for this amendment and clarify their intent. So let's just put this out in the open. This bill isn't about COVID vaccines. It is about disinformation. It is about conspiracy theories that, quite frankly, confuse people and can pose a threat to the people of this country. This doesn't put politics over science, it puts science over politics. I don't want anything in this bogus bill to be used to diminish the CDC's authority to respond to public health emergencies in the future. The purpose of the CDC is to prevent the spread of disease in this country, and we should let them do their job. I urge a ``yes'' vote, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Chair, I am just asking, urging that we clarify that the anti-vax rhetoric we hear on the other side of the aisle doesn't apply to other vaccines beyond COVID. There is a trust issue here. I will give you an example. Last night, when the President asked that the Republicans not vote to cut Social Security and Medicare, you all said you weren't going to do that. Yet, we look today, we see statements from people like Senator Mike Lee who said that his objective is to phase out Social Security; to pull it up by the roots and get rid of it. The Republican Study Committee released a budget that calls for privatizing Social Security and raising the eligibility ages for Social Security and Medicare. We have had Senator Lindsey Graham suggest raising the age for Social Security and cutting benefits for seniors, while making them pay more. I can go on; Rick Scott introduced a bill that would sunset Social Security, so there is a trust issue. Quite frankly, in order for me to agree with the gentleman, I would have to forget everything that I heard in the Rules Committee last night. So this simply says that your anti-vax rhetoric does not apply to other health emergencies and other vaccines. This is about protecting the safety and well-being of the people of this country. Again, if you had a hearing, and if you brought the CDC head up and asked these questions, maybe we would all feel a little bit more comfortable, but you are rushing this to the floor because you are looking for a sound bite; you are looking for a moment on Tucker Carlson or whatever, or more Twitter followers or whatever. We are interested in responsible legislating, so we would appreciate a reassurance that, in fact, your anti-vax rhetoric doesn't apply to other vaccines. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. McGOVERN

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

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.