Congressional Record, Volume 167 Issue 21 (Thursday, February 4, 2021)

[Congressional Record Volume 167, Number 21 (Thursday, February 4, 2021)]
[House]
[Pages H338-H346]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H. RES. 72, REMOVING A CERTAIN MEMBER
FROM CERTAIN STANDING COMMITTEES OF THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules,
I call up House Resolution 91 and ask for its immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

H. Res. 91

Resolved, That upon adoption of this resolution it shall be
in order without intervention of any point of order to
consider in the House the resolution (H. Res. 72) removing a
certain Member from certain standing committees of the House
of Representatives. The resolution shall be considered as
read. The previous question shall be considered as ordered on
the resolution and preamble to adoption without intervening
motion or demand for division of the question except one hour
of debate equally divided and controlled by the chair and
ranking minority member of the Committee on Ethics.

The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Massachusetts is
recognized for 1 hour.
Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield
the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Cole),
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. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members
be given 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Massachusetts?
There was no objection.
Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, yesterday, the Rules Committee met and
reported a rule, House Resolution 91, to provide for the consideration
of H. Res. 72, removing a certain Member from certain standing
committees of the House of Representatives under a closed rule. The
rule provides 1 hour of debate equally divided and controlled by the
Chair and ranking member of the Committee on Ethics.
Madam Speaker, this is one of those moments where this institution
must decide where the line is drawn.
A person in this House encouraged violence against Members of this
institution, part of a larger pattern of disturbing rhetoric.
She has also called the Sandy Hook and Parkland shootings, where
young children were killed, a hoax.
She followed and harassed a survivor of the Parkland shooting, David
Hogg.
She promoted a video featuring a Holocaust denier which contained
disgusting anti-Semitic language.
She has even claimed that 9/11 was a hoax; that a plane didn't really
hit the Pentagon.
And what did our distinguished minority leader, Kevin McCarthy do,
Madam Speaker?
Did he take action to push this disgusting rhetoric out of the
Republican conference?
No, he rewarded Congresswoman Greene with seats on the Education and
Labor and Budget Committees.
Now, I don't get surprised by much around here these days, but I was
shocked by this.
Our teachers and our students are watching, Madam Speaker. Two of
them are my sisters, who are public school teachers in Massachusetts. I
can't imagine how they feel knowing that someone who says the deadliest
high school shooting in our Nation's history was a false flag
operation; how they will feel if that person sits behind the dais of
the Education and Labor Committee, or behind the dais of any committee.
Madam Speaker, serving on a committee is not a right, it is a
privilege, and when someone encourages violence against a Member, they
should lose that privilege.
Now, this is not a radical idea. When something like this happened in
the past, party leadership on both sides stepped up and took action.
That is what happened with Democrat Bill Jefferson and Republican
Steve King. We are here today because Minority Leader McCarthy does not
have the courage to do what is right.
Now, I remember a time when Republican leaders had the courage to do
what was right. Dealing with the likes of Steve King was not an
isolated incident. In 1991, when the Republican Party contended with
David Duke, a Holocaust-denying neo-Nazi and former KKK grand wizard,
former President George H.W. Bush said: ``He should be rejected for
what he is and what he stands for.''
David Duke was pushed out of the party and stripped of any
credibility and recognition.

{time} 1230

Even as recently as 2016, when Duke announced a run for the U.S.
Senate, the then-Republican National Committee chairman said: ``David
Duke and his hateful bigotry have no place in the Republican Party.''
Madam Speaker, that seems like forever ago. What happened? The party
of Lincoln is becoming the party of violent conspiracy theories. And
apparently, the leaders of the Republican

[[Page H339]]

Party in the House today are not going to do a damn thing about it.
Now, I never thought I would say this, Madam Speaker, but I agree
with Mitch McConnell. The Senate minority leader this week called
Congresswoman Greene's embrace of conspiracy theories ``a cancer for
the Republican Party.''
I would take it a step further. I think giving Congresswoman Greene a
megaphone on a standing committee would be a cancer on this entire
Congress.
None of us get to decide who the voters send to Congress. But as
Members of this body, it is our job to set the standard for the conduct
of those who serve here, especially when they cross the line into
violence.
The Republican talking point now seems to be: ``I condemn
Congresswoman Greene's words, but . . . `'
Madam Speaker, her words are indefensible, period. And we must act,
not because it helps us or hurts them, but because it is the right
thing to do for this institution and for America.
Is nothing beyond the pale? Is there nothing so depraved and so
disgusting that my colleagues would not condemn it, not just with words
but with action? Will they not draw the line at calling for the
assassination of another Member of this body?
It is my understanding that Congresswoman Greene got a standing
ovation from many Members during their Conference meeting last night.
Come on.
Who applauded the person who advocated putting a bullet in the head
of the Speaker of House? Who applauded the person who said school
shootings are a false flag operation? Who applauded the person who
suggested that 9/11 was a hoax?
I would like to know. I would like to know exactly who on the other
side believes that these sick ideas deserve a standing ovation. Could
we see a show of hands, please?
When the history books are written, they will remember this moment.
But more than that, we all have to live with ourselves. I could never
live with myself if I did nothing here. This is not the time for any of
us to just look the other way.
Now, I am actually hopeful that there are some Republican Members who
are willing to stand up, join with us, and vote for this resolution
because it is the right thing to do, partisanship be damned.
I challenge any one of my colleagues to take a moment and read what
she has said and what she has posted and come down here and try to
defend it. You can't. It is indefensible.
Congresswoman Greene says this resolution could set a precedent for
the future. I hope it does. Because if this isn't the bottom, then I
don't know what the hell is.
I hope we are setting a clear standard for what we will not tolerate.
Anyone who suggests putting a bullet in the head of a Member shouldn't
serve on any committee, period.
This is the standard that we are setting here today, and I am betting
it is a standard that the American people want us to uphold. This is
where we draw the line, Madam Speaker. These words and actions are the
worst I think I have ever seen, ever, in all my time here.
We should have the courage to pass this rule and the underlying
resolution on a bipartisan basis, to stand up for what is right, to
demand better from those who serve in this institution, and to demand
more for the people that we represent.
Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. COLE. Madam Speaker, I thank the distinguished gentleman from
Massachusetts, my good friend, Chairman McGovern, for yielding me the
customary 30 minutes, and I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Madam Speaker, today is a sad one for us, for me personally, for the
Rules Committee, and for the entire House of Representatives. Today, we
are meeting on an unprecedented resolution by the majority, removing a
Member of the minority party from her committee assignments.
Now, before I continue, Madam Speaker, I want to be very clear that I
find the comments made by the Representative in question before she was
elected to Congress to be deeply offensive. Members of Congress are and
should be held to a high standard. And if she spoke any of what has
been reported while a Member of this body, her words would certainly
not meet that standard.
But at last night's Republican Conference, Representative Greene
expressed regret for her past statements, which speaks to a problem
with today's resolution. Representative Greene is not being given the
courtesy of a referral to the Ethics Committee, the body empowered to
investigate the conduct of Members. She is not being given the same due
process that is given to other Members before facing punishment by the
House.
Why is it so hard for the majority to give a Republican Member due
process before stripping her of her committees? That is all I asked the
Rules Committee last night, which the majority rejected.
Today's resolution raises serious questions for this institution.
Indeed, these questions have nothing to do with this particular Member
at all. Instead, they are about the future of the institution. The
action the majority is proposing to take today is not only premature
but, in fact, unprecedented in the history of the House.
Madam Speaker, what the majority is really proposing to do today is
establish a new standard for punishing Members for conduct before they
ever became a Member. The majority is proposing to hold Members of
Congress accountable for statements made before they were even a
candidate for Congress.
This change opens up troubling questions about how we judge future
Members of Congress and whether or not we, as an institution, should
impose sanctions on Members for actions they took before they were even
candidates for office.

Under this majority's new approach, could a Member be punished for
statements they made 5 years ago? Ten years ago? Twenty years ago?
I would remind the majority that several of their own Members have
engaged in activities or made comments that Republican Members find
offensive and inappropriate. If the majority changes hands in the
future, as it surely will at some point, how would the current majority
feel if these Members are stripped of their committee assignments with
no due process? My friends run the risk of setting off a tit-for-tat
exchange of escalating partisan punishment and score-settling that
could cripple the operation of the House now and well into the future.
But what has also never been done before in the history of the
institution is this: The majority has never taken steps to exercise a
veto over the minority's committee assignments. It has never been done,
Madam Speaker.
I know my friend, Chairman McGovern, attempted to point out some
cases in yesterday's Rules Committee hearing to the contrary. But each
of those cases he cited actually involved the party sanctioning their
own Members. The majority exercising a veto over the minority's
assignments has never happened before.
I would also like to point out that this is the same majority which
raised no objections a week ago when this House unanimously approved
resolutions on committee assignments.
In the past, the majority and minority have respected each other's
rights to place Members on committees without interference. It has
ultimately been the responsibility of each side to also hold their
Members accountable for unacceptable behavior, including making
decisions to remove Members from their committee assignments when
warranted.
Indeed, Madam Speaker, Republicans have removed Members from
committees in the past. I know. I have personally been part of those
proceedings.
We can and will do so again, if necessary, but it will be done with
due process and with the Members in question, whoever they may be,
allowed to make their case. That is a simple standard of fair play and
decency that the majority has decided not to extend to a Member of the
minority in this case.
I truly believe that the majority claiming a new right to be able to
exercise a veto over the minority's committee assignments will
ultimately be dangerous for this institution. A change in norms away
from an institution built on mutual consent and toward an institution
where the majority

[[Page H340]]

holds a veto power over everything, including committee assignments, is
ultimately an institution that cannot function.
If one side feels the other should take corrective action for one of
its Members and has failed to do so, then the bipartisan Ethics
Committee exists to adjudicate matters related to the Code of Official
Conduct. I believe it would be appropriate for the Ethics Committee to
determine if a new standard relating to the actions taken by a Member
of Congress before they are elected should be covered by the Code of
Official Conduct and make the appropriate recommendations for the
institution to guide us going forward.
I fear that doing anything other than this would send the institution
down a precarious path. The Ethics Committee is the appropriate venue
for considering claims of misconduct. That is traditionally what this
institution has done when considering the conduct of an individual
Member. I believe today it is appropriate to adhere to that norm.
Madam Speaker, the matter we are faced with is bigger than any one
individual Member. It is about how we, as an institution, will continue
to function in the future. I fear that if we open this particular
Pandora's box, we will not like what happens next. I would strongly
urge this House to consider an alternative course before it is too
late.
Madam Speaker, I urge opposition to the rule, and I reserve the
balance of my time.
Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Madam Speaker, I will respond to a couple of things my good friend,
Mr. Cole, just said.
As he pointed out, in the past, Members were removed from committees
as a result of the wishes of their party leaders. It did not go through
the Ethics Committee.
The reason we are here is because, in this case, which seems very
obvious to us, the Republican leadership chose not to act. In fact,
they met last night, and they voted on whether to remove Congresswoman
Cheney from her position because she had the courage of her convictions
and came down and voted her conscience. They didn't vote on this.
Again, let me also point out, with regard to the Ethics Committee,
there is no Ethics Committee that exists quite yet because Republicans
haven't appointed all of their Members to the Ethics Committee, so it
doesn't even function at this particular point.
I would just also say that, listening to my good friend, he talks
about all of this as if it is somehow ancient history. Well, the
gentlewoman from Georgia, as we speak, continues to fundraise off these
disturbing remarks.
I am not sure what she said to the Republican Conference last night,
but just last night, she tweeted about raising $175,000 off of this and
said: ``We will not back down. We will never give up.''
That is not contrition, Madam Speaker. I say that to my colleagues.
That is doubling down and profiting.
Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Pennsylvania
(Ms. Scanlon), a member of the Rules Committee.
Ms. SCANLON. Madam Speaker, I, too, have to agree with the ranking
member of the Rules Committee that this does raise serious questions
for our institution and assure him that this is not a move taken
lightly, but our colleagues have left us no choice.
Historically, the parties have policed themselves. Even as recently
as 2 years ago, our Republican colleagues removed a Member from
committees after he made a series of false and despicable statements,
which were less serious than the conduct we consider here.
But, apparently, that was the old GOP. In the words of Republican
Senator John Thune from South Dakota, the party of ``limited government
and fiscal responsibility, free markets, peace through strength'' has
become the ``party of conspiracy theories and QAnon.''
No matter how much our colleagues here today say that they disapprove
of the conduct of the Representative from Georgia, they must realize
that she is now the face of their party.
If today's House Republican caucus wants to embrace this behavior,
the majority does not. The Member in question has advocated for
insurrection and violence against elected officials and children, has
challenged the safety of Members and our Capitol Police, and has
promoted fringe conspiracy theories that damage our work.
Such behavior would not be tolerated in any other workplace, and it
cannot be tolerated in the people's House.
My colleagues on the other side of the aisle know this. While they
have been careful to distance themselves from their Member's remarks
and actions, they have not shown the courage to hold a Member of their
own party accountable when they don't have the shield of a secret vote.
They force us to take this action to stop the spread of conspiracy
theories, lies, and hate in the Halls of Congress.
This isn't canceling the Representative from Georgia's voice. It is
about accountability. There is no right to committee assignments, but
if a Member conducts himself or herself in so disgraceful a way that
she brings discredit upon Congress, and her own party cannot address
the problem, then the House, as a whole, has to deal with it.
I urge my colleagues to recognize what the public has recognized in a
bipartisan manner, that the indecent behavior of this Member is a
threat to Congress and our government.

{time} 1245

Mr. COLE. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume
just for informational purposes.
There is no way my friend from Massachusetts could have known this,
but last night the Republican members were formally named to the Ethics
Committee. We expect them to be approved today so the committee could
function immediately. But, again, my friend would have had no way of
knowing that.
Madam Speaker, I yield 10 minutes to the gentlewoman from Georgia
(Mrs. Greene).
Mrs. GREENE of Georgia. Madam Speaker, to my Democrat colleagues, to
my Republican colleagues, to my district back home in Georgia 14, to
the American people, to my mom and dad, and to my husband and my
children:
I have been here for 1 month and 1 day, and I have gotten to know
part of my conference--my Republican colleagues--but not even all of
them yet. I haven't gotten to know any of my Democrat colleagues, and I
haven't had any conversations with any of you to tell you who I am and
what I am about. You only know me by how Media Matters, CNN, MSNBC, and
the rest of the mainstream media is portraying me.
What you don't know about me is that I am a very proud wife of almost
25 years and that I am a mother of three children. I consider being a
mother the greatest blessing of my life and the greatest thing that I
will ever achieve. I am proudly the first person to graduate college in
my family, making my parents very happy and proud. I am also a very
successful businessowner. We have grown our company from one State to
11 States. I am a very hard worker. I have always paid my taxes. I have
never been arrested. I have never done drugs. But I have gotten a few
speeding tickets in my day.
What you need to know about me is I am a very regular American, just
like the people I represent in my district and most people across the
country. I never, ever considered to run for Congress or even get
involved in politics. As a matter of fact, I wasn't a political person
until I found a candidate that I really liked, and his name is Donald
J. Trump, when he ran for President.
To me, he was someone I could relate to, someone that I enjoyed his
plain talk; not the offensive things, but just the way he talked
normally. And I thought, finally, maybe this is someone who will do
something about the things that deeply bother me, like the fact that we
are so deeply in debt, that our country has murdered over 62 million
people in the womb, that our borders are open and some of my friends
have had their children murdered by illegal aliens. Or perhaps that
maybe we can stop sending our sons and daughters to fight in foreign
wars and be used as the world's police basically. Or maybe that our
Government would stand up for our American businesses and our American
jobs and make the American people and the American taxpayers their
focus. These are the things that I care about deeply.

[[Page H341]]

So when we elected President Trump, and then I started seeing things
in the news that didn't make sense to me--like Russian collusion, which
are conspiracy theories also and have been proven so--these things
bothered me deeply. I realized that just watching CNN or FOX News, I
may not find the truth.
So what I did was I started looking up things on the internet, asking
questions, like most people do every day, use Google. I stumbled across
something--and this was at the end of 2017--called QAnon. Well, these
posts were mainly about this Russian collusion information. A lot of it
was some of what I would see on the news at night, and I got very
interested in it. So I posted about it on Facebook, I read about it, I
talked about it, I asked questions about it. And then more information
came from it.
But, you see, here's the problem: Throughout 2018, I was upset about
things and didn't trust the Government really because the people here
weren't doing the things that I thought they should be doing for us,
the things that I just told you I cared about. And I want you to know
that a lot of Americans don't trust our Government, and that is sad.
The problem with that is, though, I was allowed to believe things that
weren't true, and I would ask questions about them and talk about them.
And that is absolutely what I regret because, if it weren't for the
Facebook posts and comments that I liked in 2018, I wouldn't be
standing here today and you couldn't point a finger and accuse me of
anything wrong, because I have lived a very good life that I am proud
of, my family is proud of, my husband is proud of, my children are
proud of. And that is what my district elected me for.
So later in 2018, when I started finding misinformation, lies, things
that were not true in these QAnon posts, I stopped believing it. And I
want to tell you--and I say this to everyone--any source of information
that is a mix of truth and a mix of lies is dangerous, no matter what
it is saying, what party it is helping, anything, or any country it is
about. It is dangerous. And these are the things that happen on the
left and the right. And it is a true problem in our country.
So I walked away from those things and I decided that I am going to
do what I have done all my life: I am going to work hard and try to
solve the problems that I am upset about. So I started getting involved
in politics.
You see, school shootings are absolutely real. Every child that is
lost, those families mourn it. I understand how terrible it is because
when I was 16 years old, in 11th grade, my school was a gun-free school
zone, and one of my schoolmates brought guns to school and took our
entire school hostage, and that happened right down the hall from my
classroom. I know the fear that David Hogg had that day. I know the
fear that these kids have. And I say this sincerely with all my heart
because I love our kids, every single one of your children, all of our
children: This is why I truly believe that children at school should
never be left unprotected. I believe they should be just as protected
as we were with 30,000 National Guardsmen. Our children are our future
and they are our most precious resource.
I also want to tell you that 9/11 absolutely happened. I remember
that day, crying all day long, watching it on the news. And it is a
tragedy for anyone to say it didn't happen. So I definitely want to
tell you that I do not believe that it is fake.

I also want to tell you that we have to do better. You see, big media
companies can take teeny tiny pieces of words that I have said, that
you have said, any of us have said, and can portray us into someone
that we are not, and that is wrong.
Cancel culture is a real thing. It is very real. And with big tech
companies like Twitter, you can scroll through and see where someone
may have retweeted porn. This is a problem. This is a terrible,
terrible thing. Yet when I say that I absolutely believe with all my
heart that God's creation is he created the male and female and that
should not be denied, when I am censored for saying those type of
things, that is wrong.
You see, here's the real situation: I decided to run for Congress
because I wanted to help our country. I want Americans to have our
American Dream. I want to protect our freedoms. This is what I ran for
Congress on.
I never once said QAnon during my entire campaign. I never once said
during my campaign any of the things that I am being accused of today.
I never said any of these things since I have been elected for
Congress. These were words of the past. These things do not represent
me. They do not represent my district. They do not represent my values.
Here's what I can tell you: I am beyond grateful for this
opportunity. And I will tell you why. I believe in God with all my
heart. I am so grateful to be humbled, to be reminded that I am a
sinner and that Jesus died on the cross to forgive me for my sins. This
is something that I absolutely rejoice in today to tell you all. I
think it is important for all of us to remember that none of us are
perfect. None of us are. None of us can even come close to earning our
way into Heaven just by our acts and our works, but it is only through
the grace of God.
This is why I will tell you as a Member of this Congress--the 117th
Congress: I am a passionate person. I am a competitor. I am a fighter.
I will work with you for good things for the people of this country.
But the things I will not stand for is abortion. I think it is the
worst thing this country has ever committed. And if we are to say, ``In
God we trust,'' how do we murder God's creation in the womb?
Another thing I will say to this body is I want to work with all of
you for our people. It should be America first always. Always. There is
nothing wrong with that.
If this Congress is to tolerate Members that condone riots that have
hurt American people, attacked police officers, occupied Federal
property, burned businesses and cities, yet wants to condemn me and
crucify me in the public square for words that I said--and I regret--a
few years ago, then I think we are in a real big problem, a very big
problem.
What shall we do as Americans? Shall we stay divided like this? Will
we allow the media, that is just as guilty as QAnon of presenting truth
and lies, to divide us? Will we allow ourselves to be addicted to hate
and hating one another?
I hope not, because that is not the future I want for my children and
it is not the future I want for any of your children.
Mr. McGOVERN. First of all, Madam Speaker, to equate the media to
QAnon is beyond the pale.
Secondly, the gentlewoman said that she now believes that 9/11 really
happened. But let me just read a quote. At the conservative American
Priority Conference, she said: ``It's odd there's never any evidence
shown for a plane in the Pentagon, but anyways, I won't--I won't--I'm
not going to dive into the 9/11 conspiracy.''
Now, granted, that was in 2018, and the gentlewoman just told us
that, in 2018, she had an epiphany and decided not to follow these
conspiracy theories anymore.
But then, in 2019, she claims that Speaker Pelosi is guilty of
treason, and then she said: ``It's a crime punishable by death is what
treason is. Nancy Pelosi is guilty of treason.''
That is 2019. Also in 2019, she liked a comment on social media that
advocated a bullet to the head of Speaker Pelosi.
Also in 2019, in an interview, she called a student survivor of the
Parkland massacre, ``Very trained. He is like a dog.'' And then she
said that he was an idiot who only talked when he is scripted.
Also in 2019, you know, on the Grounds of the Capitol complex,
Representative Greene followed a survivor of the Parkland massacre,
calling him a coward; and then when he ignored her shouted questions,
she said: He can't say a word because he can't defend his stance.
I mean, that is 2019.
Now, we could be here all week going over comments and posts in 2019
and in 2020. So, you know, I just have to say that I did not hear a
disavowment or an apology for those things. I did not hear an apology
or denouncement for the claim, the insinuation that political opponents
should be violently dealt with. I didn't hear anybody

[[Page H342]]

apologize or retract the anti-Semitic and Islamophobic remarks that
have been made and that have been posted over and over and over again.
Again, the gentlewoman's campaign has profited off of these hurtful
remarks and these dangerous statements. So I just point that out for
the Record.
Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. COLE. Madam Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished
gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Austin Scott), my very good friend.

{time} 1300

Mr. AUSTIN SCOTT of Georgia. Madam Speaker, this morning, as many of
you, I was watching the National Day of Prayer. While watching, I was
reading an opinion piece in Baptist News and this message stuck out to
me as relevant to today's debate: Whoever has the power, makes the
rules; whoever makes the rules, makes them in their favor.
Madam Speaker, I want you to know that I read that before I saw your
prayer, which I thought was a wonderful closing prayer.
I would point out, some others who don't share our faith may not. I
thought it was wonderful and that is the First Amendment that we get to
enjoy in this country, and I thank you for that prayer.
I rise today in opposition to H. Res. 72 and efforts by the majority
to remove a member of the minority party from their committee
assignments.
This resolution--and I think this is important--was introduced 3 days
ago to the Ethics Committee, but it was brought to the floor without so
much as a hearing before the Ethics Committee.
Now I want to stress, the past remarks or emojis that you bring up of
our colleague do not represent the values of our Conference nor of my
home State of Georgia. I expressed that in her primary and I continue
to express that today.
But if this was about the remarks our colleague made, you would put a
resolution on the floor condemning those remarks. But no matter what
those remarks are or how bad they are, she and every other Member in
this body should be entitled to due process just as every other
American is entitled to due process. And in this case, it would be
before the Ethics Committee before it came to the floor of the House.
But let's be honest about what this is.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. COLE. Madam Speaker, I yield the gentleman from Georgia an
additional 30 seconds.
Mr. AUSTIN SCOTT of Georgia. Madam Speaker, you have a 10-vote margin
in this body. This body has 20 standing committees. You created a proxy
voting system that allows your Members to stay at home while the
Republican Members show up for work and you have another resolution
that you haven't discussed yet to remove over 100 Republican Members of
Congress, including 6 from my home State of Georgia.
Do you really think that we believe that you are going to stop with
the gentlewoman from the 14th Congressional District, Mrs. Marjorie
Taylor Greene? We know better. We know better. The truth of the matter
is you have got a math problem in passing your agenda.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Members are reminded to address their
remarks to the Chair.
Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Let me just tell my colleague from Georgia--I can't resist because he
mentioned proxy voting. I hate to tell him, but a lot of Republicans
are voting by proxy, too. So the same ones who condemned it are the
ones who are now utilizing it.
And, again, I would remind the gentleman that this is not a criminal
trial. And that when the Republicans removed Steve King from his
committees, there was no Ethics Committee deliberation on that. The
decision was made to remove Steve King because finally, at long last,
there was a realization that embracing white supremacy was
unacceptable.
When Bill Jefferson, a Democrat, was removed by Democrats, again,
removed from his committees, there wasn't an Ethics Committee
deliberation. It was a decision that our leadership made and there was
bipartisan support for that as well.
Now, we can sit here all we want and try to make excuses for not
taking action. I mean, I think the standard here is, Republicans are
coming to the floor and saying: We don't want to associate ourselves
with these remarks. We condemn these remarks, but we don't appreciate
any references to violence, and we don't appreciate any references to
anti-Semitism, but . . .
I mean, but, but, but, but. And here we are.
And so the issue here is that the Republican Conference last night
met to really deliberate on the fate of Congresswoman Cheney. They
didn't take a vote on this. And, basically, by doing nothing, what does
that message send?
How refreshing it would be, how welcome it would be if there was a
strong, bipartisan vote on this resolution. Imagine what that would
mean to the American people to know that we were all unified on the
issue of when a Member, when a person who serves in this House has
advocated the use of violence, called for assassinations, that we all
agree that that is so unacceptable that, at a minimum, they ought not
to have the privilege of being on a committee.
And I am not sure we are going to get that kind of unity here today,
but I hope we do. I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. COLE. Madam Speaker, just quickly, I yield myself such time as I
may consume.
Madam Speaker, just to respond to my friend briefly, remember, we are
doing something here that has never been done before. The majority is
taking away a committee assignment of the minority. That has not
happened in this House before.
Also remember, we are applying, or you were choosing to apply the
code of official conduct to a Member before they were ever a Member.
That has not, to my knowledge, ever been done before either.
We haven't said: Let's do nothing. We have said: These are pretty
serious questions. Let's go to the Ethics Committee, adjudicate them,
have a discussion, and have a recommendation come back out.
So to say we don't want to do something is just simply inaccurate. I
think you are, frankly, overlooking the unprecedented nature of the
acts that you have decided upon, and where that may lead us when the
majority changes.
So with that, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from
California (Mr. Issa).
Mr. ISSA. Madam Speaker, I find myself sort of the oldest freshman in
my class returning after just a 2-year hiatus and finding a House that
I am having a hard time understanding how it got so bad in such a short
period of time.
As my colleague on the other side of the aisle aptly said, we have
had to remove people for cause in this body. When I was a freshman some
20 years ago, we removed Jim Traficant because he had been tried and
convicted and still wouldn't resign.

We have stripped people of their committees when they have been
indicted and ensured that they left this body when they were convicted.
But we have not and should not, in fact, hold people responsible for
actions before the people of their home State elected them and their
Secretary of State certified them, and they came here. In so doing, we
could pick a plethora of people not to seat or not to give committees
to.
On the other side of the aisle, there is a gentleman who I respect
whom I have served with for my entire time in Congress who was
impeached and removed from office by this very body and, yet, has
served honorably here for more than two decades and sits at a high
position on many committees.
After the Civil War, in time, there were people who had been
Confederate soldiers who came here as Congressmen. In fact, the famous
Senator Byrd was a grand wizard of the Ku Klux Klan before he was a
member of these bodies.
We cannot and should not judge people by what they have done before
they arrive, and we should not tell the minority who they can seat. You
may shame us, you may disparage us if we give somebody a committee
assignment, but that is part of free speech.

[[Page H343]]

In closing, if we do this, it will be no different than when John
Adams allowed for a Member----
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has
expired.
Mr. COLE. Madam Speaker, I yield the gentleman from California an
additional 15 seconds.
Mr. ISSA. Madam Speaker, when a member of this body was incarcerated
for something that John Adams felt was injurious to him under the
Sedition Act, it was retroactive. He had written it before the act was
passed and the act was, in fact, not in keeping with our free speech.
Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Let me, again, just respond by reminding the gentleman that this
isn't an issue because of political differences on policy. It just
isn't.
I mean, I remind him, Representative Greene, in January 2019 on her
social media, liked a comment that advocated a bullet to the head of
the Speaker of the House. That doesn't bother you? That doesn't give
you pause? Because there is a whole bunch of those kinds of posts on
her social media.
Is there anything that is so awful that will give you pause?
I mean, we heard Mrs. Greene. She came down here and we heard 10
minutes of whataboutism and conspiracy, you know, and comparing
American journalists to violent QAnon extremists. She was basically
saying it is not her fault--it is everybody else's fault--not taking
personal responsibility, and really not apologizing for any of these
really offensive things.
And so this is one of these moments of truth as to, you know, what do
we think about this institution? I mean, I really do think this is a
vote about the integrity of this institution, and about upholding a
standard of decency. And, quite frankly, we were all hoping you would
do it. You do the right thing.
But, apparently, I think a political decision was made that it is
advantageous not to alienate certain types of voters in this country
even if they think the way and advocate for the policies and ideas that
Mrs. Greene has put forward. That is what this is about.
And I know I talked to many of my colleagues on the other side. I
know many are very uncomfortable and very offended by what she has said
and what she has posted, but apparently not offended or uncomfortable
enough to actually take action. And I think that that is unfortunate.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. COLE. Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
Louisiana (Mr. Scalise), the distinguished Republican whip of the
Congress and my good friend.
Mr. SCALISE. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Oklahoma for
yielding.
Madam Speaker, I have been clear for a long time that the comments
made by Mrs. Greene prior to being elected a Member of Congress are
completely inappropriate and, in fact, I have spoken directly to her to
express that. And we had a long conversation, frankly, similar to the
one that we just heard on the floor a few minutes ago, Madam Speaker,
where we heard Mrs. Greene herself come and give a full account of
things she has done in her past.
In fact, at the end, she said: Jesus died on the cross to forgive me
of my sins. She has actually held herself to account as many of us have
as well.
I wonder if that same new standard that is being talked about today
is anticipated to be applied equally by the majority's side to people
who have done things egregious and haven't given account and, in fact,
on those things, as sitting Members of Congress, not what happened in
2018, 2019, that we all decry.
But, Madam Speaker, if the things that happened in 2018 and 2019 were
so egregious that they warrant the unprecedented step of removing a
Member of Congress from all committees by the majority party against
someone in the minority party, if that was so egregious, why then did
not a single Democrat object to that last week when that issue came
before this Congress on this floor and she was added to those
committees?
This is the resolution that added her to the committees. Not a single
Democrat last week--not in 2018 or 2019--last week, not a single
Democrat objected. But now this new standard seems to be applied.
This morning, we continued a great tradition in this Congress, the
National Prayer Breakfast, where Republicans and Democrats come
together and leaders from the entire world come together to pray.
Today, things like forgiveness were freely discussed.
I want to read John 8:7.

So when they continued asking Him, He lifted up Himself,
and said unto them, He that is without sin among you, let him
first cast a stone at her.

Madam Speaker, we need to stop casting stones at each other and rise
to the level where we are going to start spending every day on this
House floor, not fighting battles of the past but fighting for the
hardworking families of this country who are counting on us to come
together.
I ask that the leadership withdraw this resolution and let's get back
to work for the American people.

{time} 1315

Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Madam Speaker, let me say to the gentleman who just spoke that I do
believe that the standard that we are upholding today should be viewed
equally for everybody. If any Member of this Chamber has advocated for
the execution of another Member, whether it is a Democrat or a
Republican, I will join with everybody here in advocating that they be
taken off their committees. I have said that over and over and over
again.
Madam Speaker, is that a controversial idea, that if people advocate
that kind of stuff, that somehow we are going to look the other way or
we are going to move on and let's not even talk about it?
And I will remind the gentleman that this is not ancient history. She
continues to fundraise off this stuff. Read her social media. I am sure
you do. So, come on.
And then I am a little confused because the gentleman was saying we
shouldn't be doing this today, we should have done it last week when
there was a unanimous consent request to basically move forward a whole
bunch of committee assignments--Democrats and Republicans forward.
I mean, the deal is, if we had taken that down, then a whole bunch of
people would be without committee assignments, as we speak. We have a
lot of work to do to get this economy on the right track and crush this
virus, especially in the aftermath of the 4 years we have been through.
Madam Speaker, we all want to move forward. We all want to move on.
But you can't move forward unless there is some accounting here, unless
there is some reckoning with what all of this means. And I would think
that for the sake of this institution, if we want to uphold the
standard of decency in this institution, that we will all come together
on this.
Madam Speaker, what we just heard from Mrs. Greene was not an
apology. And if that was the speech that was given last night in the
Republican Conference, I guess my question would be: And that got a
standing ovation?
I didn't hear an apology for the incredibly dangerous and hurtful
remarks that she has made. I didn't hear an explanation for why she is
still fundraising off of these terrible things here.
Madam Speaker, I don't know what my colleagues found so convincing,
but I stand here today still deeply, deeply troubled and offended by
the things that she has posted and the things that she has said and
still not taken responsibility for and still not apologized for.
And the idea of coming to the floor and basically saying: Well, it is
the media's fault, it is this person's fault or that person's fault--
and that the American media is equivalent to the violent QAnon
extremists, well, I got to tell you, just when you think you have heard
everything, then you hear that.
Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. COLE. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Madam Speaker, just quickly for the Record, so my friend knows, the
resolution that the Republican whip, Mr. Scalise, was referring to just
a few minutes ago only concerned Republicans. So if you wanted to
object to Republicans, that is what you could

[[Page H344]]

have done. It didn't involve Democrats at all.
Madam Speaker, if we defeat the previous question, I will offer an
amendment to the rule to amend House rules to state that any resolution
proposing to remove a Member from a committee assignment shall not be
in order unless offered by, or with the concurrence of, the leader of
the party of the Member that is the subject of the resolution.
Madam Speaker, this speaks to a norm of basic fairness that today's
resolution does not comply with. In the past, the majority has never
attempted to exercise a veto over the minority's committee assignments,
nor has the minority ever attempted to do the same to the majority.
This has been, in the past, an unwritten rule, a norm the House has
adhered to in order to protect the operations of the institution. But
the majority's actions today threaten that norm and threaten to set off
a new round of escalating partisan punishment anytime the majority
changes hands. Enshrining historical practice as a new rule is an
important step to protect the institution as a whole.
Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of my
amendment in the Record, along with extraneous material, immediately
prior to the vote on the previous question.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Oklahoma?
There was no objection.
Mr. COLE. Madam Speaker, I urge a ``no'' vote on the previous
question, and I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Madam Speaker, I respond by saying to the gentleman: We have been
waiting. We have been Members now for over a month in this new
Congress, and we have been waiting for action. I guess we got the
answer last night: A standing ovation for somebody who has said and
posted what Mrs. Greene has said and posted. I mean, that is the
response. We have waited, and now we are going to move forward with
this action.
Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. COLE. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Madam Speaker, just in response to my good friend: I was actually
there. So, number one, she didn't get a standing ovation for things
that she said. She got a standing ovation for regretting things that
she had said, and saying she has been wrong, and denouncing QAnon and
denouncing school shootings. That is what she got the standing ovation
for. My friend didn't have the opportunity to hear that. I wanted to
take the opportunity to inform him.
Madam Speaker, I would advise my friend that I am prepared to close.
Madam Speaker, in closing, I oppose the rule. Never before in the
history of this institution has the majority attempted to exercise a
veto over the minority's right to make committee assignments, yet,
today, the majority is choosing to do just that. This leads the
institution down a dangerous path, the end of which we cannot see.
Madam Speaker, there are alternative paths open that I believe the
House should consider. We owe it to ourselves and to the institution to
do so. Before we strip a Member of their committees for remarks that
person made before they were subject to the official rules of conduct
of the House, maybe we ought to have a discussion about that, if we are
going to extend that in a way we never have before in the institution.
I am not necessarily against that, by the way. I think that is a worthy
topic.
I also think that if we are going to strip a Member before they ever
served on a committee, they ought to have an opportunity to tell their
side of the story in a judicious proceeding. Our Committee on Ethics
has resolved a lot of naughty issues in a very bipartisan way, and not
with Members escaping punishment. So to say we have asked for nothing
be done, it is quite the opposite.
We have said: Let's go to the Committee on Ethics.
Let's hash through these tough issues of changing the scope of the
official conduct provisions of the House that applies to Members.
Let's talk about whether or not it is appropriate for the majority to
actually try to dictate the people that the minority puts on
committees.
And, finally, let's give a Member that we accuse of something an
opportunity to make his or her case.
That is what we have asked for, and that is what the majority has
chosen not to do.
Madam Speaker, I think it is a dangerous mistake. It is a mistake
that, frankly, when the majority changes, the temptation will be
overwhelming for a Member to say: ``Oh, well, there is a Member I
didn't like or said something or did something I didn't like. As a
Member, I think I am just going to take that committee assignment
away.''
I can give you a list of people that have done things that I think
are inappropriate, on both sides of the aisle, quite frankly. But we
have never done that here, and I don't think we should start doing that
here. All we have asked for is a process, a Committee on Ethics
discussion. We think that is the appropriate way to proceed.
Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the previous
question, ``no'' on the rule, and I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Madam Speaker, this is a very serious matter, and I appreciate my
ranking member, Mr. Cole, for the way he conducts himself because I
know he cares deeply about this institution, and he knows that I admire
him greatly.
The gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Scalise) was on the floor, and he
quoted the Bible. And I have read the Bible, too, I want to inform the
gentleman. And I believe in the Jesuit tradition.
Apology is not just words, it is action. And I didn't hear Mrs.
Greene do that today. I heard a lot about whataboutisms, but I didn't
hear her take responsibility, nor did I hear her apologize for some of
the most egregious things that she has posted and said.
I also point out for the record--because I think this is important--I
am not convinced her memory is 100 percent accurate here on some
things. Here, just now--and she spoke to the whole Chamber--she said
she didn't discuss QAnon during her campaign.
Madam Speaker, but last July, she said in her local interview: ``I've
only ever seen patriotic sentiment coming out of that source.'' And she
wouldn't answer if she was still a follower.
So I am a little confused that she is now trying to denounce QAnon,
yet she said recently that they are patriots. She said: Never seen
anything other than patriotic sentiment coming out of that source.
QAnon is a dangerous, sick cult. Period. And nobody--certainly nobody
in this Chamber--should ever, in any way, shape, or form, try to
associate themselves with them. They are not patriotic individuals.
They are pushing sick, dangerous, violent conspiracy theories. Many of
the people who attacked this Chamber on January 6 had their QAnon flags
and insignias. So give me a break.
Madam Speaker, I don't know what it is going to take for some here to
act. And I will just repeat what I said earlier. I don't know what the
hell happened to the Republican Party. The party of Lincoln, the party
of Eisenhower, the party of Reagan is becoming the party of Marjorie
Taylor Greene and the party of violent conspiracy theories.
If anyone has any question about the things that she has said or
done--anybody who is watching--just spend a moment and look at her
social media posts. Don't take my word for it. Go research it for
yourself. Google it. It is all there. They go well beyond anything that
we have seen from any Member in this body.
Encouraging violence against another Member;
Posting and saying that 9/11 was a hoax;
That school shootings were planned by gun safety advocates;
Spreading anti-Semitic and anti-Muslim conspiracies and hate speech.
It is all there. We are not just saying this. It is there.
Madam Speaker, now, I am a big believer of the Committee on Ethic's
process, but I don't need an investigation to tell me what I can read
with my own eyes. The only question is this: What are we going to do
about it?

[[Page H345]]

Just as there was bipartisan agreement that Congressman King had no
business on a committee, there should be bipartisan agreement that
Congresswoman Greene doesn't either.
The only reason this is taking a resolution on the floor today is
that Leader McCarthy is unwilling to apply that same standard here. A
stern conversation is not enough. We aren't talking about expulsion
here today. Though, some think that that is warranted, but that is not
what we are talking about. We are deciding whether someone who has
encouraged violence against Members should be given a platform on a
standing committee. That is what the topic is here today.
And I have to say, I didn't even know that was a question. I assume
the answer was obvious, but apparently it is not to some here.
Madam Speaker, inaction is complicity. We must set a standard of
conduct in this institution and ensure that the violence, conspiracy
theories, and the lies that we see on the darkest corners of the
internet don't get a platform on a standing committee here in the House
of Representatives.
Madam Speaker, I hope my colleagues will vote their conscience. I
hope my colleagues will do what is right for the institution. This is
about the institution, about who we are. Again, for the life of me, I
don't understand what is complicated here, what is giving people
hesitation.
We know the results of these violent conspiracy theorists. We saw
that on January 6. We know what it leads to. I don't ever want to see
that again. And we all should make clear where we stand on this. So
Congresswoman Greene coming here and speaking for 10 minutes and not
taking responsibility for any of this stuff, trying to make us believe
that she doesn't believe in QAnon anymore--I just pointed to an
interview that was fairly recent--not apologizing for the most
egregious comments that she has posted.
Madam Speaker, we have to be better than this. This can't be the
future. And I am hoping that we will get a bipartisan vote here because
I do think, as I said before, a strong bipartisan vote on this, what a
refreshing signal that would be to the American people that all of us
together are standing up against hate, against violence, against
conspiracy theories; that we are together on this. This shouldn't be
hard.
The material previously referred to by Mr. Cole is as follows:

Amendment to House Resolution 91

Strike all after the resolved clause and insert the
following:
``That clause 5(a)(1) of rule X is amended by designating
the existing text as subdivision (A) and adding the following
new subdivisions:
``(B) A resolution proposing to remove a Member from a
committee shall not be in order unless offered by, or with
the concurrence of, the Leader of the party of the Member
that is the subject of the resolution.''.
``(C) The Committee on Rules may not report a rule or order
that waives the application of subdivision (B).''.
Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and
I move the previous question on the resolution.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on ordering the previous
question.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Mr. COLE. Madam Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to section 3(s) of House Resolution
8, the yeas and nays are ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 218,
nays 209, not voting 4, as follows:

[Roll No. 22]

YEAS--218

Adams
Aguilar
Allred
Auchincloss
Axne
Barragan
Bass
Beatty
Bera
Beyer
Bishop (GA)
Blumenauer
Blunt Rochester
Bonamici
Bourdeaux
Bowman
Boyle, Brendan F.
Brown
Brownley
Bush
Bustos
Butterfield
Carbajal
Cardenas
Carson
Cartwright
Case
Casten
Castor (FL)
Castro (TX)
Chu
Cicilline
Clark (MA)
Clarke (NY)
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Connolly
Cooper
Correa
Costa
Courtney
Craig
Crist
Crow
Cuellar
Davids (KS)
Davis, Danny K.
Dean
DeFazio
DeGette
DeLauro
DelBene
Delgado
Demings
DeSaulnier
Deutch
Dingell
Doggett
Doyle, Michael F.
Escobar
Eshoo
Espaillat
Evans
Fletcher
Foster
Frankel, Lois
Gallego
Garamendi
Garcia (IL)
Garcia (TX)
Golden
Gomez
Gonzalez, Vicente
Gottheimer
Green, Al (TX)
Grijalva
Harder (CA)
Hastings
Hayes
Higgins (NY)
Himes
Horsford
Houlahan
Hoyer
Huffman
Jackson Lee
Jacobs (CA)
Jayapal
Jeffries
Johnson (GA)
Johnson (TX)
Jones
Kahele
Kaptur
Keating
Kelly (IL)
Khanna
Kildee
Kilmer
Kim (NJ)
Kind
Kirkpatrick
Krishnamoorthi
Kuster
Lamb
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lawrence
Lawson (FL)
Lee (CA)
Lee (NV)
Leger Fernandez
Levin (CA)
Levin (MI)
Lieu
Lofgren
Lowenthal
Luria
Lynch
Malinowski
Maloney, Carolyn B.
Maloney, Sean
Manning
Matsui
McBath
McCollum
McEachin
McGovern
McNerney
Meeks
Meng
Mfume
Moore (WI)
Morelle
Moulton
Mrvan
Murphy (FL)
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Neguse
Newman
Norcross
O'Halleran
Ocasio-Cortez
Omar
Pallone
Panetta
Pappas
Pascrell
Payne
Perlmutter
Peters
Phillips
Pingree
Pocan
Porter
Pressley
Price (NC)
Quigley
Raskin
Rice (NY)
Ross
Roybal-Allard
Ruiz
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan
Sanchez
Sarbanes
Scanlon
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schneider
Schrader
Schrier
Scott (VA)
Scott, David
Sewell
Sherman
Sherrill
Sires
Slotkin
Smith (WA)
Soto
Spanberger
Speier
Stanton
Stevens
Strickland
Suozzi
Swalwell
Takano
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Titus
Tlaib
Tonko
Torres (CA)
Torres (NY)
Trahan
Trone
Underwood
Vargas
Veasey
Vela
Velazquez
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watson Coleman
Welch
Wexton
Wild
Williams (GA)
Wilson (FL)
Yarmuth

NAYS--209

Aderholt
Allen
Amodei
Armstrong
Arrington
Babin
Bacon
Baird
Balderson
Banks
Barr
Bentz
Bergman
Bice (OK)
Biggs
Bilirakis
Bishop (NC)
Boebert
Bost
Brady
Brooks
Buchanan
Buck
Bucshon
Budd
Burchett
Burgess
Calvert
Cammack
Carl
Carter (GA)
Carter (TX)
Cawthorn
Chabot
Cheney
Cline
Cloud
Clyde
Cole
Comer
Crawford
Crenshaw
Curtis
Davidson
DesJarlais
Diaz-Balart
Donalds
Duncan
Dunn
Emmer
Estes
Fallon
Feenstra
Ferguson
Fischbach
Fitzgerald
Fitzpatrick
Fleischmann
Fortenberry
Foxx
Franklin, C. Scott
Fulcher
Gaetz
Gallagher
Garbarino
Garcia (CA)
Gibbs
Gimenez
Gohmert
Gonzales, Tony
Gonzalez (OH)
Good (VA)
Gooden (TX)
Gosar
Granger
Graves (LA)
Graves (MO)
Green (TN)
Greene (GA)
Griffith
Grothman
Guest
Guthrie
Hagedorn
Harris
Harshbarger
Hartzler
Hern
Herrell
Herrera Beutler
Hice (GA)
Higgins (LA)
Hill
Hinson
Hollingsworth
Hudson
Huizenga
Issa
Jackson
Jacobs (NY)
Johnson (LA)
Johnson (OH)
Johnson (SD)
Jordan
Joyce (OH)
Joyce (PA)
Katko
Keller
Kelly (MS)
Kelly (PA)
Kim (CA)
Kinzinger
Kustoff
LaHood
LaMalfa
Lamborn
Latta
LaTurner
Lesko
Long
Loudermilk
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Mace
Malliotakis
Mann
Massie
Mast
McCarthy
McCaul
McClain
McClintock
McHenry
McKinley
Meijer
Meuser
Miller (IL)
Miller (WV)
Miller-Meeks
Moolenaar
Mooney
Moore (AL)
Moore (UT)
Mullin
Murphy (NC)
Nehls
Newhouse
Norman
Nunes
Obernolte
Owens
Palazzo
Palmer
Pence
Perry
Pfluger
Posey
Reed
Reschenthaler
Rice (SC)
Rodgers (WA)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rose
Rosendale
Rouzer
Roy
Rutherford
Salazar
Scalise
Schweikert
Scott, Austin
Sessions
Simpson
Smith (MO)
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smucker
Spartz
Stauber
Steel
Stefanik
Steil
Steube
Stewart
Stivers
Taylor
Thompson (PA)
Tiffany
Timmons
Turner
Upton
Valadao
Van Drew
Van Duyne
Wagner
Walberg
Walorski
Waltz
Weber (TX)
Webster (FL)
Wenstrup
Westerman
Williams (TX)
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Womack
Young
Zeldin

NOT VOTING--4

Davis, Rodney
Fudge
Haaland
Wright

{time} 1423

Mr. FEENSTRA changed his vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
So the previous question was ordered.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Stated against:
Mr. RODNEY DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, I was unavoidably
detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``nay'' on rollcall
No. 22.

MEMBERS RECORDED PURSUANT TO HOUSE RESOLUTION 8, 117TH CONGRESS

Axne (Stevens)
Barragan (Beyer)
Bowman (Clark (MA))
Boyle, Brendan F. (Jeffries)

[[Page H346]]

Buchanan (Arrington)
Cardenas (Gomez)
Carson (Butterfield)
Cohen (Beyer)
Cooper (Clark (MA))
DeSaulnier (Matsui)
Fallon (Nehls)
Frankel, Lois (Clark (MA))
Gallego (Gomez)
Gonzalez, Vincente (Gomez)
Gosar (Wagner)
Hastings (Wasserman Schultz)
Jayapal (Clark (MA))
Kirkpatrick (Stanton)
Langevin (Courtney)
Larson (CT) (Courtney)
Lawrence (Kildee)
Lawson (FL) (Evans)
Lieu (Beyer)
Lofgren (Jeffries)
Long (Wagner)
Lowenthal (Beyer)
Lynch (Clark (MA))
Maloney, Carolyn B. (Jeffries)
McEachin (Wexton)
McHenry (Banks)
Meng (Clark (MA))
Mfume (Brown)
Moulton (Beyer)
Napolitano (Correa)
Payne (Wasserman Schultz)
Porter (Wexton)
Price (NC) (Butterfield)
Roybal-Allard (Correa)
Ruiz (Aguilar)
Rush (Underwood)
Speier (Scanlon)
Titus (Connolly)
Trahan (McGovern)
Vela (Gomez)
Watson Coleman (Pallone)
Wilson (FL) (Adams)
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Cuellar). The question is on the
resolution.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to section 3(s) of House Resolution
8, the yeas and nays are ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 218,
nays 210, not voting 3, as follows:

[Roll No. 23]

YEAS--218

NAYS--210

Aderholt
Allen
Amodei
Armstrong
Arrington
Babin
Bacon
Baird
Balderson
Banks
Barr
Bentz
Bergman
Bice (OK)
Biggs
Bilirakis
Bishop (NC)
Boebert
Bost
Brady
Brooks
Buchanan
Buck
Bucshon
Budd
Burchett
Burgess
Calvert
Cammack
Carl
Carter (GA)
Carter (TX)
Cawthorn
Chabot
Cheney
Cline
Cloud
Clyde
Cole
Comer
Crawford
Crenshaw
Curtis
Davidson
Davis, Rodney
DesJarlais
Diaz-Balart
Donalds
Duncan
Dunn
Emmer
Estes
Fallon
Feenstra
Ferguson
Fischbach
Fitzgerald
Fitzpatrick
Fleischmann
Fortenberry
Foxx
Franklin, C. Scott
Fulcher
Gaetz
Gallagher
Garbarino
Garcia (CA)
Gibbs
Gimenez
Gohmert
Gonzales, Tony
Gonzalez (OH)
Good (VA)
Gooden (TX)
Gosar
Granger
Graves (LA)
Graves (MO)
Green (TN)
Greene (GA)
Griffith
Grothman
Guest
Guthrie
Hagedorn
Harris
Harshbarger
Hartzler
Hern
Herrell
Herrera Beutler
Hice (GA)
Higgins (LA)
Hill
Hinson
Hollingsworth
Hudson
Huizenga
Issa
Jackson
Jacobs (NY)
Johnson (LA)
Johnson (OH)
Johnson (SD)
Jordan
Joyce (OH)
Joyce (PA)
Katko
Keller
Kelly (MS)
Kelly (PA)
Kim (CA)
Kinzinger
Kustoff
LaHood
LaMalfa
Lamborn
Latta
LaTurner
Lesko
Long
Loudermilk
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Mace
Malliotakis
Mann
Massie
Mast
McCarthy
McCaul
McClain
McClintock
McHenry
McKinley
Meijer
Meuser
Miller (IL)
Miller (WV)
Miller-Meeks
Moolenaar
Mooney
Moore (AL)
Moore (UT)
Mullin
Murphy (NC)
Nehls
Newhouse
Norman
Nunes
Obernolte
Owens
Palazzo
Palmer
Pence
Perry
Pfluger
Posey
Reed
Reschenthaler
Rice (SC)
Rodgers (WA)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rose
Rosendale
Rouzer
Roy
Rutherford
Salazar
Scalise
Schweikert
Scott, Austin
Sessions
Simpson
Smith (MO)
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smucker
Spartz
Stauber
Steel
Stefanik
Steil
Steube
Stewart
Stivers
Taylor
Thompson (PA)
Tiffany
Timmons
Turner
Upton
Valadao
Van Drew
Van Duyne
Wagner
Walberg
Walorski
Waltz
Weber (TX)
Webster (FL)
Wenstrup
Westerman
Williams (TX)
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Womack
Young
Zeldin

NOT VOTING--3

Fudge
Haaland
Wright

{time} 1522

So the resolution was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

MEMBERS RECORDED PURSUANT TO HOUSE RESOLUTION 8, 117TH CONGRESS

Axne (Stevens)
Barragan (Beyer)
Bowman (Clark (MA))
Boyle, Brendan F. (Jeffries)
Buchanan (Arrington)
Cardenas (Gomez)
Carson (Butterfield)
Cohen (Beyer)
Cooper (Clark (MA))
DeSaulnier (Matsui)
Fallon (Nehls)
Frankel, Lois (Clark (MA))
Gallego (Gomez)
Gonzalez, Vincente (Gomez)
Gosar (Wagner)
Hastings (Wasserman Schultz)
Jayapal (Clark (MA))
Kirkpatrick (Stanton)
Langevin (Courtney)
Larson (CT)(Courtney)
Lawrence (Kildee)
Lawson (FL)(Evans)
Lieu (Beyer)
Lofgren (Jeffries)
Long (Wagner)
Lowenthal (Beyer)
Lynch (Clark (MA))
Maloney, Carolyn B. (Jeffries)
McEachin (Wexton)
McHenry (Banks)
Meng (Clark (MA))
Mfume (Brown)
Moulton (Beyer)
Napolitano (Correa)
Payne (Wasserman Schultz)
Porter (Wexton)
Price (NC) (Butterfield)
Roybal-Allard (Correa)
Ruiz (Aguilar)
Rush (Underwood)
Speier (Scanlon)
Titus (Connolly)
Trahan (McGovern)
Vela (Gomez)
Watson Coleman (Pallone)
Wilson (FL) (Adams)

____________________