Congressional Record, Volume 167 Issue 200 (Wednesday, November 17, 2021)

[Congressional Record Volume 167, Number 200 (Wednesday, November 17, 2021)]
[House]
[Pages H6329-H6336]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H. RES. 789, CENSURING REPRESENTATIVE
PAUL GOSAR

Ms. SCANLON. Madam Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I
call up House Resolution 795 and ask for its immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

H. Res. 795

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. 789) censuring
Representative Paul Gosar. The amendment to the resolution
printed in the report of the Committee on Rules accompanying
this resolution shall be considered as adopted. The
resolution, as amended, shall be considered as read. The
previous question shall be considered as ordered on the
resolution and preamble, as amended, to adoption without
intervening motion or demand for division of the question
except one hour of debate equally divided and controlled by
the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on
Ethics or their respective designees.

The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentlewoman from Pennsylvania is
recognized for 1 hour.
Ms. SCANLON. Madam Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield
the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Cole), who
is the distinguished ranking member of the Rules Committee, 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

Ms. SCANLON. 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
gentlewoman from Pennsylvania?
There was no objection.
Ms. SCANLON. Madam Speaker, yesterday the Rules Committee met and
reported a rule, House Resolution 795, providing for consideration of
H. Res. 789, Censuring Representative Paul Gosar, under a closed rule.
The rule self-executes a manager's amendment from Chairman Deutch and
provides 1 hour of general debate equally divided and controlled by the
chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on Ethics or their
respective designees.

{time} 1230

Madam Speaker, in any other Congress, the actions of Representative
Paul Gosar might be easier to dismiss. After all, every single minute
of every single day, 5,000 minutes of content are uploaded onto
YouTube.
So my colleagues across the aisle or the public might ask, who cares
about one YouTube video post by Representative Gosar? He is just one of
many Americans posting his fantasies online, even if his involve a
violent scene in which he attacks and murders people that he has
labeled as enemies of the American people, a colleague in Congress, and
the President of the United States.
But it is just an anime video, so it is not a big deal, right?
Actually, it is a big deal. And here is why: People listen to Paul
Gosar. He is an elected official; and that gives him credibility,
whether justified or not. So while there are indeed 5,000 minutes of
content uploaded every single minute of every single day, Mr. Gosar's
video got real attention, just as he intended.
American citizens stopped what they were doing to watch something
that a Member of the U.S. Congress had fashioned. He posted it on his
official Congressional social media, where he has hundreds of thousands
of followers, and where the video was viewed over 3 million times.
And what he posted was violence; fantasized violence. A wish made in
a very specific way.
As I said, in any other decade, or any other Congress, this public
endorsement of violence by a Member of Congress might have been excused
as a lapse in judgment, or even possibly a bad joke.
But this Congress knows what happens when members of the radical
right get stirred up by their leaders.
Just a few months ago, this Congress had to hide in safe rooms under
the protection of police and soldiers, or barricade ourselves in our
offices because our place of work was overwhelmed by armed citizens who
wanted to hang some of us.

[[Page H6330]]

This Congress has seen threats against Members of Congress more than
double, forcing Members to pay for additional security for their homes,
offices, and families; rethink how to engage with constituents; and
even wear bulletproof vests to public events.
So when a Member of this Congress fantasizes in public about
beheading another Member of Congress, it is not fantasy to think that
there are Americans out there who will take such a video as a call to
action.
A recent poll reported that 85 percent of Americans get their news
from Facebook, while only 13 percent of Americans get their news from
print. Are we really to believe that during this moment in time, that
among that 85 percent, there are no Americans who will see this video
and indulge in fantasies of their own?
Every single day Members of this body receive death threats. I have
gotten them. We all have. Our staffs and families have to deal with
abusive and violent phone calls, emails, letters, and social media
posts. And these threats are particularly numerous and violent for
Members who are women of color.
So every day we have to deal with the threat that somewhere out there
is a radicalized American who has been taught to hate us, to regard us
as evil, to fantasize, and even mobilize using that same social media,
to eliminate us, taught by conspiracy theorists and far-right
extremists; or by a fellow Member of Congress.
That is not imagination; that is fact.
In any other context, and especially in any other workplace, someone
posting a video of himself killing a coworker would not be acceptable,
and an employee who did that would almost certainly be fired.
In any other context, and especially in a school, a student using
school resources to post a video of himself beheading a classmate and
attacking a school official would not be acceptable, and that student
would face disciplinary charges, if not criminal charges, and would
likely be referred for a mental health evaluation.
But for the privileges traditionally afforded to Members of Congress,
in any other context, someone posting a video of himself killing a
Member of Congress and attacking the President of the United States
would almost certainly be reported to the Secret Service and U.S.
Capitol Police.
We must condemn this celebration of political violence because, in
addition to upholding the honor and integrity of the U.S. Congress,
every Member of this body deserves to come to work and feel safe. That
is true for any worker in any part of this country.
It is unacceptable that our colleague would have to sit across from
someone who has threatened her life in such a vivid way, and it is
unacceptable for this body to let that action go unpunished.
This is the House of Representatives of the United States Congress.
We are all elected to be the leaders of this great country, and with
that role comes immense responsibilities. People look up to us, they
take our lead.
So when a Member posts a video of himself killing his colleague, that
is obviously going to have an impact on the way people approach their
politics.
So we cannot dismiss Representative Gosar's violent fantasies as a
joke because, in this decade, in this America, someone is going to take
him seriously. He is a public figure and, as we vividly saw on January
6, the words and actions of public figures can readily act as a spark
to the tinder of radical extremism. And God help us all when that
happens.
Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. COLE. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I thank the gentlewoman from Pennsylvania (Ms. Scanlon), my friend,
for yielding me the customary 30 minutes.
Madam Speaker, today's rule covers one item, a resolution censuring
Representative Paul Gosar for a video posted on his official Twitter
account last week, and removing him from his seat on the Committees on
Oversight and Reform and Natural Resources.
Madam Speaker, today's action, once again, tramples on the
traditional norms of the House; the idea that the majority and the
minority have the right to appoint their own members to committees as
they see fit. It sets a dangerous and disturbing precedent that will
likely change the character of the House in the years to come, and not
for the better.
And the majority is doing so solely to play politics with this moment
and to score a cheap political point at the expense of a Member of the
minority.
But before I go into all of that, I do think it is important to lay
out the sequence of events that occurred here, since I believe they are
instructive.
Last week, Representative Gosar posted a video on his official
Twitter account. This video was certainly provocative and, in my
opinion, inappropriate.
Upon being informed of the video's existence, Leader McCarthy
immediately took action and called Congressman Gosar, conveying the
message that this video was inappropriate. After that conversation,
Congressman Gosar took the video down and issued a statement explaining
and clarifying its meaning, and stating that he certainly didn't
approve of violence against any person.
Yesterday, Congressman Gosar took the additional step of appearing
before the Republican Conference to further explain his actions. He
described that his intention was for a depiction in the video to be
symbolic of the policies he opposes, not actual people. He clarified
that he did not intend it to be an endorsement of violence and,
further, that he does not condone violence.
But not content with his admission to a lapse in judgment, last night
the majority made the decision to convene the Rules Committee on short
notice to consider a resolution censuring Representative Gosar and
removing him from his committee assignments. In doing so, the majority
is acting in clear contrast to the existing precedent throughout the
history of this institution; a precedent the majority has taken
multiple deliberate steps to weaken in this Congress.
Throughout the history of the House of Representatives, the majority
and the minority have respected the right of each of their conferences
to assign their respective members to committees. The decision about
whether to seat a member on a committee, or to remove a member from a
committee, traditionally rests with the respective conferences.
Early this year, the majority took two actions to go against that
tradition. First, the majority voted to remove a Republican Member of
Congress from her committee assignments.
Second, the Speaker unilaterally refused to appoint two of Leader
McCarthy's choices to be Republican members on the Select Committee on
the January 6 attack and, instead, appointed Republicans she wanted on
the committee. Both of these actions are in stark contrast to the norms
and traditions of the House of Representatives.
Today, the majority is taking a third such action. This continues to
set an extremely dangerous precedent for the future of the institution.
In future years, the precedent may be used to give the majority veto
power over the minority's committee assignments. That is a slippery
slope for the institution to go down.
But to make matters worse, in acting today, the majority is setting a
standard for Members of the minority that it does not set for itself.
There have been plenty of instances of Members on the majority side
using intemperate language, making statements that directly or could be
construed as endorsing violence or taking controversial or
inappropriate actions; yet, the majority has yet to act to remove one
of its own members from their committee assignments.
This is a classic case of the old adage: ``Rules for thee but not for
me.'' That is deeply frustrating.
Madam Speaker, if action is truly necessary today, then there are two
other options for addressing Representative Gosar's actions than what
the majority is proposing. First, the majority can and should leave the
matter up to Leader McCarthy and the Republican Conference. Indeed,
this was the topic of discussion at yesterday's Republican Conference
meeting and, historically, neither Leader McCarthy nor the Republican
Conference has shied away from disciplining Members.
Second, the House also has the option of referring Representative
Gosar to the Ethics Committee. This is also an appropriate course of
action, particularly if the majority believes that

[[Page H6331]]

a violation of the Code of Ethics has occurred. Such a referral would
give the bipartisan Ethics Committee the time to review the matter,
allow Representative Gosar to present his arguments, and give the
committee the chance to make appropriate recommendations.
But once again, the majority is rushing forward with a resolution to
strip a Republican member of a committee assignment without giving
either of these two appropriate venues a chance to resolve the matter.
In doing so, they are playing politics in the worst way, rushing to
condemn a Republican Member for actions for which he has already sought
to address.
It is disturbing to note the surprise on my Democratic colleagues'
faces last night at the Rules Committee when I referenced the public
statement Congressman Gosar released after removing the video. They
didn't seem to know about it. I think they are condemning his actions
and didn't even know that he had already taken corrective action.
That goes to show, frankly, that we have not taken the appropriate
care in looking at this matter, and certainly not given Representative
Gosar the opportunity to address it.
Madam Speaker, I urge opposition to the rule, and I reserve the
balance of my time.
Ms. SCANLON. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
I would have to agree with my learned colleague that these are
unusual actions, but these are also unusual times. Every time we have
seen a new low in conduct from our colleagues across the aisle, we get
crickets or excuses from the Republican Party. Indeed, it took 9 days
before the minority leader publicly spoke about this threat; and his
silence spoke volumes, both to the American people and those who were
paying attention to Mr. Gosar's post.

Instead, we have heard multiple reports that our colleagues are
considering punishing their colleagues who voted for the bipartisan
infrastructure package. I think that speaks volumes about where their
priorities lie.
We will continue to see Members emboldened by the lack of
accountability engaging in evermore outrageous conduct, placing both
the integrity of Congress and the safety of its Members at risk.
While Mr. Gosar has since taken down his post, he has not apologized.
In fact, he said publicly on TV that he does not apologize. He has
doubled down on his decision to post the video saying, the cartoon
exposes the threats to America. It doesn't make a threat to anyone.
I would have to disagree with his assessment.
As to the claim that there hasn't been enough of a process, that this
should have gone to the Ethics Committee; I will remind my colleagues
that we heard in the Rules Committee last night that the majority
requested an emergency meeting of the Ethics Committee, which the
minority denied.
And this isn't a case where there are facts to discover. The actions
of Representative Gosar were not hidden for an investigatory body to
discover. His misconduct was paid for and produced with public
resources and posted on an official public Twitter account, where it
got more than 3 million views before it was taken down.
There is no dispute about whether Representative Gosar posted the
reprehensible video depicting the murder of one of his colleagues on
his official channels. And the Republican Conference has had 2 weeks to
decide to take action and hold him accountable. Instead, they are
debating whether to punish their colleagues for voting for
infrastructure for the American people.
So we have said that--it actually just strikes me as odd that our
colleagues would argue that this forms a harmful precedent, and that
the threat of violence or murder in the future might be cause to
censure and strip members of their committees. If that is the case,
then sign me up because I do think that is reprehensible and deserves
censure.
Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from New York
(Mrs. Carolyn B. Maloney), the distinguished chairwoman of the
Committee on Oversight and Reform.

{time} 1245

Mrs. CAROLYN B. MALONEY of New York. Madam Speaker, I rise in support
of the rule and in support of the underlying resolution, H. Res. 789.
This is an extraordinary measure, and I do not support it lightly.
As chair of the Committee on Oversight and Reform, I support and
defend the rights of all committee members to express their views, even
if I disagree with them. But the honest exchange of ideas cannot happen
when one committee member promotes violence against another.
No other workplace in America would tolerate such dangerous conduct,
and neither should the House of Representatives.
What Representative Gosar did is both despicable and beneath the
office he holds. But make no mistake about it: Promoting political
violence has real consequences.
Many of our colleagues, including myself, and the Capitol Police have
received credible death threats.
Rejecting violence should not be a partisan issue. I call on my
Republican colleagues to join us today in demanding accountability for
those who promote it.
Mr. COLE. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume
simply to make a couple of quick points to some of my friends'
concerns.
First of all, nobody has had 2 weeks to act. This incident occurred
less than 2 weeks ago, and we were in recess last week. So let's focus
on the here and now.
I may be mistaken about this, but I don't think we have kept the
Ethics Committee from meeting about this. Quite the opposite, we wish
they had.
The chairman did say he would put in a request for an emergency
meeting. The reality is, the majority moved ahead, I think, before that
could happen. That process, I think, would have been the appropriate
one to follow or an appropriate one to follow in this case.
So, I just simply posit those things for the record.
Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr.
Gaetz).
Mr. GAETZ. Madam Speaker, I oppose political violence in all forms,
regardless of the politics of the target.
I am no expert on Japanese anime, but I am told, and I do believe,
that it is not real. What is real is the crisis on our border, the
inflation crushing American families, unvetted Afghans in our country.
What is definitely real is the violence that burned our cities and
harmed our businesses in the summer of 2020, often encouraged by
Democrats in Congress.
Anime is fiction to the point of the absurd. It is not really my
thing, and it does glorify violence, but often to symbolize conflict,
not realistic harm to another person.
In the last session week we had, we reviewed Steve Bannon's podcast.
Today, we are critiquing Paul Gosar's anime. Next week, we might be
indicting Wile E. Coyote for an explosive ordnance against Road Runner.
If you don't like Paul Gosar's tweets, tweet back at him. We know
there are plenty of folks in Big Tech who will amplify your message.
The gentlewoman from Pennsylvania gave the game away. This really
isn't about a tweet. It is about removing a powerful conservative, Paul
Gosar, from the Committee on Oversight and Reform. It is about
characterizing conservatives as threats to the country, dangerous,
because despite the majority's references to the Biden infrastructure
bill, they have received no bump from it. The American people are not
really into the infrastructure bill, and so we are here reviewing mean
tweets.
All of us in Congress--I shouldn't say all of us. Some of us have
regretted things we have tweeted. I know I have. When we say uncouth
things, we should resolve that. Congressman Gosar removed the tweet,
and I hope he regrets it.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. COLE. Madam Speaker, I yield an additional 30 seconds to the
gentleman from Florida.
Mr. GAETZ. Madam Speaker, I would say I have regretted things I have
tweeted. I hope that people who tweeted in support of violence in the
summer of 2020 regret those tweets. I am not sure if they do or not.

[[Page H6332]]

I would just suggest we have better things to do on the floor of the
House of Representatives than be the hall monitors for Twitter.
If we got a thousand Americans, in almost any district in America,
and asked what was troubling them, I don't know that we would find two
in any district that would put Paul Gosar on the list of things that
matter to them more than the issues that they face at their kitchen
table.
Ms. SCANLON. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Maryland (Mr. Raskin), a distinguished member of the Rules Committee.
Mr. RASKIN. Madam Speaker, is there a high school or a workplace in
America that would do nothing if a student or a worker posted violently
threatening material against a fellow student or a colleague? Please
show it to me, if so.
Last month, a high school student in Michigan made threatening
statements about a specific classmate. He was arrested.
In Boulder, Colorado, several high school students were expelled for
posting violently threatening material online.
Last month, in Chicago, a firefighter was fired for his threatening
social media posts, including a cartoon of someone running someone else
over in a car.
A woman in Pennsylvania who made violent threats against a colleague
on Facebook was fired, and the State court found she was ineligible for
unemployment compensation because her violently threatening speech
online constituted willful misconduct.
It is remarkable to me, Madam Speaker, that we have colleagues who
think we should do nothing in the face of a Member of the United States
House of Representatives who posts an animated cartoon video of him
killing a colleague.
Congressman Gosar is 62. Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez is
32.
Mr. COLE. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Madam Speaker, if we defeat the previous question, I will offer an
amendment to the rule to consider a resolution that would add a new
House rule stating 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, my amendment would reinforce the longstanding norm of
basic fairness that today's resolution does not comply with. Throughout
the entire history of the House of Representatives, it has been an
unwritten rule, or norm of conduct, that one party does not attempt to
exercise a veto over the other party's committee assignments. The
reasons for this are obvious. It protects the operations of the
institution and ensures that politically motivated attempts to remove
Members from committees do not happen.
But the majority's actions, both today and earlier this Congress,
threaten that norm and threaten to set off a new round of escalating
partisan punishment anytime the majority changes hands. Establishing
this as a written rule of the House would ensure that no Member ever
faces this kind of partisan retribution again.
Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to include in the Record the
text of my amendment, along with the 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 reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. SCANLON. Madam Speaker, like the distinguished gentleman from
Oklahoma, I, too, long for the times when the norms of civilized
conduct in this House were observed. When, perhaps, our colleagues
across the aisle can return to those norms, then motions and
resolutions like the one we are considering today will not be
necessary.
Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey
(Mr. Payne).
Mr. PAYNE. Madam Speaker, I rise today to condemn the actions of
Representative Paul Gosar of Arizona and support this resolution.
There have been many times when I have stood on this floor and
disagreed with my Republican colleagues. At times, I have done so with
passion. But I have never supported or promoted violence against any of
them. The vast majority of my colleagues, Republican and Democrat, have
shown that they feel the same way.
We know that there is a line that cannot be crossed when it comes to
how we refer to our political rivals, and Representative Gosar has
crossed that line. He crossed it when he created a video that depicts
attacking President Joe Biden and killing Representative Alexandria
Ocasio-Cortez.
This behavior is unacceptable from any Member of Congress. It would
not be tolerated in any workplace in the country, and it should not be
tolerated here.
That is why we must censure Representative Gosar and remove him from
his committees. We must show the country that inappropriate actions,
like his video, have consequences. We must remind all Members that
there is a certain decorum to how we treat each other that must be
respected at all times. We must show the country that we can debate as
Democrats and Republicans but still respect each other as Americans.
Madam Speaker, I heard the gentleman from Florida mention Wile E.
Coyote and the Road Runner. Yes, it is true that they are cartoons, but
neither one of them can pick up a gun. Congressman Gosar can.
Mr. COLE. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. SCANLON. Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from
Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee).
Ms. JACKSON LEE. Madam Speaker, this is a very troubling moment in
our history.
After the rule is passed, you will see other Members come to the
floor to continue this debate.
I thought I would start out by holding up a most precious document,
and that is the Constitution of the United States of America. I often
get chills when I read its Preamble, which indicates that the body of
people who started this Nation organized to create a more perfect
Union.
I love to hear those words because what it suggests is that we wanted
to be the standard-bearer for what is best and better in the world. We
wanted to cease conflict. We wanted to be the defenders of peace. And
even with the original sin, we wanted somehow to be better than others.
I get chills when I walk through the Halls of this very august place,
to see the depictions of the debates in the early years, to realize how
fragile democracy is, and how we could not last.

I hold this up because, interestingly, we can be so proud that
Congress was listed as the first body of government, Article I.
As I read the charges in here, it gives us powers as the House of
Representatives. Nowhere is there a privilege to kill. Nowhere is there
the instruction to kill. Nowhere is there an instruction to be free to
murder. Yet, with a great deal of trepidation and sadness, I am here
because of a video.
This headline speaks to it: ``House to vote on censuring
Republican,'' Mr. Gosar, ``who shared violent video targeting'' a
Member of Congress.
That is the crux of why we are here. It is not speech of people
supporting the right to be free in this Nation and supporting the
George Floyd bill, where protesters, peaceful and otherwise, did rise
up, young people, about 66,000 in Houston, completely peaceful, as it
was around the Nation.
Don't try to compare the pain of protesters on an issue of justice
with the actions of this gentleman. Yes, I call him that.
Mr. Gosar is seen delivering a fatal blow to the back of the
monster's head, and blood is seen gushing from the wound. The face is
that of our colleague, and it is violent.
In addition, it is treasonous to be seen to attack the President of
the United States of America.
In one scene, footage of migrants crossing the Rio Grande is overlaid
with what appears to be splattered blood.
Who are we as a Nation?
In another, the words ``drugs,'' ``crime,'' ``poverty,'' ``money,''
``murder,'' ``gangs,'' ``violence,'' and ``trafficking'' flash across
the screen. Mr. Gosar knew what he was doing.

[[Page H6333]]

The 1 minute and 32 seconds was posted by him. It shows him battling
a towering, naked monstrosity with the face of that Democratic Member.
It is against women of color; it is against women; and it is against
Members of Congress.
Last week, Ted Lieu and I, and 30 other Members, sent a letter to
Republican leadership asking if there was one person that would call
this out and indicate shame, shame, shame.
I include in the Record the letter that was sent to Republican
leadership.

Congress of the United States,

Washington, DC, November 12, 2021.
Hon. Kevin McCarthy,
Republican Leader, House of Representatives,
Washington, DC.
Dear Republican Leader McCarthy: We write as members of the
United States House of Representatives to express our extreme
concern, indignation, and fear regarding the recent actions
of Representative Paul Gosar and to ask that you publicly
request a House Ethics Committee investigation into Mr.
Gosar's actions.
On November 7, 2021, Mr. Gosar shared a grotesque video on
Twitter in which his face and those of several other
Republican Members of the House are edited into the opening
credits of the Netflix anime series Attack on Titan, and in
which Mr. Gosar is depicted killing a giant monster with the
face of a Democratic Member of Congress.
The one minute and thirty-two-seconds video depicts Mr.
Gosar battling a towering, naked monstrosity with the face of
a Democratic Member of the House superimposed over the
monster's face. Mr. Gosar is then seen delivering a fatal
strike to the back of the monster's neck, and blood is seen
gushing from the wound. The video also depicts Mr. Gosar
leaping at President Biden while brandishing two swords, and
the video is interspersed throughout with real-life footage
of Border Patrol officers rounding up migrants at the U.S.-
Mexico border. In one scene, footage of migrants crossing the
Rio Grande is overlaid with what appears to be splattered
blood. In another, the words ``drugs,'' ``crime,''
``poverty,'' ``money,'' ``murder,'' ``gangs,'' ``violence''
and ``trafficking'' flash across the screen.
Sharing the glorification of violence expressed in this
video goes far beyond the protections afforded by the Speech
and Debate Clause in the Constitution and is beneath the
dignity of a person serving in the Congress of the United
States. Mr. Gosar's actions display a breakdown of reasoned
discourse not seen in the House since the summer of 1856,
when South Carolina Congressman Preston Brooks attacked
Massachusetts Senator Charles Sumner with a cane on the
Senate floor. The beating nearly killed Sumner and
contributed significantly to the country's polarization over
the issue of slavery and to the use of violence that
eventually led to the Civil War.
In a like manner, Mr. Gosar's actions serve solely to
glorify the usage of violence against Members of the House.
As we witnessed with Mr. Gosar's actions leading up to
January 6, threats of violence and the glorification of
violence lead to actual violence. Mr. Gosar has continuously
been a strong proponent of the Big Lie that President Biden
lost the 2020 Presidential election. As reported by several
media outlets, Mr. Gosar was intimately involved with the
planning of the January 6 rally and, following the January 6
attack, Mr. Gosar called the insurrectionists ``peaceful
patriots.'' Rather than condemn calls for violence against
Congress and actual violence against Congress, Mr. Gosar has
instead shared an animated video of himself killing a fellow
Member of Congress.
Less than one year has passed since Congress witnessed the
January 6 domestic terrorists break into the Capitol
building, vandalize and steal property, threaten our safety
and lives, and attack and kill Capitol police officers. Less
than one year has passed since we witnessed crowds chanting
``Hang Mike Pence,'' and ``Hang Nancy Pelosi'' outside this
bastion of democracy. If ever there was a time for the House
to come together to promote civility, discourse, and
cooperation, it is now.
For these reasons, we are asking that as the Leader of the
Republican Conference you publicly request an investigation
into Mr. Gosar's actions by the House Ethics Committee to
determine whether Mr. Gosar has violated the Rules of the
House to a degree sufficient to warrant disciplinary action,
including ordering the cessation of conduct that threatens
the lives of fellow Members of Congress and the President,
removal from his Committee positions, censure, expulsion, or
further disciplinary action as determined by the Committee or
the House of Representatives.
We must act to protect the dignity and integrity of the
House.
Very truly yours,
Sheila Jackson Lee, Alan Lowenthal, Grace F. Napolitano,
Rashida Tlaib, Ted Lieu, Nanette Barragan, Sylvia R.
Garcia, Grace Meng, Bonnie Watson Coleman, Jimmy Gomez,
Dwight Evans, Mike Doyle, David N. Cicilline, John
Larson, Henry C. ``Hank'' Johnson, Jr., Adriano
Espaillat, Mike Quigley, Ilhan Omar, J. Luis Correa,
Stacey E. Plaskett, David Price, Linda Sanchez, Andre
Carson, Earl Blumenauer, Troy A. Carter, Madeleine
Dean, Mary Gay Scanlon, Jason Crow, Jim Cooper, Jerry
McNerney, Brenden F. Boyle, Steve Cohen, Members of
Congress.

{time} 1300

Ms. JACKSON LEE. This brings me to tears. There is no celebration on
this floor. It is imperative that we pass this resolution and Mr. Gosar
is censured and removed from his seat. The reason is you cannot depict
the murder of another Member of Congress or the President of the United
States.
Madam Speaker, I stand here today as a senior member of the
Committees on the Judiciary, on Homeland Security, and on the Budget,
to support this Rule governing debate of H. Res. 789 to censure Rep.
Gosar and to remove him from his committee assignment.
I also stand here, Madam Speaker, to express my concern, indignation,
and fear regarding Representative Gosar's actions.
On November 7, 2021, Mr. Gosar shared a grotesque video on Twitter in
which his face and those of several other Republican Members are edited
into an anime segment, and in which Mr. Gosar is depicted killing a
giant monster with the face of a Democratic Member of Congress.
Mr. Gosar is then seen delivering a fatal strike to the back of the
monster's neck, and blood is seen gushing from the wound.
The video also depicts Mr. Gosar leaping at President Biden while
brandishing two swords, and the video is interspersed throughout with
real-life footage of Border Patrol officers rounding up migrants at the
U.S.-Mexico border.
In one scene, footage of migrants crossing the Rio Grande is overlaid
with what appears to be splattered blood.
In another the words ``drugs'' ``crime'' ``poverty'' ``money''
``murder'' ``gangs,'' ``violence'' and ``trafficking'' flash across the
screen.
The one minute and thirty-two second video depicts Mr. Gosar battling
a towering, naked monstrosity with the face of a Democratic Member of
the House superimposed over the monster's face.
This was a one minute and thirty-two second speech threatening
violence against a member of the House.
Last week, my colleague Ted Lieu and I, along with thirty other
members of the House, sent a letter to Minority Leader McCarthy asking
him to request an Ethics investigation into Mr. Gosar's actions.
Rather than standing for the dignity of the House, Minority Leader
McCarthy has done nothing.
I would like to submit into the record the November 12, 2021 letter
sent to Minority Leader McCarthy by myself, Ted Lieu, and thirty other
members of Congress.
Sharing the glorification of violence expressed in this video goes
far beyond the protections afforded by the Speech and Debate Clause in
the Constitution and is beneath the dignity of a person serving in the
Congress of the United States.
Mr. Gosar's actions display a breakdown of reasoned discourse not
seen in the House since the summer of 1856, when South Carolina
Congressman Preston Brooks attacked Massachusetts Senator Charles
Sumner with a cane on the Senate floor.
The beating nearly killed Sumner and contributed significantly to the
country's polarization over the issue of slavery and to the use of
violence that eventually led to the Civil War.
In a like manner, Mr. Gosar's actions serve solely to glorify the
usage of violence against Members of the House.
As we witnessed with Mr. Gosar's actions leading up to January 6,
threats of violence and the glorification of violence lead to actual
violence.
Mr. Gosar has continuously been a strong proponent of the Big Lie
that President Biden lost the 2020 Presidential election.
As reported by several media outlets, Mr. Gosar was intimately
involved with the planning of the January 6 rally and, following the
January 6 attack, Mr. Gosar called the insurrectionists ``peaceful
patriots.''
Rather than condemn calls for violence against Congress and actual
violence against Congress, Mr. Gosar has instead shared an animated
video of himself killing a fellow Member of Congress.
Rather than uphold the dignity and sanctity of the House, Republican
Leader McCarthy has done nothing
Less than one year has passed since Congress witnessed the January 6
domestic terrorists break into the Capitol building, vandalize and
steal property, threaten our safety and lives, and attack and kill
Capitol police officers.
Less than one year has passed since we witnessed crowds chanting
``Hang Mike Pence'' and ``Hang Nancy Pelosi'' outside this bastion of
democracy. If ever there was a time for the House to come together to
promote civility, discourse, and cooperation, it is now.
For these reasons, I urge all members to vote in favor of this Rule
governing debate.

[[Page H6334]]

We must act to protect the dignity and integrity of the House.
Mr. COLE. Madam Speaker, I continue to reserve the balance of my
time.
Ms. SCANLON. Madam Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from
Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern), the distinguished chairman of the Rules
Committee.
Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I want to thank the gentlewoman from
Pennsylvania for yielding me the time and for her distinguished service
on the Rules Committee.
Madam Speaker, the standard we have set is simple. When a Member uses
taxpayer money to produce a video encouraging violence against another
Member, they should lose the privilege of serving on a committee. That
is what serving on a congressional committee is. It is a privilege. It
is not a right.
I don't know what Congressman Gosar has said in the privacy of
Republican Conference meetings. I am not getting any invitations to
those. Frankly, Madam Speaker, I don't really care because it is what
he said publicly that counts, and publicly he has defended his actions.
Can we just be honest here, Madam Speaker? For once, can my
colleagues on the other side stand up to their leadership and say in
public what they know to be true?
After our colleague Gabby Giffords was shot, after the distinguished
minority whip was shot, after what happened on January 6, after a
record-breaking increase in threats against Members, will none of my
colleagues on the other side admit that Congressman Gosar should be
held accountable?
And for all the talk from those on the other side about this standard
somehow being a slippery slope, let me remind them that it is their own
colleagues who have suggested removing Republicans not for advocating
violence, but for voting for the bipartisan infrastructure bill.
Is this the state of the Republican Party today? If you vote for a
bipartisan bill, your own colleagues will call for retribution, but if
you tweet a video depicting the murder of a colleague and depicting
violence against the President of the United States, that is somehow
okay? Come on.
His office produced this video, and Congressman Gosar defended it. We
have people out there being influenced by garbage like this. We have
Members being forced to pay for security. We have Members getting death
threats. This is dangerous stuff that we are talking about here.
But last night in the Rules Committee we heard a lot of
rationalization. We heard explanation. We heard whataboutism. Give me a
break.
Madam Speaker, the dangerous standard, the real slippery slope would
be for this Congress to do nothing here, to be satisfied with a stern,
private phone call from the Republican leadership and no
accountability.
We cannot allow the normalization of political violence in America.
Something is very, very wrong with that. And something is very, very
wrong with anyone who thought posting this video was okay.
Now, the minority leader had a ``stern, private call'' with
Congressman Gosar. Guess what? That is not enough. There must be real
consequences.
Censure and removing Congressman Gosar from his committee assignments
is appropriate here. This isn't about partisanship or anyone's voting
record. This is about accountability, and at some point, we need to
come together to uphold the integrity and the decency of this
institution.
To be honest, Madam Speaker, unfortunately, I am not hearing a hell
of a lot of willingness from many on the other side to do that.
Mr. COLE. Madam Speaker, I continue to reserve the balance of my
time.
Ms. SCANLON. Madam Speaker, I am prepared to close if the gentleman
is prepared to close. I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. COLE. Madam Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time to
close.
Obviously, I oppose the rule. Today's action threatens one of the key
norms of this institution, the right of the majority and minority to
make committee assignments for their respective Members. It threatens
to set a new, dangerous precedent for this institution, allowing the
majority to have a veto over the minority's assignments.
Representative Gosar has already addressed his misguided decision to
post the video and has sought to rectify it.
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.
Ms. SCANLON. Madam Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
Madam Speaker, I include in the Record a November 9 Insider article
entitled: ``GOP Lawmakers Want to Punish the 13 Republicans Who Voted
for Biden's Infrastructure Bill By Kicking Them Off Congressional
Committees, Report Says.''

[From the Insider, Nov. 9, 2021]

GOP Lawmakers Want To Punish the 13 Republicans Who Voted for Biden's
Infrastructure Bill by Kicking Them Off Congressional Committees,
Report Says

(By Tom Porter)

Republican leaders in the US House of Representatives are
expecting a bid to punish the 13 Republicans who voted for
President Joe Biden's $1.2 trillion infrastructure bill by
stripping them of committee assignments, according to a
report.
Punchbowl News reported that some Republican lawmakers were
determined to take action against the 13, several of whom are
ranking members or senior Republicans on House committees or
subcommittees.
The report did not detail what level of support the move
might have as of Tuesday morning.
Under House rules, a party's steering committee has the
power to recommend that a lawmaker be removed from committee
assignments, which is then subject to a vote by the caucus
and the full House.
It is a punishment that has historically been reserved for
lawmakers who have been accused of crimes, or been involved
with extremism.
The support of the 13 Republicans was ultimately vital for
the infrastructure bill passing into law last week, with six
Democrats voting against it amid a monthslong dispute in the
party over a connected bill that is being stalled in the
Senate. The infrastructure bill was passed by the Senate in a
bipartisan vote in June.
The move to take action against the 13 Republicans who
supported the infrastructure bill highlights the fury of some
GOP lawmakers against party colleagues for backing Biden's
legislation.
Several hard line loyalists to former President Donald
Trump on the far right of the GOP House caucus, including
Reps. Marjorie Taylor Greene and Matt Gaetz, have been
publicly critical of the 13 lawmakers. Trump himself has also
criticized them.
``Here are the `Republicans' that just voted to help Biden
screw America,'' Greene tweeted last week, branding them
``traitors, and sharing pictures and phone numbers of them.
In an Monday CNN interview, Rep. Fred Upton of Michigan--
one of the 13 Republicans who voted for the infrastructure
bill--played a threatening message he'd received after the
vote.
``I'll tell you it's a terrible way--we have seen civility
really downslide here. I'm concerned about my staff. They are
taking these calls,'' he said.
There has long been tensions in the GOP between centrists
and Trump loyalists. In May, Rep. Liz Cheney was removed from
her leadership role in the House GOP over her criticism of
Trump and his baseless claims of fraud in the 2020 election.

Ms. SCANLON. Madam Speaker, as I indicated, there are some in the
Republican Conference who want to kick 13 Republicans off their
committees for voting for an infrastructure bill that will benefit
their constituents, but when a Member of Congress publicly celebrates a
video depicting the murder of a colleague, silence.
It is disgraceful that Congress is the one place in the United States
where a video calling for the murder of a Member of Congress is not
universally condemned, and it is a sad thing for this institution.
Madam Speaker, we are here to address the conduct of a Member of
Congress who disseminated and celebrated a video that portrays him
murdering another Member of Congress and attacking the President of the
United States.
The evidence speaks for itself. There is nothing more to review.
Nothing to investigate. No questions to answer or facts to find.
We have all seen the video. We have heard Mr. Gosar's response, and
we have seen the lack of response from the Republican Party leadership
to condemn Representative Gosar's celebration of violence to make clear
that such actions are unacceptable, and that political violence is
unacceptable in the United States of America.

[[Page H6335]]

In the absence of meaningful action by his own party, it is up to
Members of the House of Representatives and the country as a whole to
decide whether such actions deserve consequences.
Today, we ask ourselves, is this behavior acceptable to you? Is it
acceptable to the American people? The way we vote today says a lot,
not only about the integrity of the Members who are entrusted with the
privilege of representing this great country, but also the direction in
which we are headed.
I am grateful to the few Republican colleagues who have the integrity
and the guts, quite frankly, to condemn Mr. Gosar's actions. But, once
again, Republican leadership lacks the courage to properly manage the
actions of their conference, and so Congress must act.
Rejecting political violence should not be a partisan effort. How far
has the party of Lincoln fallen that it would excuse this conduct? We
must say that political violence is not acceptable in the United States
of America.
Madam Speaker, I urge all of my colleagues to support the rule and
underlying resolution.
The material previously referred to by Mr. Cole is as follows:

Strike all after the resolving clause and insert the
following:
That immediately upon adoption of this resolution, the
House shall proceed to the consideration in the House of the
resolution (H. Res. 796), amending the Rules of the House of
Representatives to prohibit the consideration of a resolution
proposing to remove a Member from a standing committee unless
the resolution is offered by, or with the concurrence of, the
Leader of the party of the Member that is the subject of the
resolution. The resolution shall be considered as read. The
previous question shall be considered as ordered on the
resolution 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 Rules. Clause 1(c) of
rule XIX shall not apply to the consideration of House
Resolution 796.

H. Res. 796

Resolved,

SECTION 1. REMOVAL OF A MEMBER FROM A STANDING COMMITTEE.

Clause 5(a)(1) of rule X of the Rules of the House of
Representatives is amended to read as follows:
``(1)(A) The standing committees specified in clause 1
shall be elected by the House within seven calendar days
after the commencement of each Congress, from nominations
submitted by the respective party caucus or conference. A
resolution proposing to change the composition of a standing
committee shall be privileged if offered by direction of the
party caucus or conference concerned.
``(B) A resolution proposing to remove a Member from a
standing 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).''.

Ms. SCANLON. 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 221,
nays 207, not voting 5, as follows:

[Roll No. 377]

YEAS--221

Adams
Aguilar
Allred
Auchincloss
Axne
Barragan
Bass
Beatty
Bera
Beyer
Bishop (GA)
Blumenauer
Blunt Rochester
Bonamici
Bourdeaux
Bowman
Boyle, Brendan F.
Brown (MD)
Brown (OH)
Brownley
Bush
Bustos
Butterfield
Carbajal
Cardenas
Carson
Carter (LA)
Cartwright
Case
Casten
Castor (FL)
Castro (TX)
Cheney
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)
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
Kinzinger
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
Stansbury
Stanton
Stevens
Strickland
Suozzi
Swalwell
Takano
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Titus
Tlaib
Tonko
Torres (CA)
Torres (NY)
Trahan
Trone
Underwood
Vargas
Veasey
Vela
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watson Coleman
Welch
Wexton
Wild
Williams (GA)
Wilson (FL)
Yarmuth

NAYS--207

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
Carey
Carl
Carter (GA)
Carter (TX)
Cawthorn
Chabot
Cline
Cloud
Clyde
Cole
Comer
Crawford
Crenshaw
Curtis
Davidson
Davis, Rodney
DesJarlais
Diaz-Balart
Donalds
Duncan
Dunn
Ellzey
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)
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)
Kustoff
LaHood
LaMalfa
Lamborn
Latta
LaTurner
Lesko
Letlow
Long
Lucas
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
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
Taylor
Tenney
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--5

Griffith
Loudermilk
Luetkemeyer
Perry
Velazquez

{time} 1345

Mrs. RODGERS of Washington and Mr. ROGERS of Alabama changed their
vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
Messrs. KRISHNAMOORTHI, NEGUSE, MALINOWSKI, and HORSFORD changed
their vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
So the previous question was ordered.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Stated for:
Ms. VELAZQUEZ. Madam Speaker, on Wednesday, November 17, I regret not
being present for one vote session due to a committee briefing. Had I
been present, I would

[[Page H6336]]

have voted ``aye'' on the motion on ordering the previous question on
the Rule H. Res. 795, roll No. 377.

Members Recorded Pursuant to House Resolution 8, 117th Congress

Auchincloss (Clark (MA))
Blumenauer (Beyer)
Carter (LA) (Kahele)
DeFazio (Brown (MD))
Dingell (Clark (MA))
Khanna (Gomez)
Kildee (Butterfield)
Kirkpatrick (Stanton)
Lawrence (Beatty)
Lawson (FL) (Evans)
Lesko (Joyce (PA))
Levin (MI) (Raskin)
Lowenthal (Beyer)
McEachin (Wexton)
Nunes (Garcia (CA))
Porter (Wexton)
Rice (NY) (Murphy (FL))
Roybal-Allard (McCollum)
Rush (Quigley)
Stevens (Lee (NV))
Swalwell (Gomez)
Tlaib (Bowman)
Underwood (Casten)
Waltz (Salazar)
Wilson (FL) (Hayes)
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Ms. McCollum). 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. 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 222,
nays 208, not voting 3, as follows:

[Roll No. 378]

YEAS--222

Adams
Aguilar
Allred
Auchincloss
Axne
Barragan
Bass
Beatty
Bera
Beyer
Bishop (GA)
Blumenauer
Blunt Rochester
Bonamici
Bourdeaux
Bowman
Boyle, Brendan F.
Brown (MD)
Brown (OH)
Brownley
Bush
Bustos
Butterfield
Carbajal
Cardenas
Carson
Carter (LA)
Cartwright
Case
Casten
Castor (FL)
Castro (TX)
Cheney
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)
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
Kinzinger
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
Stansbury
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--208

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
Carey
Carl
Carter (GA)
Carter (TX)
Cawthorn
Chabot
Cline
Cloud
Clyde
Cole
Comer
Crawford
Crenshaw
Curtis
Davidson
Davis, Rodney
DesJarlais
Diaz-Balart
Donalds
Duncan
Dunn
Ellzey
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)
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)
Kustoff
LaHood
LaMalfa
Lamborn
Latta
LaTurner
Lesko
Letlow
Long
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
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
Taylor
Tenney
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

Griffith
Loudermilk
Perry

{time} 1407

Mr. MULLIN changed his vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
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

____________________