[Congressional Record Volume 171, Number 194 (Tuesday, November 18, 2025)]
[House]
[Pages H4757-H4758]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
NOTICE OF INTENTION TO OFFER RESOLUTION RAISING A QUESTION OF THE
PRIVILEGES OF THE HOUSE
Ms. CLARKE of New York. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to clause 2(a)(1) of
rule IX, I rise to give notice of my intent to raise a question of the
privileges of the House.
The form of the resolution is as follows:
Censuring Representative Cory Mills.
Whereas Representative Cory Mills has on several occasions conducted
himself in a manner that reflects discredit upon the House of
Representatives;
Whereas on February 19, 2025, Washington, DC, Metropolitan Police
Department officers were called to resolve a private matter at
Representative Cory Mills' residence, where officers were called to the
1300 block of Maryland Avenue, Southwest around 1:15 p.m. for the
report of an assault;
Whereas police reports obtained by NBC4 Washington confirmed that the
Washington, DC, Metropolitan Police Department was investigating
Representative Cory Mills for an alleged assault of a 27-year old woman
that took place on February 19, 2025, at the residence of
Representative Cory Mills;
Whereas the first police report, provided to NBC4 Washington by a
source and confirmed by a second source familiar with the
investigation, said that the 27-year-old woman accused her significant
other for over a year of having grabbed her, shoved her, and pushed her
out of the door, and also said that the woman involved showed the
officer ``bruises on her arm which appeared fresh'';
Whereas NBC4 Washington also reported that the Metropolitan Police
Department identified Representative Cory Mills as the significant
other of the alleged victim of assault--which alleged victim was a 27-
year-old woman who was not the wife of Representative Cory Mills--and
that the alleged victim ``let officers hear Subject 1 [now identified
by MPD as Mills] instruct her to lie about the origin of her bruises .
. . Eventually, Subject 1 made contact with police and admitted that
the situation escalated from verbal to physical, but it was severe
enough to create bruising'';
Whereas on February 21, 2025, the Washington post also confirmed two
DC police officials said that the alleged victim of assault initially
told a 911 operator and police that she had been assaulted and that
officers said she also had what seemed to be visible injuries, and that
while a supervisor initially classified the offense internally as a
family disturbance, police commanders later learned of the incident,
reviewed the reports and body camera footage from the responding
officers, and reclassified the case as a domestic violence assault;
Whereas on February 21, 2025, NBC4 Washington also reported that the
Metropolitan Police Department determined that probable cause to arrest
Representative Cory Mills for misdemeanor assault existed and sent an
arrest warrant for Representative Cory Mills to the United States
Attorney's Office for the District of Columbia; however, then-Acting
United States Attorney for the District of Columbia Ed Martin refused
to sign the arrest warrant for Representative Cory Mills and instead
returned the case to the Metropolitan Police Department for further
investigation;
[[Page H4758]]
Whereas on July 14, 2025, a different former romantic partner of
Representative Cory Mills, who was apparently in a relationship with
Representative Mills from November 2021 to February 2025, reported to
authorities in Florida that Representative Mills threatened to release
nude images and other intimate videos of her and threatened to harm her
future romantic partners in retaliation for her decision to end a
relationship with Representative Mills after seeing the public reports
described above concerning the alleged February 2025 physical assault;
Whereas on October 14, 2025, the Circuit Court of the Third Judicial
Circuit in Columbia County, Florida, issued a Final Judgment of
Injunction for Protection Against Dating Violence against
Representative Cory Mills, based on a finding that his former romantic
partner was a victim of dating violence or had reasonable cause to
believe she was in imminent danger of becoming a victim of an act of
dating violence;
Whereas in August 2024, the Office of Congressional Conduct adopted
and transmitted to the Committee on Ethics of the House of
Representatives a report indicating that there was substantial reason
to believe that Representative Cory Mills may have omitted or
misrepresented required information in his financial disclosure
statements, accepted excessive contributions to his campaign committee
in the form of personal loans and contributions that may not have
derived from Representative Cory Mills' personal funds, entered into,
held, or enjoyed contracts with federal agencies while he was a Member
of Congress, and may have accepted through his campaign committee in-
kind contributions or other contributions not lawfully made;
Whereas individuals who served with Representative Cory Mills have
called into question the veracity of the account of events which formed
the basis of a recommendation that Representative Cory Mills receive an
award of a Bronze Star, bestowed in 2021, for his service under enemy
fire in Iraq in 2003;
Whereas in August 2024, Representative Cory Mills provided the
Daytona Beach News with documents purporting to prove that he earned a
Bronze Star with heroism, including a Department of the Army Form 638
recommending Representative Cory Mills for a Bronze Star which includes
a signature from then-Army Brigade Commander Arnold N. Gordon-Bray;
however, Retired Brigadier General Bray told the Daytona Beach News-
Journal in August 2024 that he did not sign a Bronze Star
recommendation for Representative Cory Mills;
Whereas five people who served with Representative Cory Mills,
including two men who were reported as having been personally saved by
Representative Cory Mills at great risk to his own life as a basis for
the recommendation for his Bronze Star in the Department of the Army
Form 638, disputed that Representative Cory Mills was involved in their
rescue or provided life-saving care;
Whereas one Private First Class cited as having been involved in one
of the listed achievements on Representative Cory Mills's Army Form 638
recommending him for a Bronze Star denied that Representative Cory
Mills provided him any aid and also denied that his injuries were life
threatening;
Whereas one Sergeant cited as having been involved in one of the
listed achievements on Representative Cory Mills's Army Form 638
recommending him for a Bronze Star called the account a ``fabrication''
and claimed that he ``was not involved in any claims that Cory Mills
makes about me''; and
Whereas despite the numerous available contradictions of the accounts
forming the basis of the recommendation for his Bronze Star,
Representative Cory Mills described the legitimate factual disputes
raised by individuals he purportedly served with and rescued as
``slander and defamation'' in a statement to the Daytona Beach News
Journal: Now, therefore, be it
Resolved, That--
(1) Representative Cory Mills be censured;
(2) Representative Cory Mills forthwith present himself in the well
of the House of Representatives for the pronouncement of censure;
(3) Representative Cory Mills be censured with the public reading of
this resolution by the Speaker; and
(4) Representative Cory Mills is hereby removed from the following
standing committee of the House of Representatives: the Committee on
Armed Services.
{time} 1820
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under rule IX, a resolution offered from the
floor by a Member other than the majority leader or the minority leader
as a question of the privileges of the House has immediate precedence
only at a time designated by the Chair within 2 legislative days after
the resolution is properly noticed.
Pending that designation, the form of the resolution by the
gentlewoman from New York will appear in the Record at this point.
The Chair will not at this time determine whether the resolution
constitutes a question of privilege. That determination will be made at
the time designated for consideration of the resolution.
____________________