PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H. RES. 72, REMOVING A CERTAIN MEMBER FROM CERTAIN STANDING COMMITTEES OF THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES; Congressional Record Vol. 167, No. 21
(House of Representatives - February 04, 2021)

Text available as:

Formatting necessary for an accurate reading of this text may be shown by tags (e.g., <DELETED> or <BOLD>) or may be missing from this TXT display. For complete and accurate display of this text, see the PDF.


[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

     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--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)
       
  

                          ____________________