The publication is reproduced in full below:
REMOVING A CERTAIN MEMBER FROM CERTAIN STANDING COMMITTEES OF THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
Mr. DEUTCH. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 91, I call up the resolution (H. Res. 72) removing a certain Member from certain standing committees of the House of Representatives, and ask for its immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the title of the resolution.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 91, the resolution is considered read.
The text of the resolution is as follows:
H. Res. 72
Whereas clause 1 of rule XXIII of the Rules of the House of Representatives provides, ``A Member, Delegate, Resident Commissioner, officer, or employee of the House shall behave at all times in a manner that shall reflect creditably on the House.''; and
Whereas Representative Marjorie Taylor Greene should be removed from her committee assignments in light of conduct she has exhibited: Now, therefore, be it
Resolved, That the following named Member be, and is hereby, removed from the following standing committees of the House of Representatives:
Committee on the Budget: Mrs. Greene of Georgia.
Committee on Education and Labor: Mrs. Greene of Georgia.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The resolution shall be debatable for one hour, equally divided and controlled by the chair and the ranking minority member of the Committee on Ethics.
The gentleman from Florida (Mr. Deutch) and the gentlewoman from Indiana (Mrs. Walorski) each will control 30 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Florida.
Mr. DEUTCH. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H. Res. 72.
In 2019, the FBI warned that ``antigovernment, identity-based, and fringe political conspiracy theories very likely to motivate some domestic extremists to commit criminal, sometimes violent activity.''
In October last year, this House voted nearly unanimously to condemn QAnon conspiracy theories because they encourage the rejection of objective reality, deepen political polarization, and undermine trust in our democratic institutions; but also because they have inspired real-world violence, bomb threats, vandalism, kidnapping, terrorism, murder, and insurrection.
Congresswoman Greene of Georgia has a long history of amplifying dangerous conspiracy theories online and threatening violent, racist, Islamophobic, and anti-Semitic conduct. H. Res. 72 will ensure that Mrs. Greene's conduct is not rewarded with seats on two important committees.
The Congresswoman has said that American citizens who practice Islam
``do not belong in our government,'' and ``they should stay in their country.''
Mr. Speaker, this is their country, and it is their government as much as any American's.
Mrs. Greene has trafficked in dangerous anti-Semitic lies about the Rothschild family, George Soros, Zionist supremacists, and secret Jewish plots.
Over millennia, because of baseless, ugly lies, millions of Jews have been hated, targeted, expelled from their countries, violently attacked, killed, and exterminated because words lead to action and death.
Mrs. Greene claimed the mass shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Connecticut, that killed 26 people, including 20 6- and 7-year-old kids, was staged. She claimed the Las Vegas shooting that killed 60 people and injured over 800 was an orchestrated attempt to weaken gun rights. And she claimed the shooting at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School was a false flag event and called the survivors crisis actors.
Mr. Speaker, the 17 people who never came home from school in Parkland on February 14, 2018, were my constituents. Their families' pain is real, and it is felt every single day.
Yesterday, parents of children slain at Sandy Hook, Mark Barden, Daniel's dad; and Nicole Hockley, Dylan's mom, wrote a letter to Leader McCarthy to share how these conspiracy theories impact their families:
``These vicious lies deny the deaths of our murdered children and bring death threats and constant harassment to our doors and our surviving children.''
In 2019, Mrs. Greene created a White House petition to impeach Speaker Pelosi for treason, emphasizing that it is punishable by death, and she liked a Facebook comment stating that: ``A bullet to the head would be a quicker way to remove Speaker Nancy Pelosi.''
In a video statement from December 31, 2018, Mrs. Greene called on her followers to storm Washington, D.C., in what sounds today like a prescient forecast of last month's deadly insurrection: Flood the Capitol. Flood all the government buildings. Go inside. We can end it. We can do it peacefully. We can. I hope we don't have to do it the other way, but we should feel like we will if we have to.
Mr. Speaker, that is exactly what happened.
Conspiracy theories and hate are malignant. They do not fade away. We must stand up to them and say, Enough.
Mrs. Greene has promised that she will never apologize.
Well, we are here today because Republican leadership has decided to embrace and elevate Mrs. Greene. They rewarded her with a seat on the committee of this House that has responsibility for teaching our children the truth and giving them a safe place to learn it.
Two years ago, the Republican leader spoke on this floor, very strongly saying, ``I will pledge to you this, from this side of the aisle, and I hope you understand this clearly, any hatred, we take action.''
Mr. McCarthy did take action, but it wasn't condemnation. It was elevation, appointing her to committee seats.
That is why it is necessary to put this resolution to a vote for every Member of this body because this House must take action. I urge my colleagues to support this resolution and remove Representative Greene of Georgia from her positions on the Committee on Education and Labor and the Committee on Budget.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mrs. WALORSKI. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, let me be clear: I absolutely reject racism, anti-
Semitism, and bigotry. I condemn conspiracy theories and calls for violence. I do not, in any way, condone these reprehensible views. I am not here today to defend any comments made by Representative Greene, whether as a private citizen, candidate, or Member of Congress.
I am here today to defend the precedent set by years of the majority and minority parties coexisting in this body; and I am here today to defend the House Ethics Committee, on which I serve as the ranking member.
{time} 1630
H. Res. 72 is nothing more than a partisan power grab at a critical time when the majority party itself repeatedly calls for unity as our path forward. Bringing a majority resolution to the floor to remove a minority Member from her committee assignments is wrong and unprecedented.
Referring such a resolution to the House Ethics Committee is unprecedented. Referring such a resolution to the House Ethics Committee and then completely bypassing the committee's role is unprecedented. On this floor today we are witnessing one more effort to consolidate power with a majority party and diminish the rights of the minority.
This is not the first power grab effort by this majority in Congress. Earlier this year, the Democrats destroyed over 100 years of representation in Congress and effectively eliminated the only tool that safeguarded the minority's voice: the motion to recommit. And they are doing it again today with H. Res. 72.
In the last 20 years, several Members have been removed from their committee duties. Members on both sides of the aisle have been removed and for various reasons. But those reasons and that decision was always made by the Member's party leadership, or party's membership. Even if the decision to remove a Member was followed with a voice vote on the House floor, the decision itself was made by that Member's caucus following weeks of public and private infighting.
Last night, the Republican Conference met to discuss statements made by Representative Greene prior to her serving the Congress. We listened to Representative Greene. She made similar statements as she did on the floor today. She assured the Conference that her prior statements did not reflect her views today as a member of this body.
The Democratic majority claims the Republican Conference hasn't acted, but that simply isn't true. The Conference just hasn't done what the Democrats want it to do.
Regardless, the majority has brought this unprecedented resolution before the House today. The majority party could have brought this matter directly to the floor as a privileged question and the question of removal would have been a swift vote on the floor.
Instead, the majority referred the resolution to the Ethics Committee to then immediately and completely bypass the Ethics Committee and its functions by bringing this resolution directly to the floor.
Involving the committee, then to only bypass the committee, violates the collegial and bipartisan manner by which the Ethics Committee should operate.
This is my second term serving on the Ethics Committee and I was looking forward to working with Chairman Deutch in a collegial and bipartisan manner. You see, the Committee on Ethics is unique. It is the only standing House committee with equal numbers of Democrat and Republican Members: five Democrats and five Republicans.
There is a reason that neither party holds a majority on this committee and that reason is to avoid one party or the other weaponizing the committee's purpose for use in a political and partisan fashion.
The committee has publicly warned of this risk before. In 2012, following a particularly contentious investigation, the committee publicly expressed the necessity of bipartisan cooperation within the committee leadership.
The committee stated: ``Unlike any other committee, this committee avoids partisan legislative concerns and policies, and must have bipartisan cooperation for the committee to fulfill its constitutional mandate to police the Members, officers and employees of the House. That mission calls upon Members to step out of their partisan framework and approach the work of the committee without regard to their party. It is our recommendation, for any Member that serves on this committee, that he or she constantly evaluate their actions on the committee to ensure that they are living up to the highest standards of this committee.''
Today, we do not see the Ethics Committee's leadership upholding the highest standards of bipartisan cooperation. We don't see today the chair and ranking member presenting a resolution on the House floor together.
At the end of each Congress, the committee issues a report detailing the activities of the committee during the Congress. For each Congress Chairman Deutch has served on Ethics, the committee has worked in a collegial and bipartisan manner, to be able to state that--for the 113th, 114th, 115th, and 116th Congress--all votes taken in the investigative subcommittees were unanimous.
This stack of public reports represents all the hard work the committee has completed in the last four Congresses. All of this work of the committee--completed by its sitting Members, the Members who were asked to serve in the investigative subcommittees and the committee's professional and nonpartisan staff--
was accomplished in bipartisan cooperation.
In fact, Chairman Deutch himself recognized in the committee report for the 116th Congress that: ``All of the committee's work . . . is made possible by the committee's talented, professional, nonpartisan staff. The members of the committee wish to acknowledge their hard work and dedication to the committee and the House. In addition, the committee wishes to thank its departing Members . . . for their service and for the thoughtfulness and collegiality they showed during their time on the committee.''
As you can see, the work on the Ethics Committee is extensive. In the 116th Congress alone, the committee commenced or continued investigative fact-finding gatherings for 50 separate investigative matters, impaneled six investigative committees, and filed five reports with the House, totaling over 3,300 pages regarding various investigative matters.
These tasks were agreed to by the chair and the ranking member of the committee. In fact, the phrase itself, ``chair and ranking minority member'' appears 38 times, 38 times in the committee rules. The Ethics Committee operates effectively because it is consensus driven with decisions made jointly by the chair and the ranking member.
But that is not what is happening today on this floor. The current chair and ranking member have not received a complaint and determined whether the information meets the requirements of the committee rules.
The current chair and ranking member have not jointly gathered information concerning this alleged conduct. Until yesterday's Rules hearing, the chair and the ranking member had not had a single conversation regarding Representative Greene.
As I stated earlier, involving the committee then to only bypass its function, violates the spirit of how this unique committee operates. Once a majority determined that the Ethics Committee was the place for the resolution, it should have allowed the committee to consider the issues properly.
I know our colleagues want to see the Ethics Committee function effectively and not to be used as a partisan political weapon on a manipulated platform. If the Ethics Committee is to consider reviewing statements made by Members of Congress before they were sworn in, then the matter should come before the Ethics Committee in a way that complies with committee rules, preserves the bipartisanship intended, and allows the committee to make legal conclusions and factual determinations in a collegial environment.
All I ask is that we let the committee work, as it is supposed to, to effectively serve this body. To do so, the majority should withdraw this resolution if it chooses, and pursue the matter properly through the Ethics Committee. I reserve the balance of my time.
General Leave
Mr. DEUTCH. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and to include extraneous material on H. Res. 72.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Florida?
There was no objection.
Mr. DEUTCH. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume, and I also note Republican colleagues purport not to defend any of Representative Greene's hateful statements or reprehensible conduct, instead, rely on process. The appeals to process should be recognized for what they are, an effort to shield her from her accountability for her egregious language and actions.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Wasserman Schultz), my friend and colleague from south Florida who has come to know the families from Marjory Stoneman Douglas, as well as I, and the sponsor of this legislation.
Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
I rise to support H. Res. 72, legislation I never hoped to author.
My resolution would remove Congresswoman Marjorie Taylor Greene from her committee assignments. We have already heard today a lot about precedents, so let me explain the precedents which brought us here.
Congresswoman Greene advocated for the execution of a leader of this House. She advocated for the execution of former President Obama. She encouraged violence against law enforcement and has a long record of racist, anti-Semitic, and Islamophobic comments.
She spread cruel conspiracy theories, even claiming the horrific mass school shootings in Sandy Hook and Parkland were staged, and even stalked a young survivor of one of those tragedies, calling him a
``coward.''
These are unprecedented comments and actions by a Member. No one else on this floor has called for violence against other Members and law enforcement. Only one Member has done that and refused to back down, and that is the real precedent we are dealing with today.
We have also heard about regrettable conduct before taking office, a so-called statute of limitations on bad behavior. Prior to her floor remarks this afternoon, Congresswoman Greene spent this entire week doubling down on her promotion of violence, bigotry, and conspiracy theories.
Her response to her critics just yesterday was: ``I won't back down. I'll never apologize.''
We have also heard today about revenge and whataboutism. Greene herself threatened that when Republicans wield the gavel, Democrats will face a similar fate.
And if a Democrat proposes violence against Members and peddles dangerous lies and conspiracy theories, then refuses to renounce them and our caucus refuses to police it, then punishment would be in order.
That is the reality of what we are dealing with today with Congresswoman Greene. We are dealing with conduct that brings shame on this House and a pointed refusal to denounce or internally police it by Republicans.
Congresswoman Greene's past support and present reaffirmation for violence, intimidation, lies, and racism is dangerous. It is exactly the kind of conduct that helps fuel domestic terrorism.
Mr. Speaker, I don't take this threat of violence lightly. Two years ago, a pipe bomb, one of 16 sent around the country in my name, sat in my district office for more than 24 hours with my staff handling and moving around it before anyone knew or told them it possibly contained an explosive device. None of my staff signed up for that kind of threat. No one should be terrorized at work.
But what delivered that bomb to my office was not just one disturbed man. It was the culmination of endless lies, conspiracy theories, and hate that drove someone to violently attack his political rivals.
We all saw that unfold again with deadly consequences here in the Capitol on January 6. We can't afford to have these kinds of violent threats continue and certainly not from someone in this very House. This is not about whether we find Marjorie Taylor Greene's speech offensive.
The point here is that she has promoted and advocated violence. Denying her a seat at committee tables where fact-based policies will be debated and crafted is an appropriate punishment and restraint of her influence.
Congresswoman Greene chose a dangerous and harmful path into this House, one filled with deliberate lies that fomented violence. Once elected and seated here as a sitting Member, she then also chose not only to stand by, but affirm those words and actions.
A deathbed, mild walk back of a couple of wild conspiracy theories just moments ago is not enough to prevent her future harm. Importantly, there was no apology for the hurt and harm caused, and she did not express regret for the stalking of a teenage mass-shooting victim; nor for life-threatening statements she made or promoted against the leader of this House, and so much more.
Now that she has made her choices, the House must limit the future harm and violence that she can invite on this body. The deceptive and inflammatory conduct that fueled such violence cannot be tolerated anywhere, certainly not in this House.
We can take an important step toward restoring integrity, security, decorum, and truth in this House by removing Congresswoman Marjorie Taylor Greene from her committee assignments.
While it is an action we do not take lightly, it is the necessary course of action in the face of her extraordinary behavior that is unbecoming of a Member of Congress.
Mrs. WALORSKI. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California (Mr. McCarthy), the Republican leader.
Mr. McCARTHY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H. Res. 72. This resolution sets a dangerous new standard that will only deepen divisions within this House.
For all of their talk about norms and institutions, it is the Democrats who have acted to undermine the people's House at every turn.
Let's check the Record. Afraid for their political careers, they have moved to shut down debate and silence dissent in committee and on this floor. They went so far as to eliminate the motion to recommit--the minority party's only chance to offer an amendment--which stood for over a century until this year.
They have rushed impeachment through without a shred of due process, just like today, reducing this tool from the highest constitutional remedy to just another opportunity to fundraise and go on TV.
And now, they are declaring the majority has veto power over the minority's member selections for committee.
{time} 1645
We have reviewed this with the historians. Never before in the history of this House has the majority abused its power in this way. Never in the entire history of this House have you ever abused the power in this way.
But it is clear Speaker Pelosi's Caucus thinks differently. They are blinded by partisanship and politics, and it is the American people who will suffer the most because of it.
Mr. Speaker, as for the Member in question, let me be very clear: Representative Greene's past comments and posts as a private citizen do not represent the values of my party. As a Republican, as a conservative, as an American, I condemn those views unequivocally. I condemned them when they first surfaced, and I condemn them today.
Mr. Speaker, this House overwhelmingly voted to condemn the dangerous lies of QAnon last Congress and continues to do so. I made this clear when I met with Representative Greene.
I also made clear that we, as Members, have a responsibility to hold ourselves to a higher standard. She acknowledged this during our conversation and apologized for her past comments. I will hold her to her words and her actions moving forward.
Because these comments caused such deep wounds, I offered Leader Hoyer a path to lower the temperature and address these concerns in a productive way. I offered to remove Representative Greene from the Committee on Education and Labor, but it was rejected. It was rejected.
Now, privately, I have had calls from many Democrats, acknowledging what they are doing is wrong. They understand that this partisan power grab is not only cynical, it is hypocritical. If this is the new standard, I look forward to continuing out the standard because if you look for a side that has a leadership that has done something when their Members do something as a Member, not prior, look to me, because I did just that.
But when a Democrat freshman said, ``Israel has hypnotized the world,'' that supporting Israel is ``all about the Benjamins,'' and that 9/11 was ``some people did something,'' did Speaker Pelosi kick her off the Committee on Foreign Affairs, or did she keep her on the committee and even pose with her on the cover of a magazine?
Will the standard change?
When another Democrat was compromised by a Chinese spy, and it was so serious that the FBI had to brief congressional leaders, did Speaker Pelosi remove him from the House Committee on Intelligence or the Committee on Homeland Security after the briefing?
I am the only other person that had that same briefing just recently. I was in the room with the Speaker. I heard what was said. I will be very clear: I would never have that Member on either of those committees.
Or did she reward him by making him the head of the subcommittee overseeing the CIA?
I guess there are different standards.
Mr. Speaker, when the chairman of the Committee on Rules objected to certifying the 2016 election, citing Russian interference, did Speaker Pelosi censure him?
How about when the chairwoman of the Committee on Financial Services told supporters at a rally in 2017--she was a Member then, unlike the person we are talking about today--``If you see anybody from that Cabinet in a restaurant, in a department store, at a gasoline station, you get out and you create a crowd. And you push back on them, and you tell them they are not welcome anymore, anywhere.''
After she called for violence against public servants, did Speaker Pelosi condemn it, or did she look the other way and make her chairwoman again?
I don't know if you want to amend this one and add others so you can keep your standard. The answer is obvious. While Democrats attack Congresswoman Greene, they not only ignore the infractions within their own party, they reward these Members with prestige and influence.
Mr. Speaker, when it comes time to vote, I expect Democrats will codify this partisan power grab. I would advise them to think twice and pull this resolution from the floor while they still can.
I have heard Democrats quote the Senate minority leader to defend this resolution. I would remind them what Leader McConnell said when Democrats voted to nuke the judicial filibuster: ``You will regret this, and you may regret this a lot sooner than you think.''
If that is the new standard, if people are held to what they have said prior to even being in this House, if the majority party gets to decide who sits on whatever committees, I hope you keep that standard because we have a long list you can work within your own.
Mr. Speaker, in the end, this resolution is merely a distraction from the real issues. In the last 2 weeks, Democrats have taken just two votes: the one today and the one last month on a waiver for a Cabinet member.
This is the least productive Congress since last year. I thought that would be hard to beat.
There is nothing for workers who have lost their jobs, including thousands of blue-collar jobs that were eliminated just by a stroke of a pen of President Biden, even laying off the union workers who endorsed him. It is a shame. They need that job. It is a good-paying job. Nobody sat and talked to them before or asked them. They just laid them off.
Nothing for students who have been stuck learning from behind screens for nearly a year, even though the administration's CDC Director says in-person learning is safe.
Nothing to increase the pace of vaccine distributions so we can get them to people who want them and get one step closer to fully reopening this economy.
At a time when households are already struggling, Congress should use its window of opportunity to get Americans back to work, kids back to school, and vaccines for any American who wants it.
These are the immediate priorities that deserve our energy and our attention. This is what we would work on if we had the opportunity to be in the majority or even had the same opportunity that those in the minority had for last 100 years: to offer a motion to recommit.
Mr. Speaker, as I said before, a House distracted cannot govern, and we are proving it one more time today. Let's stop trying to invent dangerous and divisive ways to abuse the power of a majority and start working on what really matters.
No one supports what was said before a person ever became a Member. When a Member said something that was inappropriate on this side of the aisle, we removed them from committee because they said it when they were a Member.
As we list the long list of the standards on the other side, no, no one ever got removed. They got rewarded. And now, the more than 200-year-history in this body is going to change. But if it changed as a standard to reach all, I will be right here with you.
If the concern was really what the majority leader said to me about being on the Committee on Education and Labor, I am the first one to switch it. I actually offered it. That would be appropriate.
But not for this majority. They believe something different, and that is wrong, just as the words that were said were wrong.
That Member came to this floor to answer those questions. She did it as a Member of Congress, not as a private citizen, when they were said.
Mr. Speaker, I listened to President Biden as I watched him sworn in. I heard the word ``unity.'' That is why I reached out, as well. If there is concern about education, we can fix that. If there is concern on the other side about working with people or getting laid off with every stroke of every executive order, I will work to fix that. If there is concern about getting kids back in school, we will work on that. If there is concern about getting a vaccine to any American who wants it, we will work on that.
But unfortunately, the majority gets to decide what comes to the floor. And once again, this Congress will get listed as the least productive Congress in history.
But the one thing it will have a record of is changing the rules to be one-sided, a long history that I believe this body will be embarrassed by.
Mr. DEUTCH. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from Georgia (Mrs. McBath).
Mrs. McBATH. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague and friend from Florida.
Mr. Speaker, in 2 weeks, I celebrate the birthday of my son, Jordan. Every year since he was murdered, his birthday brings joyful memories but profound sadness.
Mr. Speaker, 2 years ago, my pain on his birthday turned to horror and grief as I watched students in Parkland, children the same age as my son, run terrified out of their high school.
I watched parents read texts from their kids that said: Mom, if I don't make it back, thank you for everything that you have done for me.
I watched as 17 families realized that their lives are never going to be the same.
Mr. Speaker, throughout history, words have shown and have had the power to unite this Nation with unity and hope, or the power to divide with bigotry and hate. Words have an impact on everything that we do here in this Chamber, on this Hill, in this body. Every action that we take makes life better for the American people.
This today is about a Member's words and actions that are beneath this body, beneath the American people that we have sworn to protect.
This is about a Member stalking the children of tragedy, attacking survivors, and threatening violence. This is about a Member denying the existence of dead children at Sandy Hook Elementary and Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School. This moment is about parents across America who now celebrate their child's birthday just like me.
Mrs. WALORSKI. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Jordan), ranking member of the Committee on the Judiciary.
Mr. JORDAN. Mr. Speaker, who is next? Who is next?
Everyone has said things they wish they didn't say. Everyone has done things they wish they didn't do.
So who is next? Who will the cancel culture attack next?
Former New York Times editor Bari Weiss--not a conservative--had to resign because of the environment at that paper. She had to resign--she coined this term--the ``digital thunderdome.''
You engage in wrong-think? You engage in wrong-speak? You are going in the thunderdome.
Today, it is Mrs. Greene. Who is it going to be tomorrow?
I have heard several times on the floor today from the Democrats,
``conspiracy theory.'' The Democrats peddled the biggest conspiracy theory of all time, the Russia hoax.
For the last 4 years, they peddled this theory. Two of those years, they spent $40 million, 19 lawyers, 40 FBI agents, 500 witnesses, 2,500 subpoenas, but came up with zero collusion.
The former Director of National Intelligence, James Clapper, he was going on television all the time, talking about the coordination and the collusion that was going on. But what did he say behind closed doors when he was under oath in the Intelligence Committee? He said this: I never saw any evidence that the Trump campaign was conspiring with the Russians to meddle with the election.
No evidence, but they peddled this theory for 4 years.
And think about this: The guy who started the debate off today for the Democrats, the Democrat chair of the Committee on Rules, 4 years ago, guess who was the first person to object to the 2016 Presidential election? The guy who kicked off the debate for the Democrats today going after Mrs. Greene, the gentleman from Massachusetts. Guess what his reason was: the Russian hoax conspiracy theory.
And guess which State he objected to. Alabama.
{time} 1700
That is right, January 6, 2017, the guy who kicked off the debate from the Democrats objected to Alabama, a State that President Trump won by 30 points. The first person to kick off the debate today 4 years ago objected to Alabama based on this Russian hoax conspiracy theory. And now, they are coming after Mrs. Greene.
I stood right here 3 weeks ago, and I said this cancel culture will not just come after Republicans; it is going to come after us all. It is going to come after us all. This is what is scary. And it took all of 13 days--all of 13 days--for that to be proven true.
Last week, Senator Dianne Feinstein Elementary School is no longer named after Senator Feinstein. That is how bad this is.
I hope this stops, and I hope it stops soon.
Mr. DEUTCH. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Malinowski).
Mr. MALINOWSKI. Mr. Speaker, when we talk about unity, let's remember we were united last October when the House came together almost unanimously to condemn QAnon in a resolution that I had introduced. We said that QAnon was fanning the flames of anti-Semitism, that the looney lies it was spreading online would lead to people being killed in the real world.
But then yesterday, Mr. McCarthy, the minority leader, said something that mystified me. He cited that resolution as a reason not to remove Representative Greene from her committee. We had already condemned QAnon, he suggested, so why would we need to do anything else?
It is like saying: We condemned bank robbery last year. We don't need to actually stop any bank robbers this year.
How could almost 400 of us say that QAnon is a threat and then when we see someone who has spent years spreading the same conspiracy theories, the same anti-Semitism, the same calls for violence, someone who 3 days ago called her critics pedophiles--not 2 years ago; 3 days ago--then say that person should be given all the privileges of a Member of the House?
Mr. Speaker, if you condemn QAnon, that means you have to fight it. If you believe that these conspiracy theories are dangerous, you have to separate yourself from the people who are spreading them.
If even a substantial number of us stand with Representative Greene today, violent extremists will see it as another sign that they have a legitimate place in our national debate, that respectable leaders in our society either embrace them or fear them too much to stand in their way.
I ask you, do not send this message. Let's unite against extremism, not with it.
Mrs. WALORSKI. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Roy).
Mr. ROY. Mr. Speaker, about a month ago, 3 weeks ago, I suspended my social media accounts, my personal social media accounts. I did so because social media is pretty much consuming the way we govern.
And I will just say, why are we governing by sound bite? Why are we governing by looking back at what somebody said on Twitter or Facebook?
This is a body that is called under the Constitution to meet on the floor of the United States House of Representatives--not by proxy, by the way--and to sit here and debate, and to debate the important issues of the day.
A few weeks ago, I was proud to stand with my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to condemn what occurred on January 6. I joined with some of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle to disagree on the issue of objections.
And then to have a Member on the other side of the aisle attack my former boss and friend, Senator Ted Cruz, and basically accuse him of being an attempted murderer? I asked that that statement be stricken and there be an apology for it. I didn't ask that somebody be stripped from their committeeships. I didn't ask that they be censured. I tried to engage with that colleague--have and will. And then this last weekend, I had a statement directed at me, accusing me of the worst kind of horrific act.
Where is this body going to go, ladies and gentlemen? Now, we are here in the first few weeks of this Congress attacking a freshman Member, who is addressing the concerns of statements that I take issue with, that a number of my colleagues on this side of the aisle take issue with, and you are going to unilaterally strip her of a committee assignment.
This is not the people's House anymore. I made this statement yesterday on the budget reconciliation.
I had a great conversation with the distinguished majority leader today about our need to restore regular order. And I would just ask my colleagues that we remove this.
I made a motion to adjourn because we shouldn't be wasting the time of this body attacking a Member of this body. This will not end well.
Mr. DEUTCH. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I just want to make clear that this is not an action by one party. This is a House resolution. Today, all of us will be voting.
And the Constitution couldn't be clearer. Article I, Section 5 vests the House with the authority, independent of the Ethics Committee, to discipline a Member. As a sanction for such behavior, the House may limit any right, power, privilege, or immunity of that Member. I am sure my colleagues on the other side of the aisle are aware of that.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from Georgia
(Ms. Williams).
Ms. WILLIAMS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the resolution to remove Congresswoman Marjorie Taylor Greene from her committee assignments.
Her words and actions tout dangerous and deadly QAnon conspiracy theories, threaten our national security, and put the lives of every person at risk.
On January 6, we witnessed what can happen when our leaders spread baseless conspiracy theories and spew violent rhetoric that echoes the same call to violence that resulted in a domestic terrorist attack on the United States Capitol.
We can't control what Representative Greene does and says, but we can control how we operate as a governing body that holds its officials accountable.
I am particularly concerned about her appointment to the Education and Labor Committee, which not only has oversight of the education of our children, but also has the responsibility to ensure students have safe environments to learn.
I watched in horror at the footage of Representative Greene berating a Parkland shooting survivor, a teenager who came to Capitol Hill seeking help from lawmakers to put an end to mass shootings and prevent other high school students from having to witness the senseless murder of their classmates and teachers.
This is personal for me. As a mom of my Carter, who just started kindergarten, and as a survivor of a school shooting my senior year of high school that claimed the life of a classmate, I still live with that trauma today.
My colleagues on the other side of the aisle say they disapprove of Representative Greene's actions. However, disapproval without action means nothing.
This is about doing what is right. As Dr. King stated, it is never the wrong time to do the right thing.
Mrs. WALORSKI. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Gohmert).
Mr. GOHMERT. Mr. Speaker, this is personal to me. I have dedicated so much of my adult life to the Constitution of the United States.
If you go back to 1884--it has been cited for about 80 or 100 years even--the Select Committee back in 1884 was taking up the issue of a Member of Congress being expelled. The committee said that because the conduct was committed during an earlier Congress: It must be said that with practical uniformity the precedents in such cases are to the effect that the House will not expel a Member for reprehensible action prior to the election of a Member, not even for conviction of an offense. That has been so frequently decided in the House that it is no longer a matter of dispute.
And, yes, that was expelling from the House, but you are wanting to expel a Member from being a full Member, as she was elected to do.
Now, James Madison--hopefully, that name rings a bell--said if the legislature could regulate those--talking about qualifications--which in this case would mean you have to meet our qualifications for what you say before you are a Member of Congress or you don't come in. He said if you could regulate those qualifications, ``it can by degrees subvert the Constitution. A Republic may be converted into an aristocracy or oligarchy as well by limiting the number capable of being elected.'' Qualifications founded on artificial distinctions may be devised by the stronger party in order to keep out partisans of a weaker party.
This is so dangerous. Never in the history of the Congress has a majority party taken such fanatical action to remove somebody from the other party from committees. This is unprecedented.
We had a Senator named Biden who looked at a Ku Klux Klan recruiter as a mentor and friend, and you punished him by inaugurating him as President.
Look, please, I know there are so many good, decent Democrats. We disagree on a lot of things, but as a matter of conscience--you talk about conscience. You have to know if you do this, just like Democrats objecting to electors and then coming around later and saying, oh, you are disenfranchising voters. Look, if you do this, you know the day will come when Republicans will not like something you said and start removing you from committees. This is not a road to go down.
I beg you, please, don't start this precedent. It won't end well for either party. But we will follow your lead if you lead.
I am imploring you, do the right thing. Vote ``no'' on this resolution.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Members are reminded to address their remarks to the Chair.
Mr. DEUTCH. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Michigan (Ms. Tlaib).
Ms. TLAIB. Mr. Speaker, after decades of living through discrimination from our government, my older Black neighbors in my district finally began having a sense of hope that a new generation of elected leaders is here.
Recently, however, those same neighbors have told me they began to feel that fear again because of what is happening here in this Chamber. In today's Republican Party, Marjorie Taylor Greene's world views are violent, anti-Black, racist, Islamophobic, and anti-Semitic, and they are condoned.
Every single day that goes by without outright condemnation from every single one of her Republican colleagues, without consequences for her extremist views, is an outright endorsement of white supremacy. We owe it to our residents who have been victim of these very hateful views to take action.
When Members like Marjorie Taylor Greene proudly claim that Muslims shouldn't be allowed in this Congress, or that 9/11 attacks were fake, or that the Speaker of the House should be executed, there must be consequences.
Mrs. WALORSKI. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Biggs).
Mr. BIGGS. Mr. Speaker, it is good to be here today, but what I feel and what I believe as I am listening and I am hearing the debate is this is not really about words said by Mrs. Greene before she was ever elected overwhelmingly in her district.
If it was about language and that we were disciplining because of language, we would have disciplined somebody else on this side, on the Democrat's side, who said: ``Israel has hypnotized the world. May Allah awaken the people and help them see the evildoings of Israel.'' ``It is all about the Benjamins, baby.''
That would invoke some discipline, I would have thought.
How about this one comparing Jewish Israeli settlers to termites. That guy didn't get disciplined. He is still on the committees I sit on. He said: There has been a steady stream, almost like termites can get into a residence and eat. And before you know that, you have been eaten up, and you fall in on yourself.
{time} 1715
It goes on and it goes on. The Speaker of this House has said that Republicans are enemies of the state. All of these incite violence. All of these demean. All of these dehumanize. All of these are statements that just should not be accepted, but they were accepted. There was no condemnation. And as the last speaker just said, no condemnation is an endorsement. So I guess there is endorsement from all of them on those statements.
So here today you are doing something that is unprecedented. You are taking somebody for things she said before she got into this body, and you are saying that we are going to control the minority choice of committee assignments. This has never happened before, but here it goes. I am afraid it is going to cascade, because that is not the way we should do this. You can't take away the rights of the minority leader and the minority conference. That is the problem that we have here.
No one endorses what Mrs. Greene said, but we endorse her election and the right of the leader to make her committee assignments and not to have those be taken away by the majority.
Mr. DEUTCH. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from Illinois (Ms. Kelly).
Ms. KELLY of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H. Res. 72, to remove Marjorie Taylor Greene from her committee post.
Congresswoman Greene is part of the cult conspiracy mindset that has infected segments of our American society and is ripping our Nation apart.
The wild conspiracy theories that QAnoners invent are, in essence, outrageous lies. Even more alarming, they are lies backed by the threat of violence.
Yes, Representative Greene and her QAnon adherents are ready to defend their deranged lies with violence. They have expressed a desire to assassinate Speaker Pelosi and to publicly execute those who disagree with their malignant lies. They have even expressed a passionate desire to overthrow our constitutional democracy.
Congresswoman Greene indicated before last year's election that, if Donald Trump lost, Americans may need to reclaim freedom with the price of blood.
Marjorie Greene has harassed a survivor of the Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School shooting, calling him a coward and proclaiming the massacre was staged as a plot to pass more gun laws.
Yet her Republican colleagues believe she has the proper credentials and principles to serve on the Education and Labor Committee. Some will play both sides, but that is a false equivalence.
I think it is clear that we need to draw the line at Jewish space lasers and calling for political assassinations, not policy differences. At least with one xenophobic racist, both sides were able to put country over party. The party of Honest Abe can no longer be honest with itself.
Marjorie Greene and her fellow conspiracy theorists have saturated our Nation with lies. It is time to turn the tables and start talking about truth for a change.
Gandhi liked to say: ``Even if you are a minority of one, the truth is the truth.''
Mr. Speaker, I urge everyone to join in defending truth. Stand up for truth even if you are alone.
Mrs. WALORSKI. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Babin).
Mr. BABIN. Mr. Speaker, at the direction of the narrow Democrat majority, we are here today standing in judgment over a newly elected colleague of ours for things said as a private citizen that have since been retracted.
Meanwhile, some colleagues have engaged in anti-American, anti-
Semitic tropes and commentary before and after their elections to Congress. Other colleagues have incited and called for violence across the country the day Donald Trump became President, and still encourage violence against him and those who support the Republican Party, not to mention other dangerous words that have been harmful to the security of our Nation.
But, Mr. Speaker, none of those are in question. Those Members never saw any condemnation and, in this Democrat majority, they never will.
I went to the Rules Committee yesterday, strongly opposing to this course of action, with a suggestion to correct this blatant double standard, should it move forward. I was told by the chairman that, ``We don't share the same values,'' because I was demanding that we prioritize accountability for members of his party and their comments and dangerous rhetoric carried out while in office before we address Representative Greene's commentary made before she was elected.
Perhaps the chairman is right. My values are that anyone who blatantly calls for violence against Conservatives; praises deadly antifa riots; endangers Americans; encourages the destruction of our ally Israel; and, perhaps worst of all, dismisses the significance of 9/11 has no business serving in the House of Representatives.
In closing, Mr. Speaker, no one in Congress should be more grateful than the Democrat majority that eliminated our motion to recommit last month and the Democrat members who have made these inflammatory remarks over the years, because I have no doubt that a motion by Republicans to oust those Representatives would have succeeded with very strong bipartisan support. By shattering this precedent today, perhaps this majority has set in motion a future majority's obligation to do so.
If my Democrat colleagues are attempting to take the speck out of our eye, I encourage them to also take the log out of their own eyes.
Mr. DEUTCH. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from Minnesota (Ms. Omar).
Ms. OMAR. Mr. Speaker, this is not about one Member. This is about who we are as a body and what we are as a democracy. This is about whether it is acceptable to cheer on and encourage an insurrection against our basic democratic processes. This is about whether it is okay to demand Members swear in on a Bible of a religion they do not practice. This is about whether it is okay to hold an assault rifle next to Members' heads in a campaign ad and incite death threats against them. This is about whether it is okay to encourage the murder of the Speaker of the House.
As a survivor of civil conflict and civil war, I know political violence and political rhetoric does not go away on its own. This is about whether or not we will continue to be a peaceful and functioning democracy.
Mrs. WALORSKI. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Good).
Mr. GOOD of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I am proud to have taken my oath on that Bible, which I do follow and try to live my life after.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to object to the left's pattern of teaming up with the mainstream media to try to stifle the voices of conservatives.
First, it was 4 years of trying to remove President Trump. Today, it is trying to strip my friend, Marjorie Taylor Greene, of her committee assignments. It is only a matter of time until they start coming after everyday Americans.
We travel down a dangerous road today when the majority party is threatening to make committee assignments for the minority. Mr. Speaker, my friends across the aisle, as we have seen and as we have just heard from one, certainly have no shortage of members who have expressed very offensive opinions after they were elected to this body.
Democrats are not looking to lower the temperature or deliver results for the American people. Their goal is to cause chaos and divide our country so they can continue to expand their radical left agenda until they have silenced all opposing viewpoints.
Democrats control the House, the Senate, and the White House. If they wanted to deliver results to the American people, they could do it. But their agenda is clear: they don't want to govern. They want to rule and clamp down on any dissent to their radical agenda.
Mr. DEUTCH. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Missouri (Ms. Bush).
Ms. BUSH. Mr. Speaker, St. Louis and I rise in defense of our Nation's schoolchildren. I cannot sit idly by and allow white supremacy and hatred to have decisionmaking power over our students' futures.
To my Republican colleagues: let history remember what you did in this moment. A prerequisite for appointment to these committees and for all that we do must be that you love and represent all people.
We owe it to our children and we owe it to their parents to have a House Education and Labor Committee that is committed to fighting for a country where all children have an equitable education in an intentionally anti-racist society. Let me say that again: an intentionally anti-racist society.
From the Ferguson-Florissant school district in St. Louis to the Normandy, Hazelwood, Riverview Gardens, Jennings, and University City school districts, to St. Louis Public Schools, all of our school districts deserve better. Harris-Stowe State University, University of Missouri-St. Louis, our tech and trade schools, St. Louis University, and Washington University deserve better.
Our teachers, our custodial workers, and our cafeteria workers deserve better.
Our students who don't have a roof to sleep under at night, our students who don't have running water at home, our students who don't have enough to eat deserve better.
Those living with student debt and those who desire to go to college deserve better.
Our parents deserve better.
We cannot build an equitable, anti-racist education system if a seated House Education and Labor Committee member incites violence through the perpetuation of racist lies in an attempt to overturn an election. We cannot build an equitable, anti-racist society if a Member of Congress endorses white supremacy. We need to strip them of their committee assignments. And then we must pass our resolution, H. Res. 25, to investigate and expel them.
Mrs. WALORSKI. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Hice).
Mr. HICE of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, the hypocrisy here is an outrage. My fellow Georgian, Congresswoman Greene, stood right here in this House and took full responsibility for her statements. That is more than we can say for any of the many in this Chamber who have made outrageous, hate-filled, and vile statements and comments over the past years--and recent months, in particular.
For example, a Democrat member of the House Foreign Affairs Committee has repeatedly made blatant anti-Semitic statements. She still holds her position.
The Democratic chairwoman of the House Financial Services Committee encouraged supporters to aggressively assault anyone who supported President Trump. She still holds her position.
The Speaker of the House has called Republicans enemies of the state. She still has her position.
While we watch cities in flames, businesses being destroyed, officers killed, and civilians attacked, a member of the majority party called for further unrest in the streets. She still has her position.
I have got four pages of similar comments, and this is by no means exhaustive. Inflammatory rhetoric around here has become commonplace, unfortunately, and Members of this House have absolutely crossed the line by calling for violence and making other similar remarks. The majority refuses to hold its own members accountable. This is the zenith of hypocrisy and injustice.
Mr. Speaker, I call on and urge our Members to oppose this resolution.
Mr. DEUTCH. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Ohio (Mrs. Beatty).
Mrs. BEATTY. Mr. Speaker, it is a shame that we must use precious time on the floor of the people's House to address the inflammatory remarks of Member Marjorie Taylor Greene. But just as we are in the midst of three crises of the coronavirus, the economic distress, and social injustice, we must also act against a crisis of extremism and unhinged conspiracy theories.
Disturbing and dangerous words and actions like those we have heard and seen from this individual in this House are below the dignity of a Member of Congress. And if they did not stop when we were all sworn in, then, if anything, these backward views gained a national platform.
Well, I stand here to tell you, Mr. Speaker, I will stand up to bullies who threaten students and threaten and celebrate violence towards our Speaker and our colleagues. Today, as the conscience of the Congress, it is important that we take this step to affirm that conspiracy theories and outrageous lies have no place in the Congress and no place in the people's House. No place. No place.
Mrs. WALORSKI. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Norman).
Mr. NORMAN. Mr. Speaker, here we sit on this fourth day of February and, here we go, we have a pandemic that is shutting down businesses all across this country. We have schools shut down, causing havoc with our children. We have a national debt of over $30 trillion. We have seniors wondering if their Social Security payment will be suspended due to anticipated bankruptcy. We have a Democratic Party focusing today and yesterday on bypassing the legislative process and issuing executive orders defunding our police departments, destroying our energy independence by shutting off our production of oil and gas, allowing men to identify as women and going to any bathroom of choice.
And what is the majority, who are spending the hard-earned tax dollars, doing today?
Attempting to throw a member of our party, who was duly elected, because of something purportedly to have been said before she got into Congress.
Here is what I ask: Throw us all off the committees. Throw all of us off.
God, I hope the American people see what you are doing and that this is nothing more than an abuse of power by a party drunk with power.
{time} 1730
Mr. DEUTCH. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Mrs. Hayes).
Mrs. HAYES. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of this resolution on behalf of my constituents in Connecticut's Fifth District.
The statements made by the Representative from Georgia have amplified horrific and deeply dishonest rhetoric and empowered and mainstreamed fringe conspiracy theories about school shootings. Giving any Member the platform to spread dangerous rhetoric only rewards and normalizes this behavior, places already vulnerable groups in danger, and further traumatizes survivors.
There is no place in this House for a Member that trivializes these events or refuses to publicly disavow her own words or apologize to those affected.
Mr. Speaker, there are men and women on both sides of the aisle whom I strongly disagree with, colleagues who have made statements that have deeply offended me. Yet, I have never believed we should remove them from committees on this body.
But today is different. We are forced to make this motion, not because of a disagreement in values or opinions, but because the Republican Conference has refused to take any actions addressing dangerous comments made by a Member, comments which have no place in common discourse and cannot be given a platform to be amplified.
While I remain respectful of the voters in Georgia, we have a responsibility as a body to hold our own Members accountable, and I would vote in the same way if a member of my own caucus had committed the same infractions.
No Member of Congress should promote conspiracy theories or sow doubt about the validity of tragic mass casualty events like Sandy Hook, Parkland, and others. No parent should ever have to invite a Member of Congress to visit their child's grave or touch the bullet-riddled clothing that their child wore to prove that their death actually happened.
Mr. Speaker, the Speaker of this House always tells Members to vote our district. Today, I vote as an act of conscience in defense of my district. I vote for the babies who left for school 8 years ago and never returned home, and the teachers who died trying to protect them.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentlewoman has expired.
Mr. DEUTCH. Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 15 seconds to the gentlewoman from Connecticut.
Mrs. HAYES. Today, I will vote for millions of educators who stand bravely before students while they lead lockdown drills and whisper quietly to them while sheltering in place that school is still safe.
I will vote ``yes'' on this resolution for the parents and the communities who want real debate that produces real solutions for keeping schools and communities safe.
Mrs. WALORSKI. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Indiana (Mrs. Spartz), my new colleague.
Mrs. SPARTZ. Mr. Speaker, as someone who grew up in a communist country where people were punished for expressing their opinions, I have an enormous appreciation for our First Amendment rights. This is a core principle our Nation was founded on.
I might not like many things that my colleagues from both parties have to say. Sometimes I think they are crazy things, but I will still vigorously defend their First Amendment rights and rights of free speech, especially what they have said as private individuals before. The voters will decide if they are the right representative for them.
It is a slippery slope to start policing people's opinions, and our Congress will start resembling a communist politburo if we are not careful. I would really like my colleagues to think before they make this vote.
Mr. DEUTCH. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Wasserman Schultz), my friend and neighbor.
Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Mr. Speaker, we have heard a lot here today so, in closing, let me remind my colleagues that we were sent here, not only to uphold the Constitution, but to uphold the standard of conduct.
Let me share with you what should have happened. What should have happened is some remorse for the pain that the gentlewoman from Georgia has caused and to acknowledge that pain, the damage that she has caused, the violence she has advocated.
I would have hoped that she would have realized, like so many of us have, the awe and gravity of serving in this institution and that, despite all the harm that the words and actions she has taken have caused, that now that she is a Member of this body, she truly understands and is sorry she stalked the teenager who was a victim of a mass shooting; sorry that she actually suggested that our leader of the House of Representatives should meet a bullet as her end; sorry that she suggested that President Obama should have his life snuffed out.
But none of that happened, and that is why she has forfeited the right to serve on committees in this House of Representatives.
Mrs. WALORSKI. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Clyde).
Mr. CLYDE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to oppose this unprecedented power grab orchestrated by the Democrats.
Much has been said about what my colleague from Georgia has spoken of in her past, but the past is past. I do not believe Congress has jurisdiction to re-litigate what a Member of this body said before they took their solemn oath of office. That is an issue to be adjudicated by her constituents at the ballot box in the 14th District of Georgia, not here in Congress.
Without question, this body is putting itself on an extremely dangerous path, a path that opens the door to allowing the majority party to strip the minority party members of their committees, based on statements made or beliefs held before holding office.
It is clear the resolution before us is not about my colleague; it is about Democrats seizing upon an opportunity to further suppress the rights of the minority party, to silence a bold member of the opposition, and to thereby further their socialist agenda.
Members of Congress have a duty to hold themselves to the highest standards, and I know Marjorie is doing just that. I expect no less from my Democratic colleagues, which is why this resolution must not pass.
Mr. DEUTCH. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer), the distinguished majority leader of the House of Representatives.
Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, this is a sad day and a difficult day for the House of Representatives and for our country. I have had the great honor of serving this body for 40 years and in that time, I have never encountered a situation like the one before us now, where a Member has made such vile and hurtful statements, engaged in the harassment of colleagues, and expressed support for political violence. None of us should take any pleasure in what we must do today.
But to do nothing would be an abdication of our moral responsibility to our colleagues, to the House, to our values, to the truth, and to our country.
A great forebear of legislators, Edmund Burke, famously declared:
``The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.''
Yesterday, the Republican Conference chose to do nothing, so today, the House must do something.
I have heard some condemnation from across the aisle of the contents of Representative Greene's statements. Some have condemned the white supremacist and anti-Semitic things she said and posted online. Some have condemned the falsehoods she shared about 9/11 and the horrific school shootings.
But I have heard little from Republicans about the horrific statements made by their colleague making threats of violence against Democratic elected officials and her threatening conduct toward Representative Bush and others.
Indeed, Mr. Speaker, there seems to be much silence when it comes to her incitement of political violence.
In The Washington Post yesterday, columnist Greg Sargent wrote:
Whatever happens to Representative Greene, the truth is unavoidable: Republicans have yet to offer a clear and unambiguous declaration that political violence is unacceptable and has no place in their ranks.
And I have heard too much about process and not enough about accountability.
No Member ought to be permitted to engage in the kind of behavior that Representative Greene has and face zero consequences. This vote can be a first step in correcting the error of those who, so far, have chosen to do nothing.
A short while ago, Representative Greene came to this floor to defend her indefensible conduct. I heard no apology.
She claimed that we are here today only because of some things she wrote online before she ever ran for Congress, as if one's moral slate is wiped clean when one becomes a candidate for office.
Regardless, the conduct we are judging today continued to occur even after Representative Greene became a candidate, and even after she was elected.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to look at this image.
I heard about motherhood today. Two of those women between them have six children. They are mothers. One of them does not have children, and she has come to this body asking for more housing for people, for more healthcare for people, for more income for people. How awful.
And they are not the Squad. They are Ilhan, they are Alexandria, and they are Rashida. They are people. They are our colleagues.
And yes, you may have disagreements, but I don't know anybody, including Steve King, who you precluded from going on committees for much less--and this is an AR-15 in the hands of Mrs. Greene. This was on Facebook just a few months ago.
Is that a message of peace and reconciliation and peaceful democratic dialogue--The Squad's worst enemy, AR-15 in hand.
I have never ever seen that before. Is this a precedent-setting event? It is, because the conduct, the tweeting, the QAnon association--I heard the disavow of QAnon. I learned more.
{time} 1745
AR-15, ``Squad's Worst Nightmare.'' Is that what it was intended to do, that each one of these ladies would have a nightmare about somebody with a gun, an AR-15 that can carry a clip of up to 60 bullets?
I urge my colleagues to look at that image and tell me what message you think it sends.
Here she is, armed with a deadly assault rifle, pointing it toward three Democratic Members. Now, the pictures were put together, you understand. They were not present; I understand that. And she captioned it ``Squad's Worst Nightmare.''
Yes, some people are having nightmares and fear. And some people who wanted to give other people nightmares committed sedition and broke into the House of Representatives and tried to stop us from electing a President of the United States.
These three faces are real people. They are three reasons we are here. But there are many other reasons we are here today.
In 2019, during the same election cycle in which she ran, she showed support for comments online that the quickest way to remove Speaker Pelosi from power would be ``a bullet to the head.'' Did any of you hear Steve King say anything like that? You removed him from all of his committees.
But as I said, you did nothing. As a matter of fact, you gave a standing ovation, as I understand. I wasn't there. What message does that send? What message does it send to have a standing ovation to give these three women nightmares?
Indisputably, these are clear threats to commit or incite political violence, not from years ago but just months ago. Imagine the pain that these Members' families must be experiencing when they see pictures like this one. Imagine what their children think when they know their loved ones are walking the Halls of Congress and may encounter harassment, as it happened to Representative Bush?
So I ask my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, when they take this vote, imagine your faces on this poster. Imagine it is a Democrat with an AR-15. Imagine what your response would be. Would you think that that person ought to be held accountable?
But when acquiescence to the suggestion of violence of any kind is allowed to go unchecked, it is a cancer that metastasizes on the body politic of our Nation, as we saw just a few days ago on January 6.
Cancer, that is how Senate Republican Leader McConnell described it. He said: ``Loony lies and conspiracy theories are cancer for the Republican Party and our country.'' Should we stand silent in the face of that kind of activity?
He continued: ``Somebody who has suggested that perhaps no airplane hit the Pentagon on 9/11, that horrifying school shootings were pre-
staged, and that the Clintons crashed JFK Jr.'s airplane is not living in reality.''
That is not me talking. That is not a Democrat talking. That is Senator McConnell.
``This has nothing to do with the challenges facing American families or the robust debates on substance that can strengthen our party.''
My colleagues across the aisle have an opportunity today to reclaim their party from the dangerous cancer of QAnon and violent conspiracy theories that promote and have demonstrably resulted in sedition and insurrection.
Senator Romney--you remember Senator Romney. He was a candidate for President of the United States on the Republican ticket, nominated in the Republican convention. He said of his party this week: ``I think we should have nothing to do with Marjorie Taylor Greene and think we should repudiate the things she said and move away from her.'' ``Our big tent is not large enough to both accommodate conservatives and kooks.''
Not my words, his words, a Republican Member of the United States Senate. Now, he is not a big buddy of Trump's, so apparently he didn't have to do what Trump suggested he do.
And Senator Ernst, a conservative woman from Iowa: ``She doesn't represent the party. I don't want her to be the face of our party. I think this is a great time for us to really talk about what we want to see in the upcoming years and continue to build. We don't need people that are promoting violence or anything like that.'' That is a Republican conservative Senator.
Republican Senator and former Governor of Florida Rick Scott said--a conservative Republican Senator--``That is not what the Republican Party stands for.''
Let me suggest to you, if it is not, vote with us. Vote with the House, not Democrats. Vote with the House of Representatives. Vote with good order and peace.
Furthermore, Senator Young from Indiana said: ``There ought to be no place'' in the Republican Party for the kind of views espoused by Representative Greene.
That is what McCarthy said when you kicked King off of all his committees. This is not something you haven't done. However, sadly, you left it to us to do your job.
Representative Cole called her statements ``extraordinarily disturbing.'' He said that yesterday; it is an old quote.
And Senator Thune asked his fellow Republicans in the House: ``Do they want to be the party of limited government''--I think the answer to that is yes--``or do they want to be the party of conspiracy theories and QAnon?''
Furthermore, Senator Young from Indiana said: ``There ought to be no place'' in the Republican Party for the kind of views espoused by Representative Greene.
That is what your Republican colleagues have said. This is not partisan. This is about principle.
And you can shake your head as much as you want. This is not about party. It is about whether or not you will vote for decency and truth, not the Members' worst nightmare.
I hope we can do it together, all of us, embracing our humanity and our basic adherence to the Constitution.
Edmund Burke, who I quoted earlier, said: The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing.
Let us not do nothing.
I often share another passage shared so long ago by Edmund Burke when a new Member arrives to serve in the House. It concerns a duty a representative has to his or her constituents. His conclusion on that matter is that we owe them our unbiased opinion, mature judgment, and enlightened sense of conscience.
What does your conscience tell you to do in light of this kind of assertion? Nothing?
Burke told his own constituents that these virtues of a representative ``does not derive from your pleasure,'' ``nor from the law and the Constitution. They are a trust from providence, for the abuse of which'' you are ``deeply answerable. Your representative owes you, not his industry only, but his judgment, and he betrays, instead of serving you, if he sacrifices it to your opinion.''
This is not about polling. This is not about your base. This is about your conscience and your moral judgment.
In other words, each of us ought to look inside our hearts to the answer that we know is right and is best for the House and for our country.
If the Republican Party for less toxic language took committee assignments away from Steve King, should they do less in this instance?
There is no doubt that if somebody came to the Congress and had said, before they came to the Congress, ``I am for violent revolution against the Government of the United States of America,'' your party would say that is not somebody we want to be associated with.
That is not what she said; I do not assert that. But should we do less than you did for Steve King for far less toxic language?
Let us not do nothing. Mr. Speaker, let us do the right thing.
Mrs. WALORSKI. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Budd).
Mr. BUDD. Mr. Speaker, today is really about one party single-
handedly canceling a Member of the other party because of something said before that Member was even elected.
This isn't about agreeing or disagreeing with the comments. This is about Democrats abusing their power and using it to cancel.
This sets a very dangerous precedent. There are Members across the aisle who have said alarming things recently. They have made anti-
Semitic comments repeatedly. They have made anti-American comments repeatedly. And they have made comments threatening violence repeatedly.
Cancel culture should not take over our country. Cancel culture should not take over our tech platforms. And cancel culture certainly should not take over the House of Representatives.
We need to let the gentlewoman from Georgia serve and to allow her constituents to judge her performance at the ballot box.
Mr. DEUTCH. Mr. Speaker, I am prepared to close, and I reserve the balance of my time.
Mrs. WALORSKI. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
Mr. Speaker, I absolutely reject racism, anti-Semitism, and bigotry, as I said earlier. I condemn conspiracy theories and calls for violence. I do not in any way condone these reprehensible views.
Sadly, though, here we are today to effectuate another partisan power grab. The Democratic majority has taken unprecedented steps to marginalize Republicans just because we have not done what they want us to do, and that is wrong.
There is a reason that neither party holds a majority on the Ethics Committee, and the reason is to avoid one party or the other weaponizing the committee's purpose for use in political and partisan fashion.
The majority should withdraw this resolution and, if it chooses, pursue this matter properly through the Ethics Committee.
If the resolution is not withdrawn, then I will vote ``no'' and hope at some point the Ethics Committee will again be used to serve this body as intended.
Our colleagues deserve better, and the House, as an institution, deserves better. I ask my colleagues to vote ``no.''
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. DEUTCH. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
Mr. Speaker, let me just address some of what we have heard today.
First, we have heard the argument made by our colleagues that this is something that should go to the Ethics Committee, despite the fact that we have the authority to be here today to tackle something that our friends should have tackled.
But then they turn around and say that the Ethics Committee doesn't have jurisdiction for anything that has been said before a Member is elected, thereby creating a loop that will result in no accountability, zero accountability, for any of the horrific sayings, any of the horrific actions that have been promoted by Representative Greene on social media and in her words.
We also heard that what we are doing here risks deepening dangerous divisions. The dangerous divisions that exist in our country resulted in an attack on this Capitol, putting all of our lives at risk. We are trying to stop the divisions in our country by not giving a platform to the kinds of conspiracy theories that helped to inflame them.
We heard that this is cynical and hypocritical. Mr. Speaker, is there anything more cynical and hypocritical than to be told on the floor of this House that the minority leader was prepared to take Mrs. Greene off the committee, not because it was the right thing to do, but because it was a political decision he was willing to consider?
Finally, we heard that Representative Greene has apologized for this. She came to the floor today. She acknowledged that 9/11 happened; she acknowledged that school shootings are real; and she acknowledged that she learned some things about QAnon that she didn't know before.
{time} 1800
There was no apology. There was nothing to address any of the pain and hurt that she has done to my constituents and gun violence survivors in every part of this country and the families who lost loved ones.
Mr. Speaker, we need to be here today. This hateful rhetoric is in the real world as well, outside the Halls of Congress, not just here. Memories of the lives we have lost to gun violence are being forsaken by those who baselessly claim those tragedies were false flag events. Online rants about anti-Semitism, Islamophobia, racism, and conspiracy theories have manifested in real and violent acts. It is not a debating society that we are participating in. This has real impact, in the real world.
Finally, I close with this, Mr. Speaker: We are worried about precedent?
So am I. So we should all be. And the precedent of rewarding a Member of the House by giving her a platform of a congressional committee to amplify dangerous conspiracy theories is one we should never set.
Leader McCarthy said so himself. I would remind my colleagues again, 2 years ago he said: Any hatred, any hatred we take action.
Unfortunately, the only action taken by Republican leadership has been to appoint Representative Greene to two powerful committees.
This resolution condemns the practice of promoting extreme ideologies, conspiracy theories, and antigovernment rhetoric. The resolution proclaims that there is no place for such conduct in this Congress or in society. When Mrs. Greene came to the floor today and compared the media to QAnon, it is a reminder of just how important this action is that we are about to take. This is why we must adopt H. Res. 72.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. All time for debate has expired.
Pursuant to House Resolution 91, the previous question is ordered on the resolution.
The question is on adoption of the resolution.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that the ayes appeared to have it.
Mrs. WALORSKI. 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 230, nays 199, not voting 2, as follows:
YEAS--230
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 Diaz-Balart Dingell Doggett Doyle, Michael F. Escobar Eshoo Espaillat Evans Fitzpatrick Fletcher Foster Frankel, Lois Gallego Garamendi Garcia (IL) Garcia (TX) Gimenez Golden Gomez Gonzalez, Vicente Gottheimer Green, Al (TX) Grijalva Haaland Harder (CA) Hastings Hayes Higgins (NY) Himes Horsford Houlahan Hoyer Huffman Jackson Lee Jacobs (CA) Jacobs (NY) Jayapal Jeffries Johnson (GA) Johnson (TX) Jones Kahele Kaptur Katko Keating Kelly (IL) Khanna Kildee Kilmer Kim (CA) 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 Malliotakis 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 Salazar Sanchez Sarbanes Scanlon Schakowsky Schiff Schneider Schrader Schrier Scott (VA) Scott, David Sewell Sherman Sherrill Sires Slotkin Smith (NJ) 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 Upton Vargas Veasey Vela Velazquez Wasserman Schultz Waters Watson Coleman Welch Wexton Wild Williams (GA) Wilson (FL) Yarmuth
NAYS--199
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 Donalds Duncan Dunn Emmer Estes Fallon Feenstra Ferguson Fischbach Fitzgerald Fleischmann Fortenberry Foxx Franklin, C. Scott Fulcher Gaetz Gallagher Garbarino Garcia (CA) Gibbs 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 Johnson (LA) Johnson (OH) Johnson (SD) Jordan Joyce (OH) Joyce (PA) Keller Kelly (MS) Kelly (PA) Kustoff LaHood LaMalfa Lamborn Latta LaTurner Lesko Long Loudermilk Lucas Luetkemeyer Mace 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 Scalise Schweikert Scott, Austin Sessions Simpson Smith (MO) Smith (NE) Smucker Spartz Stauber Steel Stefanik Steil Steube Stewart Stivers Taylor Thompson (PA) Tiffany Timmons Turner 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--2
Fudge Wright
{time} 1848
Mr. NEWHOUSE 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
Amodei (Kelly (PA)) Axne (Stevens) Barragan (Beyer) Bowman (Clark (MA)) Buchanan (Arrington) Cardenas (Gomez) Carson (Butterfield) Cohen (Beyer) Cooper (Clark (MA)) DeSaulnier (Matsui) Fallon (Nehls) Frankel, Lois (Clark (MA)) Gallego (Gomez) Garcia (IL) (Pressley) 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)
____________________
SOURCE: Congressional Record Vol. 167, No. 21(1), Congressional Record Vol. 167, No. 21(2)
The Congressional Record is a unique source of public documentation. It started in 1873, documenting nearly all the major and minor policies being discussed and debated.
House Representatives' salaries are historically higher than the median US income.
Alerts Sign-up