Directing the Committee on Ethics to investigate, and issue a report on, whether any and all actions taken by Members of the 117th Congress who sought to overturn the 2020 Presidential election violated their oath of office to uphold the Constitution or the Rules of the House of Representatives, and should face sanction, including removal from the House of Representatives.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from Georgia (Mrs. McBath).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Malinowski).

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).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Michigan (Ms. Tlaib).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from Illinois (Ms. Kelly).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from Minnesota (Ms. Omar).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Missouri (Ms. Bush).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Ohio (Mrs. Beatty).

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Mrs. Hayes).

Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 15 seconds to the gentlewoman from Connecticut.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Wasserman Schultz), my friend and neighbor.

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. Speaker, I am prepared to close, and I reserve the balance of my time.

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.

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.

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.

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. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California (Mr. McCarthy), the Republican leader.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Jordan), ranking member of the Committee on the Judiciary.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Roy).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Gohmert).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Biggs).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Babin).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Good).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Hice).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Norman).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Indiana (Mrs. Spartz), my new colleague.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Clyde).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Budd).

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. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

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.

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. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from Colorado for hosting the Special Order.

I will also tell you, Mr. Speaker, it is actually good to be able to talk in this Chamber without that thing on my face. It is messing up the enunciations.

Mr. Speaker, my colleagues have talked at length about all of the examples and all of the damaging aspects of cancel culture, and I don't want to go through and reiterate those points.

I think the purpose--what I want to take this time to do, Mr. Speaker, is to actually have a pleading with the people of our country.

You see, if you look at the history of world governments, even go before our own Government, the ability to speak has been sacrosanct in order for the ability to be free.

You see, there was a time, under the brutality of European kings, where you could dare not speak a word against the Crown. If you did, you were slaughtered, you were maimed, you were put into chains, you were put into slavery.

The very idea of freedom of speech canonized in our Constitution just wasn't created by our Framers; it is something our Framers understood and they studied from their view of world history. And that very protection is the one thing, the most paramount thing, that the Members of this body, whether they be in our House, the Senate, or the person who occupies the White House at any point in time in American history, can never abridge or infringe.

The reason for that is very simple: Because the thoughts that roll around in your mind are yours alone. They are your thoughts. They were given by God. They were given by your own intellect. And your ability to express them should never be taken away or shamed by a government or by a sect or a substructure of any society, let alone American society.

You see, Mr. Speaker, we have come to a very dangerous point in our politics. This has nothing to do with Social Security and Medicare which, by the way, for the American people, are going to go insolvent in somewhere between 5 and 7 years.

This isn't about our issues talking about guns and supporting the Second Amendment. This isn't about if you want to talk about green technology or embracing fossil fuels or actually embracing nuclear power, which is what we should be doing as a country. This isn't our views on what we do with respect to foreign policy and who our adversary might be.

This goes to the very core of our country. It goes to the very core of our culture. It goes to the very core of whether our society will have the ability to sustain itself for another 200 years into the future.

But I will promise you this, Mr. Speaker, it will not be possible if we have one group of Americans telling another group of Americans that what they say should no longer be heard simply because they don't agree or even if they are offended or even if what somebody says is so vile that unilaterally every American finds it to be distasteful and doesn't want to hear it.

You see, the very thought of any individual must be protected at all times. It is what separates our country from the other countries of the world today and the other societies on our Earth in years past. It is what creates the very foundation of a republic of people to be able to grow, to see, to do, to be their best, because they are free, and there is no government that can oppress them.

The only example I am going to cite tonight is the example of somebody who is actually not on my side of the political aisle. She is a reporter, Alexi McCammond. And Alexi, just so you know, I am not bringing your situation up to make a political point. Far from it. You see, she was a journalist. She was on MSNBC and an NBC contributor. I don't think she would probably like my politics too much. But because of something she said when she was a freshman in college on social media, she was targeted. She was canceled. She had reached a pinnacle in her career through her hard work. I don't even know her, but I know that she was able to accomplish something. But because somebody in her company, because of somebody at Teen Vogue decided they didn't like what she had said, she became the new target.

Mr. Speaker, and frankly, my fellow Americans, we cannot continue as a society if we are quick to shut each other down before we actually decide to open up our ears and listen. There are so many debates on this very floor that are going to take place, not just in this Congress, but in many Congresses to come. There are going to be disagreements in our society, whether you are talking about policing or racism or the past or the future, but the one thing that must remain in our Republic is tolerance.

You see, Mr. Speaker, we have to adopt a standard; not a subjective one, but an objective one. But here is the truth: We already have had that standard. We have already adopted it. It is the objective standard that you are free to speak in the United States of America. And whether it is Twitter, Facebook, or Instagram or YouTube or Snapchat or TikTok, or The Washington Post or The Washington Times, whether you want to talk about The

New York Times or you want to talk about redstate.com, you want to talk about MSNBC or FOX News, Morning Joe or Sean Hannity, we must be free to speak at all times because the battlefield of ideas is the only thing that is going to propel our Republic forward. It is the only thing that is going to allow young kids to grow and actually increase their intellect and to be able to transform our economy in ways that none of us in this Capitol today can even fathom. It is the very basis of what makes our Nation the greatest nation. It is what makes us unique. It is what allows us to be able to fight it out every day on this floor, verbally, of course, Mr. Speaker.

My fellow Americans, we are all in this together. Mr. Speaker, we are in this together. We can't cancel each other. We can't move people out of the public square because we find their ideas even vile or distasteful. I may not like what you have to say, Mr. Speaker. We may disagree on votes on this very floor, but the one thing I will always respect, the one thing I will always defend is your ability to say it and your ability to vote that way. My only ask is that you do the same for people on my side of the political aisle.