Removing a certain Member from certain standing committees of the House of Representatives.

Madam Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 91 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Madam Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Cole), pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only.

General Leave

Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members be given 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks.

Madam Speaker, yesterday, the Rules Committee met and reported a rule, House Resolution 91, to provide for the consideration of H. Res. 72, removing a certain Member from certain standing committees of the House of Representatives under a closed rule. The rule provides 1 hour of debate equally divided and controlled by the Chair and ranking member of the Committee on Ethics.

Madam Speaker, this is one of those moments where this institution must decide where the line is drawn.

A person in this House encouraged violence against Members of this institution, part of a larger pattern of disturbing rhetoric.

She has also called the Sandy Hook and Parkland shootings, where young children were killed, a hoax.

She followed and harassed a survivor of the Parkland shooting, David Hogg.

She promoted a video featuring a Holocaust denier which contained disgusting anti-Semitic language.

She has even claimed that 9/11 was a hoax; that a plane didn't really hit the Pentagon.

And what did our distinguished minority leader, Kevin McCarthy do, Madam Speaker?

Did he take action to push this disgusting rhetoric out of the Republican conference?

No, he rewarded Congresswoman Greene with seats on the Education and Labor and Budget Committees.

Now, I don't get surprised by much around here these days, but I was shocked by this.

Our teachers and our students are watching, Madam Speaker. Two of them are my sisters, who are public school teachers in Massachusetts. I can't imagine how they feel knowing that someone who says the deadliest high school shooting in our Nation's history was a false flag operation; how they will feel if that person sits behind the dais of the Education and Labor Committee, or behind the dais of any committee.

Madam Speaker, serving on a committee is not a right, it is a privilege, and when someone encourages violence against a Member, they should lose that privilege.

Now, this is not a radical idea. When something like this happened in the past, party leadership on both sides stepped up and took action.

That is what happened with Democrat Bill Jefferson and Republican Steve King. We are here today because Minority Leader McCarthy does not have the courage to do what is right.

Now, I remember a time when Republican leaders had the courage to do what was right. Dealing with the likes of Steve King was not an isolated incident. In 1991, when the Republican Party contended with David Duke, a Holocaust-denying neo-Nazi and former KKK grand wizard, former President George H.W. Bush said: ``He should be rejected for what he is and what he stands for.''

David Duke was pushed out of the party and stripped of any credibility and recognition.

Even as recently as 2016, when Duke announced a run for the U.S. Senate, the then-Republican National Committee chairman said: ``David Duke and his hateful bigotry have no place in the Republican Party.''

Madam Speaker, that seems like forever ago. What happened? The party of Lincoln is becoming the party of violent conspiracy theories. And apparently, the leaders of the Republican

Party in the House today are not going to do a damn thing about it.

Now, I never thought I would say this, Madam Speaker, but I agree with Mitch McConnell. The Senate minority leader this week called Congresswoman Greene's embrace of conspiracy theories ``a cancer for the Republican Party.''

I would take it a step further. I think giving Congresswoman Greene a megaphone on a standing committee would be a cancer on this entire Congress.

None of us get to decide who the voters send to Congress. But as Members of this body, it is our job to set the standard for the conduct of those who serve here, especially when they cross the line into violence.

The Republican talking point now seems to be: ``I condemn Congresswoman Greene's words, but . . . `'

Madam Speaker, her words are indefensible, period. And we must act, not because it helps us or hurts them, but because it is the right thing to do for this institution and for America.

Is nothing beyond the pale? Is there nothing so depraved and so disgusting that my colleagues would not condemn it, not just with words but with action? Will they not draw the line at calling for the assassination of another Member of this body?

It is my understanding that Congresswoman Greene got a standing ovation from many Members during their Conference meeting last night. Come on.

Who applauded the person who advocated putting a bullet in the head of the Speaker of House? Who applauded the person who said school shootings are a false flag operation? Who applauded the person who suggested that 9/11 was a hoax?

I would like to know. I would like to know exactly who on the other side believes that these sick ideas deserve a standing ovation. Could we see a show of hands, please?

When the history books are written, they will remember this moment. But more than that, we all have to live with ourselves. I could never live with myself if I did nothing here. This is not the time for any of us to just look the other way.

Now, I am actually hopeful that there are some Republican Members who are willing to stand up, join with us, and vote for this resolution because it is the right thing to do, partisanship be damned.

I challenge any one of my colleagues to take a moment and read what she has said and what she has posted and come down here and try to defend it. You can't. It is indefensible.

Congresswoman Greene says this resolution could set a precedent for the future. I hope it does. Because if this isn't the bottom, then I don't know what the hell is.

I hope we are setting a clear standard for what we will not tolerate. Anyone who suggests putting a bullet in the head of a Member shouldn't serve on any committee, period.

This is the standard that we are setting here today, and I am betting it is a standard that the American people want us to uphold. This is where we draw the line, Madam Speaker. These words and actions are the worst I think I have ever seen, ever, in all my time here.

We should have the courage to pass this rule and the underlying resolution on a bipartisan basis, to stand up for what is right, to demand better from those who serve in this institution, and to demand more for the people that we represent.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Madam Speaker, I will respond to a couple of things my good friend, Mr. Cole, just said.

As he pointed out, in the past, Members were removed from committees as a result of the wishes of their party leaders. It did not go through the Ethics Committee.

The reason we are here is because, in this case, which seems very obvious to us, the Republican leadership chose not to act. In fact, they met last night, and they voted on whether to remove Congresswoman Cheney from her position because she had the courage of her convictions and came down and voted her conscience. They didn't vote on this.

Again, let me also point out, with regard to the Ethics Committee, there is no Ethics Committee that exists quite yet because Republicans haven't appointed all of their Members to the Ethics Committee, so it doesn't even function at this particular point.

I would just also say that, listening to my good friend, he talks about all of this as if it is somehow ancient history. Well, the gentlewoman from Georgia, as we speak, continues to fundraise off these disturbing remarks.

I am not sure what she said to the Republican Conference last night, but just last night, she tweeted about raising $175,000 off of this and said: ``We will not back down. We will never give up.''

That is not contrition, Madam Speaker. I say that to my colleagues. That is doubling down and profiting.

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Pennsylvania (Ms. Scanlon), a member of the Rules Committee.

First of all, Madam Speaker, to equate the media to QAnon is beyond the pale.

Secondly, the gentlewoman said that she now believes that 9/11 really happened. But let me just read a quote. At the conservative American Priority Conference, she said: ``It's odd there's never any evidence shown for a plane in the Pentagon, but anyways, I won't--I won't--I'm not going to dive into the 9/11 conspiracy.''

Now, granted, that was in 2018, and the gentlewoman just told us that, in 2018, she had an epiphany and decided not to follow these conspiracy theories anymore.

But then, in 2019, she claims that Speaker Pelosi is guilty of treason, and then she said: ``It's a crime punishable by death is what treason is. Nancy Pelosi is guilty of treason.''

That is 2019. Also in 2019, she liked a comment on social media that advocated a bullet to the head of Speaker Pelosi.

Also in 2019, in an interview, she called a student survivor of the Parkland massacre, ``Very trained. He is like a dog.'' And then she said that he was an idiot who only talked when he is scripted.

Also in 2019, you know, on the Grounds of the Capitol complex, Representative Greene followed a survivor of the Parkland massacre, calling him a coward; and then when he ignored her shouted questions, she said: He can't say a word because he can't defend his stance.

I mean, that is 2019.

Now, we could be here all week going over comments and posts in 2019 and in 2020. So, you know, I just have to say that I did not hear a disavowment or an apology for those things. I did not hear an apology or denouncement for the claim, the insinuation that political opponents should be violently dealt with. I didn't hear anybody

apologize or retract the anti-Semitic and Islamophobic remarks that have been made and that have been posted over and over and over again. Again, the gentlewoman's campaign has profited off of these hurtful remarks and these dangerous statements. So I just point that out for the Record.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Let me just tell my colleague from Georgia--I can't resist because he mentioned proxy voting. I hate to tell him, but a lot of Republicans are voting by proxy, too. So the same ones who condemned it are the ones who are now utilizing it.

And, again, I would remind the gentleman that this is not a criminal trial. And that when the Republicans removed Steve King from his committees, there was no Ethics Committee deliberation on that. The decision was made to remove Steve King because finally, at long last, there was a realization that embracing white supremacy was unacceptable.

When Bill Jefferson, a Democrat, was removed by Democrats, again, removed from his committees, there wasn't an Ethics Committee deliberation. It was a decision that our leadership made and there was bipartisan support for that as well.

Now, we can sit here all we want and try to make excuses for not taking action. I mean, I think the standard here is, Republicans are coming to the floor and saying: We don't want to associate ourselves with these remarks. We condemn these remarks, but we don't appreciate any references to violence, and we don't appreciate any references to anti-Semitism, but . . .

I mean, but, but, but, but. And here we are.

And so the issue here is that the Republican Conference last night met to really deliberate on the fate of Congresswoman Cheney. They didn't take a vote on this. And, basically, by doing nothing, what does that message send?

How refreshing it would be, how welcome it would be if there was a strong, bipartisan vote on this resolution. Imagine what that would mean to the American people to know that we were all unified on the issue of when a Member, when a person who serves in this House has advocated the use of violence, called for assassinations, that we all agree that that is so unacceptable that, at a minimum, they ought not to have the privilege of being on a committee.

And I am not sure we are going to get that kind of unity here today, but I hope we do. I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Let me, again, just respond by reminding the gentleman that this isn't an issue because of political differences on policy. It just isn't.

I mean, I remind him, Representative Greene, in January 2019 on her social media, liked a comment that advocated a bullet to the head of the Speaker of the House. That doesn't bother you? That doesn't give you pause? Because there is a whole bunch of those kinds of posts on her social media.

Is there anything that is so awful that will give you pause?

I mean, we heard Mrs. Greene. She came down here and we heard 10 minutes of whataboutism and conspiracy, you know, and comparing American journalists to violent QAnon extremists. She was basically saying it is not her fault--it is everybody else's fault--not taking personal responsibility, and really not apologizing for any of these really offensive things.

And so this is one of these moments of truth as to, you know, what do we think about this institution? I mean, I really do think this is a vote about the integrity of this institution, and about upholding a standard of decency. And, quite frankly, we were all hoping you would do it. You do the right thing.

But, apparently, I think a political decision was made that it is advantageous not to alienate certain types of voters in this country even if they think the way and advocate for the policies and ideas that Mrs. Greene has put forward. That is what this is about.

And I know I talked to many of my colleagues on the other side. I know many are very uncomfortable and very offended by what she has said and what she has posted, but apparently not offended or uncomfortable enough to actually take action. And I think that that is unfortunate.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Madam Speaker, let me say to the gentleman who just spoke that I do believe that the standard that we are upholding today should be viewed equally for everybody. If any Member of this Chamber has advocated for the execution of another Member, whether it is a Democrat or a Republican, I will join with everybody here in advocating that they be taken off their committees. I have said that over and over and over again.

Madam Speaker, is that a controversial idea, that if people advocate that kind of stuff, that somehow we are going to look the other way or we are going to move on and let's not even talk about it?

And I will remind the gentleman that this is not ancient history. She continues to fundraise off this stuff. Read her social media. I am sure you do. So, come on.

And then I am a little confused because the gentleman was saying we shouldn't be doing this today, we should have done it last week when there was a unanimous consent request to basically move forward a whole bunch of committee assignments--Democrats and Republicans forward.

I mean, the deal is, if we had taken that down, then a whole bunch of people would be without committee assignments, as we speak. We have a lot of work to do to get this economy on the right track and crush this virus, especially in the aftermath of the 4 years we have been through.

Madam Speaker, we all want to move forward. We all want to move on. But you can't move forward unless there is some accounting here, unless there is some reckoning with what all of this means. And I would think that for the sake of this institution, if we want to uphold the standard of decency in this institution, that we will all come together on this.

Madam Speaker, what we just heard from Mrs. Greene was not an apology. And if that was the speech that was given last night in the Republican Conference, I guess my question would be: And that got a standing ovation?

I didn't hear an apology for the incredibly dangerous and hurtful remarks that she has made. I didn't hear an explanation for why she is still fundraising off of these terrible things here.

Madam Speaker, I don't know what my colleagues found so convincing, but I stand here today still deeply, deeply troubled and offended by the things that she has posted and the things that she has said and still not taken responsibility for and still not apologized for.

And the idea of coming to the floor and basically saying: Well, it is the media's fault, it is this person's fault or that person's fault-- and that the American media is equivalent to the violent QAnon extremists, well, I got to tell you, just when you think you have heard everything, then you hear that.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Madam Speaker, I respond by saying to the gentleman: We have been waiting. We have been Members now for over a month in this new Congress, and we have been waiting for action. I guess we got the answer last night: A standing ovation for somebody who has said and posted what Mrs. Greene has said and posted. I mean, that is the response. We have waited, and now we are going to move forward with this action.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Madam Speaker, this is a very serious matter, and I appreciate my ranking member, Mr. Cole, for the way he conducts himself because I know he cares deeply about this institution, and he knows that I admire him greatly.

The gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Scalise) was on the floor, and he quoted the Bible. And I have read the Bible, too, I want to inform the gentleman. And I believe in the Jesuit tradition.

Apology is not just words, it is action. And I didn't hear Mrs. Greene do that today. I heard a lot about whataboutisms, but I didn't hear her take responsibility, nor did I hear her apologize for some of the most egregious things that she has posted and said.

I also point out for the record--because I think this is important--I am not convinced her memory is 100 percent accurate here on some things. Here, just now--and she spoke to the whole Chamber--she said she didn't discuss QAnon during her campaign.

Madam Speaker, but last July, she said in her local interview: ``I've only ever seen patriotic sentiment coming out of that source.'' And she wouldn't answer if she was still a follower.

So I am a little confused that she is now trying to denounce QAnon, yet she said recently that they are patriots. She said: Never seen anything other than patriotic sentiment coming out of that source.

QAnon is a dangerous, sick cult. Period. And nobody--certainly nobody in this Chamber--should ever, in any way, shape, or form, try to associate themselves with them. They are not patriotic individuals. They are pushing sick, dangerous, violent conspiracy theories. Many of the people who attacked this Chamber on January 6 had their QAnon flags and insignias. So give me a break.

Madam Speaker, I don't know what it is going to take for some here to act. And I will just repeat what I said earlier. I don't know what the hell happened to the Republican Party. The party of Lincoln, the party of Eisenhower, the party of Reagan is becoming the party of Marjorie Taylor Greene and the party of violent conspiracy theories.

If anyone has any question about the things that she has said or done--anybody who is watching--just spend a moment and look at her social media posts. Don't take my word for it. Go research it for yourself. Google it. It is all there. They go well beyond anything that we have seen from any Member in this body.

Encouraging violence against another Member;

Posting and saying that 9/11 was a hoax;

That school shootings were planned by gun safety advocates;

Spreading anti-Semitic and anti-Muslim conspiracies and hate speech.

It is all there. We are not just saying this. It is there.

Madam Speaker, now, I am a big believer of the Committee on Ethic's process, but I don't need an investigation to tell me what I can read with my own eyes. The only question is this: What are we going to do about it?

Just as there was bipartisan agreement that Congressman King had no business on a committee, there should be bipartisan agreement that Congresswoman Greene doesn't either.

The only reason this is taking a resolution on the floor today is that Leader McCarthy is unwilling to apply that same standard here. A stern conversation is not enough. We aren't talking about expulsion here today. Though, some think that that is warranted, but that is not what we are talking about. We are deciding whether someone who has encouraged violence against Members should be given a platform on a standing committee. That is what the topic is here today.

And I have to say, I didn't even know that was a question. I assume the answer was obvious, but apparently it is not to some here.

Madam Speaker, inaction is complicity. We must set a standard of conduct in this institution and ensure that the violence, conspiracy theories, and the lies that we see on the darkest corners of the internet don't get a platform on a standing committee here in the House of Representatives.

Madam Speaker, I hope my colleagues will vote their conscience. I hope my colleagues will do what is right for the institution. This is about the institution, about who we are. Again, for the life of me, I don't understand what is complicated here, what is giving people hesitation.

We know the results of these violent conspiracy theorists. We saw that on January 6. We know what it leads to. I don't ever want to see that again. And we all should make clear where we stand on this. So Congresswoman Greene coming here and speaking for 10 minutes and not taking responsibility for any of this stuff, trying to make us believe that she doesn't believe in QAnon anymore--I just pointed to an interview that was fairly recent--not apologizing for the most egregious comments that she has posted.

Madam Speaker, we have to be better than this. This can't be the future. And I am hoping that we will get a bipartisan vote here because I do think, as I said before, a strong bipartisan vote on this, what a refreshing signal that would be to the American people that all of us together are standing up against hate, against violence, against conspiracy theories; that we are together on this. This shouldn't be hard.

Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution.

Madam Speaker, I thank the distinguished gentleman from Massachusetts, my good friend, Chairman McGovern, for yielding me the customary 30 minutes, and I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Madam Speaker, today is a sad one for us, for me personally, for the Rules Committee, and for the entire House of Representatives. Today, we are meeting on an unprecedented resolution by the majority, removing a Member of the minority party from her committee assignments.

Now, before I continue, Madam Speaker, I want to be very clear that I find the comments made by the Representative in question before she was elected to Congress to be deeply offensive. Members of Congress are and should be held to a high standard. And if she spoke any of what has been reported while a Member of this body, her words would certainly not meet that standard.

But at last night's Republican Conference, Representative Greene expressed regret for her past statements, which speaks to a problem with today's resolution. Representative Greene is not being given the courtesy of a referral to the Ethics Committee, the body empowered to investigate the conduct of Members. She is not being given the same due process that is given to other Members before facing punishment by the House.

Why is it so hard for the majority to give a Republican Member due process before stripping her of her committees? That is all I asked the Rules Committee last night, which the majority rejected.

Today's resolution raises serious questions for this institution. Indeed, these questions have nothing to do with this particular Member at all. Instead, they are about the future of the institution. The action the majority is proposing to take today is not only premature but, in fact, unprecedented in the history of the House.

Madam Speaker, what the majority is really proposing to do today is establish a new standard for punishing Members for conduct before they ever became a Member. The majority is proposing to hold Members of Congress accountable for statements made before they were even a candidate for Congress.

This change opens up troubling questions about how we judge future Members of Congress and whether or not we, as an institution, should impose sanctions on Members for actions they took before they were even candidates for office.

Under this majority's new approach, could a Member be punished for statements they made 5 years ago? Ten years ago? Twenty years ago?

I would remind the majority that several of their own Members have engaged in activities or made comments that Republican Members find offensive and inappropriate. If the majority changes hands in the future, as it surely will at some point, how would the current majority feel if these Members are stripped of their committee assignments with no due process? My friends run the risk of setting off a tit-for-tat exchange of escalating partisan punishment and score-settling that could cripple the operation of the House now and well into the future.

But what has also never been done before in the history of the institution is this: The majority has never taken steps to exercise a veto over the minority's committee assignments. It has never been done, Madam Speaker.

I know my friend, Chairman McGovern, attempted to point out some cases in yesterday's Rules Committee hearing to the contrary. But each of those cases he cited actually involved the party sanctioning their own Members. The majority exercising a veto over the minority's assignments has never happened before.

I would also like to point out that this is the same majority which raised no objections a week ago when this House unanimously approved resolutions on committee assignments.

In the past, the majority and minority have respected each other's rights to place Members on committees without interference. It has ultimately been the responsibility of each side to also hold their Members accountable for unacceptable behavior, including making decisions to remove Members from their committee assignments when warranted.

Indeed, Madam Speaker, Republicans have removed Members from committees in the past. I know. I have personally been part of those proceedings.

We can and will do so again, if necessary, but it will be done with due process and with the Members in question, whoever they may be, allowed to make their case. That is a simple standard of fair play and decency that the majority has decided not to extend to a Member of the minority in this case.

I truly believe that the majority claiming a new right to be able to exercise a veto over the minority's committee assignments will ultimately be dangerous for this institution. A change in norms away from an institution built on mutual consent and toward an institution where the majority

holds a veto power over everything, including committee assignments, is ultimately an institution that cannot function.

If one side feels the other should take corrective action for one of its Members and has failed to do so, then the bipartisan Ethics Committee exists to adjudicate matters related to the Code of Official Conduct. I believe it would be appropriate for the Ethics Committee to determine if a new standard relating to the actions taken by a Member of Congress before they are elected should be covered by the Code of Official Conduct and make the appropriate recommendations for the institution to guide us going forward.

I fear that doing anything other than this would send the institution down a precarious path. The Ethics Committee is the appropriate venue for considering claims of misconduct. That is traditionally what this institution has done when considering the conduct of an individual Member. I believe today it is appropriate to adhere to that norm.

Madam Speaker, the matter we are faced with is bigger than any one individual Member. It is about how we, as an institution, will continue to function in the future. I fear that if we open this particular Pandora's box, we will not like what happens next. I would strongly urge this House to consider an alternative course before it is too late.

Madam Speaker, I urge opposition to the rule, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume just for informational purposes.

There is no way my friend from Massachusetts could have known this, but last night the Republican members were formally named to the Ethics Committee. We expect them to be approved today so the committee could function immediately. But, again, my friend would have had no way of knowing that.

Madam Speaker, I yield 10 minutes to the gentlewoman from Georgia (Mrs. Greene).

Madam Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Austin Scott), my very good friend.

Madam Speaker, I yield the gentleman from Georgia an additional 30 seconds.

Madam Speaker, just quickly, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Madam Speaker, just to respond to my friend briefly, remember, we are doing something here that has never been done before. The majority is taking away a committee assignment of the minority. That has not happened in this House before.

Also remember, we are applying, or you were choosing to apply the code of official conduct to a Member before they were ever a Member. That has not, to my knowledge, ever been done before either.

We haven't said: Let's do nothing. We have said: These are pretty serious questions. Let's go to the Ethics Committee, adjudicate them, have a discussion, and have a recommendation come back out.

So to say we don't want to do something is just simply inaccurate. I think you are, frankly, overlooking the unprecedented nature of the acts that you have decided upon, and where that may lead us when the majority changes.

So with that, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from California (Mr. Issa).

Madam Speaker, I yield the gentleman from California an additional 15 seconds.

Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Scalise), the distinguished Republican whip of the Congress and my good friend.

Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Madam Speaker, just quickly for the Record, so my friend knows, the resolution that the Republican whip, Mr. Scalise, was referring to just a few minutes ago only concerned Republicans. So if you wanted to object to Republicans, that is what you could

have done. It didn't involve Democrats at all.

Madam Speaker, if we defeat the previous question, I will offer an amendment to the rule to amend House rules to state that any resolution proposing to remove a Member from a committee assignment shall not be in order unless offered by, or with the concurrence of, the leader of the party of the Member that is the subject of the resolution.

Madam Speaker, this speaks to a norm of basic fairness that today's resolution does not comply with. In the past, the majority has never attempted to exercise a veto over the minority's committee assignments, nor has the minority ever attempted to do the same to the majority.

This has been, in the past, an unwritten rule, a norm the House has adhered to in order to protect the operations of the institution. But the majority's actions today threaten that norm and threaten to set off a new round of escalating partisan punishment anytime the majority changes hands. Enshrining historical practice as a new rule is an important step to protect the institution as a whole.

Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of my amendment in the Record, along with extraneous material, immediately prior to the vote on the previous question.

Madam Speaker, I urge a ``no'' vote on the previous question, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Madam Speaker, just in response to my good friend: I was actually there. So, number one, she didn't get a standing ovation for things that she said. She got a standing ovation for regretting things that she had said, and saying she has been wrong, and denouncing QAnon and denouncing school shootings. That is what she got the standing ovation for. My friend didn't have the opportunity to hear that. I wanted to take the opportunity to inform him.

Madam Speaker, I would advise my friend that I am prepared to close.

Madam Speaker, in closing, I oppose the rule. Never before in the history of this institution has the majority attempted to exercise a veto over the minority's right to make committee assignments, yet, today, the majority is choosing to do just that. This leads the institution down a dangerous path, the end of which we cannot see.

Madam Speaker, there are alternative paths open that I believe the House should consider. We owe it to ourselves and to the institution to do so. Before we strip a Member of their committees for remarks that person made before they were subject to the official rules of conduct of the House, maybe we ought to have a discussion about that, if we are going to extend that in a way we never have before in the institution. I am not necessarily against that, by the way. I think that is a worthy topic.

I also think that if we are going to strip a Member before they ever served on a committee, they ought to have an opportunity to tell their side of the story in a judicious proceeding. Our Committee on Ethics has resolved a lot of naughty issues in a very bipartisan way, and not with Members escaping punishment. So to say we have asked for nothing be done, it is quite the opposite.

We have said: Let's go to the Committee on Ethics.

Let's hash through these tough issues of changing the scope of the official conduct provisions of the House that applies to Members.

Let's talk about whether or not it is appropriate for the majority to actually try to dictate the people that the minority puts on committees.

And, finally, let's give a Member that we accuse of something an opportunity to make his or her case.

That is what we have asked for, and that is what the majority has chosen not to do.

Madam Speaker, I think it is a dangerous mistake. It is a mistake that, frankly, when the majority changes, the temptation will be overwhelming for a Member to say: ``Oh, well, there is a Member I didn't like or said something or did something I didn't like. As a Member, I think I am just going to take that committee assignment away.''

I can give you a list of people that have done things that I think are inappropriate, on both sides of the aisle, quite frankly. But we have never done that here, and I don't think we should start doing that here. All we have asked for is a process, a Committee on Ethics discussion. We think that is the appropriate way to proceed.

Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the previous question, ``no'' on the rule, and I yield back the balance of my time.

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

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

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.