Recognizing the contributions of independent workers and contractors to the American economy.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this resolution, and I yield myself such time as I may consume.

I rise as the ranking member of the Ethics Committee, a body that I am proud to have served on throughout my entire time in Congress. I also rise as a member of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, which I have also served on throughout my time in Congress.

Many people don't understand the nature of the Ethics Committee. It is a unique body within this Congress. It consists of an equal number of Democrats and Republicans, and it offers a mechanism by which complaints against Members of Congress and high-ranking staff can be vetted, investigated, and adjudicated on pretty much a confidential basis by the members of the committee.

I am very pleased that--and this may really surprise people to know-- that we often come to completely unanimous decisions in that very bipartisan committee.

So, with that said, I am disappointed that my colleagues in the majority are choosing as one of their very first exercises of authority in this Congress to pursue vengeance over governance.

Governance would be to allow this resolution, which has been referred to the Ethics Committee, to proceed through the committee's regular process.

The Ethics Committee is charged with determining whether Member behavior violates the Code of Official Conduct and, when warranted by a violation, recommending that the House adopt sanctions or restrict certain privileges like service on committees.

I strongly urge a return to the days of civility, which would be nice to see here in this body, and which I think the American people would very much welcome. One of the ways of doing that is to have this Chamber allow the Ethics Committee to do its work, so that we avoid a situation where every couple of years, when there is a transfer of power between one party to the other, we don't see these constant efforts to boot people from committees based on past actions.

If a Member does something egregious that is worthy of a complaint, any Member can bring a complaint to the Ethics Committee, and it can be dealt with there.

The majority is seeking to advance this resolution before the Ethics Committee, and yet, the Ethics Committee has not yet even adopted its rules, held an organizational meeting, or convened for the first time this Congress.

I want to address the issue of due process. During the Rules Committee meeting leading up to today's vote, a number of concerns were expressed, and it has been reported in the media as well, concerns about due process.

The resolution, H. Res. 76, claims that any Member reserves the right to

bring a case before the Committee on Ethics as grounds for an appeal to the Speaker of the House for reconsideration of any committee removal decision. Notably, that language is contained in one of the whereas clauses, not in the resolved clause, which is the only binding part of this resolution.

By the way, it has even been conceded by Members of the GOP that the whereas clause, the quote is, ``merely references an existing process and in no way begins an appeal procedure or guarantees her committee seat will be reconsidered. It's nonbinding and not actionable,'' a senior GOP aide told Politico on Tuesday.

Well, in fact, I agree with that quote, with the exception of where it says that the clause references an existing process. There is no such existing process. There is no due process at all afforded to the Member who is being sought to be removed from a committee, and that is not due process.

I say that to address the many, many concerns that I have heard from Members on the other side of the aisle, from members of the Rules Committee. There is no due process in this House Resolution.

Once the full House votes to strip a Member of a right or privilege, only the full House can restore that right or privilege. Allowing Representative Omar to appeal to the Ethics Committee after the House has already voted to deny her a seat on the House Foreign Affairs Committee would be nonsensical and it would be a defective process.

It is the wrong order of things, and it violates how the Ethics Committee has operated ever since its creation as a standing committee of the House in 1967, where the committee recommends a sanction after a full investigation and adjudication, and the Member is allowed to present evidence and make their case, and then the full House votes on the committee's recommendation for sanctions.

H. Res. 76 violates the spirit of how our unique committee, the House's only evenly divided, truly bipartisan standing committee operates.

This is about partisanship, Mr. Speaker, not principle. This is about payback, not process.

H. Res. 76 is wholly transparent for what it is, and I firmly oppose its passage.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Phillips), also a member of the House Foreign Affairs Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Massachusetts (Ms. Clark), the minority whip.

Mr. Speaker, I yield the gentlewoman from Massachusetts an additional 30 seconds.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer), the former majority leader.

Mr. Speaker, I yield the gentleman from Maryland an additional 30 seconds.

Madam Speaker, I completely concur with the gentlewoman from Indiana that we need a better process, and one that affords due process, but this resolution does not.

Madam Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Meeks), the ranking member of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, the former chairman.

Madam Speaker, I yield an additional 15 seconds to the gentleman from New York.

Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Ocasio-Cortez).

Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Massachusetts (Ms. Pressley).

Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Missouri (Ms. Bush).

Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California (Mr. Swalwell).

How much time is remaining, Madam Speaker?

Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from the State of Washington (Ms. Jayapal).

Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California (Mr. Schiff).

Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Pocan).

Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Illinois (Ms. Schakowsky).

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

Madam Speaker, how much time remains on my side of the aisle?

Madam Speaker, for the purpose of closing, I yield the balance of my time to the gentlewoman from Minnesota (Ms. Omar).

Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Mississippi for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, the House Committee on Foreign Affairs has broad jurisdiction over national security and foreign policy, peacekeeping and peace enforcement, international law, and the promotion of democracy, and many other critical issues that require its members to be both objective and credible.

Members of the Committee on Foreign Affairs represent the United States abroad and are regarded as credible emissaries of American foreign policy. Their words have significant weight in guiding our relations with other countries and are relied upon by world leaders, most importantly, our allies such as Israel, the forever home of the Jewish people.

But what happens when a committee member is no longer viewed as a credible emissary of our foreign policy?

What if a Member is barred from visiting one of our allies because of their prejudiced comments?

How can Members who are unable to engage with our allies in a constructive manner be considered credible members of the committee?

Well, the gentlewoman's discriminatory comments disqualified her from traveling to Israel in 2019. Prime Minister of Israel Benjamin Netanyahu would not allow Representative Omar to enter, saying, ``We respect all political parties in the United States equally; however, we also respect ourselves. Whoever comes to impose boycotts on us and to deny the legitimacy of the State of Israel, we will not allow them entry.''

Yes, the gentlewoman disqualified herself from entry into one of the most important countries allied with the United States.

Over the past 75 years, Israel has been a steadfast ally of the United States. Israel has stood by us through the volatility in the Middle East, and this alliance has been critical to our own national security.

How can someone not welcomed by one of our most important allies serve as an emissary of American foreign policy on the Foreign Affairs Committee?

Given her biased comments against Israel and against the Jewish people, how can she serve as an objective decisionmaker on the committee?

Let's take a look at some of the gentlewoman's comments.

In February of 2019, barely more than a month after becoming a Member of this body, Representative Omar suggested that the Jewish people and the American Israel Public Affairs Committee were buying political support, writing on Twitter, ``It's all about the Benjamins baby,'' clearly amplifying an anti-Semitic stereotype about the Jewish people and money.

In response, Congressional Democratic leadership, her own party, immediately released a statement by saying, ``Anti-Semitism must be called out, confronted, and condemned whenever it is encountered, without exception.''

Not long after Representative Omar trivialized the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, by describing that day of infamy as ``some people did something.'' That is horrific.

``Some people did something.'' Yes, Mr. Speaker, some people did do something. Some people committed evil acts of terrorism and killed nearly 3,000 Americans, and, in response, some thousands of our fellow citizens, myself included, enlisted in our Armed Forces to defend the gentlewoman's right to make her prejudiced remarks. Many went off to combat and even died to defend that right.

But they did not die fighting to have their bravery and love of country undermined by a member of the House Foreign Affairs committee.

Mr. Speaker, I have no words to describe just how utterly unacceptable these comments are. But that is not all.

In 2021, the gentlewoman referred to Israel, which has the absolute right to defend itself against terrorism and attacks on its very existence, as an ``apartheid state.''

She even equated the United States and Israel, countries that have stood as beacons of democracy, to the Taliban and Hamas, organizations that impose terror on their regions and the world.

Once again, even her Democrat colleagues swiftly condemned her comment. Twelve Democrat Members of this body released a statement which noted, ``Equating the United States and Israel to Hamas and the Taliban is as offensive as it is misguided. Ignoring the differences between democracies governed by the rule of law and contemptible organizations that engage in terrorism at best discredits one's intended argument and at worst reflects deep-seated prejudice.'' That is from her own party.

Some have decried this effort as a political game. Mr. Speaker, I assure you this is no political game. This resolution is not about engaging in a tit for tat with my colleagues on the other side of the aisle. This is about keeping someone with a long record of anti-Semitic and anti-Israel bias off the Foreign Affairs Committee, which needs objective emissaries for our foreign policy.

Even the Democrat former Chairman of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, Eliot Engel, said that Representative Omar's anti-Semitic comments have ``no place in the Foreign Affairs Committee or the House of Representatives.''

That was in addition to the previously mentioned joint statement from 12 of the gentlewoman's Democrat colleagues.

The facts are clear: Representative Omar has espoused anti-Semitic and anti-Israel rhetoric time and time again. She cannot be an objective contributor to the work of the committee, and she has brought dishonor to the House of Representatives.

This body's committee, which is viewed by nations around the world as speaking for Congress on matters of international importance and national security, should not have a seat for a Member who would bring such dishonor to that committee.

I encourage all of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support this resolution to say with one voice that the United States House of Representatives does not condone hate and to reaffirm that we will always condemn anti-Semitism.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 83, I call up the resolution (H. Res. 76) removing a certain Member from a certain standing committee of the House, and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on H. Res. 76.

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

Mr. Speaker, I come today to the floor pursuant to the process put in place by the previous majority in the 117th Congress. At that time, I served as a member on the House Ethics Committee. Today, I serve as chair of that committee.

Roughly 2 years ago, on February 4, 2021, I publicly warned of the dangerous precedent set by the previous majority as they put in place an unprecedented process to remove minority Members from their committee assignments.

Two years ago, Democrats offered a resolution. That resolution, based on clause 1, House rule XXIII, removed a Republican Member from all committees and referred the matter to the House Ethics Committee.

However, the process instituted at that time by Speaker Nancy Pelosi, bypassed any Ethics Committee involvement and brought the matter directly to the House floor for a vote.

I, and many other Republicans, warned that this majority veto over the minority party's committee assignment appointments removed important rights of the minority party. Republican Members also warned that this process set a precedent that future majorities would follow to remove Members from committee assignments.

Following the roadmap previously approved by the Democrat-controlled 117th Congress, we are here today to debate and to consider H. Res. 76, a resolution to remove Representative Omar from serving on the Committee on Foreign Affairs.

Today's resolution, as it relates to Representative Omar, details six statements she made as a sitting Member of Congress that, under the totality of the circumstances, disqualify her from serving on the Committee on Foreign Affairs.

It is important to note that this resolution is very narrowly tailored and does not prevent Representative Omar from serving on other committees. H. Res. 76, instead, simply states that she cannot serve on a committee that receives classified briefings and is responsible for maintaining international diplomacy.

The Committee on Foreign Affairs is a prestigious committee, viewed by nations around the world, both allies and adversaries, as speaking for Congress on matters of international importance and national security.

All Members, both Republicans and Democrats alike, who seek to serve on the Committee on Foreign Affairs should be held to the highest standard of conduct due to the international sensitivity and national security concerns under the jurisdiction of this committee.

Based upon the important mission of this committee and the precedent previously set to remove Members from their committee assignments, I support this resolution today.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, before I yield time to the gentleman from Ohio, I do want to point out that H. Res. 72 of the 117th Congress, which is the resolution that stripped Marjorie Taylor Greene of her committee assignments, contained no language whatsoever relating to due process and set forth no appeals process for her to be able to appeal the ruling of the body as a whole.

I will say that the resolution that we are debating today does contain language as to an appellate process. So I do believe that the resolution that we are debating today does contain additional rights to the Member that we are seeking to remove than what was offered in H. Res. 72 as it relates to Marjorie Taylor Greene.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 6 minutes to the gentleman from the great State of Ohio (Mr. Miller).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Kustoff).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Malliotakis).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Indiana (Mrs. Spartz).

Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Lawler).

Madam Speaker, I yield an additional 15 seconds to the gentleman from New York.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Florida, (Mr. Gimenez), my friend.

Madam Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time to close.

Madam Speaker, I adopt the comments that were made by the then- chairman of the Foreign Affairs Committee, Eliot Engel.

In late February 2019, after a third anti-Semitic statement in just over 2 weeks--17 days, to be exact--then-chairman of the Foreign Affairs Committee Eliot Engel said these words: ``It's unacceptable and deeply offensive to call into question the loyalty of fellow American citizens because of their political views, including support for the U.S.-Israel relationship. We all take the same oath. Worse, Representative Omar's comments leveled that charge by invoking a vile anti-Semitic slur;''

Whereas, Chairman Engel went on to say that ``such comments have `no place in the Foreign Affairs Committee or the House of Representatives.' ''

I agree with the statements made by Chairman Engel.

Not only do Representative Omar's comments have no place in the Foreign Affairs Committee, I hold that anyone who makes such statements has no place serving on the Foreign Affairs Committee.

I ask all Members to support this resolution removing Ms. Omar from the Committee on Foreign Affairs.

Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Madam Speaker, it is undeniable that Representative Omar has made what has been considered to be offensive anti-Semitic comments in the past. It is also undeniable that Representative Omar has apologized, learned, and been a reliable and productive member of the Foreign Affairs Committee. I have watched her work with her colleagues on both sides of the aisle. She cares about her country. She cares about our national security. She cares about diplomacy.

Her perspective is invaluable to the House Foreign Affairs Committee. She is a refugee, and the only African-born Muslim member of the Foreign Affairs Committee. We know that diverse perspectives strengthen our policymaking and national security. Losing Representative Omar's voice on the committee to extremist politics would be a shameful mark on this body, harmful to the interest of the American people and our image abroad, and damage to democracy itself.

I also know the sheer hypocrisy of Speaker McCarthy and Members of his party looking to deny Representative Omar's seat on the Foreign Affairs Committee is rich.

This resolution is not about addressing dishonor or respect for the House. This resolution is not about addressing anti-Semitism. If it were, there would be other Members named in this resolution.

For example, in October of 2018, a Republican Member tweeted: We cannot allow Soros, Steyer, and Bloomberg to buy this election. Get out and vote for Republicans on November 6. MAGA. That was the Speaker of the House.

The tweet included a video featuring that Member discussing George Soros, Tom Steyer, and former New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg, all Jewish men who are significant donors of the Democratic campaigns and causes. Were these the only wealthy Democratic donors he could choose from?

Jewish money buying elections is a stereotype about the Jewish faith popular among the alt-right. I recall no apology--unlike Representative Omar--to or for this tweet. This is far from the only example of the hypocrisy.

Representatives on the Republican side have defended and agreed with well-known white supremacist and anti-Semite Nick Fuentes, and spoke at Fuentes' events.

Other Republican Members have claimed that Zionist supremacists are conspiring to flood Europe with migrants in order to replace the White populations there.

My Republican colleagues have quoted Adolf Hitler in congressional remarks, promoted the ``Great Replacement Theory,'' and invited a Holocaust denier to the State of the Union.

Finally, when the Congress moved a House resolution condemning anti- Semitism, there was only one Member that voted against it--and it wasn't a Democrat.

Why is this Member being targeted today?

We do not have time to go through the entire list of objectionable remarks that the other side has made. The point is, none of these comments caused any of the Members who made them to be removed from committees; not removed from the Education and Labor Committee, not removed from the Judiciary Committee, not removed from the Armed Services Committee, not removed from the Homeland Security Committee. A blatant double standard is being applied here.

Something just doesn't add up. What is the difference between Representative Omar and these Members?

Could it be the way that she looks? Could it be her religious practices?

Madam Speaker, it is clear, if she were on the other side of the aisle, we would not be having this debate today. That is absolutely clear.

The GOP was not outraged when Donald Trump broke bread with the anti- Semitic Holocaust deniers at his Florida mansion. There was no outrage when Donald Trump's tweets deployed images of the Star of David and stacks of currency. We need to vote ``no'' and stand up for democracy. Representative Omar needs to remain and be productive on the House Foreign Affairs Committee.

Madam Speaker, this debate today is about who gets to be an American. What opinions do we have to have to be counted as Americans?

This is what this debate is about, Madam Speaker.

There is this idea that you are suspect if you are an immigrant or if you are from certain parts of the world or a certain skin tone or a Muslim.

It is no accident that members of the Republican Party accused the first Black President, Barack Obama, of being a secret Muslim. It is no accident that former President Donald Trump led a birther movement that falsely claimed he was born in Kenya because, to them, falsely labeling the first and only Black President of the United States of America a Muslim and an African immigrant somehow made him less American.

Well, I am Muslim. I am an immigrant and, interestingly, from Africa. Is anyone surprised that I am being targeted? Is anyone surprised that I am somehow deemed unworthy to speak about American foreign policy, or that they see me as a powerful voice that needs to be silenced?

Frankly, it is expected because when you push power, power pushes back.

Representation matters. Continuing to expand our ideas of who is American and who can partake in the American experiment is a good thing.

I am an American, an American who was sent here by her constituents to represent them in Congress, a refugee who survived the horrors of a civil war, someone who spent her childhood in a refugee camp. I am someone who knows what it means to have a shot at a better life here in the United States. I am someone who believes in the American Dream, the American possibility, and the promise and the ability to participate in the democratic process.

That is what this debate is about.

There is an idea out there that I do not have objective decisionmaking because of who I am, where I come from, and my perspective, but I reject that.

We say there is nothing objective about policymaking. We all inject our perspectives, our points of view, our lived experiences, and the voices of our constituents. That is what democracy is about.

What is the work of the Foreign Affairs Committee, Madam Speaker? It is not to cosign the stated foreign policy of whatever administration is in power. It is about oversight. It is to critique and to advocate for a better path forward. Most importantly, it is to make the myth that American foreign policy is intrinsically moral, a reality.

I will continue to speak up because representation matters. I will continue to speak up for little kids who wonder who is speaking up for them. I will continue to speak up for families around the world who are seeking justice whether they are displaced in refugee camps or hiding under their beds somewhere, as I was, waiting for the bullets to stop because this child survivor of war would have wanted that.

The 9-year-old me would be disappointed if I didn't talk about the victims of conflict on behalf of those who are experiencing unjust wars, atrocities, ethnic cleansing, occupation, or displacement, as I did.

They are looking to the international community and the United States, asking for help. They look to us because the international community and the United States profess the values of protecting human rights and upholding international law. We owe it to them not to make this a myth but a reality.

I didn't come to Congress to be silent. I came to Congress to be their voice, and my leadership and voice will not be diminished if I am not on this committee for one term. My voice will get louder and stronger, and my leadership will be celebrated around the world, as it has been.

So take your vote or not, I am here to stay, and I am here to be a voice against the harms around the world and advocate for a better world.