Doug Collins

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

Mr. Speaker, this is the third time that I have stood in this well this year on this floor about this subject, and I have been clear at every juncture: Racism, bigotry, and anti-Semitism will find no refuge in the people's House.

We expect each other to speak fairly, truthfully, and respectfully of all our fellow Members of Congress and of the President--not because we agree with each other all the time, but because we have great respect for the Americans who elected us and to represent them from one end of Pennsylvania Avenue to the other.

I come here today, Mr. Speaker, with much grief and many questions. The first may be procedural, but it is not trivial.

The Democrats wrote a resolution last night. It is on the floor today. I just have a question: What happened to the 72-hour rule ensuring Members have an opportunity to review legislation and seek feedback from constituents before voting on it? What happened to regular order? This never came through committee.

Why does the House have rules if the Democratic majority only follows them when politically convenient? And, also, as was brought up in the rules debate, there was even no consultation with others who would want to be a part of this.

The President has every right to be frustrated with Congress for the work that we have failed to do on multiple fronts, including the border. I also understand that his recent tweets make it hard for us to move forward.

Attacks are like quicksand: They trap and they defeat us before we know it. They are distracting us from legislating. That was true when a lawmaker implied last week that a Member of the House leadership was singling out ``newly elected women of color'' and when other Representatives were accused of enabling a racist system.

It is true as we see little to no concern from my colleagues across the aisle when a foreign flag is raised over an American facility or a terrorist firebombed another facility.

It is true when the President of the United States, out of frustration, tweeted this weekend, and it is true of many comments coming from lawmakers today.

In fact, it is interesting for my chairman to say that they have called out the President every time but, also, many times--and this is just a small listing of every week that they have not called out their own Members for things that I cannot read on this floor.

Unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, we are too quick this Congress to allow political ends to justify procedural means. But that is not democracy rooted in our unalienable rights, rights the second clause in this resolution affirms. The resolution is simply a lesson in political expediency.

Integrity is a prerequisite to our covenant to govern by the consent of the people, which this resolution also affirms.

We knew when we voted for the House rules this January that we could not, in this Chamber, use certain language about other democratically elected leaders. We agreed to let ideas compete for our votes and use rhetoric as a tool to build bridges instead of as kindling to burn those bridges down. Yet not a week goes by, as we have already pointed out, without Members of this body issuing statements or tweets that I could not and will not read from this floor without violating our rules.

It is amazing, but not surprising, that some of my colleagues are using this platform to call for impeachment since many have been making that call since November of 2016--no justification then, and definitely not now.

You see, Mr. Speaker, pleas for decorum are not merely a refuge for lawmakers who find themselves in the minority. Decorum is a symptom of a healthy and confident democracy. When we can debate ideas on this floor, decorum ensures democracy's every voice can be heard.

I would like to lend my voice to the chorus of lawmakers supporting the first 15 clauses of this resolution, but for the misguided title and the fourth page of this resolution, we could have had a suspension vote.

To its credit, the resolution states the House of Representatives ``is committed to keeping America open to those lawfully seeking refuge and asylum.'' I agree.

Everyone who votes for this resolution will now be on record as opposing illegal immigration, and I hope we can all work together to address the border crisis based on that common foundation.

Again, you don't need a vote on this resolution to do that. You simply have to look at the border and acknowledge the crisis.

But we will still have a problem with this resolution. We cannot, by our own House rules, support a resolution that labels the President in this way, and I will not.

The rules that have governed this body since the first United States Congress do not allow us to devolve in that way. However, it doesn't mean that we can't condemn racial or ethnic prejudice. It doesn't mean we can't decisively reject anti-Semitism, as we have on this floor. In my view, we have not done it so far in this Congress to that extent, but we have time for a clarion call on that front. I know some colleagues on both sides of the aisle who could join each other in that conviction.

Our own standards of decorum, however, in fact, empower us to welcome to America every person who respects our laws and wants to help defend our freedoms. These standards also give us a platform to admit when we and those around us make mistakes.

When we consider the power of this Chamber to legislate for the common good, I wonder why my colleagues have become so eager to attack the President that they are willing to sacrifice the rules, precedents, and the integrity of the people's House for an unprecedented vote that undercuts its very democratic processes.

I wonder, if the comments in view today are what some of my colleagues say they are, why this resolution had to rephrase them to make its point. The resolution condemns comments in a way that exposes the breathtaking partisanship of today's exercise.

The resolution quotes only three words from the comments it rejects-- the words ``go back'' and ``invaders.'' Beyond those three words, the resolution substitutes its own phrasing and editorializing for the words this resolution has in view.

Again, a partisan show. That is a tell that today's resolution is more of a political jab than anything else. It is, therefore, a signal for us to take a moment to look inward.

I wonder if, when we are tempted to accuse our sister, our brother, our fellow American, political foe, or Madam Speaker of racism--by the way, I do not believe that the President is a racist. I do not believe the Speaker of this House is a racist. I do not believe the majority leader is a racist. I do not believe the minority leader is a racist. We can go down this line. I do not believe that. Then why do we insist on using this floor to litigate the propriety of statements made outside these walls?

We assign a lot of wicked intent to a lot of tweets, even though 280 characters offers us the least context for making our points and endless potential for misunderstanding each other.

To be fair, a lot of political speech today seems to be made to deepen our divide by highlighting our differences, and that is a cause for sadness. That is exactly what the rules of decorum in this body are designed to guard against.

We have a choice this afternoon, Mr. Speaker. We can pursue escalation against our fellow Americans, or we can pursue reconciliation on their behalf. Only one of those options makes room for this body to do its job: the legislating of the solutions for the challenges of the American people.

Many of the Members are my friends, and I am thankful for the chance to work alongside each of them every day. But, today, we renew our commitment to the democratic ideals of this Chamber by voting against a flawed resolution, against a political statement, against something that could not even be written in a proper way without adding editorial and paraphrased comments.

I would ask each of my friends on both sides of the aisle to evaluate what is before them, evaluate what we have done, and evaluate what we don't take up for political convenience when it is our side saying it.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. McClintock).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Gonzalez).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Meuser).

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from West Virginia (Mrs. Miller).

Mr. Speaker, I ask for a time check on both sides, please.

Mr. Speaker, at this time I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Duffy).

Mr. Speaker, point of order.

Point of order.

Mr. Speaker, I was just going to ask the gentle Speaker of the House if she would like to rephrase that comment.

Mr. Speaker, I make a point of order the gentlewoman's words are unparliamentary and request that the words be taken down.

Mr. Speaker, I made a point of order that the gentlewoman's words were unparliamentary and request they be taken down.

Mr. Speaker, I request that the gentlewoman's words are unparliamentary and request that they be taken down.

Mr. Speaker, I have a motion at the desk.

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

Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

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