The publication is reproduced in full below:
PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H. RES. 789, CENSURING REPRESENTATIVE
PAUL GOSAR
Ms. SCANLON. Madam Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 795 and ask for its immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:
H. Res. 795
Resolved, That upon adoption of this resolution it shall be in order without intervention of any point of order to consider in the House the resolution (H. Res. 789) censuring Representative Paul Gosar. The amendment to the resolution printed in the report of the Committee on Rules accompanying this resolution shall be considered as adopted. The resolution, as amended, shall be considered as read. The previous question shall be considered as ordered on the resolution and preamble, as amended, to adoption without intervening motion or demand for division of the question except one hour of debate equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on Ethics or their respective designees.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentlewoman from Pennsylvania is recognized for 1 hour.
Ms. SCANLON. Madam Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Cole), who is the distinguished ranking member of the Rules Committee, 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
Ms. SCANLON. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members be given 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the gentlewoman from Pennsylvania?
There was no objection.
Ms. SCANLON. Madam Speaker, yesterday the Rules Committee met and reported a rule, House Resolution 795, providing for consideration of H. Res. 789, Censuring Representative Paul Gosar, under a closed rule. The rule self-executes a manager's amendment from Chairman Deutch and provides 1 hour of general debate equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on Ethics or their respective designees.
{time} 1230
Madam Speaker, in any other Congress, the actions of Representative Paul Gosar might be easier to dismiss. After all, every single minute of every single day, 5,000 minutes of content are uploaded onto YouTube.
So my colleagues across the aisle or the public might ask, who cares about one YouTube video post by Representative Gosar? He is just one of many Americans posting his fantasies online, even if his involve a violent scene in which he attacks and murders people that he has labeled as enemies of the American people, a colleague in Congress, and the President of the United States.
But it is just an anime video, so it is not a big deal, right?
Actually, it is a big deal. And here is why: People listen to Paul Gosar. He is an elected official; and that gives him credibility, whether justified or not. So while there are indeed 5,000 minutes of content uploaded every single minute of every single day, Mr. Gosar's video got real attention, just as he intended.
American citizens stopped what they were doing to watch something that a Member of the U.S. Congress had fashioned. He posted it on his official Congressional social media, where he has hundreds of thousands of followers, and where the video was viewed over 3 million times.
And what he posted was violence; fantasized violence. A wish made in a very specific way.
As I said, in any other decade, or any other Congress, this public endorsement of violence by a Member of Congress might have been excused as a lapse in judgment, or even possibly a bad joke.
But this Congress knows what happens when members of the radical right get stirred up by their leaders.
Just a few months ago, this Congress had to hide in safe rooms under the protection of police and soldiers, or barricade ourselves in our offices because our place of work was overwhelmed by armed citizens who wanted to hang some of us.
This Congress has seen threats against Members of Congress more than double, forcing Members to pay for additional security for their homes, offices, and families; rethink how to engage with constituents; and even wear bulletproof vests to public events.
So when a Member of this Congress fantasizes in public about beheading another Member of Congress, it is not fantasy to think that there are Americans out there who will take such a video as a call to action.
A recent poll reported that 85 percent of Americans get their news from Facebook, while only 13 percent of Americans get their news from print. Are we really to believe that during this moment in time, that among that 85 percent, there are no Americans who will see this video and indulge in fantasies of their own?
Every single day Members of this body receive death threats. I have gotten them. We all have. Our staffs and families have to deal with abusive and violent phone calls, emails, letters, and social media posts. And these threats are particularly numerous and violent for Members who are women of color.
So every day we have to deal with the threat that somewhere out there is a radicalized American who has been taught to hate us, to regard us as evil, to fantasize, and even mobilize using that same social media, to eliminate us, taught by conspiracy theorists and far-right extremists; or by a fellow Member of Congress.
That is not imagination; that is fact.
In any other context, and especially in any other workplace, someone posting a video of himself killing a coworker would not be acceptable, and an employee who did that would almost certainly be fired.
In any other context, and especially in a school, a student using school resources to post a video of himself beheading a classmate and attacking a school official would not be acceptable, and that student would face disciplinary charges, if not criminal charges, and would likely be referred for a mental health evaluation.
But for the privileges traditionally afforded to Members of Congress, in any other context, someone posting a video of himself killing a Member of Congress and attacking the President of the United States would almost certainly be reported to the Secret Service and U.S. Capitol Police.
We must condemn this celebration of political violence because, in addition to upholding the honor and integrity of the U.S. Congress, every Member of this body deserves to come to work and feel safe. That is true for any worker in any part of this country.
It is unacceptable that our colleague would have to sit across from someone who has threatened her life in such a vivid way, and it is unacceptable for this body to let that action go unpunished.
This is the House of Representatives of the United States Congress. We are all elected to be the leaders of this great country, and with that role comes immense responsibilities. People look up to us, they take our lead.
So when a Member posts a video of himself killing his colleague, that is obviously going to have an impact on the way people approach their politics.
So we cannot dismiss Representative Gosar's violent fantasies as a joke because, in this decade, in this America, someone is going to take him seriously. He is a public figure and, as we vividly saw on January 6, the words and actions of public figures can readily act as a spark to the tinder of radical extremism. And God help us all when that happens.
Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. COLE. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I thank the gentlewoman from Pennsylvania (Ms. Scanlon), my friend, for yielding me the customary 30 minutes.
Madam Speaker, today's rule covers one item, a resolution censuring Representative Paul Gosar for a video posted on his official Twitter account last week, and removing him from his seat on the Committees on Oversight and Reform and Natural Resources.
Madam Speaker, today's action, once again, tramples on the traditional norms of the House; the idea that the majority and the minority have the right to appoint their own members to committees as they see fit. It sets a dangerous and disturbing precedent that will likely change the character of the House in the years to come, and not for the better.
And the majority is doing so solely to play politics with this moment and to score a cheap political point at the expense of a Member of the minority.
But before I go into all of that, I do think it is important to lay out the sequence of events that occurred here, since I believe they are instructive.
Last week, Representative Gosar posted a video on his official Twitter account. This video was certainly provocative and, in my opinion, inappropriate.
Upon being informed of the video's existence, Leader McCarthy immediately took action and called Congressman Gosar, conveying the message that this video was inappropriate. After that conversation, Congressman Gosar took the video down and issued a statement explaining and clarifying its meaning, and stating that he certainly didn't approve of violence against any person.
Yesterday, Congressman Gosar took the additional step of appearing before the Republican Conference to further explain his actions. He described that his intention was for a depiction in the video to be symbolic of the policies he opposes, not actual people. He clarified that he did not intend it to be an endorsement of violence and, further, that he does not condone violence.
But not content with his admission to a lapse in judgment, last night the majority made the decision to convene the Rules Committee on short notice to consider a resolution censuring Representative Gosar and removing him from his committee assignments. In doing so, the majority is acting in clear contrast to the existing precedent throughout the history of this institution; a precedent the majority has taken multiple deliberate steps to weaken in this Congress.
Throughout the history of the House of Representatives, the majority and the minority have respected the right of each of their conferences to assign their respective members to committees. The decision about whether to seat a member on a committee, or to remove a member from a committee, traditionally rests with the respective conferences.
Early this year, the majority took two actions to go against that tradition. First, the majority voted to remove a Republican Member of Congress from her committee assignments.
Second, the Speaker unilaterally refused to appoint two of Leader McCarthy's choices to be Republican members on the Select Committee on the January 6 attack and, instead, appointed Republicans she wanted on the committee. Both of these actions are in stark contrast to the norms and traditions of the House of Representatives.
Today, the majority is taking a third such action. This continues to set an extremely dangerous precedent for the future of the institution. In future years, the precedent may be used to give the majority veto power over the minority's committee assignments. That is a slippery slope for the institution to go down.
But to make matters worse, in acting today, the majority is setting a standard for Members of the minority that it does not set for itself. There have been plenty of instances of Members on the majority side using intemperate language, making statements that directly or could be construed as endorsing violence or taking controversial or inappropriate actions; yet, the majority has yet to act to remove one of its own members from their committee assignments.
This is a classic case of the old adage: ``Rules for thee but not for me.'' That is deeply frustrating.
Madam Speaker, if action is truly necessary today, then there are two other options for addressing Representative Gosar's actions than what the majority is proposing. First, the majority can and should leave the matter up to Leader McCarthy and the Republican Conference. Indeed, this was the topic of discussion at yesterday's Republican Conference meeting and, historically, neither Leader McCarthy nor the Republican Conference has shied away from disciplining Members.
Second, the House also has the option of referring Representative Gosar to the Ethics Committee. This is also an appropriate course of action, particularly if the majority believes that a violation of the Code of Ethics has occurred. Such a referral would give the bipartisan Ethics Committee the time to review the matter, allow Representative Gosar to present his arguments, and give the committee the chance to make appropriate recommendations.
But once again, the majority is rushing forward with a resolution to strip a Republican member of a committee assignment without giving either of these two appropriate venues a chance to resolve the matter. In doing so, they are playing politics in the worst way, rushing to condemn a Republican Member for actions for which he has already sought to address.
It is disturbing to note the surprise on my Democratic colleagues' faces last night at the Rules Committee when I referenced the public statement Congressman Gosar released after removing the video. They didn't seem to know about it. I think they are condemning his actions and didn't even know that he had already taken corrective action.
That goes to show, frankly, that we have not taken the appropriate care in looking at this matter, and certainly not given Representative Gosar the opportunity to address it.
Madam Speaker, I urge opposition to the rule, and I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. SCANLON. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I would have to agree with my learned colleague that these are unusual actions, but these are also unusual times. Every time we have seen a new low in conduct from our colleagues across the aisle, we get crickets or excuses from the Republican Party. Indeed, it took 9 days before the minority leader publicly spoke about this threat; and his silence spoke volumes, both to the American people and those who were paying attention to Mr. Gosar's post.
Instead, we have heard multiple reports that our colleagues are considering punishing their colleagues who voted for the bipartisan infrastructure package. I think that speaks volumes about where their priorities lie.
We will continue to see Members emboldened by the lack of accountability engaging in evermore outrageous conduct, placing both the integrity of Congress and the safety of its Members at risk.
While Mr. Gosar has since taken down his post, he has not apologized. In fact, he said publicly on TV that he does not apologize. He has doubled down on his decision to post the video saying, the cartoon exposes the threats to America. It doesn't make a threat to anyone.
I would have to disagree with his assessment.
As to the claim that there hasn't been enough of a process, that this should have gone to the Ethics Committee; I will remind my colleagues that we heard in the Rules Committee last night that the majority requested an emergency meeting of the Ethics Committee, which the minority denied.
And this isn't a case where there are facts to discover. The actions of Representative Gosar were not hidden for an investigatory body to discover. His misconduct was paid for and produced with public resources and posted on an official public Twitter account, where it got more than 3 million views before it was taken down.
There is no dispute about whether Representative Gosar posted the reprehensible video depicting the murder of one of his colleagues on his official channels. And the Republican Conference has had 2 weeks to decide to take action and hold him accountable. Instead, they are debating whether to punish their colleagues for voting for infrastructure for the American people.
So we have said that--it actually just strikes me as odd that our colleagues would argue that this forms a harmful precedent, and that the threat of violence or murder in the future might be cause to censure and strip members of their committees. If that is the case, then sign me up because I do think that is reprehensible and deserves censure.
Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from New York
(Mrs. Carolyn B. Maloney), the distinguished chairwoman of the Committee on Oversight and Reform.
{time} 1245
Mrs. CAROLYN B. MALONEY of New York. Madam Speaker, I rise in support of the rule and in support of the underlying resolution, H. Res. 789. This is an extraordinary measure, and I do not support it lightly.
As chair of the Committee on Oversight and Reform, I support and defend the rights of all committee members to express their views, even if I disagree with them. But the honest exchange of ideas cannot happen when one committee member promotes violence against another.
No other workplace in America would tolerate such dangerous conduct, and neither should the House of Representatives.
What Representative Gosar did is both despicable and beneath the office he holds. But make no mistake about it: Promoting political violence has real consequences.
Many of our colleagues, including myself, and the Capitol Police have received credible death threats.
Rejecting violence should not be a partisan issue. I call on my Republican colleagues to join us today in demanding accountability for those who promote it.
Mr. COLE. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume simply to make a couple of quick points to some of my friends' concerns.
First of all, nobody has had 2 weeks to act. This incident occurred less than 2 weeks ago, and we were in recess last week. So let's focus on the here and now.
I may be mistaken about this, but I don't think we have kept the Ethics Committee from meeting about this. Quite the opposite, we wish they had.
The chairman did say he would put in a request for an emergency meeting. The reality is, the majority moved ahead, I think, before that could happen. That process, I think, would have been the appropriate one to follow or an appropriate one to follow in this case.
So, I just simply posit those things for the record.
Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Gaetz).
Mr. GAETZ. Madam Speaker, I oppose political violence in all forms, regardless of the politics of the target.
I am no expert on Japanese anime, but I am told, and I do believe, that it is not real. What is real is the crisis on our border, the inflation crushing American families, unvetted Afghans in our country. What is definitely real is the violence that burned our cities and harmed our businesses in the summer of 2020, often encouraged by Democrats in Congress.
Anime is fiction to the point of the absurd. It is not really my thing, and it does glorify violence, but often to symbolize conflict, not realistic harm to another person.
In the last session week we had, we reviewed Steve Bannon's podcast. Today, we are critiquing Paul Gosar's anime. Next week, we might be indicting Wile E. Coyote for an explosive ordnance against Road Runner.
If you don't like Paul Gosar's tweets, tweet back at him. We know there are plenty of folks in Big Tech who will amplify your message.
The gentlewoman from Pennsylvania gave the game away. This really isn't about a tweet. It is about removing a powerful conservative, Paul Gosar, from the Committee on Oversight and Reform. It is about characterizing conservatives as threats to the country, dangerous, because despite the majority's references to the Biden infrastructure bill, they have received no bump from it. The American people are not really into the infrastructure bill, and so we are here reviewing mean tweets.
All of us in Congress--I shouldn't say all of us. Some of us have regretted things we have tweeted. I know I have. When we say uncouth things, we should resolve that. Congressman Gosar removed the tweet, and I hope he regrets it.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. COLE. Madam Speaker, I yield an additional 30 seconds to the gentleman from Florida.
Mr. GAETZ. Madam Speaker, I would say I have regretted things I have tweeted. I hope that people who tweeted in support of violence in the summer of 2020 regret those tweets. I am not sure if they do or not.
I would just suggest we have better things to do on the floor of the House of Representatives than be the hall monitors for Twitter.
If we got a thousand Americans, in almost any district in America, and asked what was troubling them, I don't know that we would find two in any district that would put Paul Gosar on the list of things that matter to them more than the issues that they face at their kitchen table.
Ms. SCANLON. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Raskin), a distinguished member of the Rules Committee.
Mr. RASKIN. Madam Speaker, is there a high school or a workplace in America that would do nothing if a student or a worker posted violently threatening material against a fellow student or a colleague? Please show it to me, if so.
Last month, a high school student in Michigan made threatening statements about a specific classmate. He was arrested.
In Boulder, Colorado, several high school students were expelled for posting violently threatening material online.
Last month, in Chicago, a firefighter was fired for his threatening social media posts, including a cartoon of someone running someone else over in a car.
A woman in Pennsylvania who made violent threats against a colleague on Facebook was fired, and the State court found she was ineligible for unemployment compensation because her violently threatening speech online constituted willful misconduct.
It is remarkable to me, Madam Speaker, that we have colleagues who think we should do nothing in the face of a Member of the United States House of Representatives who posts an animated cartoon video of him killing a colleague.
Congressman Gosar is 62. Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez is 32.
Mr. COLE. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Madam Speaker, if we defeat the previous question, I will offer an amendment to the rule to consider a resolution that would add a new House rule stating 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, my amendment would reinforce the longstanding norm of basic fairness that today's resolution does not comply with. Throughout the entire history of the House of Representatives, it has been an unwritten rule, or norm of conduct, that one party does not attempt to exercise a veto over the other party's committee assignments. The reasons for this are obvious. It protects the operations of the institution and ensures that politically motivated attempts to remove Members from committees do not happen.
But the majority's actions, both today and earlier this Congress, threaten that norm and threaten to set off a new round of escalating partisan punishment anytime the majority changes hands. Establishing this as a written rule of the House would ensure that no Member ever faces this kind of partisan retribution again.
Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to include in the Record the text of my amendment, along with the extraneous material, immediately prior to the vote on the previous question.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Oklahoma?
There was no objection.
Mr. COLE. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. SCANLON. Madam Speaker, like the distinguished gentleman from Oklahoma, I, too, long for the times when the norms of civilized conduct in this House were observed. When, perhaps, our colleagues across the aisle can return to those norms, then motions and resolutions like the one we are considering today will not be necessary.
Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey
(Mr. Payne).
Mr. PAYNE. Madam Speaker, I rise today to condemn the actions of Representative Paul Gosar of Arizona and support this resolution.
There have been many times when I have stood on this floor and disagreed with my Republican colleagues. At times, I have done so with passion. But I have never supported or promoted violence against any of them. The vast majority of my colleagues, Republican and Democrat, have shown that they feel the same way.
We know that there is a line that cannot be crossed when it comes to how we refer to our political rivals, and Representative Gosar has crossed that line. He crossed it when he created a video that depicts attacking President Joe Biden and killing Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez.
This behavior is unacceptable from any Member of Congress. It would not be tolerated in any workplace in the country, and it should not be tolerated here.
That is why we must censure Representative Gosar and remove him from his committees. We must show the country that inappropriate actions, like his video, have consequences. We must remind all Members that there is a certain decorum to how we treat each other that must be respected at all times. We must show the country that we can debate as Democrats and Republicans but still respect each other as Americans.
Madam Speaker, I heard the gentleman from Florida mention Wile E. Coyote and the Road Runner. Yes, it is true that they are cartoons, but neither one of them can pick up a gun. Congressman Gosar can.
Mr. COLE. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. SCANLON. Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee).
Ms. JACKSON LEE. Madam Speaker, this is a very troubling moment in our history.
After the rule is passed, you will see other Members come to the floor to continue this debate.
I thought I would start out by holding up a most precious document, and that is the Constitution of the United States of America. I often get chills when I read its Preamble, which indicates that the body of people who started this Nation organized to create a more perfect Union.
I love to hear those words because what it suggests is that we wanted to be the standard-bearer for what is best and better in the world. We wanted to cease conflict. We wanted to be the defenders of peace. And even with the original sin, we wanted somehow to be better than others.
I get chills when I walk through the Halls of this very august place, to see the depictions of the debates in the early years, to realize how fragile democracy is, and how we could not last.
I hold this up because, interestingly, we can be so proud that Congress was listed as the first body of government, Article I.
As I read the charges in here, it gives us powers as the House of Representatives. Nowhere is there a privilege to kill. Nowhere is there the instruction to kill. Nowhere is there an instruction to be free to murder. Yet, with a great deal of trepidation and sadness, I am here because of a video.
This headline speaks to it: ``House to vote on censuring Republican,'' Mr. Gosar, ``who shared violent video targeting'' a Member of Congress.
That is the crux of why we are here. It is not speech of people supporting the right to be free in this Nation and supporting the George Floyd bill, where protesters, peaceful and otherwise, did rise up, young people, about 66,000 in Houston, completely peaceful, as it was around the Nation.
Don't try to compare the pain of protesters on an issue of justice with the actions of this gentleman. Yes, I call him that.
Mr. Gosar is seen delivering a fatal blow to the back of the monster's head, and blood is seen gushing from the wound. The face is that of our colleague, and it is violent.
In addition, it is treasonous to be seen to attack the President of the United States of America.
In one scene, footage of migrants crossing the Rio Grande is overlaid with what appears to be splattered blood.
Who are we as a Nation?
In another, the words ``drugs,'' ``crime,'' ``poverty,'' ``money,''
``murder,'' ``gangs,'' ``violence,'' and ``trafficking'' flash across the screen. Mr. Gosar knew what he was doing.
The 1 minute and 32 seconds was posted by him. It shows him battling a towering, naked monstrosity with the face of that Democratic Member. It is against women of color; it is against women; and it is against Members of Congress.
Last week, Ted Lieu and I, and 30 other Members, sent a letter to Republican leadership asking if there was one person that would call this out and indicate shame, shame, shame.
I include in the Record the letter that was sent to Republican leadership.
Congress of the United States,
Washington, DC, November 12, 2021. Hon. Kevin McCarthy, Republican Leader, House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
Dear Republican Leader McCarthy: We write as members of the United States House of Representatives to express our extreme concern, indignation, and fear regarding the recent actions of Representative Paul Gosar and to ask that you publicly request a House Ethics Committee investigation into Mr. Gosar's actions.
On November 7, 2021, Mr. Gosar shared a grotesque video on Twitter in which his face and those of several other Republican Members of the House are edited into the opening credits of the Netflix anime series Attack on Titan, and in which Mr. Gosar is depicted killing a giant monster with the face of a Democratic Member of Congress.
The one minute and thirty-two-seconds video depicts Mr. Gosar battling a towering, naked monstrosity with the face of a Democratic Member of the House superimposed over the monster's face. Mr. Gosar is then seen delivering a fatal strike to the back of the monster's neck, and blood is seen gushing from the wound. The video also depicts Mr. Gosar leaping at President Biden while brandishing two swords, and the video is interspersed throughout with real-life footage of Border Patrol officers rounding up migrants at the U.S.- Mexico border. In one scene, footage of migrants crossing the Rio Grande is overlaid with what appears to be splattered blood. In another, the words ``drugs,'' ``crime,''
``poverty,'' ``money,'' ``murder,'' ``gangs,'' ``violence'' and ``trafficking'' flash across the screen.
Sharing the glorification of violence expressed in this video goes far beyond the protections afforded by the Speech and Debate Clause in the Constitution and is beneath the dignity of a person serving in the Congress of the United States. Mr. Gosar's actions display a breakdown of reasoned discourse not seen in the House since the summer of 1856, when South Carolina Congressman Preston Brooks attacked Massachusetts Senator Charles Sumner with a cane on the Senate floor. The beating nearly killed Sumner and contributed significantly to the country's polarization over the issue of slavery and to the use of violence that eventually led to the Civil War.
In a like manner, Mr. Gosar's actions serve solely to glorify the usage of violence against Members of the House. As we witnessed with Mr. Gosar's actions leading up to January 6, threats of violence and the glorification of violence lead to actual violence. Mr. Gosar has continuously been a strong proponent of the Big Lie that President Biden lost the 2020 Presidential election. As reported by several media outlets, Mr. Gosar was intimately involved with the planning of the January 6 rally and, following the January 6 attack, Mr. Gosar called the insurrectionists ``peaceful patriots.'' Rather than condemn calls for violence against Congress and actual violence against Congress, Mr. Gosar has instead shared an animated video of himself killing a fellow Member of Congress.
Less than one year has passed since Congress witnessed the January 6 domestic terrorists break into the Capitol building, vandalize and steal property, threaten our safety and lives, and attack and kill Capitol police officers. Less than one year has passed since we witnessed crowds chanting
``Hang Mike Pence,'' and ``Hang Nancy Pelosi'' outside this bastion of democracy. If ever there was a time for the House to come together to promote civility, discourse, and cooperation, it is now.
For these reasons, we are asking that as the Leader of the Republican Conference you publicly request an investigation into Mr. Gosar's actions by the House Ethics Committee to determine whether Mr. Gosar has violated the Rules of the House to a degree sufficient to warrant disciplinary action, including ordering the cessation of conduct that threatens the lives of fellow Members of Congress and the President, removal from his Committee positions, censure, expulsion, or further disciplinary action as determined by the Committee or the House of Representatives.
We must act to protect the dignity and integrity of the House.
Very truly yours,
Sheila Jackson Lee, Alan Lowenthal, Grace F. Napolitano,
Rashida Tlaib, Ted Lieu, Nanette Barragan, Sylvia R.
Garcia, Grace Meng, Bonnie Watson Coleman, Jimmy Gomez,
Dwight Evans, Mike Doyle, David N. Cicilline, John
Larson, Henry C. ``Hank'' Johnson, Jr., Adriano
Espaillat, Mike Quigley, Ilhan Omar, J. Luis Correa,
Stacey E. Plaskett, David Price, Linda Sanchez, Andre
Carson, Earl Blumenauer, Troy A. Carter, Madeleine
Dean, Mary Gay Scanlon, Jason Crow, Jim Cooper, Jerry
McNerney, Brenden F. Boyle, Steve Cohen, Members of
Congress.
{time} 1300
Ms. JACKSON LEE. This brings me to tears. There is no celebration on this floor. It is imperative that we pass this resolution and Mr. Gosar is censured and removed from his seat. The reason is you cannot depict the murder of another Member of Congress or the President of the United States.
Madam Speaker, I stand here today as a senior member of the Committees on the Judiciary, on Homeland Security, and on the Budget, to support this Rule governing debate of H. Res. 789 to censure Rep. Gosar and to remove him from his committee assignment.
I also stand here, Madam Speaker, to express my concern, indignation, and fear regarding Representative Gosar's actions.
On November 7, 2021, Mr. Gosar shared a grotesque video on Twitter in which his face and those of several other Republican Members are edited into an anime segment, and in which Mr. Gosar is depicted killing a giant monster with the face of a Democratic Member of Congress.
Mr. Gosar is then seen delivering a fatal strike to the back of the monster's neck, and blood is seen gushing from the wound.
The video also depicts Mr. Gosar leaping at President Biden while brandishing two swords, and the video is interspersed throughout with real-life footage of Border Patrol officers rounding up migrants at the U.S.-Mexico border.
In one scene, footage of migrants crossing the Rio Grande is overlaid with what appears to be splattered blood.
In another the words ``drugs'' ``crime'' ``poverty'' ``money''
``murder'' ``gangs,'' ``violence'' and ``trafficking'' flash across the screen.
The one minute and thirty-two second video depicts Mr. Gosar battling a towering, naked monstrosity with the face of a Democratic Member of the House superimposed over the monster's face.
This was a one minute and thirty-two second speech threatening violence against a member of the House.
Last week, my colleague Ted Lieu and I, along with thirty other members of the House, sent a letter to Minority Leader McCarthy asking him to request an Ethics investigation into Mr. Gosar's actions.
Rather than standing for the dignity of the House, Minority Leader McCarthy has done nothing.
I would like to submit into the record the November 12, 2021 letter sent to Minority Leader McCarthy by myself, Ted Lieu, and thirty other members of Congress.
Sharing the glorification of violence expressed in this video goes far beyond the protections afforded by the Speech and Debate Clause in the Constitution and is beneath the dignity of a person serving in the Congress of the United States.
Mr. Gosar's actions display a breakdown of reasoned discourse not seen in the House since the summer of 1856, when South Carolina Congressman Preston Brooks attacked Massachusetts Senator Charles Sumner with a cane on the Senate floor.
The beating nearly killed Sumner and contributed significantly to the country's polarization over the issue of slavery and to the use of violence that eventually led to the Civil War.
In a like manner, Mr. Gosar's actions serve solely to glorify the usage of violence against Members of the House.
As we witnessed with Mr. Gosar's actions leading up to January 6, threats of violence and the glorification of violence lead to actual violence.
Mr. Gosar has continuously been a strong proponent of the Big Lie that President Biden lost the 2020 Presidential election.
As reported by several media outlets, Mr. Gosar was intimately involved with the planning of the January 6 rally and, following the January 6 attack, Mr. Gosar called the insurrectionists ``peaceful patriots.''
Rather than condemn calls for violence against Congress and actual violence against Congress, Mr. Gosar has instead shared an animated video of himself killing a fellow Member of Congress.
Rather than uphold the dignity and sanctity of the House, Republican Leader McCarthy has done nothing
Less than one year has passed since Congress witnessed the January 6 domestic terrorists break into the Capitol building, vandalize and steal property, threaten our safety and lives, and attack and kill Capitol police officers.
Less than one year has passed since we witnessed crowds chanting
``Hang Mike Pence'' and ``Hang Nancy Pelosi'' outside this bastion of democracy. If ever there was a time for the House to come together to promote civility, discourse, and cooperation, it is now.
For these reasons, I urge all members to vote in favor of this Rule governing debate.
We must act to protect the dignity and integrity of the House.
Mr. COLE. Madam Speaker, I continue to reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. SCANLON. Madam Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern), the distinguished chairman of the Rules Committee.
Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I want to thank the gentlewoman from Pennsylvania for yielding me the time and for her distinguished service on the Rules Committee.
Madam Speaker, the standard we have set is simple. When a Member uses taxpayer money to produce a video encouraging violence against another Member, they should lose the privilege of serving on a committee. That is what serving on a congressional committee is. It is a privilege. It is not a right.
I don't know what Congressman Gosar has said in the privacy of Republican Conference meetings. I am not getting any invitations to those. Frankly, Madam Speaker, I don't really care because it is what he said publicly that counts, and publicly he has defended his actions.
Can we just be honest here, Madam Speaker? For once, can my colleagues on the other side stand up to their leadership and say in public what they know to be true?
After our colleague Gabby Giffords was shot, after the distinguished minority whip was shot, after what happened on January 6, after a record-breaking increase in threats against Members, will none of my colleagues on the other side admit that Congressman Gosar should be held accountable?
And for all the talk from those on the other side about this standard somehow being a slippery slope, let me remind them that it is their own colleagues who have suggested removing Republicans not for advocating violence, but for voting for the bipartisan infrastructure bill.
Is this the state of the Republican Party today? If you vote for a bipartisan bill, your own colleagues will call for retribution, but if you tweet a video depicting the murder of a colleague and depicting violence against the President of the United States, that is somehow okay? Come on.
His office produced this video, and Congressman Gosar defended it. We have people out there being influenced by garbage like this. We have Members being forced to pay for security. We have Members getting death threats. This is dangerous stuff that we are talking about here.
But last night in the Rules Committee we heard a lot of rationalization. We heard explanation. We heard whataboutism. Give me a break.
Madam Speaker, the dangerous standard, the real slippery slope would be for this Congress to do nothing here, to be satisfied with a stern, private phone call from the Republican leadership and no accountability.
We cannot allow the normalization of political violence in America. Something is very, very wrong with that. And something is very, very wrong with anyone who thought posting this video was okay.
Now, the minority leader had a ``stern, private call'' with Congressman Gosar. Guess what? That is not enough. There must be real consequences.
Censure and removing Congressman Gosar from his committee assignments is appropriate here. This isn't about partisanship or anyone's voting record. This is about accountability, and at some point, we need to come together to uphold the integrity and the decency of this institution.
To be honest, Madam Speaker, unfortunately, I am not hearing a hell of a lot of willingness from many on the other side to do that.
Mr. COLE. Madam Speaker, I continue to reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. SCANLON. Madam Speaker, I am prepared to close if the gentleman is prepared to close. I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. COLE. Madam Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time to close.
Obviously, I oppose the rule. Today's action threatens one of the key norms of this institution, the right of the majority and minority to make committee assignments for their respective Members. It threatens to set a new, dangerous precedent for this institution, allowing the majority to have a veto over the minority's assignments.
Representative Gosar has already addressed his misguided decision to post the video and has sought to rectify it.
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.
Ms. SCANLON. Madam Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
Madam Speaker, I include in the Record a November 9 Insider article entitled: ``GOP Lawmakers Want to Punish the 13 Republicans Who Voted for Biden's Infrastructure Bill By Kicking Them Off Congressional Committees, Report Says.''
GOP Lawmakers Want To Punish the 13 Republicans Who Voted for Biden's
Infrastructure Bill by Kicking Them Off Congressional Committees,
Report Says
(By Tom Porter)
Republican leaders in the US House of Representatives are expecting a bid to punish the 13 Republicans who voted for President Joe Biden's $1.2 trillion infrastructure bill by stripping them of committee assignments, according to a report.
Punchbowl News reported that some Republican lawmakers were determined to take action against the 13, several of whom are ranking members or senior Republicans on House committees or subcommittees.
The report did not detail what level of support the move might have as of Tuesday morning.
Under House rules, a party's steering committee has the power to recommend that a lawmaker be removed from committee assignments, which is then subject to a vote by the caucus and the full House.
It is a punishment that has historically been reserved for lawmakers who have been accused of crimes, or been involved with extremism.
The support of the 13 Republicans was ultimately vital for the infrastructure bill passing into law last week, with six Democrats voting against it amid a monthslong dispute in the party over a connected bill that is being stalled in the Senate. The infrastructure bill was passed by the Senate in a bipartisan vote in June.
The move to take action against the 13 Republicans who supported the infrastructure bill highlights the fury of some GOP lawmakers against party colleagues for backing Biden's legislation.
Several hard line loyalists to former President Donald Trump on the far right of the GOP House caucus, including Reps. Marjorie Taylor Greene and Matt Gaetz, have been publicly critical of the 13 lawmakers. Trump himself has also criticized them.
``Here are the `Republicans' that just voted to help Biden screw America,'' Greene tweeted last week, branding them
``traitors, and sharing pictures and phone numbers of them.
In an Monday CNN interview, Rep. Fred Upton of Michigan-- one of the 13 Republicans who voted for the infrastructure bill--played a threatening message he'd received after the vote.
``I'll tell you it's a terrible way--we have seen civility really downslide here. I'm concerned about my staff. They are taking these calls,'' he said.
There has long been tensions in the GOP between centrists and Trump loyalists. In May, Rep. Liz Cheney was removed from her leadership role in the House GOP over her criticism of Trump and his baseless claims of fraud in the 2020 election.
Ms. SCANLON. Madam Speaker, as I indicated, there are some in the Republican Conference who want to kick 13 Republicans off their committees for voting for an infrastructure bill that will benefit their constituents, but when a Member of Congress publicly celebrates a video depicting the murder of a colleague, silence.
It is disgraceful that Congress is the one place in the United States where a video calling for the murder of a Member of Congress is not universally condemned, and it is a sad thing for this institution.
Madam Speaker, we are here to address the conduct of a Member of Congress who disseminated and celebrated a video that portrays him murdering another Member of Congress and attacking the President of the United States.
The evidence speaks for itself. There is nothing more to review. Nothing to investigate. No questions to answer or facts to find.
We have all seen the video. We have heard Mr. Gosar's response, and we have seen the lack of response from the Republican Party leadership to condemn Representative Gosar's celebration of violence to make clear that such actions are unacceptable, and that political violence is unacceptable in the United States of America.
In the absence of meaningful action by his own party, it is up to Members of the House of Representatives and the country as a whole to decide whether such actions deserve consequences.
Today, we ask ourselves, is this behavior acceptable to you? Is it acceptable to the American people? The way we vote today says a lot, not only about the integrity of the Members who are entrusted with the privilege of representing this great country, but also the direction in which we are headed.
I am grateful to the few Republican colleagues who have the integrity and the guts, quite frankly, to condemn Mr. Gosar's actions. But, once again, Republican leadership lacks the courage to properly manage the actions of their conference, and so Congress must act.
Rejecting political violence should not be a partisan effort. How far has the party of Lincoln fallen that it would excuse this conduct? We must say that political violence is not acceptable in the United States of America.
Madam Speaker, I urge all of my colleagues to support the rule and underlying resolution.
The material previously referred to by Mr. Cole is as follows:
Strike all after the resolving clause and insert the following:
That immediately upon adoption of this resolution, the House shall proceed to the consideration in the House of the resolution (H. Res. 796), amending the Rules of the House of Representatives to prohibit the consideration of a resolution proposing to remove a Member from a standing committee unless the resolution is offered by, or with the concurrence of, the Leader of the party of the Member that is the subject of the resolution. The resolution shall be considered as read. The previous question shall be considered as ordered on the resolution to adoption without intervening motion or demand for division of the question except one hour of debate equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on Rules. Clause 1(c) of rule XIX shall not apply to the consideration of House Resolution 796.
H. Res. 796
Resolved,
SECTION 1. REMOVAL OF A MEMBER FROM A STANDING COMMITTEE.
Clause 5(a)(1) of rule X of the Rules of the House of Representatives is amended to read as follows:
``(1)(A) The standing committees specified in clause 1 shall be elected by the House within seven calendar days after the commencement of each Congress, from nominations submitted by the respective party caucus or conference. A resolution proposing to change the composition of a standing committee shall be privileged if offered by direction of the party caucus or conference concerned.
``(B) A resolution proposing to remove a Member from a standing committee 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.
``(C) The Committee on Rules may not report a rule or order that waives the application of subdivision (B).''.
Ms. SCANLON. Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on ordering the previous question.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that the ayes appeared to have it.
Mr. COLE. Madam Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to section 3(s) of House Resolution 8, the yeas and nays are ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 221, nays 207, not voting 5, as follows:
YEAS--221
Adams Aguilar Allred Auchincloss Axne Barragan Bass Beatty Bera Beyer Bishop (GA) Blumenauer Blunt Rochester Bonamici Bourdeaux Bowman Boyle, Brendan F. Brown (MD) Brown (OH) Brownley Bush Bustos Butterfield Carbajal Cardenas Carson Carter (LA) Cartwright Case Casten Castor (FL) Castro (TX) Cheney Chu Cicilline Clark (MA) Clarke (NY) Cleaver Clyburn Cohen Connolly Cooper Correa Costa Courtney Craig Crist Crow Cuellar Davids (KS) Davis, Danny K. Dean DeFazio DeGette DeLauro DelBene Delgado Demings DeSaulnier Deutch Dingell Doggett Doyle, Michael F. Escobar Eshoo Espaillat Evans Fletcher Foster Frankel, Lois Gallego Garamendi Garcia (IL) Garcia (TX) Golden Gomez Gonzalez, Vicente Gottheimer Green, Al (TX) Grijalva Harder (CA) Hayes Higgins (NY) Himes Horsford Houlahan Hoyer Huffman Jackson Lee Jacobs (CA) Jayapal Jeffries Johnson (GA) Johnson (TX) Jones Kahele Kaptur Keating Kelly (IL) Khanna Kildee Kilmer Kim (NJ) Kind Kinzinger Kirkpatrick Krishnamoorthi Kuster Lamb Langevin Larsen (WA) Larson (CT) Lawrence Lawson (FL) Lee (CA) Lee (NV) Leger Fernandez Levin (CA) Levin (MI) Lieu Lofgren Lowenthal Luria Lynch Malinowski Maloney, Carolyn B. Maloney, Sean Manning Matsui McBath McCollum McEachin McGovern McNerney Meeks Meng Mfume Moore (WI) Morelle Moulton Mrvan Murphy (FL) Nadler Napolitano Neal Neguse Newman Norcross O'Halleran Ocasio-Cortez Omar Pallone Panetta Pappas Pascrell Payne Perlmutter Peters Phillips Pingree Pocan Porter Pressley Price (NC) Quigley Raskin Rice (NY) Ross Roybal-Allard Ruiz Ruppersberger Rush Ryan Sanchez Sarbanes Scanlon Schakowsky Schiff Schneider Schrader Schrier Scott (VA) Scott, David Sewell Sherman Sherrill Sires Slotkin Smith (WA) Soto Spanberger Speier Stansbury Stanton Stevens Strickland Suozzi Swalwell Takano Thompson (CA) Thompson (MS) Titus Tlaib Tonko Torres (CA) Torres (NY) Trahan Trone Underwood Vargas Veasey Vela Wasserman Schultz Waters Watson Coleman Welch Wexton Wild Williams (GA) Wilson (FL) Yarmuth
NAYS--207
Aderholt Allen Amodei Armstrong Arrington Babin Bacon Baird Balderson Banks Barr Bentz Bergman Bice (OK) Biggs Bilirakis Bishop (NC) Boebert Bost Brady Brooks Buchanan Buck Bucshon Budd Burchett Burgess Calvert Cammack Carey Carl Carter (GA) Carter (TX) Cawthorn Chabot Cline Cloud Clyde Cole Comer Crawford Crenshaw Curtis Davidson Davis, Rodney DesJarlais Diaz-Balart Donalds Duncan Dunn Ellzey Emmer Estes Fallon Feenstra Ferguson Fischbach Fitzgerald Fitzpatrick Fleischmann Fortenberry Foxx Franklin, C. Scott Fulcher Gaetz Gallagher Garbarino Garcia (CA) Gibbs Gimenez Gohmert Gonzales, Tony Gonzalez (OH) Good (VA) Gooden (TX) Gosar Granger Graves (LA) Graves (MO) Green (TN) Greene (GA) Grothman Guest Guthrie Hagedorn Harris Harshbarger Hartzler Hern Herrell Herrera Beutler Hice (GA) Higgins (LA) Hill Hinson Hollingsworth Hudson Huizenga Issa Jackson Jacobs (NY) Johnson (LA) Johnson (OH) Johnson (SD) Jordan Joyce (OH) Joyce (PA) Katko Keller Kelly (MS) Kelly (PA) Kim (CA) Kustoff LaHood LaMalfa Lamborn Latta LaTurner Lesko Letlow Long Lucas Mace Malliotakis Mann Massie Mast McCarthy McCaul McClain McClintock McHenry McKinley Meijer Meuser Miller (IL) Miller (WV) Miller-Meeks Moolenaar Mooney Moore (AL) Moore (UT) Mullin Murphy (NC) Nehls Newhouse Norman Nunes Obernolte Owens Palazzo Palmer Pence Pfluger Posey Reed Reschenthaler Rice (SC) Rodgers (WA) Rogers (AL) Rogers (KY) Rose Rosendale Rouzer Roy Rutherford Salazar Scalise Schweikert Scott, Austin Sessions Simpson Smith (MO) Smith (NE) Smith (NJ) Smucker Spartz Stauber Steel Stefanik Steil Steube Stewart Taylor Tenney Thompson (PA) Tiffany Timmons Turner Upton Valadao Van Drew Van Duyne Wagner Walberg Walorski Waltz Weber (TX) Webster (FL) Wenstrup Westerman Williams (TX) Wilson (SC) Wittman Womack Young Zeldin
NOT VOTING--5
Griffith Loudermilk Luetkemeyer Perry Velazquez
{time} 1345
Mrs. RODGERS of Washington and Mr. ROGERS of Alabama changed their vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
Messrs. KRISHNAMOORTHI, NEGUSE, MALINOWSKI, and HORSFORD changed their vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
So the previous question was ordered.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Stated for:
Ms. VELAZQUEZ. Madam Speaker, on Wednesday, November 17, I regret not being present for one vote session due to a committee briefing. Had I been present, I would have voted ``aye'' on the motion on ordering the previous question on the Rule H. Res. 795, roll No. 377.
Members Recorded Pursuant to House Resolution 8, 117th Congress
Auchincloss (Clark (MA)) Blumenauer (Beyer) Carter (LA) (Kahele) DeFazio (Brown (MD)) Dingell (Clark (MA)) Khanna (Gomez) Kildee (Butterfield) Kirkpatrick (Stanton) Lawrence (Beatty) Lawson (FL) (Evans) Lesko (Joyce (PA)) Levin (MI) (Raskin) Lowenthal (Beyer) McEachin (Wexton) Nunes (Garcia (CA)) Porter (Wexton) Rice (NY) (Murphy (FL)) Roybal-Allard (McCollum) Rush (Quigley) Stevens (Lee (NV)) Swalwell (Gomez) Tlaib (Bowman) Underwood (Casten) Waltz (Salazar) Wilson (FL) (Hayes)
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Ms. McCollum). The question is on the resolution.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that the ayes appeared to have it.
Mr. COLE. Madam Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to section 3(s) of House Resolution 8, the yeas and nays are ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 222, nays 208, not voting 3, as follows:
YEAS--222
Adams Aguilar Allred Auchincloss Axne Barragan Bass Beatty Bera Beyer Bishop (GA) Blumenauer Blunt Rochester Bonamici Bourdeaux Bowman Boyle, Brendan F. Brown (MD) Brown (OH) Brownley Bush Bustos Butterfield Carbajal Cardenas Carson Carter (LA) Cartwright Case Casten Castor (FL) Castro (TX) Cheney Chu Cicilline Clark (MA) Clarke (NY) Cleaver Clyburn Cohen Connolly Cooper Correa Costa Courtney Craig Crist Crow Cuellar Davids (KS) Davis, Danny K. Dean DeFazio DeGette DeLauro DelBene Delgado Demings DeSaulnier Deutch Dingell Doggett Doyle, Michael F. Escobar Eshoo Espaillat Evans Fletcher Foster Frankel, Lois Gallego Garamendi Garcia (IL) Garcia (TX) Golden Gomez Gonzalez, Vicente Gottheimer Green, Al (TX) Grijalva Harder (CA) Hayes Higgins (NY) Himes Horsford Houlahan Hoyer Huffman Jackson Lee Jacobs (CA) Jayapal Jeffries Johnson (GA) Johnson (TX) Jones Kahele Kaptur Keating Kelly (IL) Khanna Kildee Kilmer Kim (NJ) Kind Kinzinger Kirkpatrick Krishnamoorthi Kuster Lamb Langevin Larsen (WA) Larson (CT) Lawrence Lawson (FL) Lee (CA) Lee (NV) Leger Fernandez Levin (CA) Levin (MI) Lieu Lofgren Lowenthal Luria Lynch Malinowski Maloney, Carolyn B. Maloney, Sean Manning Matsui McBath McCollum McEachin McGovern McNerney Meeks Meng Mfume Moore (WI) Morelle Moulton Mrvan Murphy (FL) Nadler Napolitano Neal Neguse Newman Norcross O'Halleran Ocasio-Cortez Omar Pallone Panetta Pappas Pascrell Payne Perlmutter Peters Phillips Pingree Pocan Porter Pressley Price (NC) Quigley Raskin Rice (NY) Ross Roybal-Allard Ruiz Ruppersberger Rush Ryan Sanchez Sarbanes Scanlon Schakowsky Schiff Schneider Schrader Schrier Scott (VA) Scott, David Sewell Sherman Sherrill Sires Slotkin Smith (WA) Soto Spanberger Speier Stansbury Stanton Stevens Strickland Suozzi Swalwell Takano Thompson (CA) Thompson (MS) Titus Tlaib Tonko Torres (CA) Torres (NY) Trahan Trone Underwood Vargas Veasey Vela Velazquez Wasserman Schultz Waters Watson Coleman Welch Wexton Wild Williams (GA) Wilson (FL) Yarmuth
NAYS--208
Aderholt Allen Amodei Armstrong Arrington Babin Bacon Baird Balderson Banks Barr Bentz Bergman Bice (OK) Biggs Bilirakis Bishop (NC) Boebert Bost Brady Brooks Buchanan Buck Bucshon Budd Burchett Burgess Calvert Cammack Carey Carl Carter (GA) Carter (TX) Cawthorn Chabot Cline Cloud Clyde Cole Comer Crawford Crenshaw Curtis Davidson Davis, Rodney DesJarlais Diaz-Balart Donalds Duncan Dunn Ellzey Emmer Estes Fallon Feenstra Ferguson Fischbach Fitzgerald Fitzpatrick Fleischmann Fortenberry Foxx Franklin, C. Scott Fulcher Gaetz Gallagher Garbarino Garcia (CA) Gibbs Gimenez Gohmert Gonzales, Tony Gonzalez (OH) Good (VA) Gooden (TX) Gosar Granger Graves (LA) Graves (MO) Green (TN) Greene (GA) Grothman Guest Guthrie Hagedorn Harris Harshbarger Hartzler Hern Herrell Herrera Beutler Hice (GA) Higgins (LA) Hill Hinson Hollingsworth Hudson Huizenga Issa Jackson Jacobs (NY) Johnson (LA) Johnson (OH) Johnson (SD) Jordan Joyce (OH) Joyce (PA) Katko Keller Kelly (MS) Kelly (PA) Kim (CA) Kustoff LaHood LaMalfa Lamborn Latta LaTurner Lesko Letlow Long Lucas Luetkemeyer Mace Malliotakis Mann Massie Mast McCarthy McCaul McClain McClintock McHenry McKinley Meijer Meuser Miller (IL) Miller (WV) Miller-Meeks Moolenaar Mooney Moore (AL) Moore (UT) Mullin Murphy (NC) Nehls Newhouse Norman Nunes Obernolte Owens Palazzo Palmer Pence Pfluger Posey Reed Reschenthaler Rice (SC) Rodgers (WA) Rogers (AL) Rogers (KY) Rose Rosendale Rouzer Roy Rutherford Salazar Scalise Schweikert Scott, Austin Sessions Simpson Smith (MO) Smith (NE) Smith (NJ) Smucker Spartz Stauber Steel Stefanik Steil Steube Stewart Taylor Tenney Thompson (PA) Tiffany Timmons Turner Upton Valadao Van Drew Van Duyne Wagner Walberg Walorski Waltz Weber (TX) Webster (FL) Wenstrup Westerman Williams (TX) Wilson (SC) Wittman Womack Young Zeldin
NOT VOTING--3
Griffith Loudermilk Perry
{time} 1407
Mr. MULLIN changed his vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
So the resolution was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
Members Recorded Pursuant to House Resolution 8, 117th Congress
Auchincloss (Clark (MA)) Blumenauer (Beyer) Carter (LA) (Kahele) DeFazio (Brown (MD)) Dingell (Clark (MA)) Khanna (Gomez) Kildee (Butterfield) Kirkpatrick (Stanton) Lawrence (Beatty) Lawson (FL) (Evans) Lesko (Joyce (PA)) Levin (MI) (Raskin) Lowenthal (Beyer) McEachin (Wexton) Nunes (Garcia (CA)) Porter (Wexton) Rice (NY) (Murphy (FL)) Roybal-Allard (McCollum) Rush (Quigley) Stevens (Lee (NV)) Swalwell (Gomez) Tlaib (Bowman) Underwood (Casten) Waltz (Salazar) Wilson (FL) (Hayes)
____________________
SOURCE: Congressional Record Vol. 167, No. 200
The Congressional Record is a unique source of public documentation. It started in 1873, documenting nearly all the major and minor policies being discussed and debated.
House Representatives' salaries are historically higher than the median US income.
Alerts Sign-up