Tom Cole

Mr. COLE

Mr. COLE. Madam Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Steel), my good friend, the author of the resolution, to further explain the amendment.

Mr. COLE. Madam Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. Madam Speaker, I oppose the rule. The majority is proposing two significant pieces of legislation today. Unfortunately, concerns remain with both of them. H.R. 3237, the supplemental appropriations package intended to provide funds for the security of the Capitol complex is, unfortunately and unnecessarily, a partisan bill. It was the subject of bipartisan negotiations, and there is no reason we could not have gotten to a bipartisan result had the majority wanted to do so. Instead, we are left with a partisan package that does not meet the needs of the institution and, frankly, has no chance of becoming law in its current form. I would urge my friends particularly to look at the section relating to the rapid response force. That is something where I think, honestly, with a little bit more reflection, we could find some common ground. I think it is a mistake to put a force like that under the control of either the District of Columbia or the executive branch. I think we need direct control of that ourselves. I know some of my colleagues on the other side feel strongly that way, too. It simply makes sense that if we are having a crisis here, we ought to make the decision if we need an extra force. I think if we keep working at it, we are going to find some common ground there, and I hope that we do. H.R. 3233 establishes a commission to investigate the January 6 attack on the Capitol complex. Here, too, I want to acknowledge that real progress was made in the course of negotiations, and I want to commend particularly Chairman Thompson and Ranking Member Katko for having brought us closer to agreement. However, on our side, many of us continue to have reservations about this bill and the parameters of the commission itself. After all, the events of January 6 did not occur in a vacuum. If we truly hope to find answers for the American people, then we must take into account everything, all the other political violence that has taken place in recent years. I would just ask my friends to go back--and I know they have--and look at the 9/11 Commission, which did exactly that. It didn't just look at 9/11. It looked at the attack on the USS Cole. It went back to the attack on the African Embassies that we experienced. There is room here, I think, for context and additional discussion. We also have concerns structurally with some of the staffing provisions and other items that I have mentioned that we hopefully would look at. We would like to continue to work on that. I think we could have made good progress had any of the amendments that were offered in the Rules Committee been made in order. My friends chose not to do that. That is their privilege to do so, but I think it probably obstructed what could have been a larger bipartisan vote for this particular piece of legislation. But, again, we will see going forward. What we do here isn't the final arbiter. This is one stage in the process. The United States Senate is the next stop. Hopefully, there will be some changes made there. Then, it will have to come back here. We should look at both of these matters as stops in a journey, or parts of a journey, not as the final decision on any of them. Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the previous question and ``no'' on the rule, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. COLE

Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 145, I mistakenly voted ``nay'' when I intended to vote ``yea.''

Mr. COLE

Mr. COLE. Madam Speaker, for a vote on April 15, 2021. Had I been present, I would have voted YEA on Roll Call No. 114.

Mr. COLE

Mr. COLE. Madam Speaker, Arthur ``Art'' Francis Walsh passed away early in the morning of February 24, 2021 in Salisbury, MD. Art was a good man, a loving husband, a loyal father, who loved his family and served his country and community. He had a great career. He enjoyed life and a good joke. He made people laugh; enjoyed golf, children, and pets; and had friendships that lasted his entire life. He loved and was loved. His final days were difficult, but he slipped into the arms of God peacefully in his sleep and we are thankful. Art was born on April 13, 1942, to Marion Veronica Walsh (nee Kiernan), a mother of six, and Howard John Walsh Sr., a Deputy Sheriff and Detective with the New York Police Department, in the South Bronx neighborhood of New York, NY. He often shared memories of his carefree days of his youth playing stickball and rambling around the neighborhood with his siblings and hundreds of other Irish Catholics kids, walking home for lunch from P.S. 35, watching baseball at nearby Yankee Stadium and vexing the clergy of St. Angela's School and Powell Memorial Academy. Art enlisted in the Marine Corps, trained at Paris Island, SC, then served in the Marine barracks at 8th and I Streets in Washington, DC, where he was meritoriously promoted to the rank of Lance Corporal and was selected for the Marching Twenty-Four unit, performing silent precision exhibition drills. As a member of the Marine Corps Honor Guard, Art served presidential support duty for President John F. Kennedy. Art then completed six years in the Marine Reserves and joined the New York Telephone Company, where he built a 30-year career, rising from an installer of rotary phones to a regional manager overseeing fiber optic cable and high-speed internet. With his first wife, Barbara, Art enjoyed many nights bowling, gathering with friends and having fun throughout McLean Avenue in Yonkers and all over Manhattan. Together, they moved to the mountains of Ringwood, NJ. He participated in that community as a member of the Knights of Columbus, local Republican politics, the Ringwood Board of Health and St. Catherine's Parish. His home and pool offered summers away from the city for his sister-in-law Georgann, nieces Stephanie and Donna and nearly nephew Eddie. He loved people and wanted to help improve their quality of life. Art's large family circle included step- nieces, ex-sister-in-laws, childrens' friends, and friends held as family. Art was a wonderful father to Brian and Andrea and dearly loved sister-in-law Georgann. He played, explored the woods and laughed. He hosted swim lessons, went to little league games and daddy-daughter dances. He made it possible for each, plus six step-grandchildren, to graduate college, pursue successful careers and begin families of their own. He taught us to help others, to apply our capable hands to any problem we faced, to work hard, listen, look others in the eye and give respect to all the people you encounter in this world. Art was blessed to find great happiness in retirement with his wife Carole Benner Walsh, moving to the Eastern Shore of MD, where they enjoyed 20 years of fun. Together, Art and Carole traveled, played golf and celebrated with friends and enjoyed the beaches of Maryland, their dog Charlie, and life as grandparents to their expanded family. Many thanks go to the care providers at Lakeside at Mallard Landing for their kindness, care and loyalty throughout the last two difficult years. So, raise a glass, say a prayer and give thanks to a good man, a Marine, a son, a brother, a father, a husband, a grandfather, a friend . . . to a life well lived . . . and, to quote Art, ``keep smilin''. Art is survived by his wife Carole Benner Walsh; children Brian O. Walsh (and Natasha) and Andrea Walsh Silva (and Nicholas); his sister- in-law Georgann Russo, step-children Jeffrey D. Benner (and Rochelle) and Cheryl Oursler (and George), and his siblings Howard Jr., Virginia, and Maureen Walsh and was predeceased by siblings Patrick and Loraine. Numerous multigenerational nieces and nephews; and his four grandchildren and six step-grandchildren that brought him great joy will sadly miss him.

Mr. COLE

Mr. COLE. Madam Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to this rule. This rule and the accompanying legislation, sadly, is not about passing law. It is about making a point. All five of the bills dealt with in this rule have not been marked up by any committee in this Congress at all, and all of them are filled with poison pills that are designed to make sure most Republicans will not vote for them, and they cannot pass the Senate of the United States. The two bills dealing with illegal immigration will not just help DACA people, it will legalize millions of people in this country illegally. The measure on ERA, the timeline ran out for that 42 years ago. This matter cannot be reversed now. Frankly, the matter dealing with the budget, as my friend from Minnesota suggested, we said last week you are going to run into this problem, you are going to cut Medicare. There are billions of dollars of wasted spending in that reconciliation bill that could actually offset those cuts. We should be considering that. Let me turn now to the Violence Against Women Act, Madam Speaker. I have been one of the strongest supporters of that legislation since I arrived in Congress, and I particularly am pleased with some of the measures dealing with Native American women, particularly some of the changes in this bill that extend it to children, that extend it to Tribal law enforcement officers. Those are good changes. But there are other measures coupled with it dealing with the Second Amendment or dealing with, frankly, people that are not biologically female that will put this bill at risk on this floor and certainly in the United States Senate. Madam Speaker, none of this was ever designed to become law. Two years ago, we made that mistake. Three years ago, actually, a little over two years ago, in 2018, and none of the good things happened. Let's not make that mistake again. Let's reject this rule. Let's modify these bills. Let's send the Senate something it can work with and pass. If we do that, we have a chance of not making a point, but of actually making law that benefits every single American.

Mr. COLE

Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished gentleman from New York (Mr. Morelle), my very good friend, for yielding me the customary 30 minutes, and I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, today's rule covers two items, both of which will be familiar to Members who were here during the 116th Congress. We are once again considering H.R. 1, a bill that nationalizes our election system and substitutes Washington's judgment for a key responsibility of our States in the administration of free and fair elections. We are also considering H.R. 1280, the George Floyd Justice in Policing Act. Unfortunately, despite its title, H.R. 1 has nothing at all to do with the people. It is, instead, a bill about preserving the present Democrat majority. It is a bill by Democrats for Democrats. Though the majority claims this bill is about reforming our political system, the reality is that most of the changes in this bill, if enacted into law, would be to benefit the majority to the detriment of the minority. The most egregious of these provisions are those dedicated to changing our national system of campaign finance. Now, in general, I think this is a worthy goal, but the majority's proposed solution does not make much sense. The majority is proposing to create a new federally funded campaign ATM using corporate fines, ensuring that certain candidates will receive millions of dollars just for running a campaign. My colleagues in the majority have bemoaned the massive amount of money that has been entering into our campaign system over the past few decades, yet their proposed solution is to dump corporate dollars into the system. In what world does this make sense? Even Democrats know what a flawed program this is, which is why today's rule also includes a provision to allow Members of Congress to opt out of this program. Before this bill was even passed by the House, Democrats were already running from it. They should just keep running and pull this bill from the floor. Other proposed changes in this bill are just egregious. Wherever possible, the majority is attempting to impose one-size-fits-all systems from Washington onto the States. It does this with a one-size- fits-all voter registration system, including forcing States to provide same-day voter registration whether they want to or not. It takes away the power of the States to choose how to redistrict, forcing them to adopt Washington-imposed ``independent redirecting commissions,'' something that less than 20 percent of the States who undertake redistricting actually do. These provisions impede the traditional power of the States to control their own elections. As a former secretary of state and election official in my home State of Oklahoma, I find these changes to be particularly concerning. But what is worse, H.R. 1 also includes severe restrictions on free speech and repeals the Lois Lerner rule, a rule put into place after the IRS began targeting the speech of conservative organizations in determining whether or not they would qualify for tax exempt status. If enacted into law, these provisions would reweaponize the IRS and limit the abilities of organizations, corporations, and individuals to freely exercise this most-important right guaranteed under the Constitution. How the majority can claim that this bill is for the people when they are blatantly restricting the people's right to free speech is beyond my understanding. Mr. Speaker, what the majority is attempting today is egregious. Changing the national campaign finance system to benefit themselves, taking traditional powers away from the States, and restricting the right of free speech are all part of an unprecedented power grab. I strongly urge the majority to change course, and I urge my colleagues to reject this terrible bill. Today, we are also considering H.R. 1280, the George Floyd Justice in Policing Act. As with H.R. 1, this bill will be familiar to our returning Members, as the House passed an identical bill last summer. Unfortunately, while I think this bill is well-intentioned, it, too, is misguided. Reforms contained in H.R. 1280 will do more harm than good. I do not doubt the majority's good intentions with this legislation. The George Floyd Justice in Policing Act came about following the tragic events of last summer. George Floyd's death demonstrated what so many Americans know only too well, that abuses of power clearly exist and must be grappled with. And while the overwhelming majority of law enforcement officers faithfully and bravely carry out their duties and responsibilities each day, all too often many Americans receive different treatment due to the color of their skin. Americans across the country rightly condemn this horrific and unacceptable act. Unfortunately, rather than choosing to come together to legislate in a bipartisan manner, the majority chose to take the exact opposite course last summer, and we are once again considering the same flawed and deeply partisan bill we considered then and that the Senate failed to take up. I believe this bill will face the same result, should the House pass it again this week. During the last Congress, when the Judiciary Committee met to mark up this bill, the majority completely shut out Republicans from the process. Republicans made good-faith attempts to work with the Democrats to find common ground on needed reforms, yet every single one of these attempts were rejected. This year, the majority has not even deigned to bring this bill to a markup in the Judiciary Committee, and, once again, the majority has shut Republicans out of the process. This is no way to legislate on an issue that is this important, Mr. Speaker. Republicans and Democrats alike agree that reforms are necessary. We all watched the tragedy of George Floyd unfold last summer and we all watched the resulting protests. We all agree that action is necessary. But rather than working together in the best interest of the American people, the majority is once again telling Republicans that they can only have a Hobson's choice. They can take the Democrats' bill or they can take the Democrats' bill with no other options. But I, along with my fellow Republicans, reject that idea. We fully recognize the critical need for reform. My colleagues, both in the House and in the Senate, have put together our own package, the JUSTICE Act, filled with bipartisan reforms that could pass both the House and the Senate and be signed into law quickly. These reforms include critical measures, like providing funding for body cameras for police officers, requiring deescalation procedures, and banning choke holds. My colleague, Representative Stauber, offered this as an amendment at the Rules Committee earlier today, but, once again, the majority chose to shut out Republicans and refused to make this amendment in order. That is a sad state of affairs, Mr. Speaker, but the real losers here are the American people. This is an issue we can and should cooperate on. I urge my colleagues in the majority to rethink the path they are on. On an issue that is this important and this critical to the American people, the very best thing we can do is work together. And with a reduced majority, I think that would actually be good political advice for my friends. We can work on bipartisan reforms together and we can produce consensus legislation that has the buy-in of Members on both sides. Unfortunately, the majority has once again chosen the opposite path: Partisan bills filled with provisions that do not reflect the best interest or consensus of the country. We can do better than that, Mr. Speaker. The American people deserve better. Mr. Speaker, I urge opposition to this rule and the underlying legislation, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. Mr. Speaker, obviously, I oppose the rule. The majority is proposing two significant pieces of legislation today that are, unfortunately, both deeply partisan. In neither case has the majority allowed Republicans to be involved in the process of legislating. Mr. Speaker, on H.R. 1, the majority is proposing a deeply troubling takeover of election practices that will benefit only Democrats. The bill will take away the traditional powers of the States to run their own elections as they see fit, imposing a one-size-fits-all regime from Washington. It dumps huge amounts of corporate money into the campaign finance system, particularly benefiting certain candidates. It imposes severe restrictions on free speech that are anathema to a free and fair election. On H.R. 1280, the majority is once again seeking to pass the same flawed police reform bill it passed last Congress. Mr. Speaker, we had a real opportunity here for both Democrats and Republicans to work together to pass real reforms for the American people. Instead of taking ``yes'' for an answer, the majority is instead seeking to impose a deeply partisan bill that will not fix the problems or help heal the American people. Mr. Speaker, we deserve better than that. The American people are best served when their Representatives in Congress can come together and work in a bipartisan manner. One side attempting to impose partisan legislation on the country does us all a disservice. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to rethink this path, reject both of these bills, and return to the negotiating table and work with Republicans for a brighter future for all Americans. Mr. Speaker, I mean this with all sincerity. There is a great gap between us on H.R. 1. We just simply look at this matter differently. I think it is egregious partisan overreach. On H.R. 1280, there really is an opportunity for bipartisan cooperation. The JUSTICE Act that Mr. Stauber filed last year and presented today as an amendment has a great deal in common with some of the objectives I know my friends want to achieve on their side of the aisle. Mr. Speaker, in an almost evenly divided House and an evenly divided Senate that still has the filibuster, you can't do things by reconciliation every day. Most days, to get much done, it is going to require bipartisan cooperation. We often say that never happens. The reality is it happens a lot more than people acknowledge. Five times last year we came together as Republicans and Democrats and passed COVID relief packages that made a big difference in this country. We also passed the spending bill on a bipartisan basis that funded the government for this entire fiscal year. We did that in the middle of a Presidential election year that was extraordinarily divisive. Mr. Speaker, we can work together. I would ask my friends to rethink the course of the reconciliation bill and now these two pieces of legislation and start thinking about where we can actually get things done. I think the George Floyd bill, H.R. 1280, is one of those places. I also think the appropriations process can be one of those places. We can probably even find some common ground on some of the electoral issues, although personally, in my view, H.R. 1 is a very flawed piece of legislation. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my friend from New York for the debate and tell him that, despite our disagreements on these two pieces of legislation, I look forward to working with him. I don't think either of these are likely to get through the United States Senate. I do think we can get a product back from the United States Senate that both of us might be able to vote for, in terms of police justice and overhaul. We will wait and see what happens with H.R. 1. I am less optimistic we will ever see it again, but I am happy to say good-bye to it out of this Chamber. Mr. Speaker, I urge rejection of the rule and I urge rejection of both underlying pieces of legislation. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, just quickly to my friend from New York, I wasn't here, and he wasn't here, but our friends thought to challenge in this Chamber the election in 2001, after 2000. I was here in 2004 when they challenged a State and demanded a recount. Then, I was here in 2017 when my friends on the other side sought to challenge 10 different States. So, let's not act like this is somehow unusual. Mr. Speaker, another part of today's rule includes a provision to deem passed a correction to last week's budget reconciliation measure. Given that the majority now wishes to reopen last week's reconciliation, it is certainly appropriate to further amend that resolution to correct one of the more egregious provisions in it. If we defeat the previous question, I will offer an amendment to the rule to immediately adopt H. Res. 178, an engrossment correction to strike funding in the budget reconciliation bill for the Pelosi subway tunnel in California and instead direct the $140 million to support mental health and suicide prevention in States where children do not have the option of in-person instruction in school. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of my amendment in the Record, along with extraneous material, immediately prior to the vote on the previous question.

Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, I urge a ``no'' vote on the previous question. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentlewoman from Oklahoma (Mrs. Bice), my good friend, for further explanation of the amendment.

Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, my friend and I disagree on the two pieces of legislation today, but we absolutely agree that the Committee on Rules' meeting was not fun. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Georgia (Mrs. Greene), my friend.

Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Reschenthaler), my good friend, also a member of the Committee on Rules.

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

Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Rodney Davis), my very good friend, and the distinguished ranking member of the Committee on House Administration.

Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Westerman), my very good friend and the ranking member of the House Committee on Natural Resources.

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

Mr. COLE

Mr. COLE. Madam Speaker, had I been present, I would have voted NAY on Roll Call No. 45

Mr. COLE

Mr. COLE. Madam Speaker, I thank my good friend from Texas for yielding. Today, the House is considering a massive budget reconciliation package that the majority claims to be using for additional coronavirus relief funds. Having already passed five bipartisan relief packages over the last year, totaling almost $4 trillion in spending, the majority is now seeking to spend nearly $2 trillion more. But unlike the past five measures, which were bipartisan deals with both Republican and Democratic support, today's bill is strictly partisan, with only Democratic support and input. And with a glance at the bill, it is easy to see why. First, the vast majority of this so-called rescue package has nothing to do with the COVID-19 pandemic. The bill fails to keep a laser focus on providing relief for Americans, ensuring schools are open to educate our children, and moving to swiftly reopen the economy. Instead, the majority has thrown in completely unrelated items that just so happen to be at the top of their progressive wish list. This includes irresponsible policies like Federal bailouts for certain pension funds, providing bloated contributions to State and local governments, and arbitrarily raising the minimum wage, which will cost well more than a million people to lose their jobs. Incidentally, the same minimum wage provision is not going to be considered in the Senate and will have to be stripped from the bill. But perhaps I shouldn't be surprised by these misguided provisions, given how completely shut out of this process Republicans have been. During the markups across nine committees that considered this package, Republicans offered 245 amendments to help fix these and other problems. Republicans offered commonsense amendments to reopen schools, give additional resources to the NIH, provide funding to make sure all teachers have the opportunity to receive a COVID vaccine, and many more. Yet, only two of these amendments were accepted by the Democrats in committee markups, and one of those two amendments is actually being stripped out of the bill in the manager's amendment today. A $1.9 trillion package that is being brought to the floor with next to no Republican input? Simply astonishing. Madam Speaker, it is clear what we need to do. Our entire Nation is suffering as a result of this pandemic. Every day, more businesses shutter. Every day, children are falling further behind. And every day, people fall deeper and deeper into despair caused, in part, by isolation. Instead of proceeding with this progressive wish list, we need to take real action to open the economy. Above all else, we need to get children back in school. Prior to the pandemic, children had access to in-person staff and services at school. But now, with schools remaining closed, we see the results: more students falling behind, more students contemplating suicide, more children falling into despair. For millions of children, the ground lost during the pandemic may never be recovered. We are failing an entire generation of our children, and we need to reverse course and get them back in school. Madam Speaker, there was, and still is, an opportunity to put together a bipartisan relief package. There is still time to focus on policies that will reopen the economy and make sure kids can learn in person, but we cannot do it if the majority insists on this bloated package with so many unrelated policies. So long as the majority insists that it is their way or the highway, true help for the American people cannot be achieved. Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to reject this rule and the underlying legislation.

Mr. COLE

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

Mr. COLE. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Madam Speaker, just in response to my good friend: I was actually there. So, number one, she didn't get a standing ovation for things that she said. She got a standing ovation for regretting things that she had said, and saying she has been wrong, and denouncing QAnon and denouncing school shootings. That is what she got the standing ovation for. My friend didn't have the opportunity to hear that. I wanted to take the opportunity to inform him. Madam Speaker, I would advise my friend that I am prepared to close. Madam Speaker, in closing, I oppose the rule. Never before in the history of this institution has the majority attempted to exercise a veto over the minority's right to make committee assignments, yet, today, the majority is choosing to do just that. This leads the institution down a dangerous path, the end of which we cannot see. Madam Speaker, there are alternative paths open that I believe the House should consider. We owe it to ourselves and to the institution to do so. Before we strip a Member of their committees for remarks that person made before they were subject to the official rules of conduct of the House, maybe we ought to have a discussion about that, if we are going to extend that in a way we never have before in the institution. I am not necessarily against that, by the way. I think that is a worthy topic. I also think that if we are going to strip a Member before they ever served on a committee, they ought to have an opportunity to tell their side of the story in a judicious proceeding. Our Committee on Ethics has resolved a lot of naughty issues in a very bipartisan way, and not with Members escaping punishment. So to say we have asked for nothing be done, it is quite the opposite. We have said: Let's go to the Committee on Ethics. Let's hash through these tough issues of changing the scope of the official conduct provisions of the House that applies to Members. Let's talk about whether or not it is appropriate for the majority to actually try to dictate the people that the minority puts on committees. And, finally, let's give a Member that we accuse of something an opportunity to make his or her case. That is what we have asked for, and that is what the majority has chosen not to do. Madam Speaker, I think it is a dangerous mistake. It is a mistake that, frankly, when the majority changes, the temptation will be overwhelming for a Member to say: ``Oh, well, there is a Member I didn't like or said something or did something I didn't like. As a Member, I think I am just going to take that committee assignment away.'' I can give you a list of people that have done things that I think are inappropriate, on both sides of the aisle, quite frankly. But we have never done that here, and I don't think we should start doing that here. All we have asked for is a process, a Committee on Ethics discussion. We think that is the appropriate way to proceed. Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the previous question, ``no'' on the rule, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. COLE. Madam Speaker, I thank the distinguished gentleman from Massachusetts, my good friend, Chairman McGovern, for yielding me the customary 30 minutes, and I yield myself such time as I may consume. Madam Speaker, today is a sad one for us, for me personally, for the Rules Committee, and for the entire House of Representatives. Today, we are meeting on an unprecedented resolution by the majority, removing a Member of the minority party from her committee assignments. Now, before I continue, Madam Speaker, I want to be very clear that I find the comments made by the Representative in question before she was elected to Congress to be deeply offensive. Members of Congress are and should be held to a high standard. And if she spoke any of what has been reported while a Member of this body, her words would certainly not meet that standard. But at last night's Republican Conference, Representative Greene expressed regret for her past statements, which speaks to a problem with today's resolution. Representative Greene is not being given the courtesy of a referral to the Ethics Committee, the body empowered to investigate the conduct of Members. She is not being given the same due process that is given to other Members before facing punishment by the House. Why is it so hard for the majority to give a Republican Member due process before stripping her of her committees? That is all I asked the Rules Committee last night, which the majority rejected. Today's resolution raises serious questions for this institution. Indeed, these questions have nothing to do with this particular Member at all. Instead, they are about the future of the institution. The action the majority is proposing to take today is not only premature but, in fact, unprecedented in the history of the House. Madam Speaker, what the majority is really proposing to do today is establish a new standard for punishing Members for conduct before they ever became a Member. The majority is proposing to hold Members of Congress accountable for statements made before they were even a candidate for Congress. This change opens up troubling questions about how we judge future Members of Congress and whether or not we, as an institution, should impose sanctions on Members for actions they took before they were even candidates for office. Under this majority's new approach, could a Member be punished for statements they made 5 years ago? Ten years ago? Twenty years ago? I would remind the majority that several of their own Members have engaged in activities or made comments that Republican Members find offensive and inappropriate. If the majority changes hands in the future, as it surely will at some point, how would the current majority feel if these Members are stripped of their committee assignments with no due process? My friends run the risk of setting off a tit-for-tat exchange of escalating partisan punishment and score-settling that could cripple the operation of the House now and well into the future. But what has also never been done before in the history of the institution is this: The majority has never taken steps to exercise a veto over the minority's committee assignments. It has never been done, Madam Speaker. I know my friend, Chairman McGovern, attempted to point out some cases in yesterday's Rules Committee hearing to the contrary. But each of those cases he cited actually involved the party sanctioning their own Members. The majority exercising a veto over the minority's assignments has never happened before. I would also like to point out that this is the same majority which raised no objections a week ago when this House unanimously approved resolutions on committee assignments. In the past, the majority and minority have respected each other's rights to place Members on committees without interference. It has ultimately been the responsibility of each side to also hold their Members accountable for unacceptable behavior, including making decisions to remove Members from their committee assignments when warranted. Indeed, Madam Speaker, Republicans have removed Members from committees in the past. I know. I have personally been part of those proceedings. We can and will do so again, if necessary, but it will be done with due process and with the Members in question, whoever they may be, allowed to make their case. That is a simple standard of fair play and decency that the majority has decided not to extend to a Member of the minority in this case. I truly believe that the majority claiming a new right to be able to exercise a veto over the minority's committee assignments will ultimately be dangerous for this institution. A change in norms away from an institution built on mutual consent and toward an institution where the majority holds a veto power over everything, including committee assignments, is ultimately an institution that cannot function. If one side feels the other should take corrective action for one of its Members and has failed to do so, then the bipartisan Ethics Committee exists to adjudicate matters related to the Code of Official Conduct. I believe it would be appropriate for the Ethics Committee to determine if a new standard relating to the actions taken by a Member of Congress before they are elected should be covered by the Code of Official Conduct and make the appropriate recommendations for the institution to guide us going forward. I fear that doing anything other than this would send the institution down a precarious path. The Ethics Committee is the appropriate venue for considering claims of misconduct. That is traditionally what this institution has done when considering the conduct of an individual Member. I believe today it is appropriate to adhere to that norm. Madam Speaker, the matter we are faced with is bigger than any one individual Member. It is about how we, as an institution, will continue to function in the future. I fear that if we open this particular Pandora's box, we will not like what happens next. I would strongly urge this House to consider an alternative course before it is too late. Madam Speaker, I urge opposition to the rule, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. COLE. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume just for informational purposes. There is no way my friend from Massachusetts could have known this, but last night the Republican members were formally named to the Ethics Committee. We expect them to be approved today so the committee could function immediately. But, again, my friend would have had no way of knowing that. Madam Speaker, I yield 10 minutes to the gentlewoman from Georgia (Mrs. Greene).

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