Jim McGovern

Mr. McGOVERN

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

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from Pennsylvania, a distinguished member of the Rules Committee, for yielding me the time; and I want to thank her for her eloquent opening. Mr. Speaker, we are just weeks away from the 53rd anniversary of Martin Luther King, Jr.'s famous speech at the National Cathedral. That is when he uttered the powerful line, ``The moral arc of the universe is long, but it bends towards justice.'' In many ways, those words are as misconstrued as they are well-known, because some have taken them to mean that if you just wait long enough, justice is inevitable. Dr. King knew better, though. He knew that for the moral arc to bend, people needed to be courageous enough to actually bend it. Just 6 years after this line was spoken, Members of this Chamber showed that courage when they introduced the original Equality Act. They did so in the shadow of the Stonewall riots, at a time when even discussing LGBTQ issues publicly was seen by many as taboo. These Members recognized the fundamental unfairness in a patchwork of State laws being used to deny some Americans fundamental rights like jobs and homes, just because of who they were or who they loved. They had the backbone to act, giving a voice in these hallowed Halls to the many advocates nationwide fighting for equality from the outside. Getting to this point has been a long, long, long road, and I am a proud cosponsor of the Equality Act that is before us today, and I have pushed for this day for a long time. I know this hasn't been easy. So many people and so many organizations, though, never wavered. And along the way, they changed hearts and minds on this issue. What may have been a radical idea then is not now. In fact, most people today not only support such protections for LGBTQ Americans, they incorrectly believe that they are already in place. That is how common sense this bill is, Mr. Speaker. This House made history when it passed the Equality Act for the first time last Congress, and we did so in a bipartisan way. Unfortunately, it didn't even get a vote in the Republican-controlled Senate, and the prior Republican President didn't support it. But now we have new leadership in the Senate and a President who has made passing this bill a top priority. This moment represents our best chance yet to finally make the Equality Act the law of the land. This moment, Mr. Speaker, is an opportunity to bend the moral arc toward justice, toward fairness, and toward equality, and I encourage all of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to seize it. Let's support this rule and the underlying bill, and let's take a historic step forward toward building a more fair and just society for all Americans.

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding. I have some good news for the gentlewoman who just spoke. The reconciliation bill that is coming to the floor, hopefully, on Friday will have a whole bunch of resources in it to help States safely reopen schools. So I hope we will get a good bipartisan vote on that.

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, over the past two decades, I have traveled to Colombia more than a dozen times. On each trip, I have had the privilege of meeting human rights defenders and social leaders. In cities, towns, and remote rural areas, these brave men, women, and young people have confronted violence all their lives, and they and their communities are targeted by illegal armed groups--paramilitaries, guerrillas, and criminal organizations. They have been targets of the Colombian military and too often harassed and under illegal surveillance by the state. Simply for speaking on behalf of others, organizing to meet basic needs, or carrying out the duties of their profession--teacher, doctor, farmer, lawyer, journalist, and pastor-- they are threatened, assaulted, and murdered. During my last trip to Colombia, I spent a few days in the mountains of northern Cauca. I met with indigenous leaders defending their right to ancestral lands. I met with Afro-Colombian leaders creating small enterprises to support their families and their children. I met with demobilized FARC soldiers hoping to build a new life and future. I met with campesino farmers determined to stop growing coca and move into the legal economy. We sat together, and we ate together. They shared their plans and they shared their dreams with me. They dream of a Colombia at peace and a Colombia that values all of its people, including those who have struggled to survive in Colombia's most violent rural areas. Brave, generous, intelligent, creative, vulnerable, and humble, these leaders literally have bet their lives on the peace accord being fully implemented. They are counting on the peace accord to deliver the protection, economic development, truth, and justice it promised. But the Colombian state has abandoned them, just as it has throughout all Colombia's history. The state has failed to put in place the individual and community-based protections demanded by the peace accord. The state has failed to dismantle the criminal networks and armed actors who daily threaten the lives of social leaders. The state has failed to identify and prosecute those who finance, profit by, and order the murders and violence aimed at human rights defenders and social leaders. Even worse, the Colombian state has chosen to remain absent from large parts of the country, failing to establish state presence, basic services, and leaving local leaders defenseless. Since the peace accord was signed, over 500 rights defenders have been murdered, according to the United Nations human rights representative. Colombia's own ombudsman reports even higher numbers, documenting more than 700 murders during that same period, and nongovernmental organizations place the total even higher. Rather than seeing this grim reality as a call to action, the government of President Ivan Duque has tried to obscure the number of murder victims. His government defends all the promises it has made on paper without changing by one iota the reality on the ground. It acts as if these murders and threats were some kind of public relations crisis, a battle over statistics and optics. But it is not a PR problem. It is lives on the line. Economists have written books on the importance of human capital in the development of a prosperous economy. Lack of political will to prevent these murders and protect these local leaders is literally bleeding Colombia of the very human capital it needs to consolidate peace and create a more prosperous and dynamic future. Two weeks ago, Human Rights Watch issued a report on the murders of Colombia's social leaders and human rights defenders. It outlines practical actions and reforms the Colombian federal, state, and municipal governments could take to prevent, reduce, and even stop the murders and violence. Sadly, these recommendations were met with indifference, by hostility, or rejected out of hand. They were treated more like bad press than a serious attempt to offer help and provide a road map to interrupt the spiral of violence. That is why I am calling on the Biden administration to make the protection of human rights defenders and social leaders one of America's highest priorities in its relationship with Colombia. The Biden administration and Congress should review the Human Rights Watch report and determine how U.S. policy and aid can advance the full implementation of the peace accord, support its protective and justice mechanisms, and help fulfill its promises of economic development in neglected areas. I call upon my colleagues to stand up for peace, for human rights, and for an end to the violence against human rights defenders and social leaders in Colombia. These courageous social leaders deserve nothing less than America's full and unconditional support.

Mr. McGOVERN

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

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

Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, yesterday, the Rules Committee met and reported a rule, House Resolution 91, to provide for the consideration of H. Res. 72, removing a certain Member from certain standing committees of the House of Representatives under a closed rule. The rule provides 1 hour of debate equally divided and controlled by the Chair and ranking member of the Committee on Ethics. Madam Speaker, this is one of those moments where this institution must decide where the line is drawn. A person in this House encouraged violence against Members of this institution, part of a larger pattern of disturbing rhetoric. She has also called the Sandy Hook and Parkland shootings, where young children were killed, a hoax. She followed and harassed a survivor of the Parkland shooting, David Hogg. She promoted a video featuring a Holocaust denier which contained disgusting anti-Semitic language. She has even claimed that 9/11 was a hoax; that a plane didn't really hit the Pentagon. And what did our distinguished minority leader, Kevin McCarthy do, Madam Speaker? Did he take action to push this disgusting rhetoric out of the Republican conference? No, he rewarded Congresswoman Greene with seats on the Education and Labor and Budget Committees. Now, I don't get surprised by much around here these days, but I was shocked by this. Our teachers and our students are watching, Madam Speaker. Two of them are my sisters, who are public school teachers in Massachusetts. I can't imagine how they feel knowing that someone who says the deadliest high school shooting in our Nation's history was a false flag operation; how they will feel if that person sits behind the dais of the Education and Labor Committee, or behind the dais of any committee. Madam Speaker, serving on a committee is not a right, it is a privilege, and when someone encourages violence against a Member, they should lose that privilege. Now, this is not a radical idea. When something like this happened in the past, party leadership on both sides stepped up and took action. That is what happened with Democrat Bill Jefferson and Republican Steve King. We are here today because Minority Leader McCarthy does not have the courage to do what is right. Now, I remember a time when Republican leaders had the courage to do what was right. Dealing with the likes of Steve King was not an isolated incident. In 1991, when the Republican Party contended with David Duke, a Holocaust-denying neo-Nazi and former KKK grand wizard, former President George H.W. Bush said: ``He should be rejected for what he is and what he stands for.'' David Duke was pushed out of the party and stripped of any credibility and recognition. Even as recently as 2016, when Duke announced a run for the U.S. Senate, the then-Republican National Committee chairman said: ``David Duke and his hateful bigotry have no place in the Republican Party.'' Madam Speaker, that seems like forever ago. What happened? The party of Lincoln is becoming the party of violent conspiracy theories. And apparently, the leaders of the Republican Party in the House today are not going to do a damn thing about it. Now, I never thought I would say this, Madam Speaker, but I agree with Mitch McConnell. The Senate minority leader this week called Congresswoman Greene's embrace of conspiracy theories ``a cancer for the Republican Party.'' I would take it a step further. I think giving Congresswoman Greene a megaphone on a standing committee would be a cancer on this entire Congress. None of us get to decide who the voters send to Congress. But as Members of this body, it is our job to set the standard for the conduct of those who serve here, especially when they cross the line into violence. The Republican talking point now seems to be: ``I condemn Congresswoman Greene's words, but . . . `' Madam Speaker, her words are indefensible, period. And we must act, not because it helps us or hurts them, but because it is the right thing to do for this institution and for America. Is nothing beyond the pale? Is there nothing so depraved and so disgusting that my colleagues would not condemn it, not just with words but with action? Will they not draw the line at calling for the assassination of another Member of this body? It is my understanding that Congresswoman Greene got a standing ovation from many Members during their Conference meeting last night. Come on. Who applauded the person who advocated putting a bullet in the head of the Speaker of House? Who applauded the person who said school shootings are a false flag operation? Who applauded the person who suggested that 9/11 was a hoax? I would like to know. I would like to know exactly who on the other side believes that these sick ideas deserve a standing ovation. Could we see a show of hands, please? When the history books are written, they will remember this moment. But more than that, we all have to live with ourselves. I could never live with myself if I did nothing here. This is not the time for any of us to just look the other way. Now, I am actually hopeful that there are some Republican Members who are willing to stand up, join with us, and vote for this resolution because it is the right thing to do, partisanship be damned. I challenge any one of my colleagues to take a moment and read what she has said and what she has posted and come down here and try to defend it. You can't. It is indefensible. Congresswoman Greene says this resolution could set a precedent for the future. I hope it does. Because if this isn't the bottom, then I don't know what the hell is. I hope we are setting a clear standard for what we will not tolerate. Anyone who suggests putting a bullet in the head of a Member shouldn't serve on any committee, period. This is the standard that we are setting here today, and I am betting it is a standard that the American people want us to uphold. This is where we draw the line, Madam Speaker. These words and actions are the worst I think I have ever seen, ever, in all my time here. We should have the courage to pass this rule and the underlying resolution on a bipartisan basis, to stand up for what is right, to demand better from those who serve in this institution, and to demand more for the people that we represent. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Madam Speaker, this is a very serious matter, and I appreciate my ranking member, Mr. Cole, for the way he conducts himself because I know he cares deeply about this institution, and he knows that I admire him greatly. The gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Scalise) was on the floor, and he quoted the Bible. And I have read the Bible, too, I want to inform the gentleman. And I believe in the Jesuit tradition. Apology is not just words, it is action. And I didn't hear Mrs. Greene do that today. I heard a lot about whataboutisms, but I didn't hear her take responsibility, nor did I hear her apologize for some of the most egregious things that she has posted and said. I also point out for the record--because I think this is important--I am not convinced her memory is 100 percent accurate here on some things. Here, just now--and she spoke to the whole Chamber--she said she didn't discuss QAnon during her campaign. Madam Speaker, but last July, she said in her local interview: ``I've only ever seen patriotic sentiment coming out of that source.'' And she wouldn't answer if she was still a follower. So I am a little confused that she is now trying to denounce QAnon, yet she said recently that they are patriots. She said: Never seen anything other than patriotic sentiment coming out of that source. QAnon is a dangerous, sick cult. Period. And nobody--certainly nobody in this Chamber--should ever, in any way, shape, or form, try to associate themselves with them. They are not patriotic individuals. They are pushing sick, dangerous, violent conspiracy theories. Many of the people who attacked this Chamber on January 6 had their QAnon flags and insignias. So give me a break. Madam Speaker, I don't know what it is going to take for some here to act. And I will just repeat what I said earlier. I don't know what the hell happened to the Republican Party. The party of Lincoln, the party of Eisenhower, the party of Reagan is becoming the party of Marjorie Taylor Greene and the party of violent conspiracy theories. If anyone has any question about the things that she has said or done--anybody who is watching--just spend a moment and look at her social media posts. Don't take my word for it. Go research it for yourself. Google it. It is all there. They go well beyond anything that we have seen from any Member in this body. Encouraging violence against another Member; Posting and saying that 9/11 was a hoax; That school shootings were planned by gun safety advocates; Spreading anti-Semitic and anti-Muslim conspiracies and hate speech. It is all there. We are not just saying this. It is there. Madam Speaker, now, I am a big believer of the Committee on Ethic's process, but I don't need an investigation to tell me what I can read with my own eyes. The only question is this: What are we going to do about it? Just as there was bipartisan agreement that Congressman King had no business on a committee, there should be bipartisan agreement that Congresswoman Greene doesn't either. The only reason this is taking a resolution on the floor today is that Leader McCarthy is unwilling to apply that same standard here. A stern conversation is not enough. We aren't talking about expulsion here today. Though, some think that that is warranted, but that is not what we are talking about. We are deciding whether someone who has encouraged violence against Members should be given a platform on a standing committee. That is what the topic is here today. And I have to say, I didn't even know that was a question. I assume the answer was obvious, but apparently it is not to some here. Madam Speaker, inaction is complicity. We must set a standard of conduct in this institution and ensure that the violence, conspiracy theories, and the lies that we see on the darkest corners of the internet don't get a platform on a standing committee here in the House of Representatives. Madam Speaker, I hope my colleagues will vote their conscience. I hope my colleagues will do what is right for the institution. This is about the institution, about who we are. Again, for the life of me, I don't understand what is complicated here, what is giving people hesitation. We know the results of these violent conspiracy theorists. We saw that on January 6. We know what it leads to. I don't ever want to see that again. And we all should make clear where we stand on this. So Congresswoman Greene coming here and speaking for 10 minutes and not taking responsibility for any of this stuff, trying to make us believe that she doesn't believe in QAnon anymore--I just pointed to an interview that was fairly recent--not apologizing for the most egregious comments that she has posted. Madam Speaker, we have to be better than this. This can't be the future. And I am hoping that we will get a bipartisan vote here because I do think, as I said before, a strong bipartisan vote on this, what a refreshing signal that would be to the American people that all of us together are standing up against hate, against violence, against conspiracy theories; that we are together on this. This shouldn't be hard.

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

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

Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Madam Speaker, I will respond to a couple of things my good friend, Mr. Cole, just said. As he pointed out, in the past, Members were removed from committees as a result of the wishes of their party leaders. It did not go through the Ethics Committee. The reason we are here is because, in this case, which seems very obvious to us, the Republican leadership chose not to act. In fact, they met last night, and they voted on whether to remove Congresswoman Cheney from her position because she had the courage of her convictions and came down and voted her conscience. They didn't vote on this. Again, let me also point out, with regard to the Ethics Committee, there is no Ethics Committee that exists quite yet because Republicans haven't appointed all of their Members to the Ethics Committee, so it doesn't even function at this particular point. I would just also say that, listening to my good friend, he talks about all of this as if it is somehow ancient history. Well, the gentlewoman from Georgia, as we speak, continues to fundraise off these disturbing remarks. I am not sure what she said to the Republican Conference last night, but just last night, she tweeted about raising $175,000 off of this and said: ``We will not back down. We will never give up.'' That is not contrition, Madam Speaker. I say that to my colleagues. That is doubling down and profiting. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Pennsylvania (Ms. Scanlon), a member of the Rules Committee.

Mr. McGOVERN. First of all, Madam Speaker, to equate the media to QAnon is beyond the pale. Secondly, the gentlewoman said that she now believes that 9/11 really happened. But let me just read a quote. At the conservative American Priority Conference, she said: ``It's odd there's never any evidence shown for a plane in the Pentagon, but anyways, I won't--I won't--I'm not going to dive into the 9/11 conspiracy.'' Now, granted, that was in 2018, and the gentlewoman just told us that, in 2018, she had an epiphany and decided not to follow these conspiracy theories anymore. But then, in 2019, she claims that Speaker Pelosi is guilty of treason, and then she said: ``It's a crime punishable by death is what treason is. Nancy Pelosi is guilty of treason.'' That is 2019. Also in 2019, she liked a comment on social media that advocated a bullet to the head of Speaker Pelosi. Also in 2019, in an interview, she called a student survivor of the Parkland massacre, ``Very trained. He is like a dog.'' And then she said that he was an idiot who only talked when he is scripted. Also in 2019, you know, on the Grounds of the Capitol complex, Representative Greene followed a survivor of the Parkland massacre, calling him a coward; and then when he ignored her shouted questions, she said: He can't say a word because he can't defend his stance. I mean, that is 2019. Now, we could be here all week going over comments and posts in 2019 and in 2020. So, you know, I just have to say that I did not hear a disavowment or an apology for those things. I did not hear an apology or denouncement for the claim, the insinuation that political opponents should be violently dealt with. I didn't hear anybody apologize or retract the anti-Semitic and Islamophobic remarks that have been made and that have been posted over and over and over again. Again, the gentlewoman's campaign has profited off of these hurtful remarks and these dangerous statements. So I just point that out for the Record. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Let me just tell my colleague from Georgia--I can't resist because he mentioned proxy voting. I hate to tell him, but a lot of Republicans are voting by proxy, too. So the same ones who condemned it are the ones who are now utilizing it. And, again, I would remind the gentleman that this is not a criminal trial. And that when the Republicans removed Steve King from his committees, there was no Ethics Committee deliberation on that. The decision was made to remove Steve King because finally, at long last, there was a realization that embracing white supremacy was unacceptable. When Bill Jefferson, a Democrat, was removed by Democrats, again, removed from his committees, there wasn't an Ethics Committee deliberation. It was a decision that our leadership made and there was bipartisan support for that as well. Now, we can sit here all we want and try to make excuses for not taking action. I mean, I think the standard here is, Republicans are coming to the floor and saying: We don't want to associate ourselves with these remarks. We condemn these remarks, but we don't appreciate any references to violence, and we don't appreciate any references to anti-Semitism, but . . . I mean, but, but, but, but. And here we are. And so the issue here is that the Republican Conference last night met to really deliberate on the fate of Congresswoman Cheney. They didn't take a vote on this. And, basically, by doing nothing, what does that message send? How refreshing it would be, how welcome it would be if there was a strong, bipartisan vote on this resolution. Imagine what that would mean to the American people to know that we were all unified on the issue of when a Member, when a person who serves in this House has advocated the use of violence, called for assassinations, that we all agree that that is so unacceptable that, at a minimum, they ought not to have the privilege of being on a committee. And I am not sure we are going to get that kind of unity here today, but I hope we do. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Let me, again, just respond by reminding the gentleman that this isn't an issue because of political differences on policy. It just isn't. I mean, I remind him, Representative Greene, in January 2019 on her social media, liked a comment that advocated a bullet to the head of the Speaker of the House. That doesn't bother you? That doesn't give you pause? Because there is a whole bunch of those kinds of posts on her social media. Is there anything that is so awful that will give you pause? I mean, we heard Mrs. Greene. She came down here and we heard 10 minutes of whataboutism and conspiracy, you know, and comparing American journalists to violent QAnon extremists. She was basically saying it is not her fault--it is everybody else's fault--not taking personal responsibility, and really not apologizing for any of these really offensive things. And so this is one of these moments of truth as to, you know, what do we think about this institution? I mean, I really do think this is a vote about the integrity of this institution, and about upholding a standard of decency. And, quite frankly, we were all hoping you would do it. You do the right thing. But, apparently, I think a political decision was made that it is advantageous not to alienate certain types of voters in this country even if they think the way and advocate for the policies and ideas that Mrs. Greene has put forward. That is what this is about. And I know I talked to many of my colleagues on the other side. I know many are very uncomfortable and very offended by what she has said and what she has posted, but apparently not offended or uncomfortable enough to actually take action. And I think that that is unfortunate. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Madam Speaker, let me say to the gentleman who just spoke that I do believe that the standard that we are upholding today should be viewed equally for everybody. If any Member of this Chamber has advocated for the execution of another Member, whether it is a Democrat or a Republican, I will join with everybody here in advocating that they be taken off their committees. I have said that over and over and over again. Madam Speaker, is that a controversial idea, that if people advocate that kind of stuff, that somehow we are going to look the other way or we are going to move on and let's not even talk about it? And I will remind the gentleman that this is not ancient history. She continues to fundraise off this stuff. Read her social media. I am sure you do. So, come on. And then I am a little confused because the gentleman was saying we shouldn't be doing this today, we should have done it last week when there was a unanimous consent request to basically move forward a whole bunch of committee assignments--Democrats and Republicans forward. I mean, the deal is, if we had taken that down, then a whole bunch of people would be without committee assignments, as we speak. We have a lot of work to do to get this economy on the right track and crush this virus, especially in the aftermath of the 4 years we have been through. Madam Speaker, we all want to move forward. We all want to move on. But you can't move forward unless there is some accounting here, unless there is some reckoning with what all of this means. And I would think that for the sake of this institution, if we want to uphold the standard of decency in this institution, that we will all come together on this. Madam Speaker, what we just heard from Mrs. Greene was not an apology. And if that was the speech that was given last night in the Republican Conference, I guess my question would be: And that got a standing ovation? I didn't hear an apology for the incredibly dangerous and hurtful remarks that she has made. I didn't hear an explanation for why she is still fundraising off of these terrible things here. Madam Speaker, I don't know what my colleagues found so convincing, but I stand here today still deeply, deeply troubled and offended by the things that she has posted and the things that she has said and still not taken responsibility for and still not apologized for. And the idea of coming to the floor and basically saying: Well, it is the media's fault, it is this person's fault or that person's fault-- and that the American media is equivalent to the violent QAnon extremists, well, I got to tell you, just when you think you have heard everything, then you hear that. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from New York (Mr. Morelle), a distinguished member of the Committee on Rules, for yielding to me. Mr. Speaker, I support the underlying measures before us today, but I take a moment to discuss something else included here. Mr. Speaker, just outside these doors is something students walk through every day to prevent gun violence in their schools, something travelers pass through every time they board an airplane, and something the public goes through every time they enter a Federal building: Magnetometers. Metal detectors. They are a modern-day inconvenience that we are all used to, and, frankly, they are a small price to pay to keep Americans safe. Metal detectors were installed outside this Chamber following the recent deadly insurrection at the Capitol. Although these machines are new, the policy they are enforcing is not. That has been on the books for more than 50 years. President Lyndon Johnson signed a law outlawing weapons on Capitol grounds back in 1967. The Capitol Police Board, the entity that oversees security regulations in the complex, then issued regulations soon after. They prohibited firearms from being carried into the Chamber and in the connected rooms and galleries. Mr. Speaker, now some Members, like myself, want to see these regulations go further. Representatives Huffman and Speier have been instrumental on this front, and I hope that we act. Others want no prohibitions at all. Mr. Speaker, regardless, the rules are the rules. I thought that was clear, but apparently some of my friends on the other side think differently. Some are acting as though, by being elected to Congress, they have been anointed to some sort of special club, one that gets to pick and choose what rules to follow. A Member on the other side ran an ad depicting her walking around our Nation's Capital with a loaded firearm, tweeting: ``Let me tell you why I will carry my Glock to Congress.'' Another Republican recently bragged that he was armed during the recent riots, and another was stopped by Capitol Police bringing a gun into this Chamber. Mr. Speaker, I could go on. We have people in this Chamber who have posted disturbing and threatening rhetoric against Members of this body. And there is speculation that maybe some Members were complicit with those who attacked the Capitol on January 6. You know, these words and actions raise serious safety concerns. Mr. Speaker, these metal detectors are manned by the same police officers who saved our lives during the insurrection while risking their own, yet some Members on the other side have disrespected these Capitol Police Officers, verbally abused them, pushed them aside, and disregarded their orders, all to avoid this basic safety measure. That is no way to treat our heroes. Some of these very same Members have been quick to send press releases and cut advertisements about the need to respect the police; but here in these Halls, when they think no one is watching, apparently their message is different. It is: ``Do as I say, not as I do.'' Mr. Speaker, that is why we must act today. This isn't a messaging bill. This is as serious as it gets. This elitist mentality must end. Apparently, it will take a rules change to ensure that all Members follow the rules just like everyone else. Included in this measure is language to change the rules to fine Members who interfere with the Capitol Police's ability to do their jobs at the magnetometers outside this Chamber: $5,000 for the first offense, $10,000 for each one thereafter. This is modeled after a change my Republican friends made in the 115th Congress, which fined Members for taking photos or videos on the floor. We are taking steps to make sure this process is transparent and fair. Violations will be posted online, and Members will have the chance to have their appeal considered by the bipartisan Ethics Committee. And let me assure all Americans that these fines will be paid directly by Members. Now, Mr. Speaker, I am not a mind reader, but I have been here long enough to know how this debate will go. Some on the other side will act like this is some grand inconvenience. Tell that to the millions of Americans who go through metal detectors every day in this country. Why are you any different? Give me a break. We need to protect not just Members but staff and all the people who work up here. We need to protect our constituents and the public who visit the people's House. That is why I urge my colleagues to support this change. The rules apply to us, too, and it is time all of us acted like it.

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that it be in order at any time to consider H.R. 335 in the House if called up by the chair of the Committee on Armed Services or his designee; that all points of order against consideration of the bill be waived; that the bill be considered as read; that all points of order against provisions in the bill be waived; and that the previous question be considered as ordered on the bill and on any amendment thereto to final passage without intervening motion except: (1) 1 hour of debate equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on Armed Services or their respective designees; and (2) one motion to recommit.

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 41 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, may I ask the gentleman how many more speakers he may have?

Mr. McGOVERN. We have exhausted all of our speakers.

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. I thank my friend, the ranking member of the Rules Committee, Mr. Cole, for his friendship and for the way he conducts himself in this Chamber. I know he has great respect for this institution. Mr. Speaker, it is impossible for me to fully capture the reverence that I have for the United States Capitol. I worked on these grounds starting back when I was a college intern working for Senator George McGovern back in 1977. No relation. Great last name. Since that time, I have done everything from working as a staffer for Congressman Joe Moakley of Massachusetts to being elected to the United States House of Representatives myself. But that internship will always be a high point of my life: Coming here for the first time, walking these hallowed Halls, and seeing the glory of American democracy up close. The idea that someone would incite an out-of-control mob of homegrown fascists and domestic terrorists to desecrate the people's House fills me with a deep sadness for our country. The contempt that these people had for our democracy and our freedom fills me with horror. What Donald Trump did, encouraging them, fills me with rage not just on behalf of all of those serving here, but all of those who work in these Halls. And I am talking about the reporters, the cafeteria workers, the custodians, the Clerks, the Parliamentarians--I can go on and on and on--and the staff, the Democratic staff, the Republican staff, the nonpartisan support staff, who were terrorized, some hiding under their desks and barricading in their offices. I was in the Speaker's chair the day this unfolded, and many of the people who are sitting up there now were present at that time. What a horrifying thing for anybody to have to experience. Now, some of my Republican friends have been trying to lecture us about unity here today after they voted to overturn a free and fair election of the United States of America, but also preaching unity and not acknowledging that, for 4 years, many of them gave oxygen to Donald Trump's conspiracy theories, to the big lies. They have turned the other way in the face of racism and bigotry and how he embraced some of the most intolerant voices in this country. They just let it go. I will remind everybody here that words have consequences, and ignoring words that are wrong also have consequences. What happened would never have happened if everybody stood up in unity and called out the President when he was not telling the American people the truth, when he was pushing a big lie. We will never have unity without truth and also without accountability. This week in Congress, we saw the best of us and the worst of us. Some of my colleagues have shown that they will defend this President no matter what he does. There is nothing that he could do that would dissuade them from all-out support. But some are standing up and doing the right thing under tremendous pressure, and I am proud of that and I honor them for their courage. This impeachment resolution outlines the truth of what Trump did. It is time that this Congress now holds him accountable for his words and for their devastating impact. Last week, we took an oath to protect this Nation. As history calls on us today, I pray that we all have the moral clarity to uphold it here today.

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

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

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