Censuring Representative Paul Gosar

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. HOYER. Madam Speaker, I think all of us would wish that we were not here on a subject of this gravity, on a subject so present in our society at large: The exhortation to violence to accomplish one's objectives.

I have been sitting here since we started the debate, which was about 45 minutes ago. So many get up and say, ``I do not support violence,'' ``I do not support this action,'' but I will do nothing about it.

Now, of course, they don't say the last sentence. They just don't do anything.

As I sat there as Mr. McCarthy was talking, I was thinking that he was getting up in my face and up in Nancy Pelosi's face. I think that is what he was doing. I expect that in vigorous debate.

They focused on a non-analogous action by a Member of this House, the chairman of the Financial Services Committee. Why did they do that? Because there is no analogous event to this one. In the 40-plus years that I have served here, there has never been a case like this. Never.

This is not about control, as the majority leader would represent. It is about decency, democracy, and security, and the rule of law.

We have seen, Madam Speaker, over and over again in our politics that words matter, and actions matter even more. Vitriol, the glorification and promotion of violence, hate speech, and the failure to condemn all of these when they occur have created an atmosphere in our country, which sadly has now and too frequently been visited on this floor, that is not conducive to the exercise of free constitutional politics.

A former leader of my party Dick Gephardt said that democracy was a substitute for war, that we should settle our differences peacefully and nonviolently.

The speech that has been the subject of this resolution whittles away at the rule of law and the civility needed for constructive debate.

Indeed, violent words and images are too often a precursor to the practice of violence. We have seen that. We saw it on January 6 as the President of the United States incited and urged people to come to the Congress to stop democracy in its tracks.

And people wanted to hang the Vice President of the United States as a result of those words because he was not doing that because he thought it was not legal. He wanted to follow the law.

My friend Gabby Giffords and Senator Kelly know that all too well, that violent words and images are too often a precursor, as does Representative Speier who worked for the late Representative Leo Ryan and was herself badly injured in the shooting that took his life. My friend, the Republican whip, and his family know that words can encourage and result in violence. Last month, the family and constituents of Sir David Amess in the United Kingdom experienced the same pain.

All of us who were in this Capitol on January 6 and those who stood in defense of it know that pain.

The loved ones of Officers Sicknick, Liebengood, Smith, DeFreytag, and Hashida carry that pain with them every day.

Officer Evans' family, as well, has been carrying that pain since April.

Madam Speaker, so do the families of elected officials, journalists, and civil society leaders who have been killed or maimed by political violence across the world incited by rhetoric that is rationalized as acceptable in the political environment. And then, oh, I don't support violence. I don't know how that happened. Yes, I said in front of the White House, ``Go down to the Capitol,'' and although it wasn't the exact words of ``be violent,'' it is what those who came down here expected the exhortation to be.

It would be naive, Madam Speaker, to suppose that we can eradicate the promotion of violence in wider society, either in our country or abroad.

Such evil has always existed, and the internet and social media make it easier to disseminate that malicious type of speech.

But constitutional parliamentarians worldwide have long understood that in order to maintain the level of civility required to carry out the business of legislating for the people, we must have rules of decorum and limits on speech that would cause civil debate to devolve into uncivil attacks and political violence.

That is why we have rules in this House to enforce decorum and ensure civility. That is why we have rules of conduct, which the chairman of the Ethics Committee read a little earlier. It should be and is undebatable that this conduct violated that rule.

Those rules apply not only to this floor but everywhere a sitting Member engages in work relating to his or her service as a Representative.

When those rules were written, they did not anticipate that a Member would threaten violence directly against another Member. Not because it has never happened. A Congressman from South Carolina nearly beat to death a Senator from Massachusetts, Senator Sumner, because he wanted to abolish slavery. That, of course, was a crime.

In some countries threatening public officials is a crime. They didn't have to spell that out explicitly because it has always been understood that such behavior is unacceptable in this institution and incompatible with our service.

Indeed, any kindergartner, frankly, Madam Speaker, will tell you that such behavior is wrong anywhere.

The actions of Representative Gosar this week and in weeks previously--much like the actions of Representative Greene earlier this year--would convey a dangerous lesson to our children and teenagers that the opposite is true, that threatening violence against those with whom one disagrees is acceptable. It is not. That bullying and encouraging one's followers to menace another person or another group is somehow compatible with citizenship in a democracy and indeed a civilized society. It is not.

The resolution before us today is necessary because we in this House who speak for the American people must reflect, as the Speaker said, the highest standards of American society.

I just came from the Speaker's office not too long ago. I don't know how many of you have been there, but over the door it says it is Robert H. Michel Rooms.

I had the opportunity to serve with Robert Michel. Robert Michel was a Republican, and he was from Peoria, Illinois. He was one of the finest, most decent men that I have known, not just serving in the Congress of the United States, but have known. He said this: ``Civility means being tough without being mean, being witty without being malicious, and . . . believing in the power of reason to influence public debate while still being aware of the power''--hear these last words--``being aware of the power of irrationality in public life.''

This resolution, Madam Speaker, is necessary because when Members of Congress and other elected officials speak and act, our constituents and followers give great weight to our words and actions.

It is a way for them to rationalize unacceptable behavior as was done on January 6. It is disgusting, Madam Speaker, whenever someone out in the world tweets a threat of violence or hateful content.

But when a Member of this House does so, no matter how you rationalize it, no matter how you try to put lipstick on that pig, it is a threat of violence.

What Representative Gosar did last week is not just worthy of censure, it demands it.

And for anyone who threatens to apply the same standard to Democrats in the future, as Ms. Speier said, I am with you. This is not about Republicans or Democrats; this is about decency. This is about security for our Members. This is about democracy, not violent overthrow or opposition.

I, for one, will join you in enforcing that standard on any Democrat who violates it. But I will tell you this, Madam Speaker, the analogies that the Republicans have been making limp badly.

I am certain my fellow Democrats will do the same. Because this is not about party, it is not about politics, it is not about partisanship. It is about decorum, civility, safety, and, yes, the rule of law that was trampled upon on January 6.

But this is not about January 6. This is about this incident of a Member using whatever medium you want to say on the public dime threatening and showing the killing of a Member of this House. Can't that appall you, even that act? Do you have no shame? Madam Speaker, those are the questions that I would ask.

No one--Democrat or Republican--ought to be allowed to engage in the promotion of violence against a fellow Member, or indeed, a fellow American. Because we know where the glorification and promotion of violence leads, and we have seen it. We have seen it this year and in previous years.

Piercing tweets become sharp knives.

Fiery words bring out deadly firearms.

And cartoon killing begets real life bloodshed.

This resolution specifically addresses Representative Gosar's actions, but it also reflects more generally, Madam Speaker, what I hope is a sentiment shared by Members from both parties that we have seen too much of violent speech in our politics and in this country, and it must end.

In February, when we considered a resolution relating to the violence-promoting and undecorous actions of Representative Greene, I recalled the famous words of Edmund Burke, who viewed service in his nation's Parliament as the highest calling.

He said the only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men and women--he did not add that but would today, certainly--that good men and good women do nothing.

Once again, the Republican leadership in this House has chosen to do nothing. It is interesting because a far lesser offense resulted in the removal of a Republican by the Republicans from committee, Steve King of Iowa.

So, again, the House, in light of that void, must take action.

I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on both sides of the aisle to uphold a standard that should be critical to us all. Some modicum of respect for those who are political opponents, Madam Speaker, and some restraint is in the way we depict them and ourselves.

Vote ``yes'' on this resolution.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source