The last twelve months in the House of Representatives has been one for the historical record. Lawmakers set benchmarks for the longest floor speech and the longest vote, and managed the most extended federal funding lapse.
They also devoted considerable energy attempting to reprimand each other through formal condemnation measures, the body's primary tool for rebuke. A review of congressional records indicates no fewer than 17 moves since the January to reproach a colleague via a formal condemnation or a simpler disapproval resolution.
When a condemnation measure passes by a simple majority of the House, the member in question has to rise before the speaker's podium as the speaker informs them that they are being disciplined for their bad behavior. That's as far as the consequences go – they maintain their congressional office and their right to vote, but perhaps not their public image.
Though almost none of these passed, the flurry grew so severe that by the end of the year, a bipartisan group proposed changing the procedures to make it more difficult for reprimands to be approved. “Perhaps we should halt the mutual recrimination in the House?” asked one of the measure's authors.
Below is an examination at the claimed misconduct at the core of the censure spree:
Calling a Individual a ‘Derogatory Term’
The earliest reprimand motion of the year came in February against a member of the Democratic Party lawmaker. The resolution alleged the official of “encouraging hostility against a designated official”. The resolution referenced an instance during a congressional hearing where the lawmaker uttered a crude remark about the figure in a particularly creative way, as well as a later statement about using “actual weapons” to a political fight. The chamber never voting on it.
Yelling at the Commander-in-Chief
In the midst of a presentation to a joint session of Congress, a Democrat representative heckled the nation's leader, exclaiming “the people did not grant him authority” while waving a walking cane in the air. The Speaker of the House directed that the congressperson taken from the chamber. In the aftermath, several condemnation resolutions were introduced aimed at the lawmaker. Two days later, the legislature voted for one of these resolutions, with a number of members of the representative's party casting yes votes alongside the majority party. This remains the single reprimand to actually win approval during the year.
Resorting to Racial Stereotypes
Only a short time after the previous censure, a measure was introduced against a representative for statements made about the disruptive colleague. The resolution accused the legislator of using language that was “disparaging, derogatory, and racist toward another member of Congress”. This measure did not receive a vote on the House floor.
Mocking a Official's Disability
Another proposed censure involved supposed disrespectful remarks made by a congressperson about a chief executive who has been paralyzed. The comments were considered highly offensive and prompted a disciplinary motion that also was not brought to a floor vote.
Confrontation with Federal Agents
A number of censure resolutions were filed against a representative after she was taken into custody and indicted following an confrontation outside a immigration detention center. One of these resolutions was considered in the House, but was killed thanks to a alliance of opposing party members and a handful of representatives from the resolution's party of origin. This represented the first of several times where representatives voted across the aisle to defeat a condemnation effort.
Allegations of Discrimination
A representative was the target of multiple condemnation motions over the summer for bigoted remarks made about elected officials of color. The statements included offensive monikers and calls for expulsion. Neither measures was considered by the full House.
Disparaging a Deceased Figure Actions
In the following period of a controversial figure's death, a condemnation motion was introduced against a representative for statements that were deemed “disrespectful” toward the late person and those honoring him. For another time, the measure was defeated with the help of a handful of lawmakers from the resolution's originating party. One of those who voted against the censure commented that the correct approach to “offensive language” is not silencing, but “further debate”.
‘Undermining the Integrity of a Open Election’
The barrage of condemnations reached a high point late in the year when, in the middle of a crucial legislative action, a representative spoke publicly to allege that a senior member had orchestrated his retirement in a manner to practically guarantee a chosen replacement would be win his congressional seat. The resolution expressed disapproval of this action for “undermining the process of a open electoral contest”. This resolution provoked anger but ended up being approved, with votes from the majority of the other party and a sizable bloc of members from the complainant's political affiliation.
Exchanging Messages with a Convicted Sex Offender
As congressional action to compel the release of sealed records related to convicted criminal Jeffrey Epstein was nearing passage, it was revealed that a lawmaker had exchanged text messages with Epstein in the midst of a congressional hearing. Capitalizing on the situation, opposition party lawmakers filed a formal condemnation against the member. This attempt did not pass thanks to united opposition from the member's own party and the support of a few of members from the resolution's authors.
A Wide Range of Supposed Wrongdoings
One congressman was the focus of several different censure resolutions throughout the year, which wound up sparking {allegations|claims
