[0:08]Pursuant to clause two of rule nine, the gentleman from South Carolina, Mr. Norman, and the gentleman from Maryland, Mr. Rasin, each will control 30 minutes.
[0:19]The chair recognizes the gentleman from South Carolina. >> Thank you, Mr. Speaker. In ju just a moment, the chair would ask the House come to order again. ask members to take
[0:29]conversations off the floor so that the members can be given due accord and respect during the period of debate. The gentleman has the floor. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I rise today because the House
[0:39]of Representatives has a responsibility and a duty to protect the integrity of this institution. And what we learned from the documents released by Jeffrey
[0:50]Epstein's estate is nothing short of alarming. Those documents show that delegate Stacy Plasket, a sitting member
[1:00]of Congress, coordinated her questioning during an oversight, an official oversight hearing with a man who is a convicted sex offender. A man whose
[1:10]crimes against minors shocked this entire nation. Let me be clear, this was just not casual contact. there. There were
[1:22]deliberate communications and they shaped her official line of questioning in a congressional hearing. The American people expect honesty. The
[1:32]American people expect integrity and judgment from their elected officials. They expect members of Congress to conduct themselves
[1:41]with one word, decency, not to seek advice from a predator who exploited minor children. This resolution does not accuse. It
[1:53]acknowledges what is documented. It censors delegate Plaset for her conduct, removes her from the intelligence committee where her judgment is
[2:03]paramount and directs a full investigation into the extent of her relationship with with Mr. Abstein. Some will try to spend this as politics,
[2:14]but protecting the honor of this body is not partisan. It's not Democrat. is not Republican. Standing Standing against a convicted predator's influence in our
[2:25]proceedings is not partisan. It's basic decency. We We cannot pretend this didn't happen. The American people deserve better.
[2:37]Speaker, I reserve. The gentleman reserves. The gentleman from Maryland is recognized. >> Thank you kindly, Mr. Speaker. I yield myself such time as I may consume. The gentleman's recognized
[2:48]>> and I rise in opposition to this resolution. Uh, you know, we're here today on the floor to support the complete disclosure of information related to Jeffrey Epstein and his
[3:00]billiondoll international child sex trafficking ring. and our side of the aisle at least supports the release of information relating to anybody who had
[3:11]anything to do with it, whether they're a Republican, a Democrat, an independent, or what have you. Period. We insist on complete full disclosure.
[3:21]This resolution has nothing to do with that. This seems to me to be one more pathetic effort to distract and divert attention from the fact that the
[3:31]president's name appeared more than a thousand times already in the small fraction of material released on Epstein and from the failure of the majority to
[3:41]move to disclose this information. And it is this bipartisan group that we've had behind the discharge resolution which has insisted on
[3:52]bringing this to the four. And we've got nothing but obstruction, opposition, resistance, evasion, distraction, and diversion from the other side. And now we get one more resolution like this.
[4:04]The resolution actually proposes um a disciplinary censure against Representative Stacy Plask, but amazingly alleges no misconduct. It does
[4:15]not allege the violation of the Constitution. It does not allege the violation of a federal law or a state law or local law. It does not violate it does not even allege a violation of the
[4:26]ethics rules of the House of Representatives. And yet they want to censure her and throw her off of her committee. this a distinguished former federal prosecutor
[4:38]uh diligent public servant representative of the people of the Virgin Islands. Now, criminal justice has two parts to it.
[4:48]One is insisting upon legal accountability for people who do wrong. The other part of it is due process, which may be the two most beautiful
[4:59]words in the English language. Certainly the two most beautiful words in the Constitution of the United States. It's due process that protects all of our freedoms and our rights against the
[5:10]arbitrary power of government and the will just to punish somebody without any process at all. But that's exactly what's going on here. Think about it.
[5:21]Gain Maxwell had due process. She had a right to counsel. She had a right to hearing. She had a right to hear the evidence against her. She had a right to put on her case. She had a right to
[5:31]cross-examine. She had a right to a neutral, impartial tribunal. She had a right to unanimous verdict uh of a jury. And all of that she had and she was
[5:42]found guilty. And that's why she was sentenced to jail for 20 years. Even though Donald Trump has transferred her from a real prison to a prison camp where she's gotten very special pampered
[5:52]treatment like she's in a Trump hotel. She gets room service to her cell. She gets gym privileges other inmates don't
[6:00]get. She gets uh to use the warden as a gobetween with people outside of the institution and so on. But any event, she had due process. Donald Trump had
[6:11]due process. He was convicted on 34 felonies, but he had the right to counsel. He had the presumption of innocence. He had a unanimous uh jury trial right. They had right to cross-examine everybody, put their own
[6:22]witnesses on. Now they want to take a former United States prosecutor, the representative of the people of the Virgin Islands, and without even going to the ethics committee, much less a
[6:33]court, they want to arraign her on some charges based on a newspaper article that she did something lawful, however ill- advised it may have been, she took a phone call from one of her
[6:44]constituents. Now, I don't think it is the position of the very distinguished gentleman that if we find Jeffrey Epstein on the phone with Donald Trump, he should be
[6:55]impeached for it. Or is that his position? >> Is his position that anytime Jeffrey Epstein got somebody on the phone and he got a lot of people on the phone, that
[7:05]person is suddenly guilty? That sounds like guilt by association. That sounds like collective guilt. Our minority whip introduced a perfectly reasonable amendment to say, "Let's refer this to
[7:17]an ethics committee. Let's have a real hearing." They didn't want to have a real hearing. They want to rush to judgment. Why? So there can be some headline that will please Donald Trump tomorrow instead of a unanimous
[7:29]statement, or forgive me, I think the distinguished gentleman from Louisiana may have dissented, but an otherwise unanimous verdict of the House of Representatives that the American people want all the files open. We've had
[7:40]enough of the cover up. We want all of the truth. We want the survivors and the victims to have the possibility of accountability. Well, they want to give them another headline, which is that
[7:50]they've arraigned a Democratic member for taking a phone call from her constituent, uh, Jeffrey Epstein, in the middle of a hearing. And of course, I I I don't think there's any rule here
[8:02]against taking phone calls, um, in a hearing. Now, if you want to actually give her the chance to explain what happened, then we would take it to the ethics committee. I still don't see what
[8:12]the charge is. Where is the ethical transgression? Where is the legal transgression? Are you saying anybody on your side of the aisle who had a phone call with Jeffrey Epstein should be
[8:22]censured? Be careful your answer there because there's a lot more that's about to come out, right? So, you should think about what is the principle behind this rush to judgment. I want to close just
[8:33]with this thought because I know there were a lot of people uh in the chamber who were here when this happened and a lot who weren't. There was a move to expel George Santos who was a Republican
[8:43]member of the House from New York and it was the same kind of rush to judgment absolute political frenzy and I looked at it for about 60 seconds and you know
[8:54]I was a professor of constitutional law so call me a legal nerd but I said wait this guy's not been convicted of anything. Well, he's a Republican. Yeah, I know he's a Republican. He is not
[9:03]convicted in criminal court. To my knowledge, he had not been arraigned yet or convicted of anything in the ethics disciplinary process. They just said, "Well, there's bad press. We want to get
[9:15]rid of him. Beware of what you wish for. Is that the rule that you want here in the House of Representatives that you can just draw up a member of Congress in 24 hours or 48 hours because there's a
[9:26]bad newspaper article without asking any questions, without giving that person any due process at all? Is that what it's come to at this point? I mean, all we're asking for in the Epstein files is
[9:36]release the materials so we can check it out. They want to go ahead and censure and remove from a committee a distinguished member of the House of Representatives with no due process at
[9:48]all. I uh reject this. I hope the whole body will reject this. Just like I voted and spoke against removing George Santos, a Republican on the other side
[9:58]of the aisle, because he had gotten no due process, I hope all of our colleagues will reject this absurd rush to judgement and attempt to change the uh the change the subject here. I
[10:09]reserve the balance of my time. >> The gentleman reserves. The gentleman from South Carolina is recognized. Mr. Speaker, before I yield time to my good friend, Louisiana. Uh, Representative
[10:19]Raskin, I will be careful in my remarks. You need to be careful with your facts. Um, you have 11-year veteran of this
[10:28]body who should know better. You have a 11-year member of this body who took money. It wasn't a newspaper article. It was a fact. She took money from Jeffrey
[10:38]Epstein. Uh it's it's ironic that you're taken up by defending Miss Plasuit uh which it's going to the ethics
[10:49]committee, but she she's lost her willingness or lost her ability to serve uh because she's got irrational judgment by taking a taking money from a
[10:59]convicted ped ped pedophile of young children. And uh it's it's unfathomable that you're taking a position that you are. These are facts. You mentioned Gla Maxwell. She's not a sitting member of
[11:11]Congress. She as a sitting member of Congress. Uh Miss uh Miss She has relinquished any sense of duty to serve on these committees. With that, I want
[11:22]to yield as much time as needed for my good friend Louisiana, Mr. Klay Higgins. >> And the chair would remind all members to please avoid engaging in personalities to direct all comments to the chair. The gentleman from Louisiana
[11:34]is recognized. >> I thank my colleague Mr. Norman from South Carolina and I thank my colleague Mr. Rasin for the salient points that he
[11:44]had brought to this debate. I I also defended George Santos on this floor and opposed the means by which he was
[11:54]expelled. I think it was beyond the pale. And this is a this is a this is a responsibility that that we
[12:04]bear in this body is to determine the means by which our colleagues
[12:14]shall be reprimanded or disciplined. And the constitution is clear on this. My my friend Mr. Asan knows full well
[12:24]that this body controls the means by which and the rules by which the members of Congress shall be disciplined. So
[12:35]we've had variances of opinions regarding you know the exact um disciplinary actions that should be
[12:45]embraced or rejected member by member. But let me say that that in this case,
[12:54]Miss Plask's receiving text messages, this was so alarming to me when when I saw this and
[13:03]read it. I I didn't believe it. I say to my friend, I thought perhaps it was a it was it was
[13:14]media from a a satirical site. It couldn't possibly be true because we all know that a a text message, a text
[13:25]exchange is is rather intimate in the realm of communications and to pierce into an actual
[13:37]congressional hearing for a member of Congress to receive and respond to a text message
[13:47]during a hearing. ing that is quite familiar, is it not? And this was shocking to me
[13:56]that that a member of Congress would be exchanging text messages directly with Jeffrey Epstein in 2019,
[14:07]at which time he was being prosecuted federally by the first Trump administration. He had received some nature of a
[14:17]sweetheart deal back in 2007 and avoided federal prosecution by plea no contest
[14:26]to some level of state prosecution where he was he was sentenced Mr. speaker to 13 months. My understanding he did 11 months and at
[14:37]the easiest time that could be done. He walked every day during the day on a work release program. So that sweetheart deal let me say should be looked at. And
[14:49]now to my horror who has come to light that should be looked at. What was her involvement? Was there some involvement
[14:59]then? She's a good lady from the Virgin Islands. Where did Jeffrey Epstein live in the Virgin Islands? She was a constituent in 2019. Was she a friend in
[15:11]2007? During her service to the DOJ, which my friend has brought up, was there any interactions? These are the questions we
[15:21]have. The good lady from the Virgin Islands has crossed the threshold of reasonable suspicion.
[15:30]And therefore she should be investigated during said investigation by ethics and I would recommend by DOJ and I would
[15:41]recommend by oversight and judiciary committees. Meanwhile, she should absolutely be removed from the House Select Committee on Intel. This, Mr.
[15:52]Speaker, is my position I presented without note for the betterment of the debate of this body and I yield my time back to the gentleman from South Carolina. Mr.
[16:04]>> Speaker, I reserve >> from South Carolina. The gentleman from South Carolina reserves. The gentleman from Maryland is recognized. >> Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and it's always a pleasure to hear my friend from
[16:15]Louisiana. Both of the Republican speakers have said this demands an ethics investigation. I think Mr. Higgins just said it should be investigated by oversight and by
[16:24]judiciary as well as by uh ethics as well as you know by by others. This resolution censures her and punishes her before there's been one day of
[16:36]investigation. There's been no investigation at all. That was the whole burden of uh of the minority whips amendment. It was to say let's have an
[16:46]investigation, refer it to the ethics committee. That's why uh the distinguished gentleman from Louisiana and I both voted against and we got a majority to vote against censuring or
[16:57]expelling even um George Santos without any ruling by our ethics disciplinary body. Isn't that putting the cart before the horse? I don't get it. I wish one of
[17:07]you could explain that to us why we should censure her before there's been one day of actual investigation. [clears throat] if being on the phone
[17:16]with one of our constituents, even an evil, sinister force like Jeffrey Epstein, uh, you know, and of course, you know,
[17:26]he has said that he considered Donald Trump the the most evil person he ever met. He said without a redeeming bone in his body. So, I agree people can say
[17:36]different things, but uh, Jeffrey Epstein to me disgraced himself. But in any event, um, people, you know, people want to know, well, what were the
[17:47]contents of that conversation? Why was Miss Plasket doing that? I'm sure she's got a good explanation. We're talking about a distinguished lawyer and federal prosecutor uh who was uh in the middle
[17:58]of a hearing, which is something that members do all the time is to talk to people um in hearings about different things. But let me ask, if it's now the standard that just to be on a phone call
[18:08]with somebody establishes guilt by association, what about all the members of this body or of the US Senate who were on the
[18:17]phone with January 6th insurrectionists and President Trump and his associates who were trying to block the certification of the election as people
[18:28]were chanting, "Hang Mike Pence." A lot of phone calls, lot of traffic going on. In fact, that's why our Republican colleagues dealt themselves a million
[18:36]dollar cash payoff bonanza provision in the most recent uh Republican spending bill. They put that in there because their phone records had been
[18:47]subpoenenaed lawfully by a grand jury. They were treated like every other American citizen because their names came up as potentially being involved in that conspiracy to somehow shut down
[18:59]proceedings in the House and the Senate. Now, are we saying just because they were on a phone call, they're guilty of something? We should strip them of their committee assignments? We should censure
[19:08]them? Have we gotten to that point? I mean, come on. This is the House of Representatives of the United States of America. Let's stick by the Constitution. Let's stick by due
[19:19]process. Let's go through the rules. I yield uh five minutes to my distinguished colleague from Connecticut, Representative Heims. >> The gentleman from Connecticut is recognized. >> Thank you, Mr. Mr. Speaker, and I thank
[19:30]the gentleman from Maryland. I'm not going to speak today about Jeffrey Epstein or January 6. I'm going to confine my remarks to two things that I know about. And I'm going to take a
[19:41]deep breath right now because to stand here and to have to listen to the gentleman from Louisiana in the guise of just asking questions bismerch one of
[19:51]the finest members I have had the honor of serving with I would think would offend the sensibility of anybody in this chamber. But I'm going to limit my remarks to two things I know very well.
[20:03]Number one, the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence and what we need to do to preserve that very special environment. Number two, the character
[20:13]of Delegate Stacy Plask on Hipsy. I've served for 10 years and with Chairman Turner and now with Chairman Crawford, we have fought for
[20:24]that decade to keep the Select Committee on Intelligence immunized from the sewage that flows through this chamber, the partisan
[20:36]attacks, the hideousness. And by and large, we've been pretty successful with one exception when that committee got involved in the political investigation around Ukraine in the first Trump
[20:46]administration. Every single day, the leaders of that committee work hard, establish friendships, and do the work we need to do to make sure that the toxicity and the sewage that we're
[20:58]hearing right now don't impinge the critical work of making sure that our intelligence communities are keeping Americans safe and not violating civil liberties and not doing things inconsistent with the desires and
[21:09]character of the American people. this effort put forward by a bunch of people who haven't served on that committee and who have no idea the committee and the grace with which that committee serves.
[21:20]You sir will hurt this committee badly. And I expect every Republican on the intelligence committee and I'll say it again. And I expect every in Republican
[21:29]on the intelligence committee who know Miss Plaset and who know the committee to vote no on the idea that without evidence and without due process, Miss Plask should be removed from that very
[21:41]special committee. This resolution would strike a devastating blow to Hipsy's ability to work effectively by removing a member in good standing
[21:51]based on a newspaper article about text. No due process, no evidence, nothing offered other than a newspaper article which has moved moved the gentleman from South Carolina, a member who is
[22:02]consistently engaged in a bipartisan and productive way with the committee's work to make some unrelated political statement will do profound damage to
[22:11]this essential committee. Now, let me just talk for a moment about Miss Plask. I've served in this institution for 17 years, longer, I think, than most people
[22:22]in this chamber. And I have not had the honor of serving with somebody with the integrity and the commitment and the hardworking bonafides
[22:32]as Ms. Plask. We can argue about the wisdom or the judgment associated with those texts. I'm told that apparently Mr. Epstein was
[22:42]a constituent. But on any one of us, our worst day, our biggest misjudgment is not to be judged without any due process, especially in
[22:53]the context of this superb member, this critical critical member of the intelligence committee. The result of this resolution, if it
[23:03]were to pass, will be to undo the efforts of the Republican speaker and the Republican chairman of the intelligence committee, Mr. Crawford to restore the committee to what it was
[23:14]intended to be. And while the bill for that decision won't come due immediately, it will come due over time in the form of a less accountable and less effective intelligence community
[23:25]with less effective oversight for Congress. So I don't expect the gentlemen who have offered this up to back down now. But I do expect every single member of the intelligence
[23:35]committee that elect those few who understand what it is we need to do to close the door on the flow of partisan sewage which we see now threatening the
[23:46]critical work that we do. Vote no on this appalling resolution. I yield back. >> We reserve. The gentleman from Connecticut yields back to the gentleman from Maryland. The gentleman from
[23:56]Maryland reserves. The gentleman from South Carolina is recognized. Mr. >> Speaker, can I inquire about how much time we have left? >> Two and a half minutes. >> Two and a half minutes. >> 22 and a half minutes.
[24:08]>> 22 and a2 minutes. >> Uh, let me just say for my good friends on the left, you know, we're hearing words. That's all this is, words. You're taking the side of a young lady who
[24:20]should have known better. Uh, she served for 11 years. She she disparaged herself. She did it to herself. This is not smoking mirrors. This is actual text
[24:30]that pretty well indictes Miss Plascus. Would she probably take it back? Yes. But it's too late now. I want to yield as much time as needs to be consumed by
[24:41]my good friend from Texas, Chip Roy. The gentleman from Texas is recognized. >> I thank the gentleman from South Carolina. I thank him for bringing forward this important resolution uh before the body. I do want to say I
[24:52]appreciate the gentleman from Maryland his commentary about um the vote on removal and his considered judgment with respect to Santos and I at the time and
[25:02]made the same points. Um, I want to align myself the remarks from the gentleman from Louisiana, but I want to note in doing so and and I and I and and I think the gentleman from Maryland has
[25:13]shown uh respect to I think the judgment of the gentleman from Louisiana about his being the so the sole vote on the issue before this body before with respect to what we're making public
[25:23]because of the gentleman's I think very real concerns about what it might mean for victims. And we had that debate in a colloquy back and forth in the judiciary committee a few hours ago about what we can do to ensure victims are protected
[25:34]and so forth as we all go forward in what I believe is a unanimous view that we should go seek out uh truth and justice here with respect to Epstein and anybody associate associated with him
[25:45]and them and the u nefarious affairs uh involving Jeffrey Epstein. Uh the the reason that I support this resolution is and I would note that my colleagues on
[25:56]the other side of the aisle, they could have tabled this resolution, they chose not to table it, they chose to refer it, which which suggests to me that there's a recognition that something here is not
[26:07]particularly good. That we've got a sitting member, in this case the delegate, uh from the US Virgin Islands who was sitting in the oversight committee. And I'm actually of
[26:18]particular interest here because I was the one doing the questioning. Apparently my questioning was so riveting uh that she was engaging in text messages back and forth at that moment while I was questioning Mr.
[26:30]Cohen. Um the gentle lady was engaging in this back and forth on text messages with Jeffrey Epstein. Now again, I've
[26:40]listened now for months. my colleagues on the other side of the aisle disparage and try to impugn the character of the president of the United States and other
[26:50]members of the administration in connection to an investigation of Jeffrey Epstein which the president his administration in 2019 they indicted
[27:01]Epstein they actually moved forward and federally indicted him in 2019 Gelain Maxwell was arrested by the Trump administration And I know the gentleman
[27:12]from Maryland will go on to say that the Biden administration then carry forward that that arrest and and indictment into prosecution. True. But it was in fact the Trump administration that did what
[27:23]had not been done for a long period of time uh by taking forward that indictment. So, I've been listening to all of the preaching by my friends on the other side of the aisle about how
[27:35]any association, anything to do with Jeffrey Epstein is somehow uh the dispositive uh you know uh moment here in terms of determining uh the character
[27:45]of this administration or what they're doing or not doing when they're leaning in to try to seek the truth where mil, you know, tens of thousands of pages have been released by Jamie Comr and 13
[27:56]subpoenas has all been put out. So now the House just voted to have greater transparency. Time will tell what that means in terms of what the court does and how they deal with grand jury
[28:07]secrecy and what they do to continue to redact and protect victim's names under existing laws and how the courts treat that. That's going to be a process as the gentleman likely knows, right? This is going to be determined as to what
[28:17]gets released and how. But here we have the gentle lady sitting in the oversight committee texting with a known convicted felon, a convicted pedophile that was
[28:28]very public and known, had served jail time, and is engaging not just in texts that were trivial, but texts involving advice about her questioning of Michael
[28:38]Cohen. All designed to figure out how to get Michael Cohen to be able to somehow go after Trump or Trump's adviserss or people around the president. That to me
[28:49]is what we talk about with censure which is contemplated of course in our rules and in the structure the gentleman talked about the constitution. We're not removing her. We're simply saying censure and we're saying that it is a
[29:01]censurable conduct to say that this individual sitting on a committee taking advice from a known convicted pedophile, convicted felon. that that is conduct
[29:11]unbecoming of a member of the United States Congress and engaging in real time taking advice from someone that we've been listening to being lectured to is someone deserving of all of the
[29:22]scorn of the entire world and he is. That's why we're here. If my colleagues didn't think this was a concern, they would have simply made a motion to
[29:32]table. But my colleagues decided to refer it to committee because they know this is a problem. They know this is not the kind of conduct you want in a member of this body. So I think that the
[29:43]gentleman from South Carolina is right to have brought this forward. I think that the uh body should hear this debate and tonight that we should vote tonight to censure and refer to the ethics
[29:54]committee for further consideration. And with that I yield back. >> Yields. [clears throat] Gentleman from South Carolina I reserve. Gentleman reserves. Gentleman from Maryland is recognized.
[30:05]>> Thank you Mr. speaker and [clears throat] um thank you to my friend from Texas for those remarks. Uh I'm afraid all of them dance around the central issue which is uh the the good
[30:17]congressman knows how due process works in America. There are facts that are aduced first. There's an opportunity to be heard on both sides. There's due process. There's consideration. Then
[30:29]there's judgment. You flipped the whole thing on its head. You've said we're going to judge her guilty before anybody has an opportunity even to hear what the charges are, much less answer the
[30:39]charges, much less do any kind of analysis. I'm I'm I'm sorry to hear that the text exchange uh that it seems to be at the heart of people's consternation
[30:49]here took place uh during the distinguished gentleman's questioning. But that is not a federal offense, nor is it an ethical violation in the House of Representatives. you don't get to
[31:00]have the undivided attention of all of your colleagues. The the gentleman says that he thinks that our position is that any association
[31:10]um with Jeffrey Epstein is a dispositive moment of judgment for people. That's not the position we've advanced. We've taken the position with the survivors
[31:20]that we want to end the cover up of what happened and then let the chips fall where they may. If there are people who were actually engaged in crime, as
[31:30]Galileain Maxwell was, as Epstein was, then they should be charged with every element of due process. If they happen to be a waiter or a waitress uh who
[31:40]works at an event, they're not guilty of anything. That's what due process is. We're able to sift through and figure it out. But your rush to judgment isn't even giving anybody a chance to know
[31:50]what the charges are here. It's the most extraordinary thing I've ever seen. And I'm going to yield now to delegate Plascet herself. Uh the distinguished representative from Oh,
[32:01]>> I'm sorry. First, we've got Representative Crockett from Texas for two minutes. >> Thank you so much. This is a distraction to take take away from the fact that the
[32:12]Guardians of Pedophiles is literally trying to protect pedophiles. The president is is a convicted felon and an accused sex offender. Stacy Plasuit
[32:21]hasn't been accused of either. So, what are we actually here talking about? Trump and Epstein were besties. We've all seen the pictures of them. We saw the birthday book. So, why are y'all
[32:33]more interested in talking about Stacy Plasket than Trump's relationship with the man? When did y'all become so moral? Cuz I can remember when when y'all
[32:43]wouldn't sign the discharge petition. All of a sudden, everybody wanted to vote for this, but you you wouldn't sign the discharge petition until we decide that we are going to go after the actual
[32:55]rapists and pedophiles. Miss me with your moral high ground. Folks who also took money from somebody named Jeffrey Epste as I had my team dig in very
[33:06]quickly. Mitt Romney, the NRCC, Lee Zeldon, George Bush, Win Red, McCain
[33:16]Palin, Rick Lazio. I just want to be clear. If this is the standard that we going to make, just know we going to expose it all. And just know that the FEC filings, they are available for
[33:27]everybody to review. This is absolutely ridiculous. You decide that you want to punish a sitting member of Congress because you are concerned about her text messages. Well, maybe you should be more
[33:38]concerned about those sex tapes that we still haven't gotten access to. Maybe you should be more concerned with the fact that the president his name is mentioned in the files way more than
[33:48]Stacy Plask's name. Listen, I'm not saying that anything is right or wrong, but listen, if you trying to figure out what's going on with somebody that's a criminal, then you maybe need to talk to
[33:58]their associates. That's exactly why maybe she was getting text messages. I'm not saying she was or wasn't, but considering the fact that they were talking to another associate of the
[34:08]president's and maybe she needed intel, you'd have to go talk to somebody that maybe knows what he's up to. >> Time is expired. We reserve it.
[34:18]Gentleman from Maryland reserves. Gentleman from South Carolina is recognized. Mr. >> Speaker, I recognize my good friend from Arizona, Mr. Bigs. How much time is the gentleman recognized? >> How much time
[34:30]>> time you've allotted? The gentleman from Arizona. >> How much time do we have left? >> 17 minutes. >> The gentleman has 17 minutes remaining. >> U as much time as a gentleman may consume.
[34:40]>> Gentleman is recognized. >> Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Thank you, uh, Mr. Norman. Thank you for uh raising this issue. This is um this to
[34:50]me this is an interesting issue um because I'm I'm hearing the argument is um coming at us and it says well you know there's no due process.
[35:02]Well debate is a part of due pro process. That's that's part of what that's part of uh due process is to have this debate. you get to stand up, get to
[35:13]defend, and get to raise your issues. And um and you chose to take it back to committee, which as Mr. Roy said, that
[35:25]kind of indicates that maybe you know that there's something that's that's uh not great about this. So, I'm looking at this and and here's here's at least one of the exchanges
[35:37]that that seems to seems to have taken place. And may maybe we'll hear some some comment about it. That'd be good. You can hear make some comment about it. But
[35:47]but in this exchange, Mr. Epstein sent a text message to the gentle lady from the Virgin Islands and
[35:56]this is the quote. Um he brings up Rona, keeper of the secrets, and he's who's he referring to?
[36:06]Rona Graph. That's That's a a a Trump assistant. And Plasket responds, "Rona, question mark." Quick, I'm up next.
[36:18]Is that an acronym? So, she wants to know what what Mr. Epstein wants her to talk about. Don't you find that interesting? I find that
[36:29]really intriguing, especially since we know what Mr. Epstein was. And Epstein responds, "That's his assistant." doesn't really say much more than that.
[36:40]And then Plask starts questioning Mr. Cohen and asks about Graph. So, not only was she texting
[36:49]having this communication with uh with Mr. Epstein, she's asking Mr. Cohen what Mr. Epstein wants her to ask.
[37:01]Another text says from Epstein, "Good work." That's after she wraps it up. The the all of this seems to be very interesting and I'm I'm sorry. I don't I I don't
[37:13]breathe the rarified air of the intelligence committee. I don't I I'm just a regular guy uh and a member of member of the House. That's all. So, I
[37:23]don't know about that rarified air and I guess I'm part of the sewage that's uh that Mr. Heim said. Yeah. Yeah. say thanks for thanks for uh agreeing with
[37:35]me, Miss Plascet. So So she's she's she's got us down. If you unless you're in the intelligence committee, you're crap. That's what that's what that's
[37:44]what the intel committee says. But here's the deal. When you're sitting there in a sitting committee and you're having
[37:54]communications with a convicted sex offender, and you're taking their advice on how to
[38:04]ask questions. Maybe you got a problem. Maybe your problem is that you're you've brought disrepute on the House. And this isn't from the articles.
[38:15]This is from the 10,000 pages or so released last week from the oversight committee that they received from the Epstein estate.
[38:26]This isn't fishing around. This is coming from real evidence. So I sit here and I I listen. Oh, you know, this is she's the finest member that
[38:37]ever walked the planet, man. That's what she heard. But the bottom line is this. She's sitting there seeking advice and
[38:48]counsel on how to ask questions from Jeffrey Epstein who this entire body save one just condemned
[38:59]and we want all the evidence and it's a shame to be here but for one thing you made the choice and so Mr. Chairman,
[39:10]I'm encouraging everyone in this body to support Mr. Norman's resolution and I yield back. Gentlemen yields. [clears throat]
[39:22]Speaker, I reserve. Gentleman from South Carolina reserves. The members are reminded to direct their commentary to the chair before I recognize the gentleman from Maryland. Please remind yourself as well as the members to
[39:33]refrain from engaging in personalities towards the president. Does the gentleman seek recognition? >> Yes, I do. >> Gentleman's recognized. >> Thank you very much. Um, just I want to
[39:45]remark that yet one more member says we should go ahead and censor her and then we should do a complete investigation. I think any fifth grader in America knows
[39:55]that's the exact opposite of what due process means in America. We don't punish people before we have investigation and the opportunity to be heard. I yield six minutes now to the
[40:05]distinguished gentle lady from Virgin Islands, Representative Klask. >> Thank you so much um to Mr. Rasin, to my former professor in law school, and I
[40:17]want to address the body. I first want to give you all a sense of what was happening that day. Everyone knows at that hearing in
[40:26]February, the entire country was watching as Michael Cohen decided he was going to finally give up information
[40:37]about what was happening in the Trump the Trump world, the Trump enterprise. And at the beginning of that hearing,
[40:46]the ranking member Jim Jordan had the disrespect to Elijah Cummings. May he rest in peace and his name be a memory after not
[40:57]allowing Mr. Jordan to shut the committee hearing down. And I turned to Mr. Jordan and told him to have respect
[41:06]for the chair and to basically shut up. And that moment went viral. And I began
[41:14]to get innumerable texts from friends, from foes, from constituents about what was happening in that hearing.
[41:25]And I got a text from Jeffrey Epstein, who at the time was my constituent, who was not public knowledge at that
[41:35]time that he was under federal investigation. and who was sharing information with me.
[41:46]Now, I heard recently from someone that I was seeking advice from him. Let me tell you something. I don't need to get advice on how to question anybody from
[41:57]any individual. I have been a lawyer for 30 years. I have been a narcotics prosecutor in New
[42:05]York City. I have been had the honor of being a political appointee at the Justice Department after September 11th
[42:14]as a Republican appointee in the Bush administration. I know how to question individuals. I know how to seek information. I have
[42:25]sought information from confidential informants, from murderers, from other individuals because I want the truth, not because I need them to tell me what
[42:36]to say. And if you look at the transcript, you will see that I question Michael Cohen for five minutes. The
[42:45]Washington Post only shows you 30 seconds >> and takes from it one individual's name that I got from Jeffrey Epstein and
[42:56]didn't know who the individual was and put that individual with a host of other individuals that I felt the committee should subpoena.
[43:07]They've never been subpoenaed. They've never been questioned because at the end of the day, I know that in the Trump administration and with my colleagues
[43:17]over there, it's not about sexual assault. It's not about support of victims. It's about money. It is about
[43:26]money. I have consistently stood against sexual violence and the exploitation of women and children in previous careers as well as here in this body. We all
[43:37]know that Jeffrey Epstein's actions were absolutely reprehensible. As a constituent, as an individual who gave donations to me, when I learned of
[43:48]the extent of his actions after his investigation, I gave that money to women's organizations in my community. Not back
[44:00]to him, but to women in the community who needed that support. That's what I think should have been done and that's what I did. They've taken a text
[44:11]exchange which shows no participation, no assistance, no involvement in any illegal activity and weaponized it for political theater. Cuz that's what this
[44:23]is. This has been reviewed by federal courts. any charges. Victims who initially had a case against me
[44:33]dismissed it on their own without prejudice. You don't want to talk about what is really happening here. Your attacks on working families, your protection of
[44:44]powerful predators and corporate criminals. You want to talk about texting texting felons. How often do you text President Donald J. Trump? That's
[44:55]the individual we should be concerned about. And let me tell you this, >> I am not going to support the wealthy and connected who continue to exploit workers and evade taxes, powerful
[45:07]figures with credible allegations who face no consequences and corporate interests profiting from human suffering while family struggle.
[45:17]>> And let me tell the people of the Virgin Islands Gentleman will state his point of order.
[45:27]>> Um the point of order is you may not call the president of the United States a felon. >> That is a violation.
[45:38]>> Point of order is under consideration and we're not going to lose order here either. So please >> may I continue? >> May I continue? Members are however
[45:48]reminded to refrain as mentioned a little while ago from making personality uh commentary towards the president. >> Point of order is not time.
[46:00]>> The point of order is not timely. So the gentle lady is recognized. >> Thank you, Mr. Speaker. What is happening here? I feel sorry for
[46:09]my colleagues. I feel sorry for this body. I see members coming and speaking against me who I've never even had a conversation with. You don't know me.
[46:20]You don't know the work that I've done. You don't know the support that I've given to families, to individuals, to support people. I worked a full-time job
[46:31]with children under the age of five, going to school, law school at night. Do you think I would risk my law degree for any individual? Never mind a
[46:42]reprehensible individual by EP Jeffrey Epstein. I would not. But what I am about is the truth. And let me tell the people of the Virgin Islands. This
[46:52]attempt at intimidation will pass. >> We in the Virgin Islands do not back down from a fight. That is how we won our freedom and that is how we will
[47:04]continue to grow our equality. And if you censure me, take away a committee, I will still do the work because I am here
[47:14]to support people and to support this great constitution which I have sworn numerous times to uphold.
[47:25]>> We reserve and I thank the gentleman reserves. Gentleman from South Carolina is recognized. >> Mr. Speaker, before [clears throat] I recognize Mr. Clyde, I let me just say
[47:36]uh M. Plask, I don't know you. My overall impression of you has been good, but and you you you give these words
[47:45]about protecting families and children. Where was that demonstrated when you took money from a convicted pedophile that had been had served time? Where was
[47:55]that? the words are are are beyond uh believability and I think you're a nice person but you you missed the boat when you took my I've got this I've got the
[48:06]mic now uh you you you lost your your uh I I don't know the word to describe it but what you did you deserve to come off the committees let
[48:16]me remind you remind you we want this to go to the ethics commission and to the those listening the ethics commission is five democrats and five republicans let them find it. But in the meantime,
[48:28]you do not deserve to serve on a committee with national clearance. And I would like now >> I will be reminded again to direct their commentary to the chair.
[48:38]>> Mr. Speaker, I would like to recognize my good friend from Georgia, Mr. Andrew Clyde. >> How much time >> How much time is the gentleman recogn Shall I recognize him? >> How much time is left? >> 112 minutes. >> You have 11 and a half minutes
[48:49]remaining. Uh five minutes. Gentleman's recognized for five minutes. I thank the gentleman for yielding uh my good friend uh Mr. Norman from South
[49:01]Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of this resolution censoring and condemning Delegate Stacy Plask of the US Virgin Islands for inappropriate coordination with convicted sex offender
[49:12]Jeffrey Epstein during a congressional hearing and removing delegate Plask from the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence and referring her to the ethics committee for further investigation. After four years of
[49:24]silence on this matter, not a peep during the entire Biden administration, let me repeat that. After four years of silence on this matter about Jeffrey Epstein, House Democrats are now
[49:36]demanding transparency and accountability surrounding Jeffrey Epstein and his associates. While their fake outrage is clearly just another disgusting attempt to smear President
[49:46]Trump, House Republicans are taking this matter seriously and are working toward delivering the muchneeded transparency and accountability that the American people deserve. This resolution is
[49:58]accountability page one. During the House Oversight Committee's ongoing investigation into Jeffrey Epstein, emails obtained by a congressional subpoena. That's right. It
[50:09]was a the congressional subpoena by the House Oversight Committee, not the discharge petition that just got voted on. But this was the oversight committee's congressional subpoena has
[50:19]brought to light that in 2019, Delegate Stacy Plask coordinated her line of questioning questioning with Jeffrey Epstein in real time over text messages
[50:29]during an oversight committee hearing featuring testimony from Michael Cohen. Now, who was Michael Cohen? Michael Cohen was the disgraced former attorney
[50:39]of President Donald Trump. She was asking input from Jeffrey Epstein on how to best question Cohen. And Cohen was himself at that time a convicted felon
[50:49]from 2018. So now that Republicans are exposing Democrat ties to Jeffrey Epstein and his vile crimes, the other side of the aisle has flipped. They
[51:00]apparently no longer want transparency or accountability. Why? Because they don't want the truth. They want to weaponize a serious matter into a
[51:09]distraction. All in an attempt to take down President Trump and to hurt his administration and what he's doing to make America great again. The actions
[51:19]taken by Delegate Plasket reflect poorly on the House and this body needs to hold her accountable. I urge all of my colleagues to vote to adopt this resolution to show the American people
[51:29]that those who colluded with Mr. Epstein, including members of the House, will be held accountable. And this resolution is the beginning of that. I thank you and I yield back. Gentleman >> yields
[51:40]>> to the chair. >> Speaker, I reserve gentle from South Carolina reserves. Ger gentleman from Maryland is recognized. Proud to yield one minute to the distinguished minority leader, Hakeem Jeff. >> Minority leader is recognized.
[51:55]>> Uh thank you, Mr. Speaker. I thank the distinguished gentleman, my good friend from the great state of Maryland, the ranking uh Democrat on the judiciary committee for yielding. I rise today in
[52:04]strong opposition. This resolution, this effort to censure delegate plas to rip away her membership
[52:15]on the intel committee is nothing more than a political stunt by a desperate failed candidate for governor trying to pander to the people back in South
[52:27]Carolina. Nothing more than that. You want to make the statement about who's brought disgrace to the house. The actions of this House Republican
[52:38]majority have brought disgrace to the House House of Representatives from day one of this presidency. The reality is
[52:49]if you want to talk about feelalty to the Constitution and things of that nature, the House is a separate and co-equal branch of government. You don't seem to understand that you functioned
[53:00]from the very beginning of your so-called majority, Mr. Speaker, not as a check and balance on an outofc control administration, but as a
[53:12]reckless rubber stamp for Donald Trump's extreme agenda. And you are failing the American people. You failed to keep your core promise.
[53:22]Your core promise to the American people was that you were going to lower costs on day one. Costs haven't gone down here in the United States of America. Costs have gone up.
[53:34]The Trump economy is a complete and total failure. It's a disaster. The American people are hurting. And so every week you come to the House
[53:44]floor now that you've returned from your seven-week taxpayer funded vacation >> and come up with another stunt to try to distract the American people. Or perhaps
[53:55]you were ordered by your puppet master Donald Trump who wants to distract the American people today because his effort to suppress the
[54:05]Jeffrey Epstein files has failed spectacularly. We believe in transparency. We believe in accountability. We believe in due process. That's the opposite of what is
[54:16]happening on the floor today. And let me be very clear about Stacy Plask. She's a woman of great intelligence and a woman of great integrity.
[54:26]And she deserves better than what she's receiving from House Republican extremists. She deserves the opportunity to be
[54:36]heard. She deserves due process. She deserves the ability to make her case, not to be prosecuted by petty foggers
[54:46]playing lawyer on the floor of the House of Representatives. Google that if you don't know what it means. The so-called Freedom Caucus want to
[54:59]lecture us about proceeding at this moment. The actions that you continue to engage in will have consequences.
[55:11]Consequences today, consequences tomorrow, consequences next week, consequences next year, and certainly consequences when the American people throw this
[55:22]House Republican majority out in the aftermath of the election next November. Be very careful about the extreme actions that you continue to engage in.
[55:33]Now, that's extraordinary to me. Week after week, censure after censure, and I wonder, is it just coincidence
[55:44]that the last three censures we've had on the House floor happened to involve? First, you tried to censure
[55:55]Lam Monica Maccgyver >> and then, Mr. Speaker, Republicans tried to censure Ilhan Omar. And now we're on the floor and you're
[56:05]trying to censure Stacy Plask. >> What is it exactly that those three individuals have in common? >> House Republicans are going to have to
[56:15]answer for the things the extreme things that you continue to do. And the American people know this is a phony majority. It's a fake majority. It's not a real majority.
[56:27]Republicans aren't doing anything to make life better for the American people. And that's why we're on the floor right now. There's nothing that House
[56:37]Republicans can do to disgrace Stacy Plask because House Republicans continue to disgrace themselves. >> And so whatever happens
[56:50]later on this evening, the American people will hear from Delegate Plask beyond this making her case. The people of the Virgin Islands, I'm confident, will
[57:02]continue to stand behind her. And we will never be lectured on issues
[57:13]related to accountability and transparency and principle and ethics from this group of extreme House
[57:22]Republicans who continue to visit a national nightmare on the American people, bending the knee to a wannabe king, doing real harm in real time. And
[57:33]at the end of the day, your time is coming as well. I yield back. >> Gentlemen yields. [clears throat] How much time do we have, Mr. Speaker?
[57:44]>> Four and three. >> Gentleman has four and a half minutes. >> Three and a half minutes. All members are again reminded, including a minority leader, to direct your comments to the
[57:55]chair. All members are again instructed, including the minority leader, to refrain from engaging in personalities towards the president. >> The gentleman from Maryland seeks
[58:06]recognition. >> I know we will reserve. >> Gentleman from Maryland reserves. Gentleman from South Carolina. Speaker, I find it interesting that the minority leader mentioned that, you
[58:16]know, we got a not really a majority. I will tell you 77 million people are majority. uh they they rendered the consequences to elect the president that has revived
[58:27]this country from a disaster uh four years under the Biden administration. Let me um let's go back under a little bit of history here uh
[58:39]about the hearing. The messages show that uh Plaset texted Epstein before the hearing that started that day at 7:55.
[58:49]She texted him the sex offender, the predator on the children she says she protects.
[58:56]Uh they had comments like um uh she told him to told uh Miss Plask talk about his grades. She mentioned that she had a
[59:07]great looking outfit. It's from Mr. Epstein. Um, in 10:40 she broadcast a feed cut to Miss to Miss Plask showing her mouth her
[59:17]moving her mouth is as if she was chewing something. Uh, and the Miss Plask mentioned that she
[59:27]had multiple multiple texts. Well, according to the records, um, and I don't know how many of her texts came from those convicted of a of felonies,
[59:39]but on, um, at at 2 225, Epstein sent uh two 225 minutes be before Plask began
[59:49]questioning Cohen. At 228, Epstein messaged back, "Good work." at 2:34 one minute after Plasket finished her question to Cohen. So the whole five
[1:00:00]minutes was pretty much conducted under the direction of a con convicted pedophile. Um
[1:00:11]and this dialogue Miss Plask was reached by phone Thursday. Plask deni declined to answer questions about the text messages and directed all inquiries to
[1:00:22]congressional staff. Plask's chief of staff said Thursday she was not in a position to confirm or not whether the congresswoman was texting with Mr.
[1:00:32]Epstein at the hearing. She did not respond uh to follow-up questions. Bottom line, these are facts. These are text messages. She can't This wasn't
[1:00:42]smoking mirrors. So, it's interesting that uh they're taking that tact. Um but Mr. Speaker, how much time do I have left?
[1:00:53]>> Gentlemen has six and a half minutes remaining. >> I reserve. >> Gentleman from South Carolina reserves. Gentleman from Maryland. >> Uh I'm yielding one minute to the representative from New York, Miss Clark.
[1:01:04]>> General is recognized. >> Mr. Speaker, I rise today on behalf of the Congressional Black Caucus, the conscience of the Congress in strong opposition to this resolution. This
[1:01:15]resolution is a blatantly partisan, shameless attack. As we sit here today, Donald Trump is still the single person in this country with the authority and the ability to deliver justice to
[1:01:26]survivors and truth to the American people by just releasing the files. So instead of answering why Donald Trump chooses every single day not to release the Epstein files, they're pointing
[1:01:38]fingers at this side of the aisle. Mr. Speaker, unlike the president, Congresswoman Stacy Plask has committed no crime, violated no rule, and broken no promises. There has been no
[1:01:50]investigation, no due process, no inquiry into whether the congresswoman had any connection whatsoever to Epstein's despicable and disgusting criminal conduct. This resolution would
[1:02:01]have ha have us remove a capable and hardworking member of one of the most serious working committees in this body on the basis of a conversation from more
[1:02:12]than six years ago which broke no rules no rules and has no connection to any criminal activity. I urge my colleagues to vote no on this partisan resolution
[1:02:22]this sham and I yield back time is expired. We reserve gentleman from Maryland reserve. Gentleman from South Carolina. This >> week I reserve. >> Gentleman from South Carolina reserves.
[1:02:33]>> Um and we're prepared to close. >> It's closed. >> Yes. >> I'm prepared to close. >> All right.
[1:02:44]>> Gentleman from South Carolina is prepared to close. >> Maryland is recognized. >> Mr. Speaker, thank you very much. Um, I want to uh start by addressing uh the
[1:02:55]young people who appear to be in the audience this evening because I'm afraid some of my arguments are uh lost on some of our uh colleagues across the aisle suffering from Trump derangement syndrome. It seems to have completely
[1:03:06]warped their minds today and they're not thinking clearly about the Constitution or about the rule of law. But the young people here will recognize if they read this resolution immediately what's wrong
[1:03:17]with it because it it's replete with phrases like this that um uh this one incident that they're referring to raises serious questions about the
[1:03:28]judgment and the integrity and the fitness to serve. Well, I I I think that's absurd. But in any event, if you think it raises serious questions, presumably you would want the answers to
[1:03:39]those questions. But you don't get answers by rushing to judgment and turning the whole process upside down. This resolution starts by saying we censure her, we remove her from
[1:03:50]committee and the very next uh component of it says we direct the committee on ethics to conduct an investigation. That is the opposite of due process. And I
[1:04:00]hope at least future generations will understand that's not how we hold people accountable whether it's under criminal law, under civil law, or under uh an
[1:04:09]ethics process um which they, you know, purport to want to be launching here. Again, go back to the s the the George Santos standard. The reason we voted
[1:04:19]against just hanging him out to dry and centur centering him and expelling him is because the process hadn't happened yet. and Democrats and Republicans
[1:04:29]together did it, but they're thinking in solely partisan terms. Even Matt Gates accused of having sex with the 17-year-old was never censured by the
[1:04:40]House of Representatives. Even with Speaker McCarthy and others condemning him for what he did, we did not censure him. Think about what you're doing to
[1:04:51]the presidents of this body by trying to attack Miss Plask. And let me just close with a personal thought. I wasn't going to bring it up because I didn't want to
[1:05:01]embarrass her, but she was one of the three finest students I ever had in constitutional law. She was a straight A student in the early 1990s. She's a
[1:05:11]straight A student in the 21st century. I'm proud not only that she was my student, but that she's my friend and that she's my colleague. And you don't disgrace us in any way. You go to work
[1:05:22]every day for the people of Virgin Islands, and we're proud of you. With that, I'll yield back. >> Gentleman yields. Gentleman from South Carolina is recognized. >> Uh, Mr. Speaker, and I find it
[1:05:34]interesting that the president is occupying the minds of my good friend on the left, rent free, and um, it's interesting they bring him up every time and keep doing it. Keep doing it. Uh,
[1:05:44]this president's got a record that is second to none. Uh, and I hope our listeners in the audience can distinguish between just words and
[1:05:55]babbling on when they reject the facts of what's been presented. Texts don't lie. Um, and they can can offer all the
[1:06:05]excuses. And I I do think Miss Plus is a nice lady. She made a mistake here, a bad mistake. She took advice from a convicted pedophile that that is
[1:06:16]indefensible in this in this discussion here today. Mr. Speaker, I've listened to my colleagues defend the indefensible. I've heard everything from this is old news to this is just
[1:06:28]politics. But not a single person has dis disputed the key fact. Written records in Epstein's own estate documents show Delegate Plask sought his
[1:06:39]input for an official hearing. This is the issue that alone. Everything else is just noise. This chamber cannot
[1:06:49]overlook that a member of a sitting member of Congress coordinated with a convicted sex offender to prepare questions for an official proceeding.
[1:07:00]Imagine telling the American people that that's acceptable. Imagine explaining to parents all across this country that Congress sees no problem with relying on
[1:07:10]the counsel of a predator of our innocent children. Some of my colleagues want to blur the edges, soften the facts, or bury this
[1:07:21]under procedural fog, noise as I call it. But sunlight is the best disinfectant, and accountability is not optional. This resolution is not
[1:07:32]excessive at all. It is appropriate. It is measured. It is necessary at this time. The question before us is very
[1:07:41]simple. Do we uphold a minimal a minimal standard for ethical conduct or or do we just shrug and say well uh maybe next
[1:07:52]time? Mr. Speaker, the public deserves better. The house deserves better. The American people
[1:08:03]deserve better. I urge adoption of this resolution and I yield the balance of my time. [clears throat] Gentlemen yields. Without objection, the previous question is ordered on the resolution. The
[1:08:14]question is on the adoption of the resolution. Those in favor say I. >> Those opposed say no. >> No. Uh in the opinion of the chair,