[Congressional Record Volume 169, Number 197 (Thursday, November 30, 2023)]
[House]
[Pages H6015-H6021]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                              {time}  1445
           RAISING A QUESTION OF THE PRIVILEGES OF THE HOUSE

  Mr. D'ESPOSITO. Mr. Speaker, I rise to a question of the privileges 
of the House and offer the resolution that was previously noticed.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Moolenaar). The Clerk will report the 
resolution.
  The Clerk read as follows:

                              H. Res. 878

       Whereas Representative George Santos is a Member of the 
     United States House of Representatives;
       Whereas soon after his election in November 2022, 
     Representative Santos' background came under public scrutiny;
       Whereas, on February 28, 2023, the Committee on Ethics of 
     the House unanimously voted to impanel an Investigative 
     Subcommittee (hereinafter in this resolution referred to as 
     the ``ISC'') to review whether Representative Santos may have 
     engaged in unlawful activity with respect to his 2022 
     congressional campaign, failed to properly disclose required 
     information on statements filed with the House, violated 
     Federal conflict of interest laws in connection with his role 
     in a firm providing fiduciary services, and engaged in sexual 
     misconduct towards an individual seeking employment in his 
     congressional office;
       Whereas the ISC met nine times and, over the course of its 
     investigation, authorized 37 subpoenas and 43 voluntary 
     requests for information (RFIs) leading to its receipt of 
     over 172,000 pages of documents, contacted or interviewed 
     over 40 witnesses, and reviewed materials received from the 
     Office of Congressional Ethics and relevant court records;
       Whereas the ISC determined in its investigation that there 
     was substantial evidence of violations of Federal law, the 
     Rules of the House, and other applicable standards related to 
     many of the allegations charged in the indictment, and 
     substantial evidence of additional unlawful and unethical 
     conduct not charged in the indictment;
       Whereas these additional violations relate to falsely 
     reported loans reportedly received by his 2020 campaign and 
     leadership political action committee, GADS PAC, improper 
     loan repayments to himself, systemic reporting errors in his 
     2020 and 2022 campaign's Federal Election Commission filings, 
     and substantial evidence that campaign funds were converted 
     to personal use;
       Whereas the ISC also identified additional errors and 
     omissions in his 2020 and 2022 Financial Disclosure 
     Statements, as well as violations of Federal law and the 
     Rules of the House related to his unfiled 2021 and 2023 
     Financial Disclosure Statements, which were not charged in 
     the indictment;
       Whereas the ISC also found that Representative Santos 
     failed to meet his duty of candor with respect to the ISC's 
     investigation, and instead presented the ISC with 
     misrepresentations and delay tactics;
       Whereas, on May 10, 2023, Representative Santos was charged 
     in Federal court in the Eastern District of New York with 
     wire fraud in connection with a fraudulent political 
     contribution scheme, unlawful monetary transactions in 
     connection with the wire fraud allegations, theft of public 
     money in connection with his alleged receipt of unemployment 
     benefits, fraudulent application for and receipt of 
     unemployment benefits, and false statements in connection 
     with his 2020 and 2022 House of Representatives Financial 
     Disclosure Statements;
       Whereas Nancy Marks, who served as Treasurer to 
     Representative Santos' campaign, pleaded guilty to conspiracy 
     to commit wire fraud, falsifying records, and identity theft 
     in connection with the Santos campaign;
       Whereas a superseding indictment was filed on October 10, 
     2023, charging Representative Santos with additional 
     violations related to his 2022 campaign, including 
     allegations of falsifying Federal Election Commission reports 
     in connection with a $500,000 personal loan that was never 
     made, falsifying the names of contributors to his campaign, 
     engaging in aggravated identity theft and access device 
     fraud, and enriching himself through a fraudulent 
     contribution scheme;
       Whereas Sam Miele, who served as a fundraiser to 
     Representative Santos' campaign, pleaded guilty to a Federal 
     wire fraud charge after impersonating a senior congressional 
     aide for the purposes of soliciting funds;
       Whereas the ISC that was established to review the 
     allegations against Representative Santos adopted a report of 
     its findings and submitted the report to the full committee;
       Whereas the Committee on Ethics of the House unanimously 
     voted to adopt the ISC report based upon the investigation 
     providing substantial evidence that Representative Santos--
       (1) knowingly caused his campaign committee to file false 
     or incomplete reports with the Federal Election Commission, 
     used campaign funds for personal purposes, engaged in 
     fraudulent conduct in connection with RedStone Strategies 
     LLC, and engaged in knowing and willful violations of the 
     Ethics in Government Act as it relates to his Financial 
     Disclosure Statements filed with the House;
       (2) was a knowing and active participant in the wrongdoing; 
     and
       (3) was given an opportunity, pursuant to Committee Rule 
     17(b), to submit a signed written statement responding to the 
     allegations raised in a complaint filed by his fellow Members 
     but did not do so;
       Whereas the ISC--
       (1) requested that Representative Santos provide all 
     documents and information responsive to its Request for 
     Information, but he did not do so;
       (2) asked Representative Santos to voluntarily testify, but 
     he did not do so; and
       (3) provided Representative Santos the opportunity, 
     pursuant to Committee Rule 19(b)(3), to provide a statement 
     under oath, but he did not do so;
       Whereas as a Member of the United States House of 
     Representatives, Representative Santos must be held 
     accountable to the highest standards of conduct in order to 
     safeguard the public's faith in this institution;
       Whereas the Constitution of the United States charges the 
     House with policing the behavior of its own Members, and the 
     House should take action against Representative Santos 
     commensurate with his violations of Federal law and the Rules 
     of the House; and
       Whereas given his egregious violations, Representative 
     George Santos is not fit to serve as a Member of the United 
     States House of Representatives: Now, therefore, be it
       Resolved, That pursuant to article I, section 5, clause 2 
     of the Constitution of the United States, Representative 
     George Santos, be, and he hereby is, expelled from the United 
     States House of Representatives.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The resolution qualifies.
  Pursuant to clause 2 of rule IX, the gentleman from New York (Mr. 
D'Esposito) and the gentleman from New York (Mr. Santos) each will 
control 30 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New York (Mr. D'Esposito).
  Mr. D'ESPOSITO. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Speaker, we are here this afternoon at a point that none of us 
wanted to ever be at. The Ethics Committee of the House of 
Representatives has filed their report, which revealed a complex web of 
illegal activities that involved Representative George Santos' 
campaign, his personal finances, and business finances.
  Santos tried to exploit every aspect of his candidacy for personal 
financial gain. Records subpoenaed by the Committee on Ethics show that 
Congressman Santos stole from his campaign by deceiving donors into 
providing contributions that were actually payments for his personal 
benefit.
  Santos also reported fictitious loans to his political committees to 
induce

[[Page H6016]]

donors in party committees to contribute more to his campaign, keeping 
the elaborate scheme moving forward.
  George Santos is a liar; in fact, he has admitted to many of them. He 
has used his position of public trust to personally benefit himself 
from day one.
  Santos now faces 23 criminal charges in connection with his long list 
of misdeeds. We have already seen two former Santos staffers, including 
his former treasurer, plead guilty to Federal charges in connection 
with Santos' corrupt campaign.
  Despite blaming others, including his former treasurer for the 
numerous campaign violations, all signs point toward Mr. Santos that he 
knowingly and actively participated in a widespread misconduct of his 
campaign. In fact, the Ethics Committee records demonstrate this to a 
tee.
  George Santos has continuously said that he has not received his due 
process. I ask my colleagues: If we do not take the Ethics Committee 
and their results seriously, then why even have the committee in the 
first place?
  Through the ISC investigation, Santos has been awarded due process, 
and has been provided ample opportunity to be heard during both the 
investigation by the House Committee on Ethics and throughout the 
expulsion process.
  Even after being offered multiple opportunities to present his side 
of the story, Mr. Santos refused to engage with the Ethics Committee in 
good faith and refused to cooperate with those tasked with leading the 
investigation.
  The ISC report notes that he failed to submit a written response to 
the allegations. He failed to provide numerous documents requested. He 
refused to testify voluntarily. He failed to provide a statement under 
oath.
  Santos also informed the committee that if he was subpoenaed, he 
would plead the Fifth Amendment.
  We continually hear that the expulsion of Congressman Santos would 
set a new precedent. Mr. Speaker, it would.
  To my colleagues that have said that it would start a new precedent 
and to those that are here with us in this institution in this great 
Chamber today that are arguing about precedent, I would simply say 
this: The American people expect us to do the right thing. The American 
people are watching for us to do the right thing.
  Mr. Speaker, if we have an opportunity in this great institution to 
start a new precedent, one that means we hold Members of the House of 
Representatives to a higher standard, I am pretty confident that the 
American people would applaud that. I am pretty confident that the 
American people expect that.
  Mr. Speaker, I hope tomorrow in this great Chamber we set that 
precedent. I hope we set a precedent that we, as Members of America's 
oldest institution, are held to a higher standard.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. SANTOS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, every Member expelled in the history of this institution 
has been convicted of crimes or were Confederate turncoats guilty of 
treason. Neither of those apply to me, but here we are.
  On what basis does this body feel that precedent must be changed for 
me?
  Mr. Speaker, I am an American citizen, duly elected, and elected to 
represent the Third District of New York. I have been convicted of no 
crimes.
  My loyalty to this country that gave me life, liberty, and the 
pursuit of happiness is true and unquestionable. I stand here today 
debating for the second time in less than a month for the same exact 
reasons that were brought up last time.
  The difference is that one can say I have been indicted once more by 
the findings of the Ethics Committee--a process that, by the admission 
of the chair himself, was not complete and conclusive because they 
didn't want to put more time into it, as if this committee runs on a 
schedule that, quite frankly, is in a rush.
  Mr. Speaker, some Members have been under investigation for over 5 
years. Some leave while still under investigation. I am not trying to 
be arrogant or spiteful or disrespectful of the committee, but I am 
curious to know: What is the schedule of the Ethics Committee?
  Why rush this? To deliver a predetermined outcome sought out by some 
Members of our Conference or some Members of this body?
  This is what it looks like to me. It is a predetermined necessity for 
some Members in this body to engage in this smear campaign to destroy 
me. I will not stand by quietly. If they want me out of this body--the 
people of the Third District of New York sent me here--if they want me 
out, they are going to have to go silence those people and take the 
hard vote.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

                              {time}  1500

  Mr. D'ESPOSITO. Mr. Speaker, I am not sure how a predetermined 
outcome happens from a committee reviewing 170,000 pages of documents, 
numerous subpoenas, and weeks and months of investigation. I am not 
sure how a predetermined outcome is generated from that.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman 
from Mississippi (Mr. Guest), who is the chairman of the House Ethics 
Committee.
  Mr. GUEST. Mr. Speaker, George Santos has built his persona, his 
personal and his political life, on a foundation of lies. Many of those 
lies are well-documented. We know that Mr. Santos lied about his 
education, both graduate and postgraduate, claiming that he attended 
universities where he was never enrolled and claiming that he obtained 
degrees that he did not earn.
  We know that Mr. Santos lied about his employment when he claimed 
that he worked for two prestigious financial institutions, Citigroup 
and Goldman Sachs.
  We know that Mr. Santos lied about his religious faith when he said 
he was Jewish and then later, when called out, said he meant to say he 
was Jew-ish.
  We know Mr. Santos lied when he said that he had four employees who 
were killed in a mass shooting in Florida.
  Nonetheless, Mr. Speaker, those lies, while troubling, did not 
justify his removal from this body. However, these and other misleading 
statements reflect directly on Mr. Santos' credibility.
  In May, Mr. Speaker, George Santos said that he looked forward to 
seeing the ethics process play out and that if the committee finds 
reason to remove him, then that is the process.
  Today, Mr. Speaker, George Santos would have you believe that the 
process that he endorsed in May is fatally flawed and that he, instead, 
is the subject of a political witch hunt.
  Mr. Santos has described the report issued by the Ethics Committee as 
slanderous. He said that if there was a single ounce of ethics in the 
Ethics Committee then they would not have released the biased report. 
He referred to the report as a political hit piece.
  Mr. Speaker, I want to remind you that in March of this year, George 
Santos promised to fully cooperate with the ethics investigation. Just 
weeks ago, Mr. Santos said: I have been very cooperative since the 
investigation started, and I have no plans to change that.
  Nonetheless, Mr. Speaker, the record of the investigation reveals 
otherwise. The report of the Ethics Committee noted these things, Mr. 
Speaker: first, that Mr. Santos failed to submit a written response to 
the allegations filed by his fellow Members; that Mr. Santos failed to 
provide many of the documents requested by the investigative 
subcommittee; that when given an opportunity to provide a statement 
under oath that Mr. Santos declined to do so; and that when asked to 
voluntarily testify, Mr. Santos refused.
  The committee learned through his counsel that if the investigative 
subcommittee were to subpoena Mr. Santos that he would plead the Fifth 
Amendment and not give any testimony for fear that it may incriminate 
him.
  So while Mr. Santos has failed to speak with the committee, Mr. 
Speaker, he has spoken freely to the media. Just this past weekend, he 
was participating in a 3-hour X Livestream Podcast with Monica 
Matthews.
  In that 3-hour interview, he said:

       I have made it very clear, I am not running for reelection, 
     not because this was a damning report. I am not running for 
     reelection because I don't want to work with a bunch of

[[Page H6017]]

     hypocrites. It is gross. I have colleagues who are more 
     worried about getting drunk every night with the next 
     lobbyist that they are going to screw and pretend none of us 
     know what is going on, and sell off the American people, not 
     show up to vote because they are too hungover or whatever the 
     reason is or not show up to vote at all and just give their 
     card out like candy for someone else to vote for them.

  He went on to say regarding the Ethics report:

       It is flawed. It was designed to smear me. It was designed 
     to force me from my seat. That was the intention of the 
     report. This wasn't a finding of fact.

  So, Mr. Speaker, I want to talk a few minutes about the report of the 
investigative subcommittee and the report of the Ethics Committee and 
the work that they did over an 8-month period. I will tell you that the 
findings of the committee were shocking.
  We know that the Ethics Committee authorized 37 subpoenas, they 
issued 43 requests for information, they interviewed 40 witnesses, they 
reviewed 172,000 pages of documents, and they issued a 56-page 
investigation report.
  In addition to this 56-page investigation report, Mr. Speaker, these 
are the exhibits that they attached to the investigative report. The 
50-plus page report goes into great detail, and it paints a picture of 
the fraud committed by Mr. Santos. In many cases it also tracks the 
allegations for which Mr. Santos has been indicted in the Eastern 
District of New York.
  Mr. Speaker, if you look at the language of the report, the language 
of the report says, the investigative subcommittee revealed a complex 
web of unlawful activity involving Representative Santos' campaign, 
personal, and business finances.
  It says that Representative Santos sought to fraudulently exploit 
every aspect of his House candidacy for his own personal profit.
  The report says that he blatantly stole from his campaign and that he 
deceived donors into providing what they thought were contributions to 
his campaign, but they were, in fact, payments for his personal 
benefit.
  The report goes on to say that he reported fictitious loans to his 
political committees to induce donors and party committees to make 
further contributions to his campaign.
  Then later the report said that despite Santos' efforts to blame his 
former treasurer for the numerous campaign violations, the ISC's record 
demonstrates that Representative Santos knowingly and actively 
participated in the misconduct.

  Mr. Speaker, through records that were subpoenaed by the Ethics 
Committee, we learned that Mr. Santos spent campaign-related funds on 
personal rent, on personal credit card payments, and on ATM 
withdrawals. We know that he made luxury designer purchases at at least 
two high-end stores, that he spent money on payments made at OnlyFans, 
and that Mr. Santos spent almost $3,000 on Botox treatments, in 
addition to questionable expenses involving travel expenses for trips 
to Atlantic City; Las Vegas, Nevada; and The Hamptons.
  Mr. Speaker, in addition to this, there was additional fraud that was 
uncovered and contained in this report issued by the Ethics Committee.
  The Ethics Committee found in 2020 that bank records indicate that 
Mr. Santos was repaid over $29,000 for fictitious loans that he never 
made to his campaign.
  The report goes on to say that in 2021 he falsely reported loaning 
his campaign $580,000, and he falsely reported loaning an additional 
$25,000 to his leadership PAC.
  The report goes on to document that the committee found, according to 
bank records, that Mr. Santos transferred $200,000 from RedStone 
Strategies and they were found to be an unregistered super PAC 
controlled by Mr. Santos, and that he transferred in 2022 alone over 
$200,000 into his personal account.
  Mr. Speaker, I know that some Members of this body have expressed 
concern about due process. They believe that Mr. Santos was not given 
due process, therefore that this should not go forward.
  Mr. Speaker, I want to address the argument of due process. Mr. 
Speaker, you are well aware that due process was referred to in the 
Fifth and 14th Amendments. In the Fifth Amendment it says no person 
shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of 
law.
  We know the 14th Amendment then applies the Fifth Amendment to the 
States where it says no State shall deprive any person of life, 
liberty, or property without due process of law.
  Then as you are also well aware, Mr. Speaker, the Sixth Amendment 
talks about criminal proceedings and the rights that attach to a 
criminal proceeding.
  Mr. Speaker, we are not here today on a criminal proceeding. The 
rights of the Sixth Amendment do not apply, but due process under the 
Fifth and 14th Amendments do apply here at these proceedings, and so it 
is important to talk about due process.
  The due process that is contained in the Fifth and 14th Amendments, 
if you study due process, Mr. Speaker, you will know that there are two 
subsections; two components, if you will; two legs upon which due 
process must stand.
  That first subsection, that first leg, is substantive due process.
  What is substantive due process?
  Substantive due process asks this question: Is there a right to bring 
the action in question?
  Mr. Speaker, I say that there is. We know that that right exists 
because that right is found in the United States Constitution. The 
expulsion clause, which is found in Article I, Section 5, Clause 2 of 
the United States Constitution says this, Mr. Speaker: Each House may 
determine the rules of its proceedings, punish its Members for 
disorderly behavior, and, with the concurrence of a two-thirds vote, 
expel a Member.
  So, Mr. Speaker, I tell you that as it relates to substantive due 
process, clearly substantive due process applies in this case. 
Nonetheless, that second leg of the stool of due process, is procedural 
due process.
  Procedural due process is a process that governs the fairness of the 
proceedings.
  There are three primary requirements, three primary tenets of 
procedural due process.
  Those requirements are, first, was adequate notice given?
  Mr. Speaker, I hold in this case that adequate notice was given. 
Adequate notice was given by the fact that the investigative 
subcommittee notified Mr. Santos in February that the investigation was 
going to be ongoing. It actually had contact with him and his office 
well before that in January shortly after he was sworn in.
  I would argue that Mr. Santos had notice of this hearing because the 
motion was filed 2 weeks ago, the resolution was filed to expel him 
from this body. So, clearly, Mr. Santos has been given proper notice.
  The second requirement of due process says: Did Mr. Santos have an 
opportunity to be heard?
  Mr. Speaker, I will tell you that he has had an opportunity to be 
heard. He had an opportunity repeatedly to be heard by the Ethics 
Committee. He had the opportunity to submit a written statement, but he 
refused to do so. He had an opportunity to submit a statement under 
oath. He refused to do so. He had an opportunity to come in and 
testify, and he declined to do so.
  Even when faced with a subpoena, he was planning to come in before 
the Ethics Committee and exercise his Fifth Amendment right not to 
testify.
  So, Mr. Speaker, I hold that he has had ample opportunity to be heard 
by the investigative subcommittee, and he has been, once again, 
presented the opportunity here today, before this body and before the 
American people, he has the opportunity today to rebut the findings of 
the Ethics Committee. He has the opportunity to point out any errors or 
omissions that he claims are in the report.
  So, clearly, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Santos has had the opportunity to be 
heard.
  Then finally, the third and final point is the opportunity to have a 
fair tribunal. We are following the Constitution which says that the 
body of other elected Members, this body as a whole, must be the body 
that conducts a vote in this case.
  So, Mr. Speaker, I want to remind you of a statement I earlier 
referenced, that statement made by Mr. Santos in May, that statement 
where he said that he looked forward to seeing the ethics process play 
out and that if the Ethics Committee finds a reason to remove him, then 
that is the process.

[[Page H6018]]

  


                              {time}  1515

  Mr. Speaker, the Ethics Committee found substantial evidence--this is 
language taken directly from the report: Substantial evidence that 
Representative Santos knowingly caused his campaign to file false or 
incomplete reports with the Federal Election Commission.
  The Investigative Subcommittee found substantial evidence that he 
used campaign funds for personal purposes. It found substantial 
evidence that he engaged in fraudulent conduct in connections with 
RedStone Strategies, LLC. It found substantial evidence that Mr. Santos 
did knowingly and willfully engage in violations of the Ethics and 
Government Act.
  Mr. Speaker, I ask in accordance with Article I, Section 5, Clause 2 
of the United States Constitution, that all Members vote to support the 
expulsion of Representative Santos.
  Mr. SANTOS. Mr. Speaker, we hear a lot about process. We hear a lot 
about findings. Before I yield some time to my colleague from Texas, I 
just want to point out in the resolution that the distinguished 
chairman from Mississippi (Mr. Guest) filed, he states that I engaged 
in sexual misconduct when his own report states otherwise. That is just 
a clear evidence of how this process has been skewed, how this process 
is sloppy, and how it is contradictory to the core.
  The fact that in the report it states that that was not the case, but 
they still bring it to the floor of the House of Representatives shows 
you the lack of respect for one's reputation.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman 
from Texas (Mr. Nehls).
  Mr. NEHLS. Mr. Speaker, we are in unchartered waters. The swamp water 
is very murky and it is deep, and you try to navigate those treacherous 
waters. Every once in a while you try to find that safe lily pad to 
land on, but for George Santos there doesn't appear to be a safe lily 
pad.
  The United States' House of Representatives is attempting to expel a 
Member of Congress who has not been convicted of a crime. In the 
history of our country, Mr. Speaker, only five Members have been 
expelled from Congress.
  In 1861, John Clark, John Reid, and Henry Burnett were expelled on 
the grounds of treason for supporting the Confederate rebellion. In 
1980, Michael Myers was convicted of bribery involving an FBI sting 
that led to the convictions of seven Members of Congress.
  Six Members resigned, and Myers was expelled on a vote of 376-30.
  Then in 2002, James Traficant was convicted on 10 counts, including 
bribery, conspiracy to defraud the United States, corruption, and 
obstruction of justice.
  All five of these men had one thing in common: They were all 
convicted under Federal law and then rightfully expelled from Congress.
  Kicking out Mr. Santos is setting a very dangerous precedent. Never 
before has Congress expelled a Member based on indictments. Indictments 
require nothing more than probable cause. An indictment is not a 
conviction.
  Then why today would we remove a Member from this House based on an 
indictment? It has never been done before. It shouldn't happen today.
  In this country, I thought everyone is presumed innocent until proven 
guilty in a court of law. I do not and have not and will not support 
the removal of Representative Santos, and I encourage my colleagues to 
agree.
  Mr. D'ESPOSITO. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from 
Pennsylvania (Ms. Wild), the ranking member of the Ethics Committee.
  Ms. WILD. Mr. Speaker, as ranking member of the Committee on Ethics, 
I rise in support of H. Res. 878, which seeks to expel George Santos 
from the House of Representatives.
  One of our most basic obligations as Members of Congress is to adhere 
to the principle that public office is a public trust. As the Ethics 
Committee's report lays out in thorough detail, Mr. Santos has 
repeatedly, egregiously, and brazenly violated the public's trust. Mr. 
Santos is not a victim; he is a perpetrator of a massive fraud on his 
constituents and the American people.
  In fewer than 9 months, and despite Mr. Santos' noncooperation and 
numerous attempts to mislead the committee, the Ethics Committee 
compiled a staggering factual record against him. My colleague, 
Chairman Guest, has already outlined all of the subpoenas and pages of 
documents and witnesses, and I am not going to go through that again.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentlewoman has expired.
  Mr. D'ESPOSITO. Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 30 seconds to the 
gentlewoman from Pennsylvania.
  Ms. WILD. Mr. Speaker, this achievement owes to the superb work of 
the committee's nonpartisan attorneys and investigative staff who I 
would like to sincerely thank for their efforts and dedicated service 
to the House. I just want to remind everyone that the Ethics Committee 
is the only committee in Congress that is completely bipartisan, an 
equal number of Democrats and Republicans, and this was a unanimous 
decision.
  Mr. SANTOS. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Higgins).
  Mr. HIGGINS of Louisiana. Mr. Speaker, many times in the course of my 
life as a military police officer and civilian police officer, I have 
had occasion to say: Calm down, son. I have heard your argument. I feel 
your passion. I understand your position, but you are about to go too 
far. Just calm down and step back.
  This is what I advise my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to do. 
One of my brothers here, whom I love and respect, he is the man seated 
here, is making a mistake.
  Mr. Speaker, one of the gentleman said we should be held to a higher 
standard. We are talking about the removal of a Member of Congress. Do 
we want the American people to believe that the opinions of Congressmen 
is a higher standard than the deliberate vote of the American people? 
Is a report from a committee a higher standard than the 2-year election 
cycle as established by our Founding Fathers and enshrined in our 
Constitution?

  Let's calm down.
  Mr. Speaker, I have spoken for 7 years to this body here, and very 
rarely have I had a prepared statement, nor do I today, but I am going 
to read a letter that I distributed to my Republican colleagues for the 
benefit of my Democratic colleagues that did not receive a copy of the 
letter. Perhaps, I am wrong for that. I considered sending you all this 
letter. I did not, and I apologize for that. The media has gotten it. 
It is out there. It reads as follows:
  ``Although I completely respect the work of our colleagues on the 
Ethics Committee, I have serious concerns about the way this particular 
case is being handled, and I'll oppose the George Santos expulsion.
  ``In the 7 years I've been a Member of Congress, many Members have 
been subject to campaign expenditure ethics investigations. To my 
recollection, Members have always had the opportunity to settle the 
matter by restitution, even if they disagreed with the Ethics Committee 
conclusions. Further, in many prior instances of allegations of 
misconduct, I recall no massive media release from the Ethics 
Committee. After a bit of a whispered brush fire, the matter just went 
away. Maybe the Member left Congress, maybe the Member didn't leave 
Congress, but they weren't publicly crucified and expelled. The very 
fact that we have all read the `investigative report' indicates a level 
of public character assassination that I have not witnessed through 
four terms of congressional service. It's troubling to me, that a 
Republican-led Ethics Committee would present itself as so judgmental. 
Previous Ethics Committee investigations have always been conducted 
quietly, reflective of our constitutional standards of innocent until 
proven guilty in a court of law. Reports of similar allegations of 
campaign finance violations like family vacations overseas and cosmetic 
dental procedures and sexual adventures of every sort have not 
historically been released to the public. This particular Ethics 
Committee investigation seems to be quite public, and I am not seeing 
any allowance for the Member to make restitution of alleged campaign 
finance violations. Full media disclosure, combined with intention to 
move straight to expulsion, appears weaponized to me.
  ``Colleagues, you can believe what you like, but the 56-page 
`Investigative

[[Page H6019]]

Subcommittee Report' is most certainly not written within the 
parameters normally found in an unbiased, impartial investigative 
report. It's filled with conjecture, opinion, and pejorative language 
that no professional investigative report should include, no 
experienced cop would present to a D.A., and no impartial D.A. would 
ever present to a court as unbiased. You may accept this report as 
grounds for expulsion from Congress, but I say no. It's not right, the 
totality of circumstance appears biased, it stinks of politics, and 
I'll oppose this action in every way. Perhaps my colleagues should step 
back from expulsion, look in the mirror, reflect upon the long 
established historical record of congressional behavior, consider the 
Founders' intent, and let we the people of New York determine their 
Representative. This report is posing as an objective presentation of 
fact, yet it is most certainly written with notable disregard for 
professional objectivity, and it is wrapped in a media incensed public 
disclosure that any reasonable man can see is the congressional 
equivalent of a public crucifixion. I'm stunned that Members would 
cheer for this public shaming and expulsion. It's like witnessing an 
otherwise fair and compassionate village gather to celebrate the 
burning of an alleged witch.
  ``Since the Civil War, only two Members of Congress have been 
expelled, and both had been convicted in court of Federal crimes. 
That's the standard, and the House of Representatives should not 
deviate from that standard. I'm a solid no on expulsion, and I 
encourage every Member to carefully consider what kind of precedent we 
are setting.''
  Mr. Speaker, I appreciate this opportunity to encourage my colleagues 
sincerely on both sides of the aisle to step back from this expulsion.
  Mr. D'ESPOSITO. Mr. Speaker, I fully respect my friend from Louisiana 
and have much love for him. I want to reassure: No one is cheering for 
this Ethics report.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman 
from New York (Mr. LaLota), a fellow Long Islander and friend.
  Mr. LaLOTA. Mr. Speaker, I would like to address three issues in 
hopes of persuading my colleagues from both sides of the aisle who at 
this time are either against or undecided about expelling George Santos 
to ultimately vote ``yes.'' Those three issues are: fraud, due process, 
and election integrity.
  Regarding fraud, Mr. Speaker, both Federal and State laws would 
require jail time or a monetary fine or both for any of our 
constituents who tricked another person into an agreement to another 
American's disadvantage.
  Here, in the 2022 election, by his own admission, George Santos 
induced New York voters and donors throughout the Nation to support him 
by fraudulently creating an entire new person that donors and voters 
would support. Santos did this intentionally, figuring the uneducated, 
underemployed, and person of simple means he actually is could not earn 
the support of voters and donors.

                              {time}  1530

  The facts of George Santos' fraud are not in dispute. George Santos 
is not the person he offered to voters. He didn't work where he said he 
did. He didn't go to school where he said he did. He is far from rich. 
He is not Jewish. His mother was not in the South Tower during 9/11.
  Therefore, the argument that New Yorkers voted George Santos in and 
that we should wait until November 2024 for voters to decide his fate 
is inherently flawed since voters weren't given a fair chance to 
determine who they were actually voting for, Mr. Speaker.
  While our constituents would go to jail or be fined for similar lies, 
one question we have before us today is whether we are going to hold 
George Santos to the same standard to which our constituents are held 
or a lesser one.
  Regarding due process, Mr. Speaker, we should clear up some things. 
It has been a while since I took Professor Sample's civil procedures 
class or Professor Ku's constitutional law class, but the due process 
clauses in our Fifth and 14th Amendments do not apply to House 
proceedings.
  Rather, the constitutional proceeding which does apply here is 
Article I, Section 5, Clause 2, which states clearly and simply: ``Each 
House may determine the rules of its proceedings, punish its Members 
for disorderly behavior, and, with the concurrence of two-thirds, expel 
a Member.'' It is that simple, Mr. Speaker.
  While constitutional due process does not apply here, George Santos 
has actually been afforded every single element of it through the 
bipartisan Ethics Committee process. Due process requires notice and 
opportunity to be heard and a decision by a fair and impartial 
tribunal.
  First, Santos got his notice when the Ethics Committee informed him 
of the probe into his conduct.
  Second, Santos had every opportunity to be heard when the Ethics 
Committee invited him to confront the accusations against him, an 
invitation Santos rejected.
  Finally, his tribunal is us, the House of Representatives, whose 
collective impartiality is proven every day by the partisan fights we 
have day in and day out.
  Mr. Speaker, while this proceeding is not covered by the Due Process 
Clause, George Santos has indeed been afforded much more process than a 
person in his shoes deserves.
  Mr. Speaker, let me speak on the matter of election integrity. Before 
I came to the House, I was my county's elections commissioner for 7 
years, where I fought for more integrity in our elections. As elections 
commissioner, I fought for removing deceased voters from our rolls, for 
voter ID, against fraudulently submitted absentee ballots, and against 
voters being registered in two different places.
  Following the 2016 and 2020 elections, Members of Congress from both 
sides of the aisle voted not to certify those elections, stating the 
results were not reliable.
  Tomorrow, by voting ``yes'' to expulsion, Republicans and Democrats 
can stand for election integrity and against voter fraud because there 
is no more provable case of election fraud before this Congress than 
George Santos' 2022 election fraud.
  Mr. Speaker, I offer that New Yorkers from Queens and Nassau Counties 
deserve better than George Santos, a total fraud and serial liar, 
representing them in Congress. Each day that Mr. Santos is allowed to 
remain a Member of Congress, my New York neighbors to the west are 
being denied real representation in these Halls. That is because their 
Representative is incapable of getting a bill passed, a project funded, 
or even sitting on a committee because he lacks the minimum amount of 
trust necessary to be a Member of Congress.
  Today, the best way to support my fellow New Yorkers and overcome 
George Santos' fraud is to expel George Santos from the House of 
Representatives.
  Mr. SANTOS. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Gaetz).
  Mr. GAETZ. Mr. Speaker, I do not believe that the Long Island crew is 
acting in bad faith, just exceedingly bad judgment. Here is why. Since 
the beginning of this Congress, there are only two ways you get 
expelled: You get convicted of a crime, or you participated in the 
Civil War. Neither apply to George Santos.
  I rise not to defend George Santos, whoever he is, but to defend the 
very precedent that my colleagues are willing to shatter.
  Let's speak to due process. Mr. Santos hasn't been convicted of 
anything, but we haven't even moved to expel the people who have.
  Mr. Bowman pled guilty to a misdemeanor for his little fire alarm 
stunt weeks ago. While the Ethics Committee is marching to throw George 
Santos out of Congress, they take no action as to someone who actually 
pled guilty to a crime? What is that all about?
  Then, there is all this talk about, well, he could have testified to 
the Ethics Committee, and he didn't, so he had his due process. That 
belies the fact that he faces a trial. Had Mr. Santos testified before 
the Ethics Committee, an argument could have been made that he waived 
any of his rights that he would have had at trial, that any American 
would enjoy. It was a procedural double bind that shouldn't be held 
against Mr. Santos as some sort of adverse inference.

[[Page H6020]]

  Let's also talk about this precedent. The fact pattern as to Mr. 
Santos is remarkably similar to the fact pattern of former 
Representative Duncan Hunter. Duncan Hunter used campaign money on 
girlfriends, trips, home improvements, and all sorts of personal 
lavishes. He was indicted for those crimes and continued to serve in 
Congress. He pled guilty to a number of those crimes and continued to 
serve in Congress. He was in Congress for, like, an additional pay 
period after having pled guilty to the very same things that Mr. Santos 
has been indicted for.
  I think it is persuasive to me that Mr. Higgins and Mr. Nehls, two 
law enforcement officials with sterling reputations, are here not 
necessarily to defend Mr. Santos but to defend this precedent and this 
due process that is being shattered.

  I was struck when the author of this resolution said the quiet part 
out loud. He didn't try to shoehorn the expulsion of George Santos into 
some existing construct or precedent. He said, yep, we are making a 
whole new precedent, and we are making whole new rules right now. 
However, he defends that by saying that the new rules are better, that 
it is a higher standard, so we should just throw away everything that 
has happened from the First Congress to the 118th because the new 
precedent is more robust. The problem is, it is a lower standard for 
due process without merit.
  Mr. Speaker, whatever Mr. Santos did with Botox or OnlyFans is far 
less concerning to me than the indictment against Senator Menendez, who 
is holding gold bars inscribed with Arabic on them from Egypt while he 
is still getting classified briefings today. He is not getting thrown 
out of the Senate. He is getting classified briefings. He is under 
indictment for bribery, but because Santos was buying Botox and 
OnlyFans, we have to throw him out?
  If George Santos is convicted, he ought to be expelled. Until then, 
it is an incredibly dangerous thing for people in Washington, D.C., to 
substitute their judgment for the judgment of voters.
  Winston Churchill said that in a democracy people get the government 
that they deserve. Well, the people of Mr. Santos' district elected 
him. This is not some district in rural Mississippi with, like, one 
newspaper. This is New York City, and George Santos rolls in there, 
wins, and do you know what? It is between him and his voters, him and 
the justice system.
  The fact that the Ethics Committee has done this incredible violation 
of precedent will do grave damage to this institution for many years to 
come because now there is no requirement for any conviction. There is a 
departure from the precedent from the Duncan Hunter matter and many 
others, and I fear that may indicate what lies ahead for the future of 
due process in the House of Representatives.
  Mr. D'ESPOSITO. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
California (Mr.  Robert Garcia).
  Mr. ROBERT GARCIA of California. Mr. Speaker, truth and justice are 
crucial components of a healthy and strong democracy. It speaks to the 
public trust we hold and the dignity of this institution.
  As a freshman Member of Congress, I take the oath very seriously. I 
love this country deeply, and we should all have intentions to defend 
it.
  That is why I rise today to defend the integrity of the House and to 
support the expulsion of Representative Santos. I wish no personal harm 
to the Representative from New York, and I imagine it is a difficult 
moment for him and for the institution. However, I believe strongly 
that he must be held accountable for his actions as well as his lies.
  He fabricated his qualifications and his background. He lied to the 
FEC and participated in unemployment fraud. That is why he is under a 
serious 23-count indictment.
  The bipartisan report is out. It is damning. It should convince all 
Members to vote for this expulsion.
  People want better from Congress. They want good and ethical 
government. They deserve the truth.
  I once again ask the Representative from New York to resign and save 
himself and the country from this vote. If not, I encourage a ``yes'' 
vote to restore integrity to the body and to expel Representative 
Santos.
  Mr. SANTOS. Mr. Speaker, you know, I hear a lot the lines, ``I 
encourage Representative Santos to resign,'' and, ``Do the right 
thing,'' which is resign. What I hear is people don't want to take this 
vote.
  I am just here. I am willing to take the vote. Take the vote, guys. I 
am okay with it. This is your time. This is what they have all built up 
to all year.
  The most damning feature of this farce is the total perversion of the 
priorities of this body and this Conference, which ran on the 
Commitment to America.
  Yes, witch hunting George Santos is great. Right there, I remember 
that on the top line of the Commitment to America.
  This Conference has failed to pass four different appropriations 
bills, Mr. Speaker. It had rules fail on the floor. We had Members 
weaponizing the Rules Committee because it didn't do what they wanted. 
Our borders are wide open. It is a no man's land being run by NGOs.
  Yet, this Congress has now taken three measures and the 
insurmountable amount of time that goes behind them to expel a Member 
duly elected by the people of the Third District of New York.
  I didn't think that my tenure in Congress would be this way, Mr. 
Speaker. I came here to do work. I came here to pass and work on 
conservative legislation. I have a stellar conservative record that I 
am proud of. The work I have done in this body I am proud of. The votes 
I have taken in this body I am proud of. Every vote that I have taken 
that might have been against leadership, I stand by those votes not 
because I disrespect leadership but because I want a more conservative 
agenda for our country.

  Now, I can't say the same thing about some of my colleagues, 
especially the ones most adamant to remove me, almost as if we remove 
him, there is no comparison. It is that much simpler. They can go home 
and say they are conservative. They won't know what a real conservative 
will look like on Long Island. That is just the reality. The votes are 
there.
  Now, let's talk about the fact of due process that everybody seems to 
say that I have taken and have received. You know, it is no secret in 
this body that, obviously, I have an ongoing process with the DOJ. I 
was given a deadline, an unrealistic deadline, to testify before the 
committee the same day that I had to go to court. They gave us a hard-
line, yes or no answer. They wouldn't settle for anything else.
  That was the deadline. I could not surpass that date, which means it 
was either I go to New York City to adhere to my DOJ case or go to the 
Ethics Committee. No disrespect to the committee--I have incurred over 
$200,000 of legal fees that have been predominantly paid for, so to 
suggest that I have not complied with them is yet another lie.
  They have received every document they have asked for. Documents we 
did not have, we have told them that we don't have them. We don't have 
access to what you are asking for. They persisted and insisted in 
inventing documents, communication between myself and people that did 
not exist--thus, communication. We informed them. This was all on the 
record.
  However, I rise and question again to the chairman: Will he set the 
record straight that his expulsion resolution contradicts the findings 
of his report? Which one is it? Am I guilty of a sexual harassment 
claim, or am I not? The report says I am not. His filing on this 
expulsion resolution says I am. That is a very serious allegation, one 
that I sought to see the end of where the Office of Congressional 
Ethics sent a referral to the investigative subcommittee saying that 
they did not suggest further investigation into the matter because it 
lacked credibility, yet it sits on their expulsion resolution.

                              {time}  1545

  Mr. SANTOS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I call that hypocrisy, more lying, more swamp behavior 
from this body, the same reason that Americans have no trust in this 
body because unfortunately, far too often too many of our colleagues 
here will speak from both sides of their mouths without regard to who 
it might hurt.

[[Page H6021]]

  As it is said, people in this town will hurt people a whole lot so 
they can benefit just a little bit.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. D'ESPOSITO. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire as to how much time is 
remaining.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from New York (Mr. D'Esposito) 
has 2 minutes remaining.
  Mr. D'ESPOSITO. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
New York (Mr. Molinaro).
  Mr. MOLINARO. Dear God, Mr. Speaker, my future former colleague is 
divorced from reality. He has manufactured his entire life to defraud 
the voters of his district of an honest choice for a Member of 
Congress.
  He has lied to donors and to colleagues, taking advantage of election 
law, using campaign funds to personally benefit himself, and he has 
defamed not only his office but the institution itself.
  I was not elected, nor any of us, to defend a precedent. I was 
elected to defend the United States Constitution. My colleague, in the 
most truthful thing he said today, said, we don't want to be compared 
to him. My colleague is damn right. I do not want to be compared to 
him.
  The voters that sent me here expect an independent voice, expect us 
to use the rules of the House, and expect us to stand up for the very 
decency and laws of this country in protecting the Constitution.
  He has lost the right to serve in this House, and I will vote to 
expel him.
  Mr. SANTOS. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. D'ESPOSITO. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire as to how much time is 
remaining.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from New York (Mr. D'Esposito) 
has 1 minute remaining.
  Mr. D'ESPOSITO. Mr. Speaker, I yield 45 seconds to the gentleman from 
New York (Mr. Lawler).
  Mr. LAWLER. Mr. Speaker, of all the lies that George Santos told, two 
are the most jarring: that his mother perished in 9/11--was in the 
building, got cancer from 9/11, or that his parents or grandparents 
fled the Holocaust. In both instances, Mr. Santos used tragic events in 
history to try and propel himself to public office.
  Worse than that, he not only defrauded the voters of the Third 
District, he also defrauded donors, stealing their money for personal 
gain.
  The facts and the evidence are clear. He can defend himself in a 
court of law, but for the purposes of this body, he has to go. It is 
time to expel George Santos.
  Mr. SANTOS. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire as to how much time is 
remaining.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from New York (Mr. Santos) has 
8 minutes remaining.
  Mr. SANTOS. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. D'ESPOSITO. May I inquire as to how much time is remaining.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from New York (Mr. D'Esposito) 
has 15 seconds remaining.
  Mr. D'ESPOSITO. Mr. Speaker, I yield 15 seconds to my friend from 
Ohio (Mr. Miller).
  Mr. MILLER of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I will keep this very brief.
  I, myself, have been a victim of George Santos, as well as other 
Members of Congress, in terms of defrauding through public donations.
  I received an ethics complaint from the FEC for which I had to spend 
tens of thousands to defend myself.
  You, sir, are a crook.
  I know I should direct my comments to the Chair.
  Mr. SANTOS. Mr. Speaker, I move to have the gentleman from Ohio's 
words stricken from the record, please.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman's request is not timely. I 
would remind Members to direct their remarks to the Chair.
  Mr. SANTOS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  Mr. Speaker, hypocrisy, as I mentioned. My colleague wants to come up 
here and call me a crook, the same colleague who is accused of being a 
woman beater.
  Are we really going to ignore the fact that we all have pasts, and we 
all have the media coming out against us on a daily basis?
  Every last one of us has struggled with every little ounce of what 
happens in public service. I can go and read about all my colleagues.
  I am not going to stand here to smear them. I am not going to stand 
here and use the time I have to say ill things about my colleagues. I 
refuse to stoop to that level.
  The only thing I want to make clear is if tomorrow when this vote is 
on the floor, it is in the conscience of all my colleagues that they 
believe that this is the correct thing to do, so be it.
  Take the vote. I am at peace. Whether I get expelled or I don't, I 
have accepted that I cannot control that fate, Mr. Speaker.
  I have done the best I can to serve in this body and to deliver the 
best I can in my campaign promises to vote as a conservative voice in 
this body. I stand by that.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman 
from Louisiana (Mr. Higgins).
  Mr. HIGGINS of Louisiana. Mr. Speaker, what I ask of my colleagues, 
again, very respectfully on both sides of the aisle, is to just step 
back from this moment and reflect upon the sacred right of the American 
people to determine their representation in our representative 
Republic. This is not a right that has been enumerated for this 
Congress.
  The American people run this thing. I believe the people of the Third 
District of New York are quite capable of removing Representative 
Santos if they choose to do so.
  In the history of our Nation, we have never done what we are poised 
to do. Since the Civil War, two Members of Congress have been removed 
by expulsion, both having been convicted of Federal crimes. The people 
of these United States own the sacred right to remove their 
Representative.
  This is reflective of our oath. I say this sincerely to my beloved 
colleagues, to step back from this egregious act that you have 
threatened.
  Reflect upon the American people that we serve, the oath that we have 
sworn, and allow the people of New York to cast their vote as they see 
fit.
  Mr. Speaker, I am prayerful that righteousness will, indeed, touch 
the heart of every Member of Congress in this consideration, just as I 
am prayerful that righteousness touches the heart as voting Americans 
across the country determine who their Representative will be.
  I have faith that this anointed Nation, touched by the hand of God as 
our Constitution was debated and developed and the writ thereof was 
determined, I have faith in that document, and I am prayerful that my 
colleagues Republican and my colleagues Democrat will grant that sacred 
right as determined by our Constitution to the people to whom it 
belongs--in this case, the people of the Third District of New York.
  Mr. Speaker, I encourage all Members to oppose the expulsion of 
Representative George Santos.
  Mr. SANTOS. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. D'ESPOSITO. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection, the previous question is 
ordered on the resolution.
  There was no objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on adoption of the 
resolution.
  The question was taken.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. In the opinion of the Chair, two-thirds 
being in the affirmative, the ayes have it.
  Mr. SANTOS. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, further 
proceedings on this question are postponed.

                          ____________________