[Congressional Record Volume 171, Number 194 (Tuesday, November 18, 2025)]
[House]
[Pages H4737-H4746]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
NOTICE OF INTENTION TO OFFER RESOLUTION RAISING A QUESTION OF THE
PRIVILEGES OF THE HOUSE
Mr. NORMAN. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to clause 2(a)1 of rule IX, I rise
to give notice of my intention to raise a question of the privileges of
the House.
The form of the resolution is as follows:
Censuring and condemning Delegate Stacey Plaskett and removing her
from the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence for conduct
that reflects discreditably on the House of Representatives for
colluding with convicted felony sex offender Jeffrey Epstein during a
congressional hearing.
Whereas Stacey Plaskett, the Delegate representing the United States
Virgin Islands in the House of Representatives, inappropriately
coordinated with convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein in a
congressional hearing in February 2019;
Whereas Delegate Plaskett was actively coached by Epstein during the
hearing, received instructions on specific lines of questioning, and
was congratulated afterwards with the message ``Good work'';
Whereas Jeffrey Epstein was a known, convicted felony sex offender,
having pled guilty and been convicted for procuring a child for
prostitution and of soliciting a prostitute in a plea deal in 2008, and
served a 13 month sentence;
Whereas in the course of that investigation, the FBI compiled reports
on dozens of confirmed minors who credibly alleged sexual abuse by
Epstein;
Whereas Epstein was under further Federal investigation beginning in
November 2018, two months before Delegate Plaskett's recently revealed
text exchange during a congressional hearing, following investigative
reporting by the Miami Herald detailing Epstein's controversial 2008
plea deal and highlighting accounts of his victims;
Whereas Epstein was arrested in July 2019 and charged with one count
of sex trafficking of minors and one count of conspiracy to commit sex
trafficking of minors, and he was later found dead in the New York
Metropolitan Correctional Center;
Whereas according to documents released from Epstein's estate, during
a House Committee on Oversight and Reform hearing featuring testimony
from Michael Cohen, disgraced former attorney to President Donald J.
Trump, Delegate Plaskett coordinated her line of questioning with
Jeffrey Epstein in real-time over text message while the hearing was
underway;
Whereas Delegate Plaskett, who previously served as an assistant
attorney general in the U.S. Department of Justice Civil Division, is
known to have had extensive political, personal and professional
connections with Epstein after his conviction as a sex offender up to
the time of his arrest and then death in 2019;
Whereas Delegate Plaskett's relationship with Epstein stands in stark
contrast to the public image she has curated for herself as a defender
of justice and accountability while secretly collaborating with an
individual whose crimes against vulnerable women and children shocked
the nation;
Whereas Delegate Plaskett's willingness to receive instructions on
official congressional proceedings from Epstein, a convicted felony sex
offender with deeply concerning international associations, is
especially alarming and inappropriate given her own past service in the
U.S. Department of Justice and her current role on the House Permanent
Select Committee on Intelligence, and raises serious questions about
Delegate Plaskett's judgement, integrity, and fitness to serve; and
Whereas such associations erode public trust in Congress,
particularly when they involve using input from a sex offender to
advance partisan attacks during official proceedings: Now, therefore,
be it
Resolved,
Section 1. Censure of Delegate Stacey Plaskett.
The House of Representatives--
(1) censures and condemns Delegate Stacey Plaskett for inappropriate
coordination with convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein during a
Congressional Hearing, which reflects discreditably on the House of
Representatives; and
(2) directs the Committee on Ethics to conduct a full investigation
into the extent of Plaskett's ties to Epstein and any potential further
improprieties.
SEC. 2. Removal from House Permanent Select Committee on
Intelligence.
The following named Member be, and is hereby, removed from the
following committee of the House of Representatives:
Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence: Ms. Plaskett.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair will now recognize the gentleman
from South Carolina to offer the resolution just noticed.
Does the gentleman from South Carolina offer the resolution?
Mr. NORMAN. Mr. Speaker, I do.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will report the resolution.
The Clerk read the resolution as follows:
H. Res. 888
Whereas Stacey Plaskett, the Delegate representing the
United States Virgin Islands in the House of Representatives,
inappropriately coordinated with convicted sex offender
Jeffrey Epstein in a congressional hearing in February 2019;
Whereas Delegate Plaskett was actively coached by Epstein
during the hearing, received instructions on specific lines
of questioning, and was congratulated afterwards with the
message ``Good work'';
Whereas Jeffrey Epstein was a known, convicted felony sex
offender, having pled guilty and been convicted for procuring
a child for prostitution and of soliciting a prostitute in a
plea deal in 2008, and served a 13 month sentence;
Whereas in the course of that investigation, the FBI
compiled reports on dozens of confirmed minors who credibly
alleged sexual abuse by Epstein;
Whereas Epstein was under further Federal investigation
beginning in November 2018, two months before Delegate
Plaskett's recently revealed text exchange during a
congressional hearing, following investigative reporting by
the Miami Herald detailing Epstein's controversial 2008 plea
deal and highlighting accounts of his victims;
Whereas Epstein was arrested in July 2019 and charged with
one count of sex trafficking of minors and one count of
conspiracy to commit sex trafficking of minors, and he was
later found dead in the New York Metropolitan Correctional
Center;
Whereas according to documents released from Epstein's
estate, during a House Committee on Oversight and Reform
hearing featuring testimony from Michael Cohen, disgraced
former attorney to President Donald J. Trump, Delegate
Plaskett coordinated her line of questioning with Jeffrey
Epstein in real-time over text message while the hearing was
underway;
Whereas Delegate Plaskett, who previously served as an
assistant attorney general in the U.S. Department of Justice
Civil Division, is known to have had extensive political,
personal and professional connections with Epstein after his
conviction as a sex offender up to the time of his arrest and
then death in 2019;
Whereas Delegate Plaskett's relationship with Epstein
stands in stark contrast to the public image she has curated
for herself as a defender of justice and accountability while
secretly collaborating with an individual whose crimes
against vulnerable women and children shocked the nation;
Whereas Delegate Plaskett's willingness to receive
instructions on official congressional proceedings from
Epstein, a convicted felony sex offender with deeply
concerning international associations, is especially alarming
and inappropriate given her own past service in the U.S.
Department of Justice and her current role on the House
Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, and raises
serious questions about Delegate Plaskett's judgement,
integrity, and fitness to serve; and
Whereas such associations erode public trust in Congress,
particularly when they involve using input from a sex
offender to advance partisan attacks during official
proceedings: Now, therefore, be it
[[Page H4738]]
Resolved,
SECTION 1. CENSURE OF DELEGATE STACEY PLASKETT.
The House of Representatives--
(1) censures and condemns Delegate Stacey Plaskett for
inappropriate coordination with convicted sex offender
Jeffrey Epstein during a Congressional Hearing, which
reflects discreditably on the House of Representatives; and
(2) directs the Committee on Ethics to conduct a full
investigation into the extent of Plaskett's ties to Epstein
and any potential further improprieties.
SEC. 2. REMOVAL FROM HOUSE PERMANENT SELECT COMMITTEE ON
INTELLIGENCE.
The following named Member be, and is hereby, removed from
the following committee of the House of Representatives:
Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence: Ms. Plaskett.
{time} 1520
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The resolution qualifies.
Motion to Refer
Ms. CLARK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I have a motion at the desk.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will report the motion.
The Clerk read as follows:
Ms. Clark of Massachusetts moves to refer the resolution to
the Committee on Ethics.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentlewoman from Massachusetts is
recognized for 1 hour.
Ms. CLARK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as
I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, today, we have finally taken a vote that recognizes the
need for the survivors and victims of Jeffrey Epstein to have justice
and transparency. Not minutes later, the gentleman from South Carolina
(Mr. Norman) is filing yet another partisan resolution.
I ask all of my colleagues to support this motion to refer this to
the Ethics Committee.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time and move the
previous question on the motion.
The previous question was ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion to refer.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the noes appeared to have it.
Ms. CLARK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas
and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. This will be a 5-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 213,
nays 214, not voting 6, as follows:
[Roll No. 293]
YEAS--213
Adams
Aguilar
Amo
Ansari
Auchincloss
Balint
Barragan
Beatty
Bell
Bera
Bishop
Bonamici
Boyle (PA)
Brown
Brownley
Budzinski
Bynum
Carbajal
Carson
Carter (LA)
Case
Casten
Castor (FL)
Castro (TX)
Cherfilus-McCormick
Chu
Cisneros
Clark (MA)
Clarke (NY)
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Conaway
Correa
Costa
Courtney
Craig
Crockett
Crow
Cuellar
Davids (KS)
Davis (IL)
Davis (NC)
Dean (PA)
DeGette
DeLauro
DelBene
Deluzio
DeSaulnier
Dexter
Dingell
Doggett
Elfreth
Escobar
Espaillat
Evans (PA)
Fields
Figures
Fletcher
Foster
Foushee
Frankel, Lois
Friedman
Frost
Garamendi
Garcia (CA)
Garcia (IL)
Garcia (TX)
Gillen
Golden (ME)
Goldman (NY)
Gomez
Gonzalez, V.
Gooden
Goodlander
Gottheimer
Gray
Green, Al (TX)
Grijalva
Harder (CA)
Hayes
Himes
Horsford
Houlahan
Hoyer
Hoyle (OR)
Huffman
Ivey
Jackson (IL)
Jacobs
Jayapal
Jeffries
Johnson (GA)
Johnson (TX)
Joyce (OH)
Kamlager-Dove
Kaptur
Keating
Kelly (IL)
Kennedy (NY)
Khanna
Krishnamoorthi
Landsman
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Latimer
Lee (NV)
Lee (PA)
Leger Fernandez
Levin
Liccardo
Lieu
Lofgren
Lynch
Magaziner
Mannion
Matsui
McBath
McBride
McClain Delaney
McClellan
McCollum
McDonald Rivet
McGarvey
McGovern
McIver
Meeks
Menendez
Meng
Mfume
Min
Moore (WI)
Morelle
Morrison
Moskowitz
Moulton
Mrvan
Mullin
Nadler
Neal
Neguse
Norcross
Ocasio-Cortez
Olszewski
Omar
Pallone
Panetta
Pappas
Pelosi
Perez
Peters
Pettersen
Pingree
Pocan
Pou
Pressley
Quigley
Ramirez
Randall
Raskin
Riley (NY)
Rivas
Ross
Ruiz
Ryan
Salinas
Sanchez
Scanlon
Schakowsky
Schneider
Scholten
Schrier
Scott (VA)
Scott, David
Sewell
Sherman
Simon
Smith (WA)
Sorensen
Soto
Stansbury
Stanton
Stevens
Strickland
Subramanyam
Suozzi
Swalwell
Sykes
Takano
Thanedar
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Titus
Tlaib
Tokuda
Tonko
Torres (CA)
Torres (NY)
Trahan
Tran
Underwood
Vargas
Vasquez
Veasey
Velazquez
Vindman
Walkinshaw
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watson Coleman
Whitesides
Williams (GA)
Wilson (FL)
NAYS--214
Aderholt
Alford
Allen
Amodei (NV)
Arrington
Babin
Bacon
Baird
Balderson
Barr
Barrett
Baumgartner
Bean (FL)
Begich
Bentz
Bergman
Bice
Biggs (AZ)
Biggs (SC)
Bilirakis
Boebert
Bost
Brecheen
Bresnahan
Buchanan
Burchett
Burlison
Calvert
Cammack
Carey
Carter (GA)
Carter (TX)
Ciscomani
Cline
Cloud
Clyde
Cole
Collins
Comer
Crane
Crank
Crawford
Crenshaw
Davidson
De La Cruz
DesJarlais
Diaz-Balart
Donalds
Downing
Dunn (FL)
Edwards
Ellzey
Emmer
Estes
Evans (CO)
Ezell
Fallon
Fedorchak
Feenstra
Fine
Finstad
Fischbach
Fitzgerald
Fitzpatrick
Fleischmann
Flood
Fong
Foxx
Franklin, Scott
Fry
Fulcher
Gill (TX)
Gimenez
Goldman (TX)
Gonzales, Tony
Gosar
Graves
Greene (GA)
Griffith
Grothman
Guest
Guthrie
Hageman
Hamadeh (AZ)
Haridopolos
Harrigan
Harris (MD)
Harris (NC)
Harshbarger
Hern (OK)
Higgins (LA)
Hill (AR)
Hinson
Houchin
Hudson
Huizenga
Hunt
Hurd (CO)
Issa
Jack
Jackson (TX)
James
Johnson (LA)
Johnson (SD)
Jordan
Joyce (PA)
Kean
Kelly (MS)
Kelly (PA)
Kennedy (UT)
Kiggans (VA)
Kiley (CA)
Kim
Knott
Kustoff
LaHood
LaLota
LaMalfa
Langworthy
Latta
Lawler
Lee (FL)
Letlow
Loudermilk
Lucas
Luna
Luttrell
Mace
Mackenzie
Malliotakis
Maloy
Mann
Massie
Mast
McCaul
McClain
McClintock
McCormick
McDowell
McGuire
Messmer
Meuser
Miller (IL)
Miller (OH)
Miller (WV)
Miller-Meeks
Mills
Moolenaar
Moore (AL)
Moore (NC)
Moore (UT)
Moore (WV)
Moran
Murphy
Nehls
Newhouse
Norman
Nunn (IA)
Obernolte
Ogles
Onder
Owens
Palmer
Patronis
Perry
Pfluger
Reschenthaler
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rose
Rouzer
Roy
Rutherford
Salazar
Scalise
Schmidt
Schweikert
Scott, Austin
Self
Sessions
Shreve
Simpson
Smith (MO)
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smucker
Spartz
Stauber
Stefanik
Steil
Steube
Strong
Stutzman
Taylor
Tenney
Thompson (PA)
Tiffany
Timmons
Turner (OH)
Valadao
Van Drew
Van Duyne
Van Orden
Wagner
Walberg
Weber (TX)
Webster (FL)
Westerman
Wied
Williams (TX)
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Yakym
Zinke
NOT VOTING--6
Beyer
Casar
Garbarino
Rulli
Sherrill
Womack
{time} 1531
Mr. Rogers of Kentucky changed his vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
So the motion to refer was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
PERSONAL EXPLANATION
Mr. WOMACK. Mr. Speaker, I was unavoidably absent and unable to vote.
Had I been present, I would have voted AYE on Roll Call No. 289, AYE on
Roll Call No. 290, AYE on Roll Call No. 291, AYE on Roll Call No. 292,
and NAY on Roll Call No. 293.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 2 of rule IX, the
gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Norman) and the gentleman from
Maryland (Mr. Raskin) each will control 30 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from South Carolina.
Mr. NORMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today because the House of Representatives has a
responsibility and a duty to protect the integrity of this institution.
What we learned from the documents released by Jeffrey Epstein's estate
is nothing short of alarming.
Those documents show that Delegate Stacey Plaskett, a sitting Member
of Congress, coordinated her questioning during an official oversight
hearing with a man who is a convicted sex offender, a man whose crimes
against minors shocked this entire Nation.
Let me be clear: This was not just casual contact. There were
deliberate communications, and they shaped her official line of
questioning in a congressional hearing.
The American people expect honesty. The American people expect
integrity
[[Page H4739]]
and judgment from their elected officials. They expect Members of
Congress to conduct themselves with one word--decency--not to seek
advice from a predator who exploited minor children.
This resolution does not accuse. It acknowledges what is documented.
It censures Delegate Plaskett for her conduct; removes her from the
Intelligence Committee, where her judgment is paramount; and directs a
full investigation into the extent of her relationship with Mr.
Epstein.
Some will try to spin this as politics, but protecting the honor of
this body is not partisan. It is not Democrat. It is not Republican.
Standing against a convicted predator's influence in our proceedings is
not partisan. It is basic decency.
We cannot pretend this didn't happen. The American people deserve
better.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. RASKIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this resolution. We are here
today on the floor to support the complete disclosure of information
related to Jeffrey Epstein and his billion-dollar, international child
sex-trafficking ring. Our side of the aisle, at least, supports the
release of information relating to anybody who had anything to do with
it, whether they are a Republican, Democrat, Independent, or what have
you, period. We insist on complete, full disclosure.
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 President's name appeared more than 1,000 times already in the
small fraction of material released on Epstein and from the failure of
the majority to move to disclose this information.
It is this bipartisan group that we have had behind the discharge
resolution, which has insisted on bringing this to the floor, and we
have gotten nothing but obstruction, opposition, resistance, evasion,
distraction, and diversion from the other side, and now we get one more
resolution like this.
The resolution actually proposes a disciplinary censure against
Representative Stacey Plaskett but, amazingly, alleges no misconduct.
It does not allege a violation of the Constitution. It does not allege
the violation of a Federal law or a State law or a local law. It does
not even allege a violation of the ethics rules of the House of
Representatives. Yet, they want to censure her and throw her off of her
committee--this, a distinguished former Federal prosecutor, diligent
public servant, and Representative of the people of the Virgin Islands.
Mr. Speaker, criminal justice has two parts to it. 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 words in the
English language, certainly the two most beautiful words in the
Constitution of the United States. It is due process that protects all
of our freedoms and our rights against the arbitrary power of
government and the will to just punish somebody without any process at
all.
That is exactly what is going on here. Think about it. Ghislaine
Maxwell had due process. She had a right to counsel. She had a right to
hearings. She had a right to hear the evidence against her. She had a
right to put on her case. She had a right to cross-examine. She had a
right to a neutral, impartial tribunal. She had a right to a unanimous
verdict of a jury.
All of that she had, and she was found guilty. That is 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 has
gotten very special, pampered treatment, like she is in a Trump hotel.
She gets room service to her cell. She gets gym privileges that other
inmates don't get. She gets to use the warden as a go-between with
people outside of the institution.
Mr. Speaker, she had due process. Donald Trump had 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 jury trial. They had a
right to cross-examine everybody and put their own witnesses on.
Mr. Speaker, 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 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 constituents.
Mr. Speaker, 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 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 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 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? It is so there can be some headline that will please Donald Trump
tomorrow instead of a unanimous 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 have had enough of the coverup. 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 they have arraigned a Democratic Member for taking a phone call
from her constituent, Jeffrey Epstein, in the middle of a hearing, and,
of course, I don't think there is any rule here against taking phone
calls in a hearing.
{time} 1540
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 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 censured?
Be careful of your answer there because there is a lot more that is
about to come out, right? You should think about what is the principle
behind this rush to judgment.
Mr. Speaker, I will close just with this thought because I know there
were a lot of people in the Chamber who were here when this happened
and a lot who weren't.
There was a move to expel George Santos. He was a Republican Member
of the House from New York. It was the same kind of rush to judgment,
absolute political frenzy. I looked at it for about 60 seconds.
I was a professor of constitutional law, so call me a legal nerd, but
I said, wait. This guy has not been convicted of anything. Well, he is
a Republican. I know he is a Republican. He was not 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 is bad press. We want to get 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 is a bad newspaper
article without asking any questions, without giving that person any
due process at all? Is that what it has come to at this point?
All we are asking for in the Epstein files is, 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 all.
Mr. Speaker, I 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 of the aisle, because he had gotten no due
process. I hope all our colleagues will reject this absurd rush to
judgment in an attempt to change the subject.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. NORMAN. Mr. Speaker, before I yield time to my good friend from
Louisiana, to Representative Raskin, I will
[[Page H4740]]
be careful in my remarks. You need to be careful with your facts. You
have an 11-year veteran of this body who should know better. You have
an 11-year Member of this body who took money. It wasn't a newspaper
article. It was a fact. She took money from Jeffrey Epstein.
It is ironic that you are taking up by defending Ms. Plaskett, which
is going to the Ethics Committee, but she has lost her willingness or
lost her ability to serve because she got irrational judgment by taking
money from a convicted pedophile of young children. It is unfathomable
that you are taking the position that you are. These are facts.
You mentioned Ghislaine Maxwell. She is not a sitting Member of
Congress.
She, as a sitting Member of Congress, has relinquished any sense of
duty to serve on these committees.
Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman
from Louisiana (Mr. Higgins).
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair would remind all Members to avoid
engaging in personalities and to direct all comments to the Chair.
Mr. HIGGINS of Louisiana. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from
South Carolina (Mr. Norman) for yielding, and I thank my colleague Mr.
Raskin for the salient points that he has brought to this debate.
Mr. Speaker, I also defended George Santos on this floor and opposed
the means by which he was expelled. I think it was beyond the pale. A
responsibility that we bear in this body is to determine the means by
which our colleagues shall be reprimanded or disciplined.
The Constitution is clear on this. My friend Mr. Raskin knows full
well that this body controls the means by which and the rules by which
the Members of Congress shall be disciplined.
We have had variances of opinions regarding the exact disciplinary
actions that should be embraced or rejected Member by Member. Let me
say that, in this case, Ms. Plaskett's receiving text messages--this
was so alarming to me. When I saw this and read it, I didn't believe
it. I say to my friend, I thought perhaps it was media from a satirical
site. It couldn't possibly be true because we all know that a text
message, a text exchange, is rather intimate in the realm of
communications. To pierce into an actual congressional hearing, for a
Member of Congress to receive and respond to a text message during a
hearing, that is quite familiar, is it not?
This was shocking to me that a Member of Congress would be exchanging
text messages directly with Jeffrey Epstein in 2019, at which time he
was being prosecuted, federally, by the first Trump administration. He
had received some nature of a sweetheart deal back in 2007 and avoided
Federal prosecution by pleading no contest to some level of State
prosecution where he was sentenced, Mr. Speaker, to 13 months. My
understanding is, he did 11 months and at the easiest time that could
be done. He walked every day during the day on the work-release
program.
That sweetheart deal, let me say, should be looked at. Now, to my
horror, who has come to light that should be looked at, what was their
involvement? Was there some involvement then? She is a good lady from
the Virgin Islands. Where did Jeffrey Epstein live? In the Virgin
Islands. He was a constituent in 2019. Was she a friend in 2007 during
her service to the DOJ, which my friend has brought up? Was there any
interactions?
These are the questions we have. The good lady from the Virgin
Islands has crossed the threshold of reasonable suspicion and,
therefore, she should be investigated by Ethics, by DOJ, and I would
recommend by the Oversight and Judiciary Committees. Meanwhile,
she should absolutely be removed from the House Permanent Select
Committee on Intelligence. This, Mr. Speaker, is my position. I present
it without note for the betterment of the debate of this body.
Mr. RASKIN. Mr. Speaker, it is always a pleasure to hear from my
friend from 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 Judiciary, as well as by Ethics and others.
This resolution censures her and punishes her before there has been
one day of investigation. There has been no investigation at all. That
was the whole burden of the minority whip's amendment. It was to say
let's have an investigation, refer it to the Ethics Committee.
That is why the distinguished gentleman from Louisiana and I both
voted against, and we got a majority to vote against censuring, or
expelling even, 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 you could explain that to us why we should censure her before
there has been one day of actual investigation. If being on the phone
with one of our constituents, even an evil sinister force like Jeffrey
Epstein--and, of course, he has said that he considered Donald Trump
the most evil person he ever met, without a redeeming bone in his body.
I agree people can say different things, but Jeffrey Epstein, to me,
disgraced himself. In any event, people want to know what were the
contents of that conversation. Why was Ms. Plaskett doing that? I am
sure she has a good explanation. We are talking about a distinguished
lawyer and Federal prosecutor who was in the middle of a hearing, which
is something that Members do all the time is to talk to people in
hearings about different things.
Let me ask, if it is now the standard that just to be on a phone call
with somebody establishes guilt by association, what about all of the
Members of this body or of the U.S. Senate who were on the phone with
January 6 insurrectionists and President Trump and his associates who
were trying to block the certification of the election as people were
chanting, ``Hang Mike Pence.'' There were a lot of phone calls, a lot
of traffic going on.
In fact, that is why our Republican colleagues dealt themselves a
million-dollar cash payoff bonanza provision in the most recent
Republican spending bill.
{time} 1550
They put that in there because their phone records had been
subpoenaed 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 proceedings in the
House and the Senate.
Now, are we saying just because they were on a phone call that they
are guilty of something, that we should strip them of their committee
assignments, that we should censure 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
process. Let's go through the rules.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr.
Himes).
Mr. HIMES. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Maryland.
Mr. Speaker, I am not going to speak today about Jeffrey Epstein or
January 6. I am going to confine my remarks to two things that I know
about.
I am going to take a deep breath right now because to stand here and
have to listen to the gentleman from Louisiana, in the guise of just
asking questions, besmirch one of the finest Members I have had the
honor of serving with, I think, would offend the sensibility of anybody
in this Chamber.
I am going to limit my remarks to two things I know very well: number
one, the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence and what we
need to do to preserve that very special environment; and, number two,
the character of Delegate Stacey Plaskett. On HPSCI, I have served for
10 years, and with Chairman Turner and now with Chairman Crawford, we
have fought for that decade to keep the Permanent Select Committee on
Intelligence immunized from the sewage that flows through this Chamber,
the partisan attacks, the hideousness. By and large, we have been
pretty successful, with one exception, when that committee got involved
in the political investigation around Ukraine in the first Trump
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 are hearing right now
[[Page H4741]]
don't impinge the critical work of making sure that our intelligence
communities are keeping Americans safe, not violating civil liberties,
and not doing things inconsistent with the desires and 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 comity and the grace with which
that committee serves, you, sirs, will hurt this committee badly.
I expect every Republican on the Permanent Select Committee on
Intelligence--and I will say it again--I expect every Republican on the
Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence who knows Ms. Plaskett and
knows the committee to vote ``no'' on the idea that, without evidence
and without due process, Ms. Plaskett should be removed from that very
special committee.
This resolution would strike a devastating blow to HPSCI's ability to
work effectively. By removing a member in good standing based on a
newspaper article about texts--no due process, no evidence, nothing
offered other than a newspaper article which has moved the gentleman
from South Carolina--a member who has consistently engaged in a
bipartisan and productive way with the committee's work, to make some
unrelated political statement will do profound damage to this essential
committee.
Now, let me just talk for a moment about Ms. Plaskett. I have served
in this institution for 17 years, longer, I think, than most people in
this Chamber. I have not had the honor of serving with somebody with
the integrity, the commitment, and the hardworking bona fides as Ms.
Plaskett.
We can argue about the wisdom or the judgment associated with those
texts. I am told that, apparently, Mr. Epstein was a constituent.
For any one of us, on our worst day, our biggest misjudgment is not
to be judged without any due process, especially in the context of this
superb Member, this critical, critical member of the Permanent Select
Committee on Intelligence.
The result of this resolution, if it were to pass, will be to undo
the efforts of the Republican Speaker and the Republican chairman of
the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, Mr. Crawford, to
restore the committee to what it was intended to be.
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 with less effective oversight for Congress.
I don't expect the gentlemen who have offered this up to back down
now, but I do expect every single member of the Permanent Select
Committee on Intelligence, 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 critical work that we do.
Vote ``no'' on this appalling resolution.
Mr. NORMAN. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire about how much time is
remaining.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from South Carolina has 22\1/
2\ minutes left.
Mr. NORMAN. Mr. Speaker, let me just say for my good friends on the
left, you know, we are hearing words. That is all this is, words. You
are taking the side of a young lady who should have known better. She
served for 11 years. She disparaged herself. She did it to herself.
This is not smoke and mirrors. These are actual texts that pretty
well indict Ms. Plaskett. Would she probably take it back? Yes, but it
is too late now.
Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman
from Texas (Mr. Roy), my good friend.
Mr. ROY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from South Carolina. I
thank him for bringing forward this important resolution before the
body.
Mr. Speaker, I do want to say that I appreciate the gentleman from
Maryland, his commentary about the vote on removal, and his considered
judgment with respect to Santos. I agreed with him at the time and made
the same points.
I want to align myself with the remarks of the gentleman from
Louisiana, but I want to note in doing so--and I think the gentleman
from Maryland has shown respect to, I think, the judgment of the
gentleman from Louisiana about his being the sole vote on the issue
before this body before with respect to what we are making public
because of the gentleman's, I think, very real concerns about what it
might mean for victims.
We had that debate and a colloquy back and forth in the Committee on
the Judiciary a few hours ago, about what we can do to ensure victims
are protected and so forth, as we all go forward on what I believe is a
unanimous view that we should go seek out truth and justice here with
respect to Epstein and anybody associated with him, and them, and the
nefarious affairs involving Jeffrey Epstein.
The reason that I support this resolution is--and I would note that
my colleagues on the other side of the aisle could have tabled this
resolution. They chose not to table it. They chose to refer it, which
would suggest to me that there is a recognition that something here is
not particularly good; that we have a sitting Member, in this case, a
Delegate from the U.S. Virgin Islands, who was sitting in the Committee
on Oversight and Government Reform--and I actually have particular
interest here because I was the one doing the questioning. Apparently
my questioning was so riveting that she was engaging in text messages
back and forth at that moment. While I was questioning Mr. Cohen, the
gentlewoman was engaging in this back-and-forth on text messages with
Jeffrey Epstein.
Again, I have listened for months as 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 members of the administration in
connection to an investigation of Jeffrey Epstein, which the
President's administration in 2019 indicted Epstein. They actually
moved forward and federally indicted him in 2019. Ghislaine Maxwell was
arrested by the Trump administration.
I know the gentleman from Maryland will go on to say that the Biden
administration then carried forward that arrest, indictment, and
prosecution. True, but it was, in fact, the Trump administration that
did what had not been done for a long period of time by taking forward
that indictment.
I have been listening to all the preaching by my friends on the other
side of the aisle about how any association, anything to do with
Jeffrey Epstein, is somehow the dispositive moment here in terms of
determining the character of this administration or what they are doing
or not doing when they are leaning in to try to seek the truth.
{time} 1600
Tens of thousands of pages have been released by Jamie Comer, and 13
subpoenas have all been put out.
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
the grand jury secrecy and what they do to continue to redact and
protect victims' names under existing laws and how the courts treat
that. That is going to be a process, as the gentleman likely knows.
This is going to be determined as to what gets released and how.
Here we have the gentlewoman sitting in the Oversight Committee
texting with a known convicted felon, a convicted pedophile, that was
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 Cohen, all designed to figure out how to get
Michael Cohen to be able to somehow go after Trump or Trump's advisers
or people around the President.
That, to me, 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 are not removing her. We
are simply saying censure. We are saying it is censurable conduct to
say that this individual sitting on a committee taking advice from a
known convicted pedophile, convicted felon, that that is conduct
unbecoming of a Member of the United States Congress, engaging in real
time, taking advice from someone that we have been listening to--being
lectured to as someone deserving of all of the scorn of the entire
world. He is. That is why we are here.
[[Page H4742]]
If my colleagues didn't think this was a concern, they would have
simply made a motion to 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.
I think that the gentleman from South Carolina is right to have
brought this forward. I think that the body should hear this debate and
that we should vote tonight to censure and refer to the Ethics
Committee for further consideration.
Mr. RASKIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I thank my friend from Texas for those remarks. I am afraid all of
them dance around the central issue, which is the good Congressman
knows how due process works in America. There are facts that are
adduced first. There is an opportunity to be heard on both sides. There
is due process. There is consideration. Then there is judgment.
The gentleman has flipped the whole thing on its head. He has said we
are going to judge her guilty before anybody has an opportunity even to
hear what the charges are, much less answer the charges, much less do
any kind of analysis.
I am sorry to hear that the text exchange that seems to be at the
heart of people's consternation here took place 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 have the undivided attention of all of your
colleagues.
The gentleman says that he thinks that our position is that any
association with Jeffrey Epstein is a dispositive moment of judgment
for people. That is not the position we have advanced.
We have taken the position with the survivors that we want to end the
coverup of what happened and then let the chips fall where they may. If
there are people who were actually engaged in crime, as Ghislaine
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 who worked at an event,
they are not guilty of anything. That is what due process is, we are
able to sift through and figure it out.
However, your rush to judgment isn't even giving anybody a chance to
know what the charges are here. It is the most extraordinary thing I
have ever seen.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms.
Crockett).
Ms. CROCKETT. Mr. Speaker, this is a distraction to take away from
the fact that the guardians of pedophiles is literally trying to
protect pedophiles. The President is a convicted felon and an accused
sex offender.
Stacey Plaskett hasn't been accused of either.
What are we actually here talking about? Trump and Epstein were
besties. We have all seen the pictures of them. We saw the birthday
book. So why are y'all more interested in talking about Stacey Plaskett
than Trump's relationship with the man?
When did y'all become so moral? I can remember when y'all wouldn't
sign the discharge petition. All of a sudden, everybody wanted to vote
for this, but you wouldn't sign the discharge petition.
Until we decide that we are going to go after the actual rapists and
pedophiles, miss me with your moral high ground.
Folks who also took money from somebody named Jeffrey Epstein, as I
had my team dig in very quickly: Mitt Romney, the NRCC, Lee Zeldin,
George Bush, WinRed, McCain-Palin, Rick Lazio.
I just want to be clear: If this is the standard that we are going to
make, just know we are going to expose it all, and just know that the
FEC filings are available for 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 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's name is mentioned in the
files way more than Stacey Plaskett's name.
Listen, I am not saying that anything is right or wrong. But if you
are trying to figure out what is going on with somebody that is a
criminal, then maybe you need to talk to their associates. That is
exactly why maybe she was getting text messages. I am not saying she
was or wasn't, but considering the fact that they were talking to
another associate of the President's, and maybe she needed intel, you
would have to go talk to somebody who maybe knows what he is up to.
Mr. NORMAN. Mr. Speaker, how much time is remaining?
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Meuser). The gentleman from South
Carolina has 17 minutes remaining.
Mr. NORMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the
gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Biggs).
Mr. BIGGS of Arizona. Mr. Speaker, I thank Mr. Norman for raising
this issue.
To me, this is an interesting issue because I am hearing the argument
that is coming at us, and it says, well, there is no due process.
Well, debate is a part of due process. A part of due process is to
have this debate. You get to stand up and defend, and you get to raise
your issues. The Democrats chose to take it back to committee, which as
Mr. Roy said, that kind of indicates that maybe you know that there is
something that is not great about this.
I am looking at this, and here is at least one of the exchanges that
seems to have taken place. Maybe we will hear some comment about it.
That would be good. They can make some comment about it.
In this exchange, Mr. Epstein sent a text message to the gentlewoman
from the Virgin Islands. This is the quote: He brings up Rhona, keeper
of the secrets.
Who is he referring to? Rhona Graff. That is a Trump assistant.
Plaskett responds: Rhona? Quick, I am up next. Is that an acronym?
She wants to know what Mr. Epstein wants her to talk about. Don't you
find that interesting? I find that really intriguing, especially since
we know what Mr. Epstein was.
Mr. Epstein responds: That is his assistant.
He doesn't really say much more than that.
Then Plaskett starts questioning Mr. Cohen and asks about Graff. Not
only was she texting, having this communication with Mr. Epstein, she
is asking Mr. Cohen what Mr. Epstein wants her to ask.
Another text from Epstein says: Good work.
That is after she wraps it up.
All of this seems to be very interesting. I am sorry that I don't
breathe the rarefied air of the Intelligence Committee. I don't. I am
just a regular guy and a Member of the House, that is all, so I don't
know about that rarefied air.
I guess I am part of the sewage that Mr. Himes said. Yeah. Thanks for
agreeing with me, Ms. Plaskett. She has got us down. Unless you are in
the Intelligence Committee, you are crap. That is what the Intel
Committee says.
But here is the deal: When you are sitting there in a sitting
committee, and you are having communications with a convicted sex
offender, and you are taking their advice on how to ask questions,
maybe you have a problem. Maybe your problem is that you brought
disrepute on the House.
This isn't from the articles. This is from the 10,000 pages or so
released last week from the Oversight Committee that they received from
the Epstein estate. This isn't fishing around. This is coming from real
evidence.
{time} 1610
Mr. Speaker, I sit here, and I listen: Oh, she is the finest Member
that ever walked the planet.
That is what we heard. The bottom line is she is sitting there,
seeking advice and counsel on how to ask questions from Jeffrey
Epstein, who this entire body, save one, just condemned. We want all of
the evidence. It is a shame to be here but for one thing, which is: She
made the choice.
Mr. Speaker, I encourage everyone in this body to support Mr.
Norman's resolution.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Members are reminded to direct their
comments to the Chair.
Before I recognize the gentleman from Maryland, please remind
yourself,
[[Page H4743]]
as well as the Members, to refrain from engaging in personalities
toward the President.
Mr. RASKIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I want to remark that yet one more Member says we should
go ahead and censure her and we then should do a complete
investigation. I think any fifth grader in America knows that is the
exact opposite of what due process means in America. We don't punish
people before we have an investigation and an opportunity to be heard.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 6 minutes to the gentlewoman from the Virgin
Islands (Ms. Plaskett).
Ms. PLASKETT. Mr. Speaker, I thank Mr. Raskin, my former professor in
law school.
Mr. Speaker, I want to address the body. I first want to give my
colleagues a sense of what was happening that day. Everyone knows at
that hearing in February the entire country was watching as Michael
Cohen decided he was going to finally give up information about what
was happening in the Trump world, the Trump enterprise.
At the beginning of that hearing, Ranking Member Jim Jordan
disrespected Elijah Cummings--may he rest in peace and his name be a
memory--after not allowing Mr. Jordan to shut the committee hearing
down.
I turned to Mr. Jordan and told him to have respect for the chair and
to basically shut up. That moment went viral. I began to get
innumerable texts from friends, from foes, and from constituents about
what was happening in that hearing.
Mr. Speaker, I got a text from Jeffrey Epstein who at the time was my
constituent, who it was not public knowledge at that time he was under
Federal investigation, and who was sharing information with me.
Mr. Speaker, I heard recently from someone that I was seeking advice
from him. Let me say something. I don't need to get advice from any
individual on how to question anybody. I have been a lawyer for 30
years. I have been a narcotics prosecutor in New York City. I have had
the honor of being a political appointee at the Justice Department
after September 11, as a Republican appointee in the Bush
administration.
I know how to question individuals. I know how to seek information. I
have sought information from confidential informants, from murderers,
and from other individuals because I want the truth and not because I
need them to tell me what to say.
If my colleagues look at the transcript, they will see that I
questioned Michael Cohen for 5 minutes. The Washington Post only shows
you 30 seconds and took from it one individual's name that I got from
Jeffrey Epstein and didn't know who the individual was. I put that
individual with a host of other individuals that I felt the committee
should subpoena. They have never been subpoenaed. They have never been
questioned.
At the end of the day, I know that in the Trump administration, and
with my colleagues over there, it is not about sexual assault. It is
not about support of victims. It is about money.
Mr. Speaker, I have consistently stood against sexual violence and
the exploitation of women and children in previous years, as well as
here in this body. We all know that Jeffrey Epstein's actions were
absolutely reprehensible.
As a constituent, as an individual who gave donations to me, when I
learned of the extent of his actions after his investigation, I gave
that money to women's organizations in my community. I didn't give it
back to him but to women in the community who needed that support. That
is what I think should have been done, and that is what I did.
Mr. Speaker, they have taken a text exchange, which shows no
participation, no assistance, no involvement in any illegal activity,
and weaponized it for political theater. That is what this is.
This has been reviewed by Federal courts. Victims who initially
brought charges and a case against me dismissed it on their own without
prejudice.
My colleagues don't want to talk about what is really happening here.
They don't want to discuss their attacks on working families and their
protection of powerful predators and corporate criminals. If my
colleagues want to talk about texting and texting felons, how often do
my colleagues text Donald J. Trump? That is the individual we should be
concerned about.
Point of Order
Mr. CLYDE. Mr. Speaker, a point of order.
Ms. PLASKETT. Mr. Speaker, let me say this. I am not going to support
the wealthy and connected who continue to exploit workers and evade
taxes, powerful figures with credible allegations who face no
consequences, and corporate interests profiting from human suffering,
while families struggle.
Mr. Speaker, let me tell the people of the Virgin Islands--
Point of Order
Mr. CLYDE. Mr. Speaker, a point of order.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman will state his point of order.
Mr. CLYDE. Mr. Speaker, the point of order is you may not call the
President of the United States a felon. That is a violation.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The point of order is under consideration,
and we are not going to lose order here either.
Ms. PLASKETT. Mr. Speaker, may I continue?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Members are reminded to refrain, as
mentioned a little while ago, from making personality commentary toward
the President.
The point of order is not timely.
The gentlewoman is recognized.
Ms. PLASKETT. Mr. Speaker, I feel sorry for my colleagues and for
what is happening here. I feel sorry for this body. I see Members
coming in and speaking against me, and I have never even had a
conversation with them. They don't know me. They don't know the work
that I have done. They don't know the support that I have given to
families and to individuals.
Mr. Speaker, I worked a full-time job with children under the age of
5 while going to law school at night. Do my colleagues think I would
risk my law degree for any individual, never mind a reprehensible
individual like Jeffrey Epstein? I would not. What I am about is the
truth.
Let me tell the people of the Virgin Islands. This 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
continue to grow our equality.
If my colleagues censure me or take away a committee, I will still do
the work. I am here to support people and to support this great
Constitution, which I have sworn numerous times to uphold.
Mr. NORMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, before I recognize Mr. Clyde, let me just say I don't
know Ms. Plaskett. My overall impression of her has been good. She
gives these words about protecting families and children. Where is that
demonstrated when she took money from a convicted pedophile that had
served time? Where was that?
The words are beyond believability. I think she is a nice person, but
she missed the boat. She lost her--I don't know the word to describe
it. For what she has done, she deserves to come off of the committees.
{time} 1620
Let me remind you, we want to go to the Ethics Committee. To those
listening, the Ethics Committee is five Democrats and five Republicans.
Let them find it, but in the meantime, you do not deserve to serve on a
committee, a national committee.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Members will be reminded, again, to direct
their comments to the Chair.
Mr. NORMAN. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire how much time is remaining.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from South Carolina has 11\1/
2\ minutes remaining.
Mr. NORMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from
Georgia (Mr. Clyde).
Mr. CLYDE. Mr. Speaker, I thank my good friend, Mr. Norman from South
Carolina, for yielding.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of this resolution censuring and
condemning Delegate Stacey Plaskett from the U.S. Virgin Islands for
inappropriate coordination with convicted
[[Page H4744]]
sex offender Jeffrey Epstein during a congressional hearing and
removing Delegate Plaskett from the Permanent Select Committee on
Intelligence and referring her to the Ethics Committee for further
investigation.
After 4 years of silence on this matter, there was not a peep during
the entire Biden Administration. Let me repeat that. After 4 years of
silence on this matter about Jeffrey Epstein, House Democrats are now
demanding transparency and accountability surrounding Jeffrey Epstein
and his associates.
While their fake outrage is clearly just another disgusting attempt
to smear President Trump, House Republicans are taking this matter
seriously and are working toward delivering the much-needed
transparency and accountability that the American people deserve.
This resolution is accountability page 1. During the House Oversight
Committee's ongoing investigation into Jeffrey Epstein, emails obtained
by a congressional subpoena--that is right, it was a congressional
subpoena--by the House Oversight Committee, not the discharge petition
that just got voted on, but this is the Oversight Committee's
congressional subpoena--has brought to light that in 2019, Delegate
Stacey Plaskett coordinated her line of questioning with Jeffrey
Epstein in real time over text messages during an Oversight Committee
hearing featuring testimony from Michael Cohen.
Now, who is Michael Cohen?
Michael Cohen was the disgraced former attorney 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 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
apparently no longer want transparency or accountability.
Why?
It is because they don't want the truth. They want to weaponize a
serious matter into a distraction all in an attempt to take down
President Trump and to hurt his administration and what he is doing to
Make America Great Again.
The actions taken by Delegate Plaskett reflect poorly on the House,
and this body needs to hold her accountable.
Mr. Speaker, I urge all of my colleagues to vote to adopt this
resolution to show the American people that those who colluded with Mr.
Epstein, including Members of the House, will be held accountable, and
this resolution is the beginning of that.
Mr. RASKIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New
York (Mr. Jeffries).
Mr. JEFFRIES. Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished gentleman, my
good friend from the great State of Maryland, the ranking Democrat on
the Judiciary Committee, for yielding.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong opposition.
This resolution, this effort to censure Delegate Plaskett and to rip
away her membership 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 Carolina. It is nothing more than
that.
You want to make the statement about who has brought disgrace to the
House. The actions of this House Republican majority have brought
disgrace to the House of Representatives from day one of this
Presidency.
The reality is, if you want to talk about fealty to the Constitution
and things of that nature, the House is a separate and coequal branch
of government. You don't seem to understand that.
You have functioned from the very beginning of your so-called
majority, Mr. Speaker, not as a check and balance on an out-of-control
administration, but as a reckless rubber stamp for Donald Trump's
extreme agenda, and you are failing the American people.
You failed to keep your core promise. 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.
The Trump economy is a complete and total failure. It is a disaster.
The American people are hurting, and so every week, you come to the
House floor now that you have returned from your 7-week, taxpayer-
funded vacation and come up with another stunt to try to distract the
American people. Or perhaps you were ordered by your puppet master,
Donald Trump, who wants to distract the American people today.
That is because his effort to suppress the Jeffrey Epstein files has
failed spectacularly.
We believe in transparency, we believe in accountability, and we
believe in due process. That is the opposite of what is happening on
the floor today.
Let me be very clear about Stacey Plaskett. She is a woman of great
intelligence and a woman of great integrity, and she deserves better
than what she is receiving from House Republican extremists. She
deserves the opportunity to be heard. She deserves due process. She
deserves the ability to make her case, not to be prosecuted by
pettifoggers 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 wants to lecture us about proceeding at
this moment.
The actions that you continue to engage in will have consequences:
consequences today, consequences tomorrow, consequences next week,
consequences next year, and certainly consequences when the American
people throw this 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.
Now, it is extraordinary to me week after week, censure after
censure, and I wonder: Is it just coincidence that the last three
censures we have had on the House floor happened to involve--first you
tried to censure LaMonica McIver, and then, Mr. Speaker, Republicans
tried to censure Ilhan Omar. Now we are on the floor, and you are
trying to censure Stacey Plaskett.
What is it exactly that those three individuals have in common?
House Republicans are going to have to answer for the extreme things
that you continue to do.
The American people know this is a phony majority. It is a fake
majority. It is not a real majority.
Republicans aren't doing anything to make life better for the
American people, and that is why we are on the floor right now. There
is nothing that House Republicans can do to disgrace Stacey Plaskett
because House Republicans continue to disgrace themselves. So whatever
happens later on this evening, the American people will hear from
Delegate Plaskett beyond this making her case. The people of the Virgin
Islands, I am confident, will continue to stand behind her.
We will never be lectured on issues related to accountability,
transparency, principle, and ethics from this group of extreme House
Republicans who continue to visit a national nightmare on the American
people, bending the knee to a wannabe king and doing real harm in real
time. At the end of the day, your time is coming as well.
{time} 1630
Mr. NORMAN. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire as to how much time I have
remaining.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from South Carolina has 3\1/2\
minutes remaining.
All Members are again reminded, including the minority leader, to
direct their comments to the Chair.
All Members are again instructed, including the minority leader, to
refrain from engaging in personalities toward the President.
Mr. NORMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I find it interesting that the minority leader mentioned that we
aren't really a majority. I will tell you, 77 million people are a
majority. They rendered the consequences to elect the President that
has revived this country from a disaster, 4 years under the Biden
administration.
Let's go back into a little bit of history here about the hearing.
The messages show that Plaskett texted Epstein before the hearing that
started that day, at 7:55. She texted him, the sex offender, the
predator on the children she says she protects. They had comments like
he told Ms. Plaskett to
[[Page H4745]]
talk about his grades. He mentioned that she had a great-looking
outfit. This is from Mr. Epstein.
At 10:40, a broadcast feed cut to Ms. Plaskett, showing her moving
her mouth as if she was chewing something.
Ms. Plaskett mentioned that she had multiple, multiple texts.
According to the records--and I don't know how many of her texts came
from those convicted of felonies, but at 2:25, minutes before Plaskett
began questioning Cohen at 2:28, Epstein messaged back ``Good work'' at
2:34, 1 minute after Plaskett finished her questioning of Cohen. So the
whole 5 minutes was pretty much conducted under the direction of a
convicted pedophile.
Ms. Plaskett was reached by phone Thursday. Plaskett declined to
answer questions about the text messages and directed all inquiries to
her congressional staff. Plaskett's chief of staff said Thursday she
was ``not in a position to confirm or not'' whether the Congresswoman
was texting with Mr. Epstein at the hearing. She did not respond to
follow-up questions.
Bottom line, these are facts. These are text messages. This wasn't
smoke and mirrors, so it is interesting that they are taking that tact.
Mr. Speaker, may I inquire as to how much time I have remaining.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from South Carolina has 6\1/2\
minutes remaining.
Mr. NORMAN. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. RASKIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from New
York (Ms. Clarke).
Ms. CLARKE of New York. Mr. Speaker, I rise today on behalf of the
Congressional Black Caucus, the conscience of the Congress, in strong
opposition to this resolution. This 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
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 are pointing fingers at this side of
the aisle.
Mr. Speaker, unlike the President, Congresswoman Stacey Plaskett has
committed no crime, violated no rule, and broken no promises.
There has been no 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 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 than 6 years ago, which broke no rules,
broke no laws, and has no connection to any criminal activity.
I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this partisan resolution, this
sham.
Mr. NORMAN. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. RASKIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
I want to start by addressing the young people who appear to be in
the audience this evening because I am afraid some of my arguments are
lost on some of our colleagues across the aisle suffering from Trump
derangement syndrome. It seems to have completely warped their minds
today, and they are not thinking clearly about the Constitution or the
rule of law.
The young people here will recognize, if they read this resolution,
immediately what is wrong with it because it is replete with phrases
like this, that this one incident that they are referring to raises
serious questions about the judgment and the integrity and the fitness
to serve. Well, I think that is absurd, but in any event, if you think
it raises serious questions, presumably you would want the answers to
those questions. You don't get answers by rushing to judgment and
turning the whole process upside down.
This resolution starts by saying that we censure her, that we remove
her from committee. The very next component of it says that we direct
the Committee on Ethics to conduct an investigation. That is the
opposite of due process, and I hope at least future generations will
understand that is not how we hold people accountable, whether it is
under criminal law, under civil law, or under an ethics process, which
they purport to want to be launching here.
Again, go back to the George Santos standard. The reason we voted
against just hanging him out to dry, censuring him, and expelling him
is because the process hadn't happened yet. Democrats and Republicans
together did it, but they are thinking in solely partisan terms.
Even Matt Gaetz, accused of having sex with a 17-year-old, was never
censured by the House of Representatives. Even with Speaker McCarthy
and others condemning him for what he did, we did not censure him.
Think about what you are doing to the precedents of this body by
trying to attack Ms. Plaskett.
Let me just close with a personal thought. I wasn't going to bring it
up because I didn't want to 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 is a straight-A student in the 21st
century. I am proud not only that she was my student but that she is my
friend and that she is my colleague. She doesn't disgrace us in any
way. She goes to work every day for the people of the Virgin Islands,
and we are proud of her.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. NORMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
Mr. Speaker, I find it interesting that the President is occupying
the minds of my good friends on the left rent-free, and essentially,
they bring him up every time. Keep doing it. Keep doing it.
This President has a record that is second to none. I hope my
listeners in the audience can distinguish between just words and
babbling on when they reject the facts of what has been presented.
Texts don't lie. They can offer all the excuses--and I do think Ms.
Plaskett is a nice lady. She made a mistake here, a bad mistake. She
took advice from a convicted pedophile. That is indefensible in this
discussion here today.
Mr. Speaker, I have listened to my colleagues defend the
indefensible. I have heard everything from this is old news to this is
just politics. Not a single person has disputed the key fact: written
records in Epstein's own estate documents show Delegate Plaskett sought
his input for an official hearing.
This is the issue, that alone. Everything else is just noise.
This Chamber cannot overlook that a sitting Member of Congress
coordinated with a convicted sex offender to prepare questions for an
official proceeding. Imagine telling the American people that that is
acceptable. Imagine explaining to parents all across this country that
Congress sees no problem with relying on the counsel of a predator of
our innocent children.
Some of my colleagues want to blur the edges, soften the facts, or
bury this under procedural fog--noise, as I call it. Sunlight is the
best disinfectant, and accountability is not optional.
{time} 1640
This resolution is not excessive at all. It is appropriate. It is
measured. It is necessary at this time.
The question before us is very simple: Do we uphold a minimal--a
minimal--standard for ethical conduct, or do we just shrug and say:
Well, maybe next time?
Mr. Speaker, the public deserves better. The House deserves better.
The American people deserve better.
Mr. Speaker, I urge adoption of this resolution, and 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; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Mr. RASKIN. 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.
[[Page H4746]]
____________________