Providing for the expulsion of Representative George Santos from the United States House of Representatives.

Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Madam Speaker, S.J. Res. 32 would repeal the CFPB's small business lending rule, which was required by Congress in section 1071 of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act. The CFPB's rule would simply require lenders to collect and report data on small business lending. This data will help drive competition in the market, lowering small business costs, and help combat discrimination.

I worked closely with my colleague, Congresswoman Nydia Velazquez, who is the ranking member of the Small Business Committee, to ensure that this provision was included in the Dodd-Frank Act because we both knew how critical this data would be to helping small businesses.

Access to capital is a key challenge that many small businesses face. For example, Goldman Sachs found that over 75 percent of small businesses they surveyed were concerned about access to capital. Research has also shown that minority-, women-, and LGBTQ+-owned businesses are more likely to be denied loans and pay steeper interest rates.

Access to capital is an issue for many family farms, which don't have the same access that larger agricultural corporations have. In addition, access to capital is an issue for our young people working in the gig economy seeking to start a business of their own but too often told ``no'' by banks.

Unfortunately, section 1071 of Dodd-Frank was not implemented for 13 years. In fact, small business owners had to sue the CFPB under the Trump administration to force implementation of this rule.

One of the small business owners who sued the CFPB was ReShonda Young, a Black woman who founded Popcorn Heaven, a small business selling gourmet popcorn in Waterloo, Iowa. Ms. Young explained that she was a victim of discriminatory lending practices, saying: ``In several instances, there was just blatant discrimination, and in other cases, I found out about it later on. And it wasn't just me.''

She further explained: ``I had a regular hourly income. My personal expenses were pretty low, so it wasn't like I couldn't cash infuse from my personal [income] if I needed to. My credit score was good, but I couldn't get what I needed. . . . Enough of the disrespect. Enough with the blatant disrespect. When a bank says, `We don't want your business for any good reason. Why don't you move your account elsewhere?' it was at that point, okay, something has to be done.''

The CFPB, under the leadership of a Trump appointee, settled the case and agreed to a court-supervised timeline, resulting in the final rule that the CFPB issued this year.

Now that the CFPB's rule has been finalized after all of these years, so many other small businesses in Iowa, North Carolina, Texas, California, and all across the country will be able to reap the benefits of a more transparent lending marketplace that Ms. Young should have had.

Specifically, the CFPB rule will allow small businesses to comparison shop between lenders and see how much other small businesses are being charged for their loans. This price transparency is essential to a competitive and fair marketplace.

In designing the rule, the CFPB was mindful of its impact on community financial institutions. For example, the rule completely exempts lenders that originated fewer than 100 small business loans in each of the 2 preceding years. This fully exempts more than 80 percent of depository institutions, including 98 percent of credit unions. For lenders that originated more than 100 loans, they would have more than 2 years before they would need to begin to comply with the rule in 2026.

Make no mistake, S.J. Res. 32 is just another part of Republicans' relentless attack on the CFPB. They have erroneously claimed that the CFPB is unconstitutional and unaccountable and have even gone so far as to attempt to eliminate the agency altogether.

Our constituents disagree. A recent bipartisan poll found that 82 percent of

Americans, including 77 percent of Republicans, support the CFPB and its mission.

I will highlight three main points about the CFPB small business lending rule that this resolution would repeal. First, the data collected under the rule is very similar to data collected under the Home Mortgage Disclosure Act or HMDA.

This data collection under HMDA has been going on for decades, successfully bringing much needed transparency to the mortgage market. Despite misleading claims by Republicans, I want to be very clear that small businesses are not--are not--are not required to provide demographic information about their ownership under the rule. It is completely voluntary.

I have to repeat that because too many on the opposite side of the aisle are telling people that it is a mandate. It is not. It is voluntary.

Second, this rule will help all small businesses thrive by providing greater transparency that will drive competition in the small business lending market ultimately increasing access to credit and lowering interest rates for small businesses.

Third, as I mentioned earlier, we have seen how HMDA data from mortgages have been instrumental to identifying discriminatory trends like modern-day redlining. The CFPB's rule would similarly help prevent discrimination in the small business lending market, giving our regulators and the public another tool to identify discriminatory trends.

Many of us also recall the challenges that too many small businesses faced during the COVID-19 pandemic. Unfortunately, when Congress stepped in to provide relief through the Paycheck Protection Program, or PPP, the big banks that were tasked with implementing the program chose to prioritize their concierge clients, including some Members of Congress, leaving small businesses, especially those owned by people of color, out in the cold.

It is perhaps not a coincidence that the same big banks who misused PPP to the detriment of small businesses during the early stages of the pandemic are now pushing for the passage of this Senate Joint Resolution 32 opposing the CFPB, which would help them continue to operate with a lack of transparency and avoid accountability.

However, the big banks are alone in their support for this misguided resolution. In fact, more than 230 organizations representing small businesses, family farmers, community leaders, and others strongly oppose S.J. Res. 32.

There is a lot of talk in Congress about how we love small businesses, how we support small businesses, but the proof of the pudding is in the eating. Therefore, I urge Members on both sides of the aisle to actually do something to help small businesses.

Stop talking about how you support small businesses when you know they need access to capital that they don't have. We want to do something real for small businesses. If you do, vote down this harmful resolution.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I yield such time as she may consume to the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Velazquez), the ranking member of the Small Business Committee who has been working on the Small Business Committee for over 30 years and served as the chair before the last election and who has been fighting for small businesses all of her career.

Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Ohio (Mrs. Beatty), who is also the ranking member of the Subcommittee on National Security, Illicit Finance, and International Financial Institutions.

Madam Speaker, I yield an additional 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Ohio.

Madam Speaker, let me just say to the gentleman, your arguments show that you are here to support the big banks who do not want small business in the banks. They don't want to be bothered. As a matter of fact, you try to be convincing that it is not voluntary, but it is voluntary.

They are asked: Do you want to give this information? It is voluntary, and you can't get away from that.

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Garcia), who is also the vice ranking member of the Committee on Financial Services.

Madam Speaker, I yield an additional 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Texas.

Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Michigan (Ms. Tlaib), the vice ranking member of the Subcommittee on Housing and Insurance, who has been working on this issue for a long time.

Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Madam Speaker, we have these Members on the opposite side of the aisle spending all of this time supporting the biggest, most profitable banks in the country, yet these Members won't stand up for small business lending. They don't want the data so that we can understand what is going on and why people in this country, minorities in particular, farmers, small farmers, family farmers, et cetera, can't get loans.

In the last decade, these megabanks made so much money: J.P. Morgan, $215 billion; Wells Fargo, $197 billion; Bank of America, $105 billion; Citigroup, $93 billion. They repeatedly broke the law, even though they were making all of this money. I want you to know they consider this just the cost of doing business.

We have even more here when we take a look at some of the other banks that paid fines instead of lending money. They would rather pay fines instead of lending to small businesses. What kind of fines are we talking about here? We fined them for all kinds of fraudulent activity.

In the last decade, megabanks made so much money, and then they repeatedly paid fines. For example, the Bank of America paid $66 billion in fines. They could have been lending this to small businesses. J.P. Morgan paid $43 billion in fines. They could have been lending this to small businesses. Citigroup paid $19 billion in fines. They could have been lending this to small businesses. Wells Fargo paid $12 billion in fines.

Some of our Members want to say that we just want to shame these big banks. Yes, I do because it is a shame that they are so profitable that they do not want to spend time with small businesses. It takes up too much time. Small businesses don't earn as much money for the bank, et cetera. They don't even want them in their banks, and we have to do something about that.

We are shining a light on the existing practices of lenders, and if those lenders are charging minorities and small family farmers, et cetera, exorbitant interest rates, there is no reason that we should not get the transparency that we need to stop this.

I will tell you, one of the reasons you hear us being so passionate over here is because the big banks don't need you to defend them. They don't need you to stand up for them. You should be putting your time and effort into what you can do about the small businesses.

I am not going to go into a lot of information. We have Members on the opposite side of the aisle who felt they needed capital. When we did PPP, they came to the government, competing with real small businesses that could not get capital. Not only did they take out the money, but they have been forgiven for it. They didn't have to pay it back.

I am not going to talk about everybody, but I am going to mention Marjorie Taylor Greene because she is everywhere talking about everybody, claiming she is for small business. She took out $180,000, and she has been forgiven.

I am not going to talk about the rest of them, some of my friends over there, but I have a whole list of Members on the opposite side of the aisle who took out PPP money and didn't need it, some of them as rich as cream. They took this money, and they are not paying it back. Then, they come in here and talk about why we should not have transparency and do everything that we can for these small businesses that are desperate for capital.

You can sing the song that you love small business all that you want. You can have the Small Business Saturday with a big, fake kind of operation on small business lending in your community, but it doesn't do any good if they don't get the capital. They need the money. They need to be treated fairly.

Yes, I want to shame the big banks. I want to shame them. You have one of these banks that even took out false accounts, made up accounts, and we had to stop them. We fined them, but do you know what? They are too big to fail, and they keep doing what we are fining them for.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Yes, I am a political activist. I am an activist for the people who send us here to represent them. I am an activist for the least of these. I am an activist for small business. I am an activist for veterans. I am an activist for children. I am an activist for education, for better healthcare, and I am very proud of it.

I tell you, it is shameful for us to continue to be dominated and controlled by the biggest banks in America, taking time on the floor of the people's House to defend them and to vote

against the very people who send you to this House to represent them. It is absolutely shameful.

It is time to get out from under the influence and control of the biggest banks in America and stand up for the people who really need to make these banks do what they should be doing rather than saying: No, we are not going to comply with the law, and yes, we will pay the fines because we are rich. We have so much money we can do that.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time for closing.

When we started this debate, I mentioned ReShonda Young, who happens to be a young, Black woman from Waterloo who had many challenges getting a small business loan and sued the CFPB to complete the section 1071 rule. After CFPB settled the case with her, Ms. Young said: ``I am just humbled to be part of the process. Sometimes we feel so small, but this is one of those things that shows if we are willing to speak up, we actually can make a difference.''

Ms. Young has since sold her business and is now working with other investors to try to open up the first minority bank in Iowa, with the goal of being certified as a CDFI, offering the kind of small business loans to others that she had such a time obtaining.

Let me just tell you something. We support CDFIs, the community development financial institutions. Why do we support them? Because they could not get loans from the banks in America. Here we are, the taxpayers, further trying to help small businesses by supporting these community development financial institutions. They were developed because small businesses couldn't get loans.

Then, on the opposite side of the aisle, we have people who are opposing how we can support these small businesses by getting the transparency that we need to have done. They would rather support the biggest banks in America and have the taxpayers try to do something about small businesses with CDFIs than give their small businesses an opportunity.

I tell you, I don't know how they are going to vote on the other side, but this issue is not going to go away. I tell you that the constituents are going to learn in this country who is supporting small businesses. All of this talk and this rhetoric about ``I love small businesses,'' ``I support small businesses,'' will not continue to work.

The fact of the matter is, small businesses are shutting down, closing, because they don't have access to capital.

For all those Members on the opposite side of the aisle who took out PPP loans that have been forgiven, you ought to be ashamed and not oppose the CFPB from trying to protect these small banks, as the courts have told them to do.

Madam Speaker, there is a lot more that can be said. We are going to continue to unveil this information about who is simply spouting rhetoric and who is actually doing something for small businesses.

It is unfortunate that we have to fight this hard. We have to do everything that we possibly can because the banks don't want them in their banks. They don't want to be bothered with them. They are too small.

We have small businesses who only need $50,000 or $75,000 to improve their technology to take their businesses to a place where they can earn more money.

We can't even start to talk about startup capital. None of them get startup capital. If they are able to convince anybody for a little capital to expand their businesses, they will do that. Otherwise, small businesses do not have the support of the Republicans in the House of Representatives as it is seen here today.

Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

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

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.

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. 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.

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. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Higgins).

Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Gaetz).

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.

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.

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. Speaker, may I inquire as to how much time is remaining.

Mr. Speaker, I move to have the gentleman from Ohio's words stricken from the record, please.

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. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Madam Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 891, I call up the joint resolution (S.J. Res. 32) providing for congressional disapproval under chapter 8 of title 5, United States Code, of the rule submitted by the Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection relating to ``Small Business Lending Under the Equal Credit Opportunity Act (Regulation B)'', and ask for its immediate consideration in the House.

Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and submit extraneous material on the bill under consideration.

Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Madam Speaker, I rise today in support of this joint resolution of disapproval. We must overturn the CFPB's small business lending rule to ensure small businesses across America, which are the backbone of our country, have continued access to affordable credit to support and grow our economy.

Access to affordable credit is key to ensuring communities across America remain vibrant. Unfortunately, the CFPB's small business lending rule undermines the goal of affordable and available credit, which I think we all should share.

Here is why. First, the CFPB's rule is overly broad. It will require lenders to collect massive amounts of data whenever a small business owner applies for credit. Most of the information is unnecessary to make a fair, equitable, safe, and sound loan. Requiring lenders to provide the information infringes on small business owners' rights to privacy about their personal and business information when applying for credit.

Second, the CFPB's rule is burdensome. Community banks and credit unions across America account for the majority of small business lending. They are doing their part. Despite claims from my colleagues across the aisle, this rule does not go after big banks. It will have the biggest impact on the small community financial institutions already operating under the thinnest of margins because of runaway inflation and increased interest rates through the Federal Reserve--in general, the Biden economy.

The rule also discourages banks and credit unions from expanding their lending portfolios. They might simply decide that the droves of new compliance officers they would have to hire to comply with this onerous rule would simply not be worth it, and Main Street is hammered again.

The CFPB Director says he is trying to be sensitive to the needs of small community financial institutions, oftentimes advocating for relationship banking. However, in the rule, CFPB sets the transaction threshold at an incredibly low 100 loans in the preceding 2 calendar years. This means the smallest of banks, small businesses, and their owners will be the ones to bear the brunt of the unnecessary data collection, and Main Street is hammered again.

Third, the rule will be difficult to implement. The rule itself is nearly 900 pages and requires lenders to report 81 data fields. Developing compliance systems to achieve this will be extremely costly for firms, which takes resources away from actually lending to small businesses, and Main Street is hammered again.

The timeline for implementation is also insufficient for lenders to develop the necessary systems to comply with such a complex and burdensome regulation. Each hour a lender spends on the overly broad data collection demanded by the rule is an hour not devoted to ensuring credit is available and affordable for small businesses, and Main Street is hammered again.

Finally, it is unclear what the Bureau intends to do with its exceedingly expansive data demands. What we do know is the CFPB plans to post the data publicly on the CFPB's website. This is concerning, given the Bureau's alarming record of facilitating the naming and shaming of companies whose business activities progressive activists want to attack, adding to the concerns of the CFPB's abysmal track record of protecting the highly sensitive data it already collects.

In fact, back in February of this year, there was a major unauthorized data breach by a CFPB employee, which included personally identifiable information and confidential supervisory information. Therefore, why should we ever trust them to protect sensitive information of small business owners this time around?

To sum it up, the rule is backward-looking, anti-small business, anti-capitalism, anti-competition, anti-free markets, and anti-risk and reward.

It is critical that we pass this resolution to overturn this reckless CFPB rule to protect small business access to the credit needed to continue to innovate and grow our economy. A new idea while we are at it: Let's put people back to work again.

Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this resolution, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from the great State of Texas (Ms. De La Cruz).

Ms. De LA CRUZ. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.

I rise today to express my strong support for S.J. Res. 32, a resolution disproving of the CFPB's overreaching and burdensome rule under section 1071 of the Dodd-Frank Act.

This rule is nearly 900 pages long. It imposes onerous data collection requirements on small business lenders in places like south Texas.

This regulatory overreach is not just impractical; it directly threatens the lifeline of America's economy--our great small businesses.

Mom-and-pop shops are the backbone of our communities and need access to create, to grow, and to thrive. This rule, with its misaligned definitions and excessive demands, will only hinder their access to the necessary financial resources.

By supporting this resolution, we stand for common sense, for small businesses, for community banks, for local families, and for a regulatory environment that fosters economic growth.

I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this resolution to safeguard the health of our Nation's economy.

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from the great State of Pennsylvania (Mr. Meuser).

Madam Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from the great State of Arkansas (Mr. Hill).

Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from the great State of Nebraska (Mr. Flood).

Madam Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Barr).

Madam Speaker, I yield an additional 30 seconds to the gentleman from Texas.

Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. McHenry), the chairman of the Financial Services Committee.

Madam Speaker, may I inquire as to the time remaining.

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Kim).

Madam Speaker, as my colleagues and I have stated today, my biggest fear is that many lenders may decide to fully exit small business lending due to the overly burdensome collection requirements, or because they don't want to put their small business customers in an uncomfortable situation.

I do not believe this is the outcome Congress, or the CFPB, intended with the implementation of this section of Dodd-Frank. However, I know, as a small business owner myself, that if this rule goes into effect it will not bode well for small businesses seeking the credit needed to grow and support their communities. That is the bottom line.

We need to help small businesses. We need to help them create jobs but also to create net worth among their employees.

Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this resolution, and I yield back the balance of my time.

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

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. 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.