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.

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.

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. 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.

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. 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).

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).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Jeffries).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Clarke).

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

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.

Mr. Speaker, I do.

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

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. Speaker, before I yield time to my good friend from Louisiana, to Representative Raskin, I will

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).

Mr. Speaker, may I inquire about how much time is remaining.

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. Speaker, how much time is remaining?

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

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.

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.

Mr. Speaker, may I inquire how much time is remaining.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Clyde).

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

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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. 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. 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. Speaker, may I continue?

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. 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.