many of those lies are well documented. we know that mr. santos hide about his education, both graduate and post graduate. claiming that he attended universities where he was never enrolled. 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, citi group and goldman sachs. we know that mr. santos lied about his religious faith, when he said he was jewish, and when called out meant to say that he was jew-ish. and we know he lied when he said four employees killed in a mass shooting in florida. mr. speaker, while troubling, those lies did not justify his removal from this body. but these and other misleading statements reflect directly on mr. santos's 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 them, 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 ethic in the ethics committee, they would not have released the biassed 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, that just weeks ago, mr. santos said i have been very cooperative since the investigation started, and that i have no plans to change that. but 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, did mr. santos deny to do so. that when asked to voluntarily testify, mr. santos refused. and the committee learned through his counsel that if the investigative subcommittee were to subpoena mr. santos, that he would plead the fifth and not give any testimony for fear that it may incriminate himself. and 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 three-hour live stream podcast with monica matthews. in that three-hour interview, he said, i've made it very clear i'm not running for reelection. it's not because it was a damming report. i'm not rung because i don't want to work with a bunch of hypocrites. it's gross. i have colleagues who are more worried about getting drunk every night with the next lobbyist that they're going to screw and pretend none of us know what's going on. and sell off the american people, not show up to vote because they're too hung over, whatever the reason is. or just not show up to vote at all. and give their cards out like candy for someone else to vote for them. he went on to say regarding the ethics report, he said it's 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, the report of the ethics committee, the work that they did over an eight-month period, and 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 santos. and in 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 this, that the investigative subcommittee revealed a complex web of unlawful activity involving representative santos's 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, 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 he reported fictitious loans to his political committees, to induce donors and party committees, to make further contributions to his campaign. and then later the report says that despite santos's efforts to blame his former treasurer for the numerous campaign violations, the isc records demonstrates that representative santos knowingly and actively participated in this conduct. 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, on atm withdrawals. we know that he purchased luxury designer purchases at at least two high-end stores. that he spent money on payments made at only fans, and that mr. santos spent almost $3,000 on botox treatments. in addition to these questionable expenses, there were travel expenses, questionable expenses involving 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 that in 2020 that bank records indicate that mr. santos was repaid over $29,000 for fictitious loans that he never made his campaign. the report goes on to say that in 2021 that he falsely reported along his campaign $580,000. and he falsely reported along an additional $25,000 to his leadership pack. the report goes on to document that the committee found, according to bank records, that mr. santos transferred $200,000 from red stone strategies and found to be an unregistered super pack, controlled by mr. santos, 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. and mr. speaker, i want to address the argument of due process. mr. speaker, you are well aware that due process is referred to in the fifth and fourteenth amendment. 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 5th amendments to the states where it says no state shall deprive any person of life, liberty or property without due process of law. and then as you are also well aware, the 6th amendment talks about criminal proceedings and the rights to apply to a criminal proceeding. mr. speaker, we are not here on a criminal proceeding, the rights of the sixth amendment, but due process under the fifth do apply, and so is important to talk about due process. the due process that are contained in the fifth and fourteenth amendment, if you study due process, mr. speaker, you'll know there are two subsections, two components, if you will, two legs upon which due process must stand. that first subsection, that first leg is substantiative due process. what is substantiative due process. substantiative due process asks this question, is there a right to bring the action in question? mr. speaker, i say that there is. and we know that that right exists because that right is found in the united states constitution. the expulsion calls, which is found in article i, section v, clause ii of the united states constitution says this, mr. speaker, says that each house may determine the rules of its proceedings, punish its members for disorderly behavior, and with the concurrence of a 2/3 vote, expel a member. so mr. speaker, i tell you that as it relates to substantiative due process, that clearly substantiative due process applies in this case. but that second leg, the second stool of due process is procedural due process. procedural due process is a process that governs the fairness of the proceedings. and there are three primary requirements, three primary tenants of procedural due process. those requirements are, first, was adequate notice given? and mr. speaker, in this case, adequate notice was given. adequate notice was given in the fact that the investigative subcommittee notified mr. santos in february that the investigation was going to be ongoing. it had contact with he and his office well before that. in january, shortly after he was sworn in. i would argue that mr. santos has notice that of this hearing because the motion was filed two weeks ago, the resolution was filed to expel him from this body. clearly mr. santos has been given proper notice. the second requirement of due process says did mr. santos have an opportunity to be heard? and 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, which he refused to do so. he had the 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 the subpoena, he was planning to come in before the ethics committee and exercise his fifth amendment right not to testify. and so, mr. speaker, i hold that he has had ample opportunity to be heard by the investigative subcommittee, and he is once again, presented the opportunity here today to before this body, 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, and then finally, the third and final point there is the opportunity to have a fair tribunal, and 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 the ethics committee finds a reason to remove him, then that is the process. mr. speaker, the findings of the ethics committee, the ethics committee found substantial evidence, 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 and connections with redstone strategies, llc. and it found substantial evidence that mr. santos did knowingly and willfully engage in violations of the ethics and government act. so, mr. speaker, i ask in accordance with article i, section v, clause ii of the united states constitution, i would ask that all members vote to support the expulsion of representative santos. and i yield back. >> gentleman yields back, gentleman from new york. gentleman reserves. gentleman from new york, mr. santos. >> mr. speaker, we hear a lot about process. we hear a lot about findings. before i yield time to my colleague in texas, i want to point out, in the resolution that the distinguished chairman from mississippi filed, he states that i engage in sexual misconduct when his own report states otherwise. that's 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 there's a lack of respect for one's reputation, and with that, i would like to yield as much time as the gentleman from texas, mr. nils, may consume. >> we are in unchartered waters, the swamp water is very murky, it's deep. you try to navigate those treacherous waters, every once in a while you try to find that safe lily pad to land on. you try to find a lily pad to land on, but for george santos, there doesn't appear to be a safe lily pad. the united states house of representatives is attempting to expel a member of congress who has not been convicted of a crime. in the history of our country, folks, only five members have been expelled from congress. 1861, john clark, john reid, henry burnett were expelled on the grounds of treason for supporting the confederate rebellion. 1980, michael myers, convicted of bribery, involving an fbi sting that led to the convictions of seven members of congress, six of them resigned and myers was expelled on a vote of 376-30. then in 2003, james trefecant was convicted on on ten counts, bribery, conspiracy to defraud the united states, corruption, obstruction of justice. all five, all five of these men had one thing in common, and they were all convicted under federal law and rightfully expelled from congress. kicking out mr. santos is a setting a very dangerous precedent. never before has congress expelled a member based on indictments. indictments require nothing more than probable cause. an indictment is not a conviction. why today would we remove a member from this house based on an indictment. it's never been done before. it shouldn't happen today. in this country, i thought everyone is presumed innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. i do not and have not and will not support the removal of representative santos, and i encourage my colleagues to agree. with that, i yield back. >> i reserve. >> gentleman reserves. gentleman from new york is recognized. >> i would like to yield one minute to the ranking member of the ethics committee, ms. wilde. >> gentlewoman is recognized. >> as ranking member, i rise in support of house resolution, 878 which seeks to expel george santos from the house of representatives. one of our most basic obligations as members of congress is to adhere to the principle that public office is a public trust. as the ethics committee's report lays out had thorough detail, mr. santos has repeatedly, egregiously, and brazenly violated the public's trust. mr. santos is not a victim. he is a perpetrator of a massive fraud on his constituents and the american people. in fewer than nine months, and despite mr. santos's noncooperation and numerous attempts to mislead the committee, the ethics committee compiled a staggering factual record against him. and my colleague, chairman guest, has already outlined all of the subpoenas, and pages of documents and witnesses, and i'm not going to go through that again. but let me just say that the staggering factual record -- >> gentlewoman's time has expired. >> may i ask for one more minute. >> 30 seconds. >> this achievement owes to the superb work of the nonpartisan attorneys and investigative staff who i would like to sincerely thank for their efforts and dedicated service to the house, and i just want to remind everyone that the ethics committee is the only committee in congress that is completely bipartisan, an equal number of democrats and republicans and this was a unanimous decision. thank you. >> gentlewoman yields, gentleman is recognized. >> mr. speaker, i reserve. >> gentleman reserves. >> gentleman from new york, mr. santos is recognized. >> mr. speaker, i'd like to yield time, as much time as he may consume to my colleague, clay higgins. >> gentleman from louisiana is recognized. >> thank you, mr. speaker. mr. speaker, many times in the course of my life as a military police officer and a civilian police officer, i've had occasion to say calm down, son. i've heard your argument. i feel your passion. i understand your position. but you're 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's the man seated here, to making a mistake. mr. speaker, one of the gentlemen said we should be held to a higher standard. we're talking about the removal of a member of congress. are 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 two-year election cycle as established by our founding fathers and enshrined in our constitution. calm down. mr. speaker, i have spoken for seven years to this body here, standing here. and very rarely have i had a prepared statement, nor do i today, but i'm 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'm wrong for that. i considered sending you all this letter, and i did not, and i apologize for that. because the media has gotten it. it's out there. 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 seven years i've been a member of congress, many members have been subject to campaign ethics investigations, and 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 justice 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 quote, unquote 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'm 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 subcommittee report is most certainly not written within the parameters normally found in an unbiassed, 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 it to a court as unbiassed. you may accept this report as grounds for expulsion from congress, but i say no. it's not right. the totality of circumstance appears biassed. it stinks of politics. and i'll oppose this action in every way. perhaps my colleague should step back from expulsion, look in the mirror, reflect upon the long established historical record of congressional behavior. consider the founder's intent and let we the people of new york determine their presentation. this report is an objective presentation of fact, yet it is most certainly written with notable disregard for professional objectivity, in a media incensed public disclosure, that my reasonable man can see is the congressional equivalent of a public crucifixion. i'm stunned members would cheer for the public shaming and expulsion. it's like witnessing a fair and compass nate village to gather to burn an alleged witch. two members of congress have been expelled and both have 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 that kind of precedent we're setting here. mr. speaker, i appreciate this opportunity to encourage my colleagues sincerely on both sides of the aisle to step back from this expulsion. i yield. >> gentleman reserves. gentleman from new york, mr. esposito. >> as i respect my friend from, no one is cheering for this ethics report. i'd like to yield to my friend from new york and fellow long islander, mr. lolota. >> gentleman from new york is recognized. >> i would like to address three issues in hopes of persuading colleagues on both sides of the aisle who are against or are undecided to, those three issues are fraud. due process and election integrity. regarding fraud, federal and state laws would require jail time or a monetary fine or both for any of our constituents who tricked another person into an agreement to another american's disadvantage. here in the 2022 election, by his own admission. george santos induced new york voters and donors throughout the nation to support him by fraudulently creating an entirely new person that donors would support. santos did this intentional, figuring the uneducated, and unemployed, and person of simple means could not earn the support of voters and donors. the facts are not in dispute. george santos is not the person he offered to voters. he didn't work where he said he did, he didn't dpo to school where he said he did. he's far from rich, is not jewish and his mother was not in the north tower on 9/11. that we should wait to decide his fate is flawed since voters weren't given the chance in the first place to determine who they were voting for. our constituents will go to jail or be fined for similar lies, one question we have before us today, are we going to hold george santos to the same standard, which our constituents are held or a lesser one? regarding due process, we should clear some things up. it's been a while since i took professor's procedural class or constitutional law class but the due process clauses, fifth and 14th amendments do not apply to house proceedings. the constitutional proceedings which do apply is article i, section v, clause ii, each house may determine the rules of proceedings, punish members for disorderly behavior, and with the concurrence of two-thirds, expel any member. constitutional due process does not apply here, george santos has been provided every element of it, through the bipartisan ethics committee process. due process requires notice and opportunity to be heard and a decision by a fair and imparable tribunal. santos got his notice when the ethics committee informed him of the probe into his conduct. second, santos had every opportunity to be heard when the ethics committee invited him to confront the accusations against him, an invitation he rejected. finally, his tribunal is us, the house of representatives, whose collective impartiality is proven every day by the partisan fights we have day in and day out. while this proceeding is not covered by the due process law, george santos has been afforded much more process than a person in his shoes deserves. finally, mr. speaker, i would like to speak on the matter of election integrity. before i came to the house, i was my county's elections commissioner for seven years where i if you thought for more integrity in elections. against fraudulently submitted ballots and against voters being registered in two places. members of congress from both sides of the aisle voted not to certify those elections staying the results were not reliable. tomorrow voting yes to expulsion, republicans and democrats can stand for election integrity, and against voter fraud because there's no more provable case of election praud before this congress than george santos's 2022 election fraud. in closing, i would like to offer new yorkers from queens and nassau county deserve better than george santos, a total fraud and serial liar, representing them in congress. each day he's allowed to remain a member of congress, my voters to the west are being denied representation in these hauls. their representative is incapable of getting a bill passed, project funded or sitting on a committee. he lacks the minimum amount of trust necessary to be a member of congress. the best way to support my fellow new yorkers and overcome george santos's fraud is to expel him from the house of representatives. i yield mr. speaker. >> i reserve. >> gentleman reserves. gentleman from new york mr. santos is recognized. >> i would like to yield as much time as he may consume. apply colleague from florida, gaetz. >> they are acting in exceedingly bad judgment. here's why. since the beginning of this congress, there's only two ways you get expelled. you get convicted of a crime or you participated in the civil war. neither apply to george santos. so i rise not to defend george santos, whoever he is, but to defend the very precedent that my colleagues are willing to shatter. now, let's speak to due process. mr. santos hasn't been convicted of anything but we haven't even moved to expel the people who have. mr. bowman pled guilty to a misdemeanor for his little fire alarm stunt weeks ago. while the ethics committee is marching to throw george santos out of congress, they take no action as to someone who pled guilty to a crime. what's that all about? and there's all of this talk about, he could have come and testified to the ethics committee, he didn't. he had his due process. he faces a trial and had mr. santos testified before the ethics committee, an argument could have been made he waived his rights he would have had at trial, that any american would enjoy. it was a procedural double bind that shouldn't be held against santos. the fact pattern against mr. santos is similar to the fact pattern of former representative duncan hunter. he used campaign money on girlfriends and trips, and home improvements, and all sorts of personal lavishes. he was indicted for those crimes and continued to serve in congress. he pled guilty to a number of these crimes, and continuing to serve in congress. he was in congress for an additional pay period, after having pled guilty to the very same things that mr. santos has been indicted for. i think it's per situative to me that mr. higgins and two law enforcement officials with sterling reputations are here not necessarily to defend mr. santos but the precedent and due process being shattered. i was struck when the author of the resolution said the quiet part out loud. he didn't try to shoe horn the expulsion of george santos into some existing construct or precedent, he said, yep, we're making a whole new precedent, whole new rules right now, but he defends that by saying that the new rules are better, that it's a higher standard, so we should just throw away everything that's happened from the first congress to the 118th because the new precedent is robust. it's a lower standard for due process without merit. whatever mr. santos did with botox or only fans is far less concerning to me than the indictment against senator menendez who's holding gold bars inscribes with arabic on them from egypt while he is still getting classified briefings today. he's not getting thrown out of the senate. he's getting classified briefings, under indictment for bribery. because santos was buying botox and only fans, we got to throw him out. if george santos is convicted, he ought to be expelled. but until then it is a dangerous thing for people in washington, d.c. so substitute their judgment for the judgment of voters. winston churchill said that, you know, in a democracy, people get the government they deserve. mr. santos' district elected him. this is not a district in rural mississippi with one newspaper. this is new york city, and george santos rolled in there, wins, and you know what, it's between him and his voters, him and the justice system and the fact that the ethics committee has done this violation of precedent will do grave damage to this institution for many years to come because now there's no requirement of any conviction. and i fear what that may indicate lies ahead for the future of due process in the house of representatives. i yield back. >> gentleman reserves. >> i yield one minute to mr. garcia. >> gentleman is recognized. >> truth and justice are crucial components of a healthy and strong democracy. it speaks to the public trust we hold and the dignity of the institution. as a freshman a member of congress i take the oath very seriously. i love this country deeply, and we should all have intentions to defend it. that's why i raise today to defend the integrity of the house and support the expulsion of representative santos. i wish no personal harm for the representative from new york, and i imagine this is a difficult moment for him and the institution, i believe strongly in his actions, and he must be held accountable, as well as his lies, he fabricated his qualifications, background, lied to the fec, and unemployment fraud. that's why he's under a serious 23 count indictment. the bipartisan report is out. it's damming. people want better from congress, good and ethical government. i ask the representative from new york to resign, and save himself and the country from this vote. if not, i encourage a yes vote to restore integrity to the body and expel representative santos. i yield back. >> gentleman from new york. >> i reserve. >> gentleman reserves. >> gentleman from new york is recognized, mr. santos. >> thank you, mr. chair. >> i hear a lot of lying. i encourage representative santos to do the right thing, which is resign. what i hear is people don't want to take this vote. i'm here. i'm willing to take the vote. i'm okay with it. this is your time. this is what they have all built up to all year. the most damming feature of this farce is the total perversion of the priorities of this body and conference who ran on the commitment to america, yes, which 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. borders are wide open. it's no man's land. being run by ngos, and yet, this congress has now taken three measures and the insurmountable amount of time that goes behind them to expel a member dually elected by the people of the third district of new york. i didn't think my tenure in congress would be this way. i came here to do work, to pass and work on conservative legislation. i have a stellar conservative record that i am proud of. the work i've 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. 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's no comparison. it's simpler. they can go home and say they're conservative, they don't know what a real conservative looks like on long island, that's the reality. the votes are there. let's talk about the fact of due process that everybody seems to say i have taken and received. it's 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, and they gave us a hard liner, 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 i go to the ethics committee. no disrespect to the committee. i've 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, and documents we did not have we have told them. we don't have them. we don't have access to what you're asking for, and they persisted and insisted in inventing documents, communication between myself and people that did not exist, and we informed them that this was all on the record. but i rise and i 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'm not. his filing on this expulsion resolution says that i am. that's a serious allegation, one that i sought to see the end of, where the congressional, the office of congressional ethics, pardon me, 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. 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 will speak from both sides of their mouths, without regard to who it might hurt. people in this town will hurt people a whole lot so they can benefit just a little bit. with that, i reserve. >> gentleman reserves. gentleman from new york. >> mr. speaker, how much time do i have remaining? >> gentleman has two minutes remaining. >> two minutes. all right. i'd like to yield one minute to my friend from new york, mr. molinaro. >> dear god, mr. speaker, my future former colleague is divorced from reality. he has manufactured his entire life to defraud the voters of his district an honest choice for a member of congress. he has lied to donors and to colleagues, taking advantage of election law, using campaign funds to personally benefit himself, and he has defamed not only his office but the institution itself. i was not elected, nor any of us to defend precedent. i was elected to defend the united states constitution, and my colleague in the most truthful thing he said today said we don't want to be compared to him. my colleague is damn right, i do not want to be compared to him. and the voters that sent me here expect an independent voice, expect us to use the rules of the house, and expect us to stand up for the very decency and laws of this country in protecting the constitution. he has lost the right to serve in this house, and i will vote to expel him. >> gentleman -- >> i reserve. >> gentleman from new york is recognized. >> i reserve. >> gentleman reserves. gentlemen from new york. >> i have one minute are remaining? >> 45 seconds to my friend from new york, mr. lawler. >> of all the lies mr. santos told, two are most jarring, that his mother perished in 9/11, was in the building, got cancer from 9/11, or that his grandparents fled the holocaust. in both instances, mr. santos used tragic events in history to try and propel himself to public office. worse than that, he not only defrauded the voters of the third district, he defrauded donors, stealing their money for personal gain. the facts and the evidence are clear. he can defend himself in a court of law but for the purposes of this body, he's got to go. it's time to expel george santos. >> gentleman's time is expired. >> i reserve. >> gentleman reserves. gentleman from new york. >> how much time do i have left, mr. speaker? >> gentleman has eight minutes remaining. >> i reserve. >> gentleman -- >> i have 15 seconds remaining? >> gentleman has 15 seconds remaining. >> i yield the last 15 seconds to my friend from ohio, mr. miler. >> i'll keep this brief. i have been a victim of george santos, as well as other members in congress in terms of defrauding through public, and an ethics complaint. you are a crook, i know i should direct my comments to the chair. i yield back. >> gentleman's time is expired. >> i reserve. >> mr. speaker. >> mr. santos is recognized. >> i would like to move to have the gentleman from ohio's words stricken from the record. >> mr. speaker, hypocrisy as i mentioned, my colleague wants to come up here, call me a crook. same colleague who's accused of being a woman beater. are we really going to ignore the fact that is 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 within public service. i didn't come here, i can go and read about all 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 the that this is the correct thing to do. so be it. take the vote. i'm at peace. i have accepted that whether i get expelled or i don't, i have accepted that i can not control that faith, mr. speaker. accepte that faith, mr. speaker. vote as a conservative voice in this body. i stand by that. to that i would like to yield as much time as my colleague may consume, the gentleman from louisiana, mr. higgins. >> gentleman from louisiana is >> thank you, watching debate on the housetc floor about whethero expel congressman george santos it has been remarkable viewing.a the head of the ethics committei came up and laid out in great detail what o the ethics commite found. then a deputy came out and did the same. george santos, meanwhile, has repeatedly said that he believes ousting him is unfair and that it sets a bad precedent that all of the other people, all five of the other congressmen who have been expelled have either been convicted or have been seditionists, have fought for these confederate. santos, by the way, is accused by the federal government of nm conspiracy, wire fraud, identity theft, and credit card fraud. those allegations bolstered by the house ethics investigation which found santos, quote, blatantly stole from his campaign to buy himself fancy vacations, shopping sprees at hermes, and botox, as you heard them mention quite a few times. joining us garrett haake. and new york one news washington, gentlemen, good to have shyou. garrett, this has been i'll put it this way, a colorful debate. what happens next? >> ultimately there will be a vote. republicans will hold it over until tomorrow. i bet they do it the very last thing before they leave town for the weekend so whatever way thie goes, members will be shielded from the blowback of it. the question i think needs to be answered should have been one raised by matt gaetz. i have not found a single how republican willing to defend ane of the actions of which george santos has been accused. in fact, i talked to patrick mchenry yesterday who said there is no question he is a bad guy. the question is do we kick him out before or after he gets convicted of ar crime. there are a number of house republicans who aremb still deey uncomfortable of the idea that thebl allegations against santo no matter how strong they may be, are simply allegations until they're proven in a court of n law. and that's theco question that hanging up some house republicans. whether it's enough house republicans that santos gets to stick around beyond the end of the day tomorrow is the ow unanswered question in all of this. >> maggie said this. i rise not to defend george santos, whoever he is, which is a remark in itself. he also brought up senator menendez, and the fact that he is still getting security briefings whenur senator menend has been accused of acting as a foreign agent.t. garrett, i'm not -- tell me if i'm wrong about that. but i'm not seeing any of the leadership in the house come up and speak. i'm u not seeingfully of the we respected republicans in the house. where do they stand? >> look, that's not an accident. i was outside a meeting of a bunch of committee chairs today. i talked to a number who hadn't read the committee report, were still on the fence with patrick mchenry, not sure if they're willing to take that step. and i tried to ask the speaker himself about how this will go. we had a pretty short conversation. a here is basically that chat in its entirety. >> what is your conscience telling you? >> just wait. >> not much from the speaker there. he said as basically as much yesterday in a news conference. now katy, sometimes the speaker doesn't vote. insp cases on the floor the speaker doesn't vote in a lot of the legislation that doesn't come through. it's possible he will choose not to make a choice here, or if he decides the action he wants to take is to somehow protect the institution the way it has been run up until now, maybe he votes to ultimately save santos. he'll be very closely watched here for all the obvious reasons, especially as he is still trying to establish exactly what kind of speak her is going to be, what kind of lead her is going to be as a second in line to the president. >> menendez, by the way, has pleaded not guilty to working for a foreign government and taking bribes. i want to ask you, kevin, about george santos himself. what in the world is he doing? because he is getting up and he istt acting like he is being crucified, that he has done nothing wrong. and the h allegations against h, yes, they're still allegations, but theyti are quite detailed. and it is surprising to see somebody go up there and act like, you know, there is nothing there. >> he is essentially playing the blame game. >> was in a pen and pad with him this afternoon. i asked him, when are you going to provide the time at some point are you going to provide thisu detailed line by line analysis of why everything you'reys accused of in the ethi report, in the 23-count indictment, why it's wrong, why it's knotts accurate? and he keeps saying, well, further down the road, will never give an actual timeline ol all of this. he was asked today in that group setting, what are his plans come saturday if he is no longer a member of congress. and he said essentially, i'm going sleep in. he has been trying to avoid answering questions about any of this, promising answers now and again, without providing any detail. and that's been he first arrived here on capitol hill in january. >> the ethics chair pointed out all of theai lies, saying he is jewish and then later he said no, he meant jew-ish. saying his mom was in one of the twin towers during 9/11, et cetera. he said lies are not reason to oust somebody, but it does fundamentally say that this man has no credibility when he is trying to push back against the allegations that the federal government has laid out, and also thern ethics committee has laid out in some detail. you're talking about how he says t he is going to sleep in if he does get expelled. kevin, tell me what happens to his district in the immediate aftermath. >> right, so:00 look, the governor would then have to call a special election, provided he is ousted tomorrow. and then within the next three or so months, there would be a special election, essentially the county party chairs would pick the candidates.pi there wouldn't be a primary process. this is a district that biden won by about eight points in 2020, and then santos won it by eight points in 2022. so it's by no means perfectly blue. but democrats certainly believe they have a chance to really wi this district back. and as congressman jeffries, top democrat in the house, his district is not too far away from his in brooklyn, he basically said it's going to be up to thell democrats to go in d try to clean this district up. we'll seect if the democrats wi be able to pulle that off. but there will be a a lot of investment focus on this special election should it come to that. >> garrett, part of the calculation no doubt is that the republicans don't want to lose a seat when they have such a thin majority. but they are picking up a seat inki utah. >> yeah, that's right. but look, first being short santos cost them a vote. if this is flipped to a democrat, that could cost them a democrat. we'ret in retirement season, katy. as we approach theet end of the year, some members announced they had a busy november with members announcing they would not seek reelection. but sometimes they announce they're not even coming back at all. the very nature of the republicanur majority is really really thin right now. and not having santos or even worse yet having a democrat in his place makes the job of house republicans a lot harder. democrats have been calling this job, by the way, pete aguilar and hakeem jeffries made similaf reports. if the house republican majoritp was at 20 seats rights now, do you really think george santos would stillu be here?l they argue that house republican leaders have been much more desperate to hold on to his vote. and santos, by the way, has played on that. think how much he hugs kevin mccarthy, especially during the speaker fighthy to make sure mccarthy knew he wasak a reliab vote for as longs that mattered to him. >> i wonder what democrats are doing as they watch this, as they see george santos hit back at maxeo miller, the representative from ohioil who came up and called him a woman beater. he was w accused by stephanie grisham in the white house of abusing her while they worked there together. he has denied the allegations. democrats, tell me how they're watching l this, how they're reacting, quickly? >> they think he is an embarrassment to the whole institution, but at least he is an embarrassment with an r behind his name. i think the fellow new yorkers don't like any association with george santos. but he is a useful foil for democrats to point out that this is what you get with the republican majority. they argue all the time that this majority has basically done nothing except fight amongst themselves. the floor debate we just played for almost an hour a perfect example of that. >> gentlemen, thanks for stick arounding and waiting as we watch that debate on the floor again. >> was unlike anything i've ever seen on the house floor. the ethics chair alone getting up and laying out those allegationsay was a sight to behold that will do it for me today. "deadline: white house" starts right now. hey, everyone, it is 4:00 in new york. i'm alicia menendez in for