My sense is that the argument my colleague Mr. Kusmierczyk is making is that the ends justify the means. I would suggest that it's relevant, if that is indeed the argument he's making.
The means, in this case, include misleading the committee, and that's the issue I have with how things have transpired. He's restating the importance of diplomatic relations and the importance of a new residence. He's basically saying that, no matter how we got here, it doesn't really matter because this is so important.
I would support allowing him to continue to speak, if that is indeed the argument he's making.