Relating to the consideration of House Report 117–152 and an accompanying resolution.

Madam Speaker, by the direction of the Select Committee to Investigate the January 6th Attack on the United States Capitol, I call up the report (H. Rept. 117-152) and accompanying resolution recommending that the House of Representatives find Stephen K. Bannon in contempt of Congress for refusal to comply with a subpoena duly issued by the Select Committee to Investigate the January 6th Attack on the United States Capitol.

Madam Speaker, by direction of the Select Committee to Investigate the January 6th Attack on the United States Capitol, I call up the resolution (H. Res. 730) recommending that the House of Representatives find Stephen K. Bannon in contempt of Congress for refusal to comply with a subpoena duly issued by the Select Committee to Investigate the January 6th Attack on the United States Capitol, and ask for its immediate consideration

Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on this measure.

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

Madam Speaker, since Speaker Pelosi asked me to chair the January 6th Select Committee, I have spent a lot of time thinking about the importance of what we are doing, the weight of it, the urgency. We need to give the American people answers about what happened. There needs to be swift accountability. But there are longer-term considerations, too.

Madam Speaker, I am a grandfather, and when I talk to my grandkids about that horrific attack on our democracy on January 6, my mind jumps ahead to the future in store for them--questions about whether American democracy, as we know it now, will remain strong, whether it will withstand future tests.

That has to be the legacy of this committee's work. To be sure, we are going to answer questions about what happened on that day. But we also need to draw a roadmap for making sure our democracy remains strong tomorrow.

We will look backward at what happened and try to explain how and why the insurrection came about. But we will also look forward and generate recommendations for legislative policy and process changes that will help ensure that nothing like this ever happens again.

When we get to the end of this process and look back, we are going to ask ourselves: Did we do everything in our power to uncover every fact? Did we use the tools at our disposal to get a full accounting, or did we let someone stand in our way without facing consequences? Did we learn what we needed to know for Congress to forge legislation to help ensure we never experience another January 6 again?

That is why we are taking up this resolution today, citing Steve Bannon with criminal contempt and referring him for prosecution by the Justice Department.

We didn't choose to be here. This isn't about punishing Steve Bannon. The select committee would prefer and, frankly, expect all witnesses to fully cooperate. But Steve Bannon has led us down this path by refusing to cooperate in any way with our investigation.

We believe Mr. Bannon has information valuable to our probe. He was deeply involved in the so-called stop the steal campaign. He was reportedly in a war room meeting the day before the riot and had been pressuring the former President to try to stop the counting of the electoral college ballots.

He himself warned that ``all hell'' would break loose on January 6. We believe he can help inform our inquiry as to how the riot came together and what it was intended to achieve. He is clearly an important witness.

We subpoenaed him. And unlike other witnesses who have engaged and worked with our team to find a way to cooperate, Mr. Bannon told us he wouldn't comply because the former President told him not to. He hid behind vague and baseless claims of privilege. That is just not acceptable.

The select committee told Mr. Bannon several times that he would face the consequences if he didn't change course. Well, he didn't change course, and his actions have brought us to this point.

Madam Speaker, we need to make it clear that no person is above the law. We need to take a stand for the integrity of the select committee's investigation and for the integrity of this body.

What sort of precedent would it set for the House of Representatives if we allow a witness to ignore us flat out without facing any kind of consequences? What message would it send to other witnesses in our investigation?

I am not willing to find out. I am not willing to get to the end of the select committee's work and look back wishing we had done more to uncover all the facts, not when we know what is on the line, when we know that our democracy isn't yet out of danger, when we know that the forces that tried to overturn the election persist in their assault on the rule of law.

Our investigation is going forward. We are hearing from witnesses, reviewing documents, and analyzing data. Mr. Bannon stands alone in his defiance, and we will not stand for it. We will not allow anyone to derail our work because our work is too important: helping ensure that the future of American democracy is strong and secure.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I heard the gentleman opposing this resolution. We are not actually seeking information from Mr. Bannon because of his opinions. We issued the subpoena because we believe he has knowledge of relevant facts that we need to discover. We are not violating anything and, certainly, not Mr. Bannon's First Amendment rights. The only violation we can talk about is the violation of this building on January 6, and Mr. Bannon's claim that the election was stolen helped foment that attack. Investigating that is also part of our charter.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Madam Speaker, in response to the gentleman from Illinois' statement, the first hearing of the select committee that we actually held interviewed four officers who put their lives on the line defending all of us who work here in this body. So I assure you, my directions to the committee have always been, we will look at all of the facts and circumstances surrounding what occurred.

We are genuinely interested in getting to the facts. We are working to get the answers. And that is why we are on the floor today, to get answers from Steve Bannon about what he knew, what he did leading up to January 6.

Also, to the gentleman from Indiana, I am glad he finally agrees that the select committee has a legitimate legislative purpose and that is why we are here today, pursuing that legislative purpose. So I am happy that the Record will reflect his comments.

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Florida (Mrs. Murphy), a valiant member of the select committee.

Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Kinzinger), an Iraq and Afghanistan Air Force veteran and a lieutenant colonel in the Air National Guard.

Madam Speaker, just for the record, again, the gentleman from Indiana referenced the whistleblower. We have not talked to the whistleblower, but we have talked to the whistleblower's lawyer. We are doing our work. So, clearly, since he is quoting Politico, I want him to just get the record straight.

Madam Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from Virginia (Mrs. Luria), who served two decades in the Navy and was among the first women to serve in the Navy's nuclear power program.

Madam Chair, the vice chair of the committee put in the Record the fact that the FBI and Department of Justice declared no such thing in terms of January 6, so the assertion that somehow they have conducted an investigation is just not true.

Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Schiff), the distinguished chairman of the House Intelligence Committee.

Madam Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time to close.

Over the last hour, we have heard a lot about what we are not debating today. The select committee is charged with investigating a deadly attack on the seat of our democracy and making recommendations to ensure it never happens again. I can't think of anything more serious, but many of our colleagues would rather talk about anything else.

I think I know why. I think they are performing for an audience of one.

I do, however, want to commend my colleagues on the select committee for laying out clearly why the House must cite Mr. Bannon for contempt. If our investigation is to succeed, if the House's constitutional authority to investigate and legislate is to remain robust, then we cannot let this man flout the laws with impunity.

The select committee is made up of people of character, of profound commitment to public service and our Constitution. They all elevate the committee's work.

I especially want to thank and acknowledge our vice chair, the gentlewoman from Wyoming (Ms. Cheney), for her leadership and partnership. There is no doubt in my mind that history will record her courage in stark relief.

History will record all of what we do here today. We can be on the right side or the wrong side. I urge all my colleagues to remember that as we cast this vote.

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

Madam Speaker, today the House has been deliberating on the criminal contempt of Congress citation of Steven K. Bannon reported from the Select Committee to Investigate the January 6th Attack on the United States Capitol on Tuesday, October 19, 2021. This is a grave matter and not one the House takes lightly.

As I have said on many occasions, the Select Committee would prefer not to be in this position. We expect--and the law (2 U.S.C. Sec. 192) demands--witnesses comply with duly issued, lawful subpoenas of Congress. We lay out the factual record of Mr. Bannon's willful defiance of the Select Committee's September 23, 2021, subpoena in House Report 117-152.

There have been developments since the Report was written and adopted, and I memorialized some of those at the Select Committee's business meeting. To perfect the factual record in this case, I now include in the Congressional Record correspondence between myself and Mr. Bannon's attorney, Robert J. Costello, and further correspondence between the Office of White House Counsel and Mr. Costello, which states President Biden's position on issues relating to the subpoena to Mr. Bannon.

First, on Friday, October 15, 2021, I wrote Mr. Costello to reiterate to him and his client that the Select Committee would view Mr. Bannon's decision not to appear for his deposition as willful defiance that would lead to a business meeting of the Select Committee to consider a contempt report. I include that letter in the Record.

Select Committee To Investigate the January 6th Attack on

the United States Capitol,

October 15, 2021.

Mr. Robert J. Costello,

Davidoff Hutcher & Citron LLP,

* * *

Dear Mr. Costello: The Select Committee to Investigate the

January 6th Attack (``Select Committee'') is in receipt of

your October 13, 2021 letter (the ``October 13 letter''), in

which you reassert that your client, Stephen Bannon, will not

comply with the September 23, 2021 Subpoena to him for

documents and deposition testimony (the ``Subpoena''). As you

know, the Subpoena demanded that Mr. Bannon produce documents

by October 7, 2021 and appear on October 14, 2021 before the

Select Committee to provide deposition testimony on a wide

range of issues relating to the January 6, 2021 attack on the

United States Capitol, as well as plans to interfere with the

count of the 2020 Electoral College results. Mr. Bannon has

now willfully failed to both produce a single document and to

appear for his scheduled deposition. The Select Committee

believes that this willful refusal to comply with the

Subpoena constitutes a violation of federal law.

As justification for Mr. Bannon's complete failure to

comply with any portion of the Subpoena, you continue to rely

on ex-President Trump's stated intention to invoke executive

privilege with respect to Mr. Bannon, and Mr. Trump's

purported request that Mr. Bannon not produce documents to or

testify before the Select Committee. As was explained in the

Select Committee's October 8, 2021 letter (attached), the

former President has not communicated any such assertion of

privilege, whether formally or informally, to the Select

Committee. Moreover, we believe that any such assertion of

privilege--should it be made by the former President--will

not prevent the Select Committee from lawfully obtaining the

information it seeks.

Further, your letter makes no attempt to justify Mr.

Bannon's failure to comply with the Subpoena's demand for

documents and testimony on a range of subjects that do not

involve communications with the former President. As is clear

from the Subpoena and accompanying letter, and as underscored

in the Select Committee's October 8, 2021 response letter,

the Select Committee seeks documents and testimony on

numerous other matters, including Mr. Bannon's communications

with Members of Congress, presidential campaign

representatives, and other private parties concerning the

events of January 6, 2021, that could not conceivably be

barred by a privilege claim.

Moreover, even if the Select Committee were inclined to

accept the unsupported premise that executive privilege

reaches communications that the Select Committee seeks to

examine between President Trump and Mr. Bannon, Mr. Bannon

does not enjoy any form of absolute immunity from testifying

or producing documents in response to a Congressional

subpoena. Your citation to Committee on Judiciary v. McGahn,

415 F. Supp. 3d 148 (D.D.C. 2019) actually supports the

Select Committee, not your client. In McGahn, the district

court unequivocally held that even senior White House aides

are not entitled to absolute immunity from testifying in

response to a Congressional subpoena. Id. at 214 (``To make

the point as plain as possible, it is clear to this Court . .

. that, with respect to senior-level presidential aides,

absolute immunity from compelled congressional process simply

does not exist.''). Indeed, the footnote in McGahn that you

selectively quote makes clear that a President lacks legal

authority to order an aide not to appear before Congress

based on a claim of executive privilege. See Id. at 213, n.

34 (``But the invocation of the privilege by a testifying

aide is an order of magnitude different than DOJ's current

claim that the President essentially owns the entirety of a

senior-level aide's testimony such that the White House can

order the individual not to appear before Congress at all.''

(Emphasis in original)).

Accordingly, the Select Committee views Mr. Bannon's

failure to produce documents by the October 7, 2021 deadline

as willful non-compliance with the Subpoena. Mr. Bannon has

persisted in his refusal to produce any documents to the

Select Committee, and he has failed to provide a privilege

log identifying specific, asserted privileges. Mr. Bannon has

now further compounded his non-compliance by refusing to

appear on October 14, 2021 at the Select Committee deposition

to which he was summoned to provide testimony. The Select

Committee will therefore be meeting on Tuesday, October 19,

2021 to consider invoking the contempt of Congress procedures

set forth in 2 U.S.C. Sec. Sec. 192, 194.

If Mr. Bannon believes that there are any additional issues

relating to his non-compliance with the Subpoena that have

not been addressed, please submit them in writing to the

Select Committee by 6:00 p.m. E.S.T. on Monday, October 18,

2021 for the Select Committee's consideration in its

deliberations.

Sincerely,

Bennie G. Thompson,

Chairman.

Madam Speaker, at 6 p.m. on Monday, October 18, 2021, Mr. Costello replied to that letter and requested a 1-week ``adjournment'' to respond. Mr. Bannon's attorney said they needed time to ``assess'' the Select Committee's requests for documents and testimony in light of litigation filed by former President Trump in DC District Court. I include Mr. Costello's letter in the Record.

Davidoff Hutcher & Citron LLP,

Attorneys at Law, * * *,

October 18, 2021.

Re: The Subpoena for Stephen K. Bannon dated September 23,

2021.

Hon. Bennie G. Thompson,

Chairman, House Select Committee to Investigate the January

6th Attack,

Dear Congressman Thompson: We write on behalf of Stephen

Bannon. We have just been advised of the filing of a lawsuit

in federal court for the District of Columbia entitled Donald

J. Trump v. Bennie Thompson, et al., 21-Civ-02769 (D.D.C.

2021). In light of this late filing, we respectfully request

a one-week adjournment of our response to your latest letter

so that we might thoughtfully assess the impact of this

pending litigation.

Very truly yours,

Robert J. Costello.

Madam Speaker, the former President's lawsuit, however, is immaterial to Mr. Bannon's defiance of our lawful subpoena. As House Report 117-152 makes clear, Mr. Bannon had a duty to produce documents and appear before the Select Committee. His flat refusal to comply with the subpoena is unacceptable. I made that clear in a letter to Mr. Costello before the Select Committee's business meeting on Tuesday, October 19, 2021. I include in the Record my response to Mr. Costello's October 18th letter.

Select Committee To Investigate the January 6th Attack on

the United States Capitol,

October 19, 2021.

Mr. Robert J. Costello,

Davidoff Hutcher & Citron LLP,

Dear Mr. Costello: The Select Committee to Investigate the

January 6th Attack on the United States Capitol (``Select

Committee'') is in receipt of your October 18, 2021, letter

requesting a one-week ``adjournment'' of your response to my

October 15, 2021, letter. The only basis for your request is

yesterday's filing of litigation by former President Trump

against the Chairman, Select Committee, Archivist of the

United States, and the National Archives and Records

Administration. That litigation relates to the Select

Committee's requests for documents in the possession of the

National Archives and is immaterial to the Select Committee's

demand for documents and testimony from Mr. Bannon. The

investigation of the Select Committee is extremely important

and urgent for the nation, and further delay in compliance by

Mr. Bannon undermines the ability of the Committee to timely

complete its essential responsibilities. Accordingly, no

grounds exist for any ``adjournment'' or other delay and your

request is denied.

Sincerely,

Bennie G. Thompson,

Chairman.

Madam Speaker, meanwhile, with regard to Mr. Bannon's claims that executive privileges somehow precluded his production or appearance pursuant to the Select Committee's subpoena, on Monday, October 18, 2021, the Office of White House Counsel wrote a letter to Mr. Costello and specifically stated that ``at this point we are not aware of any basis for [Mr. Bannon's] refusal to appear for a deposition.'' It further stated that President Biden ``has already determined that an assertion of executive privilege is not in the public interest, and therefore is not justified, with respect to certain subjects within the purview of the Select Committee.'' I include the full White House letter in the Record.

The White House,

Washington, DC, October 18, 2021.

Robert J. Costello,

Davidoff Hutcher & Citron LLP,

* * *.

Dear Mr. Costello: I write regarding the subpoena for

documents and deposition testimony issued on September 23,

2021, by the House Select Committee to Investigate the

January 6th Attack on the United States Capitol (the ``Select

Committee'') to your client, Stephen K. Bannon.

As you are aware, Mr. Bannon's tenure as a White House

employee ended in 2017. To the extent any privileges could

apply to Mr. Bannon's conversations with the former President

or White House staff after the conclusion of his tenure,

President Biden has already determined that an assertion of

executive privilege is not in the public interest, and

therefore is not justified, with respect to certain subjects

within the purview of the Select Committee. Specifically,

President Biden determined that an assertion of executive

privilege is not justified with respect to a set of documents

shedding light on events within the White House on and about

January 6, 2021, and with respect to documents

and testimony concerning the former President's efforts to

use the Department of Justice to advance a false narrative

that the 2020 election was tainted by widespread fraud.

President Biden's determination that an assertion of

privilege is not justified with respect to these subjects

applies to your client's deposition testimony and to any

documents your client may possess concerning either subject.

Please contact me if you have questions about the matters

described herein. Please note, however, that at this point we

are not aware of any basis for your client's refusal to

appear for a deposition.

Sincerely,

Jonathan C. Su,

Deputy Counsel to the President.

Madam Speaker, after the Select Committee's October 19th business meeting, I wrote to Mr. Costello yet again to urge Mr. Bannon to change course and comply with the Select Committee's subpoena of September 23, 2021. I reiterated that Mr. Costello's stated reasons for Mr. Bannon's flat refusal to provide documents and appear at a deposition have no legal basis or support. I provided him with a link to the Select Committee's adopted report on a contempt citation to review the detailed basis for our recommendation to the House. I include my October 19th letter in the Record.

Select Committee To Investigate the January 6th Attack on

the United States Capitol,

October 19, 2021.

Mr. Robert J. Costello,

Davidoff Hutcher & Citron LLP,

* * *.

Dear Mr. Costello: I write yet again to urge your client

Stephen K. Bannon to change course and comply with the

September 23, 2021, subpoena from the Select Committee to

Investigate the January 6th Attack on the United States

Capitol (``Select Committee'').

As explained in our prior correspondence, your stated

reasons for Mr. Bannon's flat refusal to provide documents

and appear at a deposition have no legal basis or support.

Because of Mr. Bannon's continued refusal to comply with the

subpoena, the Select Committee has unanimously voted to

recommend that the House of Representatives find Mr. Bannon

to be in contempt of Congress. The detailed basis for that

recommendation is contained in the Select Committee's report,

a copy of which is available at the following link: https:// docs.house.gov/Committee/Calendar/ ByEvent.aspx?EventID=114156. Should the House of

Representatives agree with that recommendation, the Speaker

of the House will certify the relevant statement of facts to

the United States Attorney for the District of Columbia,

``whose duty it shall be to bring the matter before the grand

jury for its action.'' See 2 U.S.C. Sec. 194.

Additionally, President Biden's recently communicated views

relating to your client's reliance on executive privilege as

a basis for his non-compliance provide further support for

the Select Committee's position. As you know, in its October

18, 2021, letter, the Office of the White House Counsel

concluded that ``at this point we are not aware of any basis

for [Mr. Bannon's] refusal to appear for a deposition.'' The

letter further noted that President Biden has ``already

determined that an assertion of executive privilege is not in

the public interest, and therefore is not justified, with

respect to certain subjects within the purview of the Select

Committee.'' In short, the current President's statements

should remove any doubt regarding the inappropriateness of

Mr. Bannon's reliance on assertions of executive privilege as

grounds for his noncompliance with the subpoena. Mr. Bannon

has no basis in law to continue to defy the appropriate use

of congressional subpoena authority.

These developments underscore the folly of any continuing

defiance of the Select Committee subpoena by Mr. Bannon. The

Select Committee remains focused on expeditiously obtaining

the testimony and documents necessary to meet our

responsibilities and we continue to expect immediate

compliance by Mr. Bannon. Should Mr. Bannon choose to change

his posture, please notify Select Committee staff * * *.

Sincerely,

Bennie G. Thompson,

Chairman.

Madam Speaker, the importance of our investigation, and the recommendations we make for legislative and other policy changes that result from our investigation, require the participation of witnesses who have clear knowledge of the events leading up to and during the January 6th attack. Mr. Bannon's own actions in defiance of our lawful subpoena for a valid legislative purpose demand the consequences reflected in the House resolution citing him with contempt and referring his case to the Department of Justice.

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 727 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentlewoman from Minnesota (Mrs. Fischbach), pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only.

General Leave

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members be given 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks.

Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Rules Committee met and reported a rule, House Resolution 727. The rule provides for consideration of the resolution accompanying House Report 117-152 under a closed rule if the report is called up by direction of the Select Committee to Investigate the January 6th Attack on the United States Capitol. It provides 1 hour of debate equally divided among and controlled by Chair Thompson, Vice Chair Cheney, and an opponent.

Mr. Speaker, today, we face a fundamental choice: Whether we are going to get to the truth about the violent January 6 attack, the worst assault on the Capitol since the War of 1812 and the worst domestic assault on American democracy since the Civil War, or whether we are going to allow lawful subpoenas to be ignored and the investigation being conducted by the select committee to be obstructed to puff up the ego of the former President, who has launched another frivolous lawsuit, this time against the select committee.

I have to tell you, Mr. Speaker, I still remember January 6 like it was yesterday. I was standing right where you are now, Mr. Speaker. Our democracy was in peril; the lives of Members of Congress, our staffs, and all the workers here were endangered. And Capitol Police officers were beaten or worse.

Getting to the truth of what happened or placating the ego of a former President, that shouldn't be a tough call. In any ordinary time, it wouldn't be. This measure would probably have passed on suspension.

Because as a Member of Congress, we have fewer more important and solemn duties than what is at the heart of the measure before us today, and that is protecting our democracy and preventing future attempts to overturn the results of an election.

This is about country, not about party.

Now, many witnesses are already doing their patriotic duty and cooperating voluntarily with the select committee.

In fact, 10 of the 11 witnesses required to produce records to the select committee by the required deadline are engaging with the committee.

Only one person, Mr. Speaker, is refusing. One. Stephen K. Bannon.

Instead of doing the right thing, the legal thing, the patriotic thing, Mr. Bannon is hiding behind the former President's false claims of executive privilege to try to run out the clock on this investigation.

Now, maybe he has something to hide. I don't know. But the law isn't on his side. It is not on Donald Trump's side either.

Executive privilege is not absolute, and President Biden has declined to invoke that privilege.

There is a long history of the White House making accommodations to investigative requests from Congress. That is especially true when the public interest outweighs other interests, as it does here.

But apparently facts and the law don't matter to some. Apparently, Steve Bannon thinks he is above the law. Maybe it is because he was pardoned by the former occupant of the White House.

But ultimately, in the United States of America, no one should be above the law.

That shouldn't be a controversial idea. But we live in an age where apparently some put fidelity to Donald Trump over fidelity to the Constitution. And I find that disgusting.

I get it. The former President is in Mar-a-Lago somewhere seething about our efforts to get to the truth about January 6.

But is he so feared, Mr. Speaker, that my Republican colleagues are going to keep denying what happened that day? And keep trying to sweep it under the rug as if it never happened? Oh, it was no big deal.

This is our democracy that we are talking about here. This is about the oath we took and the freedoms we cherish, freedoms that Americans have fought and died for, Mr. Speaker.

And some on the other side, are they really willing to throw away all of that to placate the whims of one man? Really?

This has to stop.

The legal scholar James Landis once said: ``To deny Congress power to acquaint itself with facts is equivalent to requiring it to prescribe remedies in darkness.''

We need to see the facts in the cold light of day and follow them wherever they lead.

That means not only holding those who attack this building itself accountable, as the legal system is currently doing, it also means holding people accountable when they attack what this building stands for: Democracy and rule of law.

We will not tolerate being left in the dark, and certainly not when something so fundamental is at stake.

Now, this doesn't have to be a partisan fight. And just yesterday in the Committee on Rules, we debated the underlying measure at length. And, yes, we heard from the usual Members who rushed to the former President's defense, who deflected and wanted to talk about anything other than the events of January 6. But we also saw something more remarkable.

Chairman Thompson, a Democrat, sat side-by-side with Vice Chair Cheney, a Republican, two people who probably have never voted for the same Presidential candidates in their lives; two people who disagree on virtually every issue. But they agreed on this: On defending the Constitution and rule of law. Let's follow their example.

Mr. Speaker, I sat across the dais from Congresswoman Cheney for years on the Committee on Rules when the Republicans were in charge. We were polar opposites. But yesterday, I couldn't have agreed with her more, not as a Democrat but as an American.

Now I don't give a damn if you are a Democrat or a Republican, and I don't care if you like Donald Trump or not. Matters like this are about something more than petty partisanship.

So I urge my colleagues, let's put our country before our party. Let's put defending our democracy before defending Donald Trump. Let's support this rule and the underlying measure, not as Democrats or Republicans, but as public servants, as Members of Congress dedicated to preserving American democracy and the rule of law. That is what is at stake here and nothing less.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Speaker, my good friend from Minnesota said we wouldn't be in this position if we had done what the Republicans had asked us to do. We did.

And I include in the Record the letter that the minority leader, Kevin McCarthy, sent to Speaker Pelosi requesting a number of items.

House of Representatives,

Washington, DC, February 22, 2021.

Hon. Nancy Pelosi,

Speaker, House of Representatives,

Washington, DC.

Dear Speaker Pelosi: We are in agreement that the best path

forward for bipartisan legislation is to create an impartial

and bipartisan Commission.

In keeping with the suggestions from the Co-Chairs of the

9/11 Commission, the legislation the House puts forward

should mirror the precedents that fairly and successfully

governed that Commission. Simply put, House Republicans are

asking for no more and no less than what Congress came

together and agreed upon in the past. Specifically, those

precedents include:

An equal 5-5 ratio in appointments by Democrats and

Republicans

Co-Equal Subpoena Power for the Chair and Vice Chair of the

Commission

No inclusion of findings or other predetermined conclusions

which ultimately should be rendered by the Commission itself

As the Co-Chairs of the Commission stated, a ``bipartisan

independent investigation will earn credibility with the

American public.'' I am confident that following their

procedures and precedents can do just that, in a way that an

overtly partisan commission will not be able to.

Thank you and I look forward to hearing your response.

Sincerely,

Kevin McCarthy,

House Republican Leader.

Mr. Speaker, those items include: an equal 5:5 ratio on a committee; coequal subpoena power; no inclusion of findings of other predetermined conclusions which ultimately should be rendered by the Commission itself.

Mr. Speaker, the Committee on Homeland Security agreed to every one of them--every single one of them. And what did the Republicans do? They said, Well, we didn't think you would agree to everything, but we still don't want the Commission. So they voted

against it. And then they blocked it in the United States Senate.

So don't talk to me about partisanship or bipartisanship when it was very clear early on that my friends on the other side had no intention of wanting to work with us to get to the truth, because they couldn't take yes for an answer.

Mr. Speaker, let me also point out that today, President Trump issued a statement--he had to issue a statement because he can't tweet anymore because of mistruths and embrace of violence. Anyway, he issued a statement today. This is what he said:

The statement says, ``The insurrection took place on November 3, election day. January 6 was the protest!''

Let me just say that one more time.

Trump said today in a statement, ``The insurrection took place on November 3, election day. January 6 was a protest!''

And by the way, he didn't mention that it was a violent protest on January 6.

Mr. Speaker, are any of my Republican colleagues, aside from Congresswoman Cheney and Representative Kinzinger, who have shown courage and patriotism, are any of them willing to come to the floor and say unequivocally that the election on November 3 was not an insurrection, as the former President has now said?

It was a free and fair election held by one of the oldest democracies in the world. And that used to mean something to my Republican friends. Please, please. The former occupant of the White House is trying to tear this country apart. And unfortunately, too many on the other side are going along with him. Enough.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Speaker, I was hoping that someone on the other side would respond to former President Trump's statement today, which I find stunning and shocking, but apparently they don't want to talk about that. They want to talk about legislative purpose. When we get to the bill, I will let the committee members respond to that.

I do want to say one thing again; that Speaker Pelosi was committed to a truly bipartisan commission, and we did a bipartisan commission--a truly bipartisan commission. My friends on the other side of the aisle tried to undercut it and get their friends over in the Senate to tank it. That is what happened. They basically destroyed what could have been a bipartisan commission that, quite frankly, was the way we all wanted to go.

But then they said, well, she wouldn't let us put who we wanted on this current commission. Well, the minority leader suggested Mr. Jordan to be the lead Republican, and he very well may be a material witness in this investigation. You would put him on to oversee an investigation of, what, himself and others?

Give me a break. What is going on here? At least be honest enough with the American people to say what is going on here; and that is, you don't want to get to the truth about what happened on January 6. You never did; notwithstanding the violence that occurred right here in this Chamber, in this sacred building.

So, please, let's not get into this, Oh, we wanted to cooperate but somehow you wouldn't let us. We gave you everything you wanted, and you could not take yes for an answer.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pascrell).

Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 15 seconds to the gentleman.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am not going to waste my time debating this information. What my friend is talking about is a false government takeover. What about the people who tried to take over our democracy on January 6? What about what happened here on January 6?

Why is there no interest in getting to the truth? They come with this instead. Again, I am still waiting for somebody to respond to President Trump's statement that insurrection day took place on November 3. Do you really believe that? Is that what we have come to, that my friends on the other side would embrace such a shocking and such an offensive statement?

We had a free and fair election, and this is what the former President--who my friends are all so afraid of--says.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Pennsylvania (Ms. Scanlon), a distinguished member of the Rules Committee.

Mr. Speaker, let me just remind everybody that democracy doesn't defend itself; people have to defend democracy. It would be nice to see a little courage on the other side of the aisle.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from New York (Mr. Jeffries), the chairman of the Democratic Caucus.

Mr. Speaker, let me just say, not only will my Republican friends not condemn the President's outrageous and unacceptable and unconscionable statement today, but they won't even talk about what we are here for.

That is what fear looks like, and it is really unbelievably sad.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Pennsylvania (Ms. Dean).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer), who is the distinguished majority leader.

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

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentlewoman updating us on the bills that she has cosponsored and her opinions about the IRS, which have nothing to do with the underlying bill that we are debating here today. But it is stunning to me that neither she nor any of my friends on the other side of the aisle will respond to what the former occupant of the White House said today in a statement, that the insurrection took place on November 3; that our election, our lawful election in one of the oldest democracies in the world, was somehow an insurrection; and that January 6 was merely a protest.

I am stunned by this. I challenge the next speaker, please, can you say that you disassociate yourself with this statement? Can you make it clear to the American people that you want no part of this? I get it. You endorsed this man. He campaigned for you. You are afraid of his base. You are afraid every time he says anything. But the bottom line is, this statement needs to be condemned, and the unwillingness of anybody on the other side to condemn this statement is unconscionable.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Cohen).

Mr. Speaker, when the gentlewoman from Minnesota yielded the gentleman from Illinois an additional minute, I was kind of hopeful that maybe he would be the one to say that he disassociates himself from the statement of Donald Trump today in which he said that the insurrection took place on November 3, election day.

I would be happy to yield 30 seconds to him if he wants to say that this was a statement that is not only unconscionable but that every American should condemn.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Clyburn), the majority whip.

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

Mr. Speaker, oh, my God, can somebody, please--I beg of you on the other side--can somebody, please, disassociate yourself or condemn the statement by the former President who said today that the insurrection took place on November 3?

All my colleagues were elected on November 3 as well. If you believe that election day was an insurrection, then your election results are illegitimate.

Can somebody, please, for the sake of our democracy, say that what was said by the former President is wrong? Please.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Speaker, I don't know if this microphone is working, because I am not sure my colleagues can hear me when I have asked them over and over again, can you please disassociate yourself from the former President's statement today? It is important. It is on topic.

By the way, what the gentleman just talked about has nothing to do with what we are talking about today. It is amazing that nobody wants to talk about what is on the floor today.

But my constituents, when they talk to me, you know what they are fearful about? They are fearful about losing our democracy in their lifetime. And the inability or the unwillingness of my friends on the other side to be able to disassociate themselves with a statement by the former President, which today he said the election on November 3 was somehow the insurrection. It is stunning to me. He is tearing this country apart, and the silence and the indifference on the other side is aiding him in his quest to do that.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

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 can't adequately express the outrage I feel about what happened in this institution on January 6. It was not only an attack on this building; it was an attack on our democracy.

I will tell you, if we don't have our democracy intact, you are not going to fix the supply chain issues or the energy issues or any other issues.

Our democracy is in peril. It was attacked on January 6.

Mr. Speaker, I am the chairman of the Rules Committee, so I understand what the rules of the House are, so I cannot say what I really feel about what went on in this Chamber today with this debate. I am disgusted, to be quite honest with you.

We are trying to get to the bottom of what happened on January 6, and many on the other side have done everything they could to frustrate that effort. Now, we have somebody who doesn't want to comply with a subpoena, and we are saying we are going to put some force behind that. We need to be able to do our oversight. We need to get to the truth, and my friends are trying to frustrate that.

Then today, former President Trump issues a statement saying insurrection day took place on November 3. That was election day, when we were all elected. That is what he thought? That is what he thinks was an insurrection? And January 6 was just a protest.

We were all here that day. We saw the violence. People lost their lives that day. People were wounded that day. People were traumatized by that day. Again, it was not just an attack on this building and the people who work here; it was an attack on our democracy.

And my friends on the other side of the aisle can't even muster the courage to say that the former President was wrong in his statement. That is what fear looks like. That is what fear of Donald Trump looks like. It is so sad that a once great party has come to this.

I said it earlier. Members come and go. I know people are all worried about the latest polls and where our base is and what political implications will come from this or that. But at the end of the day, you ought to be worried about your legacy, about what your children and grandchildren think.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on the rule and ``yes'' on the previous question.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution.

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

Madam Speaker, a year ago today, the election was still a couple of weeks off. We knew it would be a tight race. Most of us did not anticipate that President Trump, or any President, frankly, would ever simply reject the outcome of the vote.

President Trump had the right to challenge the outcome in our State and Federal courts, which have an appropriate and constitutional role in resolving election claims. But what he did thereafter has no precedent in our history. He rejected the courts' rulings in dozens of cases, including the rulings of judges President Trump himself appointed.

He rejected what his own Department of Justice officials told him over and over again, that they found no evidence of widespread fraud sufficient to overcome the election. He rejected the conclusions of both the Department of Justice and the intelligence community that the Dominion Voting machines had not secretly changed the election outcome.

President Trump had no factual or constitutional basis for his claims. And the lawyers he found who would carry his false claims forward have paid the consequences. Rudy Giuliani's license to practice law has been suspended, and Sidney Powell has been sanctioned by a Federal judge.

But Donald Trump persisted, attempting through every manner he could imagine to try to overturn the outcome of the election. We all saw what happened. The people who attacked this building have told us on video, on social media, and now before the Federal courts exactly what motivated them. They believed what Donald Trump told them, that the election was stolen and that they needed to take action.

Today, Madam Speaker, we are here to address one witness, Mr. Steve Bannon. I urge all Americans to watch what Mr. Bannon said on his podcast on January 5 and 6. It is shocking and indefensible. He said, ``All hell is going to break loose.'' He said, ``We are coming in right over the target. This is the point of attack we have always wanted.''

Madam Speaker, there are people in this Chamber right now who were evacuated with me and with the rest of us on that day during that attack; people who now seem to have forgotten the danger of the moment, the assault on the Constitution, the assault on our Congress; people who you will hear argue that there is simply no legislative purpose for this committee, for this investigation, or for this subpoena.

In fact, there is no doubt that Mr. Bannon knows far more than what he said on the video. There is no doubt that all hell did break loose. Just ask the scores of brave police officers who were injured that day protecting all of us. The American people deserve to hear his testimony.

Let me give you just four examples of the legislative purpose of this investigation.

First, the plot we are investigating, involving Mr. Eastman, Mr. Giuliani, Mr. Bannon, President Trump, and many others, their plot attempted to halt or delay our count of electoral votes and reverse the outcome of the 2020 election. The 1887 Electoral Count Act is directly at issue, and our investigation will lead to recommendations to amend or reform that act.

Second, while the attack was underway, President Trump knew it was happening; indeed, he may have been watching it all unfold on television, and yet he took no immediate action to stop it. This appears to be a supreme dereliction of duty by President Trump, and we are evaluating whether our criminal laws should be enhanced to supply additional and more severe consequences for this type of behavior.

Third, we know from our investigation to date that President Trump was pressuring the Department of Justice in late December 2020 to support his false claims that the election was stolen. Several brave and honorable Trump appointees at the department flatly refused to go along with this fraud and threatened to resign. We are evaluating what, if any, additional laws may be required to prevent a future President from succeeding in such an effort.

Fourth, we know that President Trump made efforts to persuade State election officials to ``find votes'' to change the election outcome in his favor. We are evaluating whether the criminal laws of the United States should be enhanced to make the penalty for this type of behavior even more severe, and, if so, in what manner.

Mr. Bannon's own public statements made clear he knew what was going to happen before it did, and thus he must have been aware of and may well have been involved in the planning of everything that played out on that day.

The American people deserve to know what he knew and what he did.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Madam Speaker, I wanted to correct the Record. The gentleman from Indiana asserted that the FBI has found there was no coordination. That is just simply not true.

The gentleman also said that he is not on the committee. He noted that the Speaker had determined that he wouldn't be on the committee.

Madam Speaker, I have a number of letters the gentleman from Indiana has been sending to Federal agencies, and I include in the Record one dated September 16, 2021, for example, signing his name as the ranking member of the committee he has just informed the House he is not on and that, in fact, he is not on.

House of Representatives,

Washington, DC, September 16, 2021.

Hon. Deb Haaland,

Secretary, Department of the Interior,

Washington, DC.

Dear Secretary Haaland: You are receiving this letter

because the House of Representatives Select Committee to

Investigate the events of January 6th may have sent you a

request for information. The House Republican Leader Kevin

McCarthy appointed me to serve as the Ranking Member of the

Select Committee. Yet, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi refused to

allow me to fulfill my duties as Ranking Member.

Pursuant to the rules of the House of Representatives, the

minority party in Congress retains rights to the same

information that is provided to the majority party. For those

reasons, I ask that you provide me any information that is

submitted to the Select Committee. Additionally, please

include me on any update or briefing that you provide. If you

have questions, please do not hesitate to contact my staff.

Sincerely,

Jim Banks,

Ranking Member.

Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lofgren).

Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Aguilar).

Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Raskin).

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

Madam Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time to close.

Madam Speaker, just outside this Chamber, over the north door in Statuary Hall, which was the old House Chamber, stands a statue of Clio, the muse of history. She is one of the oldest works of art in our Capitol. She stands in a winged chariot, the chariot of time, and she takes notes in her book, reminding all of us that our words and our actions will be judged by history. History will particularly judge those of us in positions of public trust for what we are doing today.

In the immediate aftermath of the attack, Madam Speaker, we all recognized how profoundly wrong January 6 was. The gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Jordan), who just suggested that we were here because we opposed President Trump's policies, seems to have forgotten that actually on January 6 he, himself, said, ``What happened today is wrong and is not what America is about.''

The next day Mr. Jordan said, ``What happened Wednesday is a tragedy. Everyone knows that. It is as wrong as wrong can be.''

And today, Madam Speaker, the former President suggested that the violence was justified.

My colleagues in the Republican Party, the Republican Members of this body, have to understand, have to recognize, that there is a moment when politics must stop if we want to defend and protect our institutions.

A violent assault on the Capitol to stop the constitutional process of counting electoral votes is that moment. They all knew that on that day.

In fact, the minority leader himself stood in this Chamber and said, ``The President bears responsibility for Wednesday's attack on Congress by mob rioters. He should have immediately denounced the mob when he saw what was unfolding.''

Mr. McCarthy was right then. The President bears responsibility.

We need to know what happened. This body must have the ability to understand what caused the attack, to understand who was responsible, and to take legislative action to ensure that it never happens again.

Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this motion for contempt for Mr. Steve Bannon. I urge them to do so because it is right; it is morally right; it is constitutionally right; and it is all of our duty.

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

Madam Speaker, I thank my friend and colleague from Indiana (Mr. Banks) for yielding.

I can tell you, when I got elected to serve in this body almost 9 years ago, I didn't expect to be standing here today to talk about such an important issue.

I spent 16 years as a congressional staffer working for a Member of Congress whom I looked up to and who respected this institution for what it was and what it meant to our country.

When I came to Congress to serve with him, I had the utmost respect for this institution at the same time. That is why I wanted to be part of the House Administration Committee because I wanted to make this Congress and this House work better, act in a much more bipartisan manner, and make sure that we protect those who run this campus, but also at the same time protect those who protect us.

Madam Speaker, we are now months and months in, months and months

post January 6. From my many conversations with U.S. Capitol Police officers and those who work on this campus, they have the same concerns I have.

The question they ask is: Why were we so unprotected on January 6? And what has changed since then?

Getting to the bottom of those questions should be the top priority for all of us in this House. There are serious security vulnerabilities that have not been addressed by this House in nearly 11 months after January 6. And this is what the majority has decided to spend its time on, holding a private citizen, who wasn't even part of the administration at the time, in contempt for refusing to comply with House Democrats' subpoenas. This is after more than 600 people have been arrested for their role in the tragedies we saw on January 6.

When I get the article, I will submit for the Record, Madam Speaker, a Reuters article that talks about senior officials stating at the FBI that there was no organized effort to overthrow the government on January 6. So I will submit it once I get a copy of that. I did not bring it with me.

But our job, again, is to secure this Capitol. We have never seen a breach like the one that we saw that day. And it is our responsibility to make sure it doesn't happen again.

But that hasn't been done under the leadership of this House. We have had two independent reports regarding January 6, one bipartisan report in the Senate and another one commissioned by the Speaker herself, and that came out in March. These have never been acted on. But this is what the select committee has been working on?

The Capitol Police IG has released seven reports related to January 6, making recommendations on what is needed to secure this Capitol. To my disappointment, the majority has not acted in a meaningful way to ensure that all 103 IG findings are implemented.

These reports have all told us what the problems are and the recommendations on how to fix them. But Congress, us, have failed to even debate these changes, let alone act on them.

We know massive changes to intel, perimeter protection training, leadership structure, decisionmaking processes, and many, many more are needed, but neither the select committee, nor the Committee on House Administration, seem at all interested in ensuring these changes are made.

The Committee on House Administration, which has oversight of security, hasn't held a single hearing since August 5, with no upcoming hearings scheduled according to the majority's website.

The select committee, right now, as we see, is just purely focused on political subpoenas.

Madam Speaker, I include in the Record the articles I previously mentioned.

[From Reuters, Aug. 20, 2021]

Exclusive: FBI Finds Scant Evidence U.S. Capitol Attack Was

Coordinated--Sources

(By Mark Hosenball and Sarah N. Lynch)

Washington, Aug 20 (Reuters).--The FBI has found scant

evidence that the Jan. 6 attack on the U.S. Capitol was the

result of an organized plot to overturn the presidential

election result, according to four current and former law

enforcement officials.

Though federal officials have arrested more than 570

alleged participants, the FBI at this point believes the

violence was not centrally coordinated by far-right groups or

prominent supports of then-President Donald Trump, according

to the sources, who have been either directly involved in or

briefed regularly on the wide-ranging investigations.

``Ninety to ninety-five percent of these are one-off

cases,'' said a former senior law enforcement official with

knowledge of the investigation. ``Then you have five percent,

maybe, of these militia groups that were more closely

organized. But there was no grand scheme with Roger Stone and

Alex Jones and all of these people to storm the Capitol and

take hostages.''

Stone, a veteran Republican operative and self-described

``dirty trickster'', and Jones, founder of a conspiracy-

driven radio show and webcast, are both allies of Trump and

had been involved in pro-Trump events in Washington on Jan.

5, the day before the riot.

FBI investigators did find that cells of protesters,

including followers of the far-right Oath Keepers and Proud

Boys groups, had aimed to break into the Capitol. But they

found no evidence that the groups had serious plans about

what to do if they made it inside, the sources said.

Prosecutors have filed conspiracy charges against 40 of

those defendants, alleging that they engaged in some degree

of planning before the attack.

They alleged that one Proud Boy leader recruited members

and urged them to stockpile bulletproof vests and other

military-style equipment in the weeks before the attack and

on Jan. 6 sent members forward with a plan to split into

groups and make multiple entries to the Capitol.

But so far prosecutors have steered clear of more serious,

politically-loaded charges that the sources said had been

initially discussed by prosecutors, such as seditious

conspiracy or racketeering.

The FBI's assessment could prove relevant for a

congressional investigation that also aims to determine how

that day's events were organized and by whom.

Senior lawmakers have been briefed in detail on the results

of the FBI's investigation so far and find them credible, a

Democratic congressional source said.

The chaos on Jan. 6 erupted as the U.S. Senate and House of

Representatives met to certify Joe Biden's victory in

November's presidential election.

It was the most violent attack on the Capitol since the War

of 1812, forcing lawmakers and Trump's own vice president,

Mike Pence, to scramble for safety.

Four people died and another died the following day, and

more than 100 police officers were injured.

Additionally, a number of questions from that day still remain unanswered. I am still waiting for the Speaker of the House to answer a letter I sent her back in February that asked why the National Guard, requested by Police Chief Sund, were denied? And why was the Speaker's office and the Speaker involved in eventually approving the request? Why has the House Sergeant at Arms refused to comply with preservation and production requests from my office?

We have many, many more questions about why the Capitol was so unprepared that day. Our top priority should be ensuring our Capitol is never as vulnerable as it was on January 6, but this majority has done absolutely nothing to make the security changes needed to make this Capitol safer.

Madam Speaker, we must do better. We have not fixed the institutional problems with our security apparatus that led to the lack of preparation, the danger that our brave officers were put in on that day and any other possible day like that in the future. That is a failure of leadership in this institution.

We must fix the problems that led to the terrible security posture here--and I will tell you, after witnessing what we saw a few different days and security postures that this House was put into a couple of other days since January 6--and I urge you to talk to the brave officers that stand around these buildings and protect all of us every day; ask them the same question I do. Ask them if we have put them in a better position than they were in on January 6? And the answer out of every single officer I asked that question to is ``no.''

What is stopping this House from fixing the problems? It is a lack of will. It is a lack of focusing on the true issues that led for them to be put in a dangerous spot on January 6. Instead, we are talking politics. It is wrong, and we must do better.

I have said this time and time again, I stand willing to work with my Democrat colleagues to make this House, this Capitol, safer for everyone. Instead, it is all about political points like the one being scored today.

I am disappointed. You can tell. My frustration is going to continue to boil over until we are in a position to fix the problems that I have laid out and that we know exist.

Madam Speaker, as a senior member of the Committees on the Judiciary, on Homeland Security, and on the Budget, I rise in support of the rule governing debate for H. Res. 730, ``Resolution Recommending that the House of Representatives Find Stephen K. Bannon in Contempt of Congress for Refusal to Comply with a Subpoena Duly Issued by the Select Committee to Investigate the January 6th Attack on the United States Capitol.''

On January 6th the domestic terrorists who beat law enforcement officers and breached the Citadel of democracy of the United States wore insignias of White Supremacist groups, waved confederate flags, hung a noose on the lawn, and they were shouting racial epithets.

According to published reports and his own public statements, Mr. Bannon had specific knowledge about the events planned for January 6th before they occurred: just before the day of the attack, Mr. Bannon told his listeners:

All hell is going to break loose tomorrow . . . It's not

going to happen like you think it's going to happen. OK, it's

going to be quite extraordinarily different. All I can say

is, strap in . . . You made this happen and tomorrow it's

game day. So strap in. Let's get ready. So many people said,

`Man, if I was in a revolution, I would be in Washington.'

Well this is your time in history.

At 12:15 p.m. on January 6th he said to the assembled multitude on the Ellipse: ``You will never take back our country with weakness.''

Less than an hour later, at 1:10 p.m., he admonished the crowd: ``We fight like hell, and if you don't fight like hell you will not have a country anymore.''

Madam Speaker, the assault on the U.S. Capitol by domestic terrorists and insurrectionists rightly takes its place as one of the darkest moments in our nation's history since the Civil War.

Madam Speaker, the January 6 insurrection caused tragic loss of life and many injuries, while leaving behind widespread physical damage to the Capitol Complex and emotional trauma for Members, Congressional employees, and the Capitol Police.

It bears repeating often that the Congress and the nation owe undying gratitude to the men and women who answered the call of constitutional duty and heroically won the day on that bloody and deadly afternoon.

Madam Speaker, the domestic terrorists and seditionists who attacked the Capitol Building on January 6, 2021 were not, as some of their ardent defenders and apologists across the aisle have stated falsely, on a ``normal tour visit''; nor was their effort to lay siege to the Capitol and disrupt the processes of government an act of persons who love their country.

And it is absurd to suggest that it was a celebration of the United States and what it stands for when the leading edge of terrorists desecrated the Capitol by offensively parading the treasonous Confederate flag through the building and when, because of their insurrection, several members of law enforcement made the supreme sacrifice and scores more were seriously injured.

Madam Speaker, we owe it not just to those who lost their lives during that day, but to all Americans to figure out exactly what happened and how that day came to be.

We must understand that day in order to prevent the intended purpose of the January 6 insurrection--to disrupt the Joint Meeting of Congress to tally the votes of presidential electors and announce the results to the nation and the world--from every occurring again, because it was the greatest threat to the American Experiment since the Civil War when the pro-slavery forces decided to make war rather than let the nation survive. and the pro-freedom forces would accept war rather than let the nation perish.

The Select Committee has diligently continued in their duty to determine the causes and events that transpired during the insurrectionist attack.

Specifically, the Select Committee's purposes include:

To investigate and report upon the facts, circumstances, and causes ``relating to the January 6, 2021 domestic terrorist attack upon the United States Capitol Complex;''

To investigate and report upon the facts, circumstances, and causes ``relating to the interference with the peaceful transfer of power;'' and

To investigate and report upon the facts, circumstances, and causes relating to ``the influencing factors that fomented such an attack on American representative democracy while engaged in a constitutional process.''

In line with these purposes, the Select Committee requested information from Mr. Bannon central to its legislative purpose:

On September 23, 2021, Chairman Thompson signed and transmitted a subpoena to Mr. Bannon, ordering the production of both documents and testimony relevant to the January 6th attack on the Capitol.

The subpoena required Mr. Bannon to produce the documents on October 7 and required his presence for deposition testimony on October 14.

Mr. Bannon simply defied the subpoena--failing to produce the documents on October 7 and failing to show up for the deposition on October 14.

In a letter to Mr. Bannon's counsel on October 15, Chairman Thompson noted that Mr. Bannon had not even attempted to provide the Select Committee any explanation for refusing to comply with the Select Committee's demand for documents and testimony on a range of subjects that do not involve communications with the former President.

An individual who fails or refuses to comply with a House subpoena may be cited for contempt of Congress, and in his October 8th letter to Mr. Bannon's counsel, Chairman Thompson warned Mr. Bannon that his continued non-compliance would put him in jeopardy of a vote to refer him to the House to consider a criminal contempt referral.

Mr. Bannon's failure to appear for deposition or produce responsive documents in the face of this clear advisement and warning by the Chairman constitutes willful failure to comply with the subpoena.

The purpose behind seeking this information is because Mr. Bannon played a central role in organizing January 6th attack on the Capitol, and understanding this role is essential to understanding the context in which the January 6th attack occurred.

Mr. Bannon constructed and participated in the ``stop the steal'' public relations effort that motivated the January 6th attack.

Mr. Bannon planned political and other activities in advance of January 6th.

Mr. Bannon participated in a ``war room'' of promoters and prominent supporters of the ``stop the steal'' movement that met on January 5th.

Mr. Bannon communicated with President Trump several times in advance of the January 6th attack, urging him to take measures to interfere with the count of electoral votes and to make January 6th a day of reckoning.

In fact, according to published reports and his own public statements, Mr. Bannon had specific knowledge about the events planned for January 6th before they occurred: just before the day of the attack, Mr. Bannon urged his listeners:

All hell is going to break loose tomorrow. . . . It's not

going to happen like you think it's going to happen. OK, it's

going to be quite extraordinarily different. All I can say

is, strap in. You made this happen and tomorrow it's game

day. So strap in. Let's get ready. So many people said, `Man,

if I was in a revolution, I would be in Washington.' Well

this is your time in history.

In sum, Mr. Bannon appears to have played a multi-faceted role in the events of the January 6th attack and the American people are entitled to hear his first-hand testimony regarding his actions.

As recognized by the Supreme Court, ``The power of the Congress to conduct investigations is inherent in the legislative process,'' and that the subpoena power is a ``public duty, which every person within the jurisdiction of the Government is bound to perform when properly summoned.''

Rather than comply with Congress' inherent powers, and help heal the trauma this nation witnessed on January 6th, Mr. Bannon has simply refused to comply with the Select Committee's subpoena.

Madam Speaker, this should not be a partisan issue; it is the very power of Congress to investigate matters of issue that is at stake.

For this reason, I rise in support of the rule governing debate for H. Res. 370, ``Resolution Recommending that the House of Representatives Find Stephen K. Bannon in Contempt of Congress for Refusal to Comply with a Subpoena Duly Issued by the Select Committee to Investigate the January 6th Attack on the United States Capitol,'' and I encourage my colleagues to do the same.