Floor Statements

Madam Speaker, I rise today to express my sincere condolences to the family of Thang Do, who passed away on May 8, 2022. He has been an important part of our community and will be greatly missed.

Thang Do fled Vietnam in 1975, as a refugee, and supported himself through college, where he earned his degree in architecture from Cal Poly San Luis Obispo. Recruited after graduation by Aedis Architects, a San Jose-based architectural firm, Thang Do quickly advanced within the company and has led it for the past 30 years. His advocacy for sustainable design practices and focus on urban design issues, led him to be designated an American Institute of Architects Fellow, an honor held by less than four percent of their members. As lead architect of the recently-completed Vietnamese American Service Center in San Jose, he received the Community Impact Award from the Silicon Valley Business Journal.

A notable steward of revitalizing downtown San Jose and the SoFa district, Thang Do dedicated his time as a Chair of the San Jose Planning Commission, a member of the San Jose Architectural Review Committee, and a board member of the San Francisco Bay Area Planning and Urban Research Association. He also volunteered as a board member to the San Jose Museum of Art and the Housing Trust of Silicon Valley.

Thang Do was heavily involved as a community activist who helped uplift the Vietnamese community and culture. With his advocacy work and bilingual skills, he supported nationwide policy education by helping found the Progressive Vietnamese American Organization (PIVOT). The organization has been recognized nationally for helping increase civic engagement and fighting misinformation to Vietnamese residents.

I have been honored to see his architectural work firsthand throughout San Jose and am thankful for his commitment and service to the community. Thang Do will be greatly missed. Please join me in honoring him and sharing my deep condolences with his family and our community that mourns his loss.

Madam Speaker, I rise to recognize our former colleague and my friend Norman Mineta--an amazing man who broke ground in so many ways and was thoroughly committed to public service.

Norm's commitment was strong despite the injustices he and his family suffered. During World War II, they were sent from our shared hometown of San Jose to an internment camp in Wyoming. The imprisonment of Norm and his family was a terrible wrong, but it never interfered with Norm's love of the United States. He just kept going. Kept striving to make our country better. To make it more inclusive.

I knew Norm since the 1970s. When Norm was elected to the House of Representatives, I worked with his office when I was a staffer for my predecessor, Congressman Don Edwards.

I always found Norm to be tenacious--focused on getting things done. And he did accomplish quite a lot. He authored the Civil Liberties Act of 1988, which officially apologized for the internment of Japanese- Americans during World War II. That meant so much to so many people. Another law authored by Norm was ISTEA, which set up many of the transportation corridors we use today.

Norm and I only overlapped as Members of Congress in 1995, but throughout the years, I've looked up to his spirit of bipartisanship. Norm, well-known as a transportation leader and Chair of the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, often said, ``bridges and tunnels are not Democratic or Republican.'' And his ability to work across the aisle was useful when he served as a Cabinet Member for Presidents of both parties: Commerce Secretary in President Bill Clinton's Administration--and Transportation Secretary for George W. Bush.

One thing I always found fascinating about Norm was that he never forgot anyone's name. He could meet someone once . . . and then, 10 years later walk up and know exactly who that person was and when they first met. Not many of us in this Chamber would be able to do that, I presume.

And not many of us could say we achieved so many ``firsts.'' Norm went from becoming the first non-white Member of the San Jose City Council to the first Asian American serving in two Presidential Cabinets. While, the whole time, he served as an all-American representative for his constituents.

Norm Mineta made a huge impact on our San Jose community, and he changed our country for the better. He will be missed.

Madam Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 3525, the Commission to Study the Potential Creation of a National Museum of Asian Pacific American History and Culture Act.

I am proud to represent a district that is home to hundreds of thousands of Asian Pacific Americans with the largest concentration of Vietnamese-Americans in the country. For years, I've seen firsthand how our Asian Pacific American community embodies the American experience. That is why, as chairperson of the Committee on House Administration, I convened hearing in 2020 to examine a previous version of this bill. It is also why, during this Congress, I have worked to ensure this bill made it to the House Floor for a vote.

During our 2020 hearing, witnesses testified to the troubling lack of knowledge of Asian Pacific American history and culture among American students and associated that lack of knowledge with a shortage of exposure, rather than with a shortage of Asian Pacific American contributions to the Nation. For example, witnesses noted--among many other startling datapoints--only 3 percent of sites in the National Register of Historic Places are associated with Asian Pacific American history, and studies of U.S. history textbooks show a shocking lack of content on Asian Pacific Americans. This is disconcerting, as Asian Pacific Americans have been in the United States since the early 19th century and, today, are the fastest growing demographic in the country. Asian-Americans built the Transcontinental Railroad and much of our Nation's agricultural infrastructure, fought in the Civil War, helped lead the fight for farmworkers' rights and made key breakthroughs in atomic science and more.

Unfortunately, notwithstanding all the ways in which Asian Pacific Americans have strengthened the United States, the community has repeatedly been subject to cruelty. From the Chinese Exclusion Act and Japanese internment to the spike of racism and violence we have all witnessed over the past several years, America must do better by the Asian Pacific American community. We must do everything we can to honor the history and culture of Asian-Americans. I can think of few better ways to do that than a museum dedicated to their story. By establishing a commission to study the potential creation of an Asian Pacific American museum, we will be taking a meaningful step toward achieving that goal.

I strongly support H.R. 3525 and encourage my colleagues to do so as well.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to honor Chris Wilder who is retiring after 18 years as the President and Executive Director of the Valley Medical Center Foundation. His impact and contributions can be seen throughout our community.

In 2004, Chris Wilder joined the Valley Medical Center Foundation, which is the nonprofit organization that acts as the community fundraising arm for Santa Clara County Valley Medical Center. This center provides care to 1 in 4 valley residents and is home to San Jose's only top-level trauma center. Since joining the foundation, Chris has raised more than $100 million for our safety net health system. In his first two years alone in the position, he led two multimillion-dollar capital campaigns that allowed for the completion of the Parisi House on the Hill and the purchase of a new linear accelerator for the Sobrato Cancer Center. He also was a major champion for Measure A, which generated $840 million to build Sobrato Pavillion, the new adult hospital building and a major health center in downtown San Jose. Chris was integral in Santa Clara County's COVID-19 response, where he helped secure over $30 million in funds and donated supplies to protect healthcare workers, expand testing, and support vaccination efforts.

I have been honored to see his work firsthand and am so grateful for his steadfast resolve to help ensure that our safety net remains strong. He's been rightfully called a ``nonprofit superhero'' as his efforts can be seen throughout the Valley Medical Center campus. Please join me in thanking Mr. Wilder for his years of dedication and wishing him the very best in his retirement.

Madam Speaker, no one is above the law.

We have all heard that phrase. It is a bedrock principle, and we know it is what distinguishes democracies like ours from autocracies such as Russia.

Sadly, a few of the former President's closest aides and allies seem to think they are special, that they are above the law, including senior communications official Daniel Scavino, Jr.

Now, who is he? According to many reports, Mr. Scavino worked with the former President to use social media to spread lies regarding nonexistent election fraud and to recruit a violent, angry mob to D.C.

Mr. Scavino also followed violent, extremist social media on behalf of Mr. Trump. We have reason to believe that doing so provided Mr. Scavino with explicit advance warnings of the violence that was to occur on January 6. He may have shared these warnings of violence with Mr. Trump before the 6th, and we need to ask him about that.

He reportedly attended several meetings with Mr. Trump and others regarding reversing the legitimate victory of President Biden and was also with the former President during the Capitol attack when Mr. Trump failed to immediately try to stop it, despite urgent bipartisan calls for him to do so.

Madam Speaker, a Federal court recently concluded that Mr. Trump likely committed a Federal felony and that he and his allies ``launched a campaign to overturn a democratic election'' that ``spurred violent attacks on the seat of our Nation's government, led to the deaths of several law enforcement officers, and deepened public distrust in our political process.''

The court said that his effort was ``a coup in search of a legal theory.'' The court found that if President Trump's ``plan had worked, it would have permanently ended the peaceful transition of power, undermining American democracy and the Constitution.''

Democrats and Republicans have agreed that the very foundation of our constitutional republic was threatened. We must prevent that from ever happening again.

Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell rightly explained that the public needs to know everything about what caused and occurred on January 6. To inform both the American people and legislative reform proposals, the select committee needs to speak with Mr. Scavino. He has to fulfill his legal and moral obligation to provide testimony and documents. Otherwise, he should face consequences.

We must vote ``yes'' on this resolution to find him in contempt of Congress. In the United States of America, no one, including Mr. Scavino, is above the law.

Madam Speaker, I rise to address H.R. 4521, the America COMPETES Act of 2022, which the House is considering. I have worked closely with several committees on key parts of this legislation-- including the creation of a new class of start-up visas to attract the next generation of Immigrant entrepreneurs and the reauthorization of the National Science Foundation to supercharge our country's investments in cutting-edge research. However, I have concerns with another part of this bill--the inclusion of the ``SHOP SAFE Act'' in Section 80301.

The laudable intent behind the SHOP SAFE Act is to help combat the on line sale of counterfeit goods, which I certainly share. However, the SHOP SAFE Act as presently constructed has three flaws.

First, SHOP SAFE could raise the administrative burdens and transaction costs of many small businesses and small sellers. This could be especially disruptive for the sale of used goods and other secondary markets, and for artisanal and other non-mass market products that do not fit neatly into the big-brand templates that this bill would likely impose. As a result, consumers could also suffer as costs go up and sellers could go down in many of these markets.

Second, only the largest online marketplaces with the deepest pockets may be able to bear the full technological and economic burdens that SHOP SAFE would impose. As a result, the bill risks entrenching their dominance at the expense of nascent and future competitors.

Third, SHOP SAFE takes a ``kitchen-sink'' approach to combat counterfeit listings, imposing over a dozen sweeping requirements that platforms must implement to avoid crippling liability for third-party infringement. Yet no one has been able to explain which of these steps, if any, will really make a difference over the status quo in stemming the flow of counterfeits. Indeed, some online marketplaces already police their listings in many different ways, without the legal pressure imposed by this bill.

These concerns came up during the Judiciary Committee's markup of the SHOP SAFE Act last fall. Members, including several who voted to advance the bill, called for further work on the bill. Based on public discussion at the markup, it was expected a committee-driven process to make changes to the SHOP SAFE Act would happen before it moved forward. Regrettably, given that the ordinary legislative process towards the floor did not occur, we now find SHOP SAFE has been inserted without improvements into this much larger legislation.

There is another approach included in the America COMPETES Act, in Section 20213, the INFORM Consumers Act. This legislation would boost enforcement efforts through regulation by requiring on line marketplaces to verify the identity of high-volume sellers, while requiring the disclosure of basic information about seller identity to consumers. Some of these requirements overlap with those imposed in the SHOP SAFE Act.

As such, the America COMPETES Act contains two visions of how to make sure on line marketplaces are safe. It is my hope that a targeted approach, like the INFORM Consumers Act, will help bring forth a sensible resolution to this issue as the America COMPETES Act moves to a conference committee.

Mr. Speaker, I thank Chairwoman Johnson and House leadership for finding a path forward on this important bill.

I am so pleased to see renewed enthusiasm for Federal scientific investment under this administration and in this Congress.

The investments contained in the bill could hardly be more urgent. Over the past few decades, Federal investment in research and development has flatlined as a share of the overall U.S. economy. Meanwhile, our global competitors are jump-starting innovation and economic growth by accelerating investment. Without action, they will soon outpace us.

America needs to improve the speed and scale of scientific research while promoting innovative solutions.

This is a matter of national security.

Members of the House Science, Space, and Technology Committee have worked hard to advance bipartisan innovation bills included in this package as strong counterparts to the Senate-passed U.S. Innovation and Competition Act. The proposals offer a strategic and sustainable plan to grow American science, innovation, and technology to ensure our investments are aligned with the best interests of our scientific enterprise and builds on successful prior efforts. It includes provisions to diversify our workforce.

Additionally, to firmly establish the U.S. as a global leader in innovation and to compete for generations to come, we must build our domestic STEM workforce and encourage startup companies to establish roots here.

While increasing STEM scholarships for U.S. students, the act simultaneously draws the world's best and brightest STEM doctoral recipients and company founders to the U.S. It ensures that individuals who earned STEM doctoral degrees from top research universities will be eligible for permanent residence.

Unlike Canada, the United Kingdom, and Germany, our laws don't provide a visa option for company founders to start a new venture and create jobs in the United States. This act would fix this.

I thank Priscilla Kim on my staff for the hard work she put into this, and once again, I thank our most wonderful chairwoman, Eddie Bernice Johnson.

Madam Speaker, as the designee of Chairwoman Johnson, pursuant to House Resolution 900, I offer amendments en bloc.

Madam Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute.

Madam Speaker, these amendments, although I am sure offered in good faith, diminish the value in the underlying bill. Not only the underlying bill, but the bipartisan amendments just adopted or that we will adopt tomorrow or Friday.

Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to oppose these amendments, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, once again, I urge opposition to this en bloc amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, Throughout our history, we have fought to advance justice and extend the right to vote, to ensure every American can freely and equally participate in our democracy. Chief Justice Earl Warren, in the Supreme Court's Reynolds v. Sims (1964) opinion, wrote that ``[t]he right to vote freely for the candidate of one's choice is of the essence of a democratic society, and any restrictions on that right strike at the heart of representative government.''

Even though top experts have repeatedly affirmed that the 2020 election was

the safest and most secure in our Nation's history, Republican lawmakers across the country unleashed a wave of anti-voter and election sabotage laws, which experts predict will only intensify this year, seizing on a defeated president's Big Lie about widespread voter fraud. According to the Brennan Center for Justice, between January 1 and December 7, 2021, at least 19 states passed 34 laws restricting access to voting.

The Freedom to Vote: John R. Lewis Act responds to this assault on our democracy. It includes two pieces of legislation vital to ensuring every American has free, equitable, and secure access to the ballot-- the Freedom to Vote Act and the John R. Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act, versions of which have previously passed the House last year. The John R. Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act also contains the Native American Voting Rights Act, a bill critical to ensuring the United States upholds its trust obligations and protects the voting rights of Native Americans.

Under this legislation, every voter would be able to vote early or by mail, and would have the option of registering to vote electronically or in-person on any day of early voting or on Election Day. This provides voters with a variety of options that better fit the lives Americans lead in the 21st Century.

The legislation would also unrig the political system by ending partisan gerrymandering. Gerrymandering may be the single biggest contributing factor to the bitter polarization we see today--ending it would be a monumental achievement.

In most states, redistricting is done behind closed doors allowing the majority party to swing the outcome of upcoming elections, preserve the status quo, and ensure years of noncompetitive elections.

The result is a troubling reality in which politicians choose their voters instead of voters picking their elected officials. Sadly, we are seeing this take place now in much of the country during this redistricting cycle, which is giving new opportunities to many of last decade's extreme gerrymanders.

This is not what our Founding Fathers intended. Furthermore, it is counterproductive to a well-functioning democracy.

The Redistricting Reform Act, a bill I wrote and introduced for several Congresses sought to address these unfair redistricting practices. It was included as a component of the For the People Act, which the House passed in this and last Congress, and it is included again, in part, in this landmark piece of voting and elections legislation, the Freedom to Vote: John R. Lewis Act.

The redistricting reforms in the Freedom to Vote: John R. Lewis Act require that the congressional redistricting plans enacted during this redistricting cycle, and going forward, are drawn using specific criteria that, among other things, allow for coalition districts, expanded Section two Voting Rights Act protections, and protection of communities of interest.

The bill also sets out judicial remedies where states fail to comply with the requirements of the bill, including a private right of action.

Importantly, the bill prohibits partisan gerrymandering, and in response to the U.S. Supreme Court decision, Rucho v. Common Cause, includes a clear standard for courts to apply in such cases.

Under section 5003(c)(3), plaintiffs may ask a federal court to determine whether a state's plan has triggered a rebuttable presumption that it materially favors or disfavors a political party. A court's determination on whether to apply the presumption is intended to be quick and straightforward. The bill includes a formula directing courts to assess the partisan makeup of the new redistricting plan by referring to a specific set of previous statewide elections.

Using the results of the partisanship assessment, a court must then apply one or more standard quantitative measures of partisan fairness. Currently, the only available measure that meets the description provided in the text is the simplified efficiency gap, a well-known measure in the field of political science. As confirmed by political scientists, other existing quantitative measures do not qualify because none of them calculate a benchmark share of seats based on a party's share of the statewide vote and measure the difference between that benchmark and actual expected seat share.

However, the study of how best to measure partisan gerrymandering is evolving and the bill accounts for that: if a new measure that meets the definition in the bill is created and becomes ``standard'' in the field of political science, courts would be permitted to rely on that measure when applying the rebuttable presumption test. Of course, any non-standard measure that has been prepared principally for litigation may not be used.

The rebuttable presumption test provides states with some leeway, and it will not lead to invalidation of every state plan with a partisan lean. A plan will be enjoined under section 5003(c)(3) only if, in 2 or more of the 4 historical elections assessed, it results in partisan advantage or disadvantage in excess of 7 percent or one congressional district, whichever is greater.

The simplified efficiency gap may be measured using seat share or percentage, which is why a plan may be measured by both the 7 percent and 1 congressional district limit. To convert ``one congressional district'' into a percentage applicable to a given state, a court must simply divide the number 1 by the total number of congressional districts in a state. Thus, in a state with 9 congressional districts, the efficiency gap limit would be 1/9, or 11.11 percent. The 11.11 percent limit would apply because 11.11 percent is greater than 7 percent. However, in a state with fifteen congressional districts, the partisan advantage limit set by the law would be 7 percent, because 1 district equals 6.66 percent of the state's 15 districts, and 7 percent is greater than 6.66 percent.

Notably, the prohibition on partisan advantage ``in excess of' one congressional district should not be read to exempt plans with a partisan advantage falling between 1 and 2 congressional districts. Looking at a state with 12 districts, a plan with a simplified efficiency gap of 9 percent would trigger the rebuttable presumption because 9 percent of twelve districts equals 1.08 districts.

These redistricting reform provisions in the Freedom to Vote: John R. Lewis Act would have a significant impact both in mitigating this decade's gerrymandering and in helping to ensure the racial fairness of maps by eliminating partisanship as a defense for skewed maps.

I'm good.

* * * *. Okay. Thank you.

Accordingly, the record of this deposition of Mark Meadows, now at 10:18 a.m., is closed.

[Whereupon, at 10:18 a.m., the deposition was concluded.]

Additional correspondence between the Select Committee and

counsel for Mr. Meadows is as follows (continuing the exhibit

numbering from above):

5. Letter from Counsel to Mark Meadows to Chairman

Thompson, Nov. 19, 2021.

6. Letter from Chairman Thompson to Counsel to Mark

Meadows, Nov. 22, 2021.

7. Letter from Counsel to Mark Meadows to Chairman

Thompson, Nov. 26, 2021.

8. Letter from Counsel to Mark Meadows to Chairman

Thompson, Nov. 26, 2021.

9. Letter from Chairman Thompson to Counsel to Mark

Meadows, Nov. 28, 2021.

10. Letter from Counsel to Mark Meadows to Chairman

Thompson, Dec. 3, 2021.

11. Letter from Counsel to Mark Meadows to Chairman

Thompson, Dec. 7, 2021.

12. Letter from Chairman Thompson to Counsel to Mark

Meadows, Dec. 7, 2021.

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TX141221.005

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH141221.062

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH141221.063

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH141221.064

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TX141221.006

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH141221.065

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH141221.066

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH141221.067

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TX141221.007

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH141221.068

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH141221.069

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH141221.070

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TX141221.008

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH141221.071

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH141221.072

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH141221.073

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TX141221.009

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH141221.074

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH141221.075

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH141221.076

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH141221.077

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH141221.078

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH141221.079

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TX141221.010

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH141221.080

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH141221.081

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH141221.082

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TX141221.011

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH141221.083

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH141221.084

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TX141221.012

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH141221.085

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH141221.086

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH141221.087

Madam Speaker, Mark Meadows, a former colleague for many of us, left Congress in 2020 to serve as chief of staff to then- President Donald Trump.

Sadly and shockingly, Mr. Meadows has admitted he played both an official and unofficial role in trying to overturn the results of the 2020 Presidential election.

He has also admitted that he has responsive and nonprivileged documents and communications relating to January 6. In fact, he already sent some of those materials to our select committee charged with preventing a future attack on our Capitol. Now, the select committee needs to speak with him about the full plot leading up to January 6.

For example, it has been reported that the White House was directing the Department of Justice to investigate outrageous and really crazy conspiracy theories to benefit Mr. Trump politically, as well as to orchestrate the dissemination of election misinformation. We need to talk to Mr. Meadows about this.

We have learned that Mr. Meadows made a surprise visit to a State-run audit in Georgia, which led to the now-infamous call in which Mr. Trump improperly asked the Georgia Secretary of State to find votes. We need to talk to Mr. Meadows about that.

We also need to ask him about text messages which he provided to our committee that show an official in Georgia texting Mr. Meadows during the Trump-Raffensperger call saying that they ``need to end this call,'' and emphasizing: ``I don't think this will be productive much longer.'' We need to talk to Mr. Meadows about that.

We also know that during that same week in early January, Mr. Meadows was in direct contact with campaign staff and organizers of the rally at the Ellipse where his boss, the President, urged supporters to fight. We need to talk to Mr. Meadows about that.

While domestic terrorists invaded the Halls where he used to work, Mr. Meadows interacted with many people, including some of our colleagues who were here in this Chamber. We have learned many of those interactions took place on his personal device. We need to talk to Mr. Meadows about that.

Clearly, Mr. Meadows has important information about events that culminated in the violent attack on the Capitol and on our democracy. He must follow the law. He must cooperate with the select committee's lawful requests. No one is above the law. He must be held accountable for his violation of the law.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to take from the Speaker's table the bill (S. 3377) to empower the Chief of the United States Capitol Police to unilaterally request the assistance of the DC National Guard or Federal law enforcement agencies in emergencies without prior approval of the Capitol Police Board, and ask for its immediate consideration in the House.

Madam Speaker, I want to highlight an important element of reform that came out of work

a while ago from the House Administration Committee.

Most Americans believe that if a foreign adversary reaches out to interfere in our elections, the campaign ought to report that to law enforcement. Instead, as we saw in the previous administration, campaign officials welcomed and, in some cases, even solicited foreign assistance for political activities. This bill creates a duty to report illicit offers of campaign assistance from foreign governments to law enforcement.

It also clarifies what is a thing of value. It includes information sought or obtained for political advantage, like opposition research.

It ensures that individuals engaging in misconduct with foreign actors to influence our elections would be held accountable. It also ensures that foreign money cannot influence our politics through State and local ballot initiatives and referenda, closing a loophole that recently was created by the FEC.

Now, it is astounding to hear criticism of the idea that the FBI should be notified when a foreign adversary is trying to corrupt our elections. We all know that that should happen.

To distrust our law enforcement agencies when it comes to protecting our country from this kind of attack--which is what it is--from a foreign adversary is shocking. Support this bill.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to recognize and honor Michael T. Ptasienski, the fifth Inspector General of the House of Representatives, who is departing the House after 13 years of service.

Mr. Ptasienski was appointed the 5th Inspector General of the U.S. House of Representatives on February 15, 2018. Prior to his appointment, Michael served as the Deputy Inspector General for Advisory and Administrative Services and, upon joining the House in 2008, the Director of the Management Advisory Services. Born, raised, and educated in the State of Illinois, Michael spent over 15 years working in consulting and management roles in the financial services industry prior to joining the House.

Mr. Ptasienski brought great skill, knowledge, and a cooperative, pragmatic leadership style to the Office of Inspector General. Under Michael's leadership and his focus to help improve the operations of the House, the Inspector General's Office worked closely and effectively with other House offices to identify risks, highlight areas for potential improvement, and develop reasonable and sensible recommendations for the benefit of the House.

Madam Speaker, I want to thank Mr. Ptasienski for his dedicated service to the House, and I urge my colleagues to join me in offering warmest wishes for success in his life's endeavors.

Madam Speaker, I would note that the gentleman from Indiana is incorrect. We are not pursuing a law enforcement investigation. Only the DOJ can do that.

What we are doing is taking the steps that are provided for under the congressional contempt statute that has existed for many decades because the select committee's charge is to get to the bottom of what happened on January 6, who planned it, who paid for it, what was the intent, and what legislative steps can we recommend to remove future threats to our Constitution.

To do that, we need information, both documents and testimony; and to get that we issue subpoenas.

Now what is a subpoena?

Is it just a suggestion, a mere request, an encouragement to testify?

No. A subpoena is a writ issued by a government agency, in this case the Congress, to compel testimony or production of evidence. When you get a subpoena, Madam Speaker, the law requires you to comply. If you think there may be some valid reason that excuses you from telling the truth under oath, then you have to come in and make your case to the committee.

Steve Bannon is the only person who has outright refused to engage with the committee. He thinks that if he simply obstructs Congress by not showing up he will escape the consequences. But as Theodore Roosevelt said, ``No man is above the law and no man is below the law.''

If you get a subpoena, you cannot hide behind vague and immaterial claims of privilege.

The cases make it clear--Judicial Watch, Nixon v. GSA, and the McGahn case--executive privilege is limited to immediate White House advisers on government policy. Bannon is a private citizen. His extravagant claims can't shield his conversations and plotting with other private citizens. His status, according to the cases, doesn't get executive privilege protection. He has no absolute immunity.

Madam Speaker, what would happen if an American received a subpoena from Congress or a court?

Do you think they could get away with just saying: Go fly a kite? They would be held accountable.

And so should Mr. Bannon be held to account for defying the law regarding this subpoena.

Madam Speaker, to defend the rule of law, we must vote ``yes'' on this resolution.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this amendment that would allow a small number of special immigrant visas to the world's top scientists and technical experts selected by the Secretary of Defense. I trust the Secretary of Defense looking out after the Nation's security interests, and it is important that our security depends on having access to the top scientists in the world who are committed to the success of our country.

We need to take bold action to make sure that we educate and train our American people to be the best scientists they can be. But that doesn't mean that every smart person who loves America was born in America. In fact, some of the most patriotic people I have ever met were immigrants who came here and became Americans by choice.

It is absolutely clear that nations that attract and retain highly- skilled innovators gain a competitive advantage, and we can help do that for America through this very thoughtful plan. For us, the promise of the American Dream remains a powerful draw for the world's innovators.

This amendment would move us in the right direction and help ensure that America, and not our competitors, benefits from the world's best minds.

I want to thank Mr. Langevin for this smart amendment, and I urge its adoption.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to thank Kurt Hyde for his many years of dedicated service to the Library on the occasion of his retirement. Mr. Hyde was invaluable in setting the Library on a path of modernization and performance-driven strategy.

Mr. Hyde has had a long and illustrious career in the public, nonprofit and private sectors, in positions devoted to the public interest. Prior to serving as the Library's Inspector General, he was the deputy inspector general for audit and evaluations at the Special Inspector General for the Troubled Asset Relief Program, a sophisticated, white collar law enforcement agency established to prevent waste, fraud, and abuse in the $700 billion program.

Similarly, he served as the deputy assistant inspector general for the Resolution Trust Corporation during the savings and loan financial crisis in the 1990s. Other government service included work at the Government Accountability Office and as a senior executive at the Department of Transportation Office of Inspector General. In the private sector, Mr. Hyde was a partner in the government services practice at big 5 accounting and consulting firm. He also consulted to a non-profit whose mission was to develop transformational leaders for primary and secondary schools.

Although we will miss Mr. Hyde's hard work and dedication to the Library, we wish him well as he embarks upon his well-deserved retirement. Please join me in thanking Mr. Hyde for his years of outstanding service.