[Congressional Record Volume 167, Number 185 (Thursday, October 21, 2021)]
[House]
[Pages H5748-H5769]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




   RECOMMENDING THAT THE HOUSE FIND STEPHEN K. BANNON IN CONTEMPT OF 
                                CONGRESS

  Mr. THOMPSON of Mississippi. 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.
  The Clerk read the title of the report.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 727, the report 
is considered read.
  The text of the report is as follows:
       The Select Committee to Investigate the January 6th Attack 
     on the United States Capitol, having considered this Report, 
     reports favorably thereon and recommends that the Report be 
     approved.
       The form of the Resolution that the Select Committee to 
     Investigate the January 6th Attack on the United States 
     Capitol would recommend to the House of Representatives for 
     citing Stephen K. Bannon for contempt of Congress pursuant to 
     this Report is as follows:
       Resolved, That Stephen K. Bannon shall be found to be in 
     contempt of Congress for failure to comply with a 
     congressional subpoena.
       Resolved, That pursuant to 2 U.S.C. Sec. Sec. 192 and 194, 
     the Speaker of the House of Representatives shall certify the 
     report of the Select Committee to Investigate the January 6th 
     Attack on the United States Capitol, detailing the refusal of 
     Stephen K. Bannon to produce documents or appear for a 
     deposition before the Select Committee to Investigate the 
     January 6th Attack on the United States Capitol as directed 
     by subpoena, to the United States Attorney for the District 
     of Columbia, to the end that Mr. Bannon be proceeded against 
     in the manner and form provided by law.
       Resolved, That the Speaker of the House shall otherwise 
     take all appropriate action to enforce the subpoena.


                          purpose and summary

       On January 6, 2021, a violent mob breached the security 
     perimeter of the United States Capitol, assaulted and injured 
     scores of police officers, engaged in hand-to-hand violence 
     with those officers over an extended period, and invaded and 
     occupied the Capitol building, all in an effort to halt the 
     lawful counting of electoral votes and reverse the results of 
     the 2020 election. In the words of many of those who 
     participated in the violence, the attack was a direct 
     response to false statements by then-President Donald J. 
     Trump--beginning on election night 2020 and continuing 
     through January 6, 2021--that the 2020 election had been 
     stolen by corrupted voting machines, widespread fraud, and 
     otherwise.
       In response, the House adopted House Resolution 503 on June 
     30, 2021, establishing the Select Committee to Investigate 
     the January 6th Attack on the United States Capitol 
     (hereinafter referred to as the ``Select Committee'').
       The Select Committee is investigating the facts, 
     circumstances, and causes of the January 6th attack and 
     issues relating to the peaceful transfer of power, in order 
     to identify how the events of January 6th were planned, what 
     actions and statements motivated and contributed to the 
     attack on the Capitol, how the violent riot that day was 
     coordinated with a political and public relations strategy to 
     reverse the election outcome, and why Capitol security was 
     insufficient to address what occurred. The Select Committee 
     will evaluate all facets of these issues, create a public 
     record of what occurred, and recommend to the House, and its 
     relevant committees, corrective laws, policies, procedures, 
     rules, or regulations.
       According to many published reports, and his own public 
     statements, Stephen K. Bannon had specific knowledge about 
     the events planned for January 6th before they occurred. He 
     said on his January 5th podcasts, for example:

       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.
       All hell is going to break loose tomorrow. [. . .] So many 
     people said, `Man, if I was in a revolution, I would be in 
     Washington.' Well, this is your time in history.

       Mr. Bannon appears to have had multiple roles relevant to 
     this investigation, including his role in constructing and 
     participating in the ``stop the steal'' public relations 
     effort that motivated the attack, his efforts to plan 
     political and other activity in advance of January 6th, and 
     his participation in the events of that day from a ``war 
     room'' organized at the Willard InterContinental Washington 
     D.C. Hotel (the ``Willard Hotel''). Although he was a private 
     citizen not employed by the White House at the time, he 
     reportedly spoke with Mr. Trump directly regarding the plans 
     for January 6th on at least one occasion. In short, Mr. 
     Bannon appears to have played a multi-faceted role in the 
     events of January 6th, and the American people are entitled 
     to hear his first-hand testimony regarding his actions. The 
     Select Committee expects that such testimony will be directly 
     relevant to its report and recommendations for legislative 
     and other action.
       On September 23, 2021, Chairman Bennie G. Thompson signed a 
     subpoena for documents and testimony and transmitted it along 
     with a cover letter and schedule to counsel for Mr. Bannon, 
     who accepted service on Mr. Bannon's behalf on September 24, 
     2021. The subpoena required that Mr. Bannon produce 
     responsive documents not later than October 7, 2021, and that 
     Mr. Bannon appear for a deposition on October 14, 2021. 
     Subsequent communications between counsel for Mr. Bannon and 
     Chairman Thompson, however, failed to reach any accommodation 
     for Mr. Bannon's appearance for testimony or production of 
     documents. Indeed, counsel for Mr. Bannon on October 7, 2021, 
     flatly stated that Mr. Bannon would not produce any documents 
     or appear at the scheduled deposition, as ordered by the 
     lawful subpoena. Although Mr. Bannon's counsel referenced 
     vague claims of executive privilege purportedly relayed by 
     the former President, no such claims have been presented by 
     the former President to the Select Committee. And although 
     the Select Committee is confident that such claims could not 
     bar any of its requests, there is no conceivable executive 
     privilege claim that could bar all of the Select Committee's 
     requests or justify Mr. Bannon's flat refusal to appear for 
     the required deposition. The Chairman's October 8, 2021, 
     response addressed the legal arguments raised by Mr. Bannon's 
     counsel and made clear that the Select Committee expected--as 
     the law demands--that Mr. Bannon appear before the Select 
     Committee at his deposition and raise any privilege or other 
     concerns regarding specific questions on the record of that 
     proceeding.
       The contempt of Congress statute, 2 U.S.C. Sec. 192, makes 
     clear that a witness summoned before Congress must appear or 
     be ``deemed guilty of a misdemeanor'' punishable by a fine of 
     up to $100,000 and imprisonment for up to 1 year. Further, 
     the Supreme Court in United States v. Bryan (1950) emphasized 
     that the subpoena power is a ``public duty, which every 
     person within the jurisdiction of the Government is bound to 
     perform when properly summoned.'' The Supreme Court recently 
     reinforced this clear obligation by stating that ``[w]hen 
     Congress seeks information needed for intelligent legislative 
     action, it unquestionably remains the duty of all citizens to 
     cooperate.''
       Mr. Bannon did not produce documents by the subpoena's 
     October 7, 2021, deadline nor did he appear for a deposition 
     scheduled for October 14, 2021, as ordered by the subpoena 
     and in contravention of the clear instructions by the Select 
     Committee Chairman on October 8, 2021, to appear at the 
     deposition and raise any privilege concerns in response to 
     specific questions on the record. Mr. Bannon's refusal to 
     comply with the Select Committee's subpoena in any way 
     represents willful default under the law and warrants 
     contempt of Congress and referral to the United States 
     Attorney for the District of Columbia for prosecution as 
     prescribed by law. The denial of the information sought by 
     the subpoena impairs Congress's central powers under the 
     United States Constitution.


           background on the select committee's investigation

       House Resolution 503 sets out the specific purposes of the 
     Select Committee, including:
       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

[[Page H5749]]

     influencing factors that fomented such an attack on American 
     representative democracy while engaged in a constitutional 
     process.''
       The Supreme Court has long recognized Congress's oversight 
     role. ``The power of the Congress to conduct investigations 
     is inherent in the legislative process.'' Indeed, Congress's 
     ability to enforce its investigatory power ``is an essential 
     and appropriate auxiliary to the legislative function.'' 
     ``Absent such a power, a legislative body could not `wisely 
     or effectively' evaluate those conditions `which the 
     legislation is intended to affect or change.' ''
       The oversight powers of House and Senate committees are 
     also codified in legislation. For example, the Legislative 
     Reorganization Act of 1946 directed committees to ``exercise 
     continuous watchfulness'' over the executive branch's 
     implementation of programs within its jurisdictions, and the 
     Legislative Reorganization Act of 1970 authorized committees 
     to ``review and study, on a continuing basis, the 
     application, administration, and execution'' of laws.
       Pursuant to House rule XI and House Resolution 503, the 
     Select Committee is authorized ``to require, by subpoena or 
     otherwise, the attendance and testimony of such witnesses and 
     the production of books, records, correspondence, memoranda, 
     papers, and documents as it considers necessary.'' Further, 
     section 5(c)(4) of House Resolution 503 provides that the 
     Chairman of the Select Committee may ``authorize and issue 
     subpoenas pursuant to clause 2(m) of rule XI in the 
     investigation and study'' conducted pursuant to the 
     enumerated purposes and functions of the Select Committee. 
     The Select Committee's authorizing resolution further states 
     that the Chairman ``may order the taking of depositions, 
     including pursuant to subpoena, by a Member or counsel of the 
     Select Committee, in the same manner as a standing committee 
     pursuant to section 3(b)(1) of House Resolution 8, One 
     Hundred Seventeenth Congress.''
     A. The Select Committee seeks information from Mr. Bannon 
         central to its investigative purposes
       Mr. Bannon's testimony and document production are critical 
     to the Select Committee's investigation. Among other topics, 
     the Select Committee seeks facts that explain why the events 
     of January 6th turned violent. Statements publicly made by 
     Mr. Bannon on January 5, 2021, suggest that he had some 
     foreknowledge about extreme events that would occur the next 
     day. Mr. Bannon noted on January 5th that the country was 
     facing a ``constitutional crisis'' and ``that crisis is about 
     to go up about five orders of magnitude tomorrow.'' He also 
     stated that, ``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.'' Congress, through the Select Committee, is 
     entitled to discover facts concerning the activities leading 
     up to the violence on January 6th. Under House Resolution 
     503, the Select Committee is directed to investigate those 
     facts, which include ``the influencing factors that fomented 
     such an attack.'' And after making public statements on 
     January 5th like those quoted above, Mr. Bannon is obliged by 
     law to comply with the reasonable requests of the Select 
     Committee through its subpoena. If any witness so close to 
     the events leading up to the January 6th attack could decline 
     to provide information to the Select Committee, Congress 
     would be severely hamstrung in its ability to exercise its 
     constitutional powers with highly relevant information 
     informing its choices. Information in Mr. Bannon's possession 
     is essential to putting other witnesses' testimony and 
     productions into appropriate context and to ensuring the 
     Select Committee can fully and expeditiously complete its 
     work.
       Mr. Bannon was the Chief Executive Officer of Mr. Trump's 
     2016 presidential campaign and served as then-President 
     Trump's chief strategist, a White House position, for 8 
     months in 2017. Mr. Trump fired Mr. Bannon in August 2017, 
     and Mr. Bannon did not thereafter hold a position in the 
     executive branch.
       After Mr. Bannon left government service, he remained 
     actively involved in media and politics. In October 2019, Mr. 
     Bannon began a radio show and podcast focused on rallying 
     supporters of Mr. Trump in support of various causes and 
     issues. According to one report, before the election even 
     occurred in 2020, Mr. Bannon made public efforts to explain 
     ``his belief that the Democrats are plotting to steal the 
     2020 election.'' One account of conversations involving Mr. 
     Bannon (and Mr. Trump) prior to January 6th describes Mr. 
     Bannon as encouraging Mr. Trump to ``focus on January 6th'' 
     and articulating a plan to have millions of Americans 
     consider Mr. Biden an illegitimate President. That same 
     reporting suggests that Mr. Bannon was in frequent contact 
     with the White House in late-December and early-January and 
     spoke directly with the President several times. Mr. Bannon 
     is reported to have urged then-President Trump to pressure 
     then-Vice President Michael R. Pence to assist in overturning 
     the results of the 2020 election.
       Mr. Bannon was reportedly encouraging President Trump's 
     supporters to take dramatic action. According to one report, 
     immediately after the November 3rd election, Mr. Bannon began 
     promoting false conspiracy claims that the election had been 
     stolen and referred to the election as ``a mass fraud.''
       The day before the January 6th attack on the Capitol, Mr. 
     Bannon predicted that ``All hell is going to break loose 
     tomorrow.'' He told the listeners of his radio show:

       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.

       He added:

       So many people said, ``Man, if I was in a revolution, I 
     would be in Washington.'' Well, this is your time in 
     history.\26\

       And:

       It's all converging, and now we're on the point of attack 
     tomorrow.\27\

       Public reporting also suggests that Mr. Bannon was among 
     several prominent supporters of efforts to undermine the 
     election results who gathered at the Willard Hotel, two 
     blocks from the White House, on the days surrounding the 
     January 6th attack.\28\ The group that assembled at the 
     Willard Hotel is reported to have included members of the 
     Trump campaign's legal team (including Rudolph Giuliani and 
     John Eastman), several prominent proponents of false election 
     fraud claims that had been promoted by Mr. Trump (e.g., 
     Russell Ramsland, Jr. and Boris Epshteyn), as well as Roger 
     Stone, who left the hotel with Oath Keeper bodyguards, and 
     campaign spokesman Jason Miller.\29\ It has been reported 
     that the participants in the meetings at the Willard Hotel 
     discussed plans to stop or delay the January 6th counting of 
     the election results and persuade Members of Congress to 
     block the electoral count.\30\
       Mr. Bannon's statements the day before the January 6th 
     attack, and his association with both the Trump inner circle 
     and outside groups involved in the ``Stop the Steal'' \31\ 
     events, make his testimony about the Willard Hotel meetings 
     essential to fully understanding and establishing 
     responsibility for the events of January 6th. In addition to 
     the indications noted above regarding Mr. Bannon's role in 
     various activities leading up to January 6th, he also 
     reportedly spoke directly to Mr. Trump on one or more 
     occasions regarding what could or should happen on January 
     6th.\32\
     B. Mr. Bannon's refusal to comply with the Select Committee's 
         subpoena for testimony and documents
       On September 23, 2021, Chairman Thompson signed and 
     transmitted a subpoena, cover letter, and schedule to Mr. 
     Bannon ordering the production of both documents and 
     testimony relevant to the Select Committee's investigation 
     into ``important activities that led to and informed the 
     events at the Capitol on January 6, 2021.'' \33\ Chairman 
     Thompson's letter identified public reports describing Mr. 
     Bannon's activities and past statements, documenting some of 
     the public information that gave the Select Committee reason 
     to believe Mr. Bannon possesses information about matters 
     within the scope of the Select Committee's inquiry.
       The specific documents requested are found in the schedule 
     in the Appendix, Exhibit 1, (pp. 4-5). The schedule included 
     with the subpoena addressed topics including but not limited 
     to Mr. Bannon's role in planning and promoting the January 6, 
     2021, rally and march in support of Mr. Trump; Mr. Trump's 
     participation in the rally and march; Mr. Bannon's podcast 
     and its use for promoting the rally and march; and Mr. 
     Bannon's strategic communications with a host of individuals 
     known to be involved with the former President's 2020 
     election campaign and subsequent efforts to undermine or cast 
     doubt on the results of that election.
       The subpoena required Mr. Bannon to produce the requested 
     documents to the Select Committee on October 7, 2021, at 10 
     a.m. and required Mr. Bannon's presence for the taking of 
     testimony on October 14, 2021, at 10 a.m.\34\ Mr. Bannon had 
     designated Robert J. Costello as his attorney for the 
     purposes of the Select Committee's inquiry, and Mr. Costello 
     accepted service of the subpoena on behalf of Mr. Bannon on 
     September 24, 2021.\35\
       On October 7, 2021, at 10 a.m., at the designated location 
     identified in the subpoena, Mr. Bannon failed to appear and 
     produce documents. Instead, over 7 hours later, Mr. Costello 
     sent a letter to Chairman Thompson via email at 5:04 p.m. 
     reinforcing Mr. Bannon's refusal to comply.
       Mr. Costello's letter cited an October 6, 2021, letter from 
     former President Trump's counsel Justin Clark to Mr. Costello 
     that purportedly instructed Mr. Bannon to ``invoke any 
     immunities and privileges he may have from compelled 
     testimony,'' ``not produce any documents concerning 
     privileged material,'' and ``not provide any testimony 
     concerning privileged material[.]'' \36\ Mr. Costello's 
     letter then asserted that Mr. Bannon was ``legally unable to 
     comply,'' with the subpoena for ``documents or testimony,'' 
     claiming to rely on the instructions of Mr. Trump to not 
     disclose privileged information.\37\ The two-page letter 
     contained only conclusory statements, no legal analysis, and 
     approximately half of it purported to quote from the letter 
     of October 6, 2021, from the counsel to Mr. Trump.
       On October 8, 2021, Chairman Thompson responded to Mr. 
     Costello's October 7, 2021, letter.\38\ He said that Mr. 
     Trump had not communicated an invocation of privilege either 
     formally or informally to the Select Committee. He further 
     stated that, regardless,

[[Page H5750]]

     the information the Select Committee seeks from Mr. Bannon 
     concerns his actions as a private citizen and involves a 
     range of subjects not even conceivably reached by any 
     executive privilege assertion. Chairman Thompson also noted 
     that--even assuming Mr. Bannon were correct that a privilege 
     applied to his documents and testimony and Mr. Trump had 
     formally invoked a privilege through the long-standing 
     practice of consultation with the current President (which is 
     not the case)--Mr. Bannon does not enjoy anything like the 
     type of absolute immunity his attorney suggested would 
     insulate Mr. Bannon from an obligation to comply with the 
     Select Committee's subpoena. Again, there is no conceivable 
     legal claim to support such an assertion.
       The Chairman underscored that Mr. Bannon remained obligated 
     to produce documents and testimony about all non-privileged 
     material that was responsive to the subpoena, was expected to 
     produce a privilege log identifying any documents being 
     withheld based on any specific privilege claims, and that the 
     Select Committee expected Mr. Bannon to appear at the 
     deposition on October 14th and state on the record any 
     privilege concerns raised by specific questions. As made 
     clear by the deposition rules provided to Mr. Bannon by the 
     Select Committee, under House deposition regulation 3, Mr. 
     Bannon may be accompanied at the deposition by a personal, 
     nongovernmental counsel to advise him of his rights.\39\
       The Chairman concluded by saying that Mr. Bannon was 
     therefore not in compliance with the Chairman's duly issued 
     subpoena for documents, and that the Select Committee would 
     view refusal to produce documents and refusal to appear at 
     the October 14th deposition as willful non-compliance with 
     the subpoena. The Chairman warned that this willful non-
     compliance would put Mr. Bannon in jeopardy of a vote to 
     refer him to the House to consider a criminal contempt 
     referral to a U.S. Attorney pursuant to 2 U.S.C. 
     Sec. Sec. 192 and 194.\40\
       On October 13, 2021, at approximately 12:35 p.m., Select 
     Committee staff emailed Mr. Costello to discuss logistics for 
     the deposition at which Mr. Bannon was compelled to appear on 
     October 14, 2021, at 10 a.m. Approximately an hour later, 
     Select Committee staff and Mr. Costello spoke on the 
     telephone, during which Mr. Costello informed the Select 
     Committee that Mr. Bannon would not appear the next day, and 
     that a letter to that effect was forthcoming. Mr. Costello 
     indicated that he was in contact with Mr. Trump's attorney, 
     and he had informed Mr. Trump's attorney of the Select 
     Committee's explanation of the deficiencies in Mr. Bannon's 
     and Mr. Trump's justifications for Mr. Bannon's defiance of 
     the subpoena.
       On that call, Mr. Costello represented to the Select 
     Committee that he had asked Mr. Trump's counsel to identify, 
     with specificity, communications for which executive 
     privilege would apply. Later that day, Mr. Costello 
     transmitted a response to Chairman Thompson's October 8, 
     2021, letter. In that letter, Mr. Costello reiterated his 
     position that Mr. Bannon's refusal to comply with the Select 
     Committee subpoena was based on the former President's 
     ``executive and other privileges.'' \41\ Mr. Costello claimed 
     that President Trump's counsel had ``exercis[ed] his 
     executive privilege'' and ``directed Mr. Bannon not to 
     produce documents or testify until the issue of executive 
     privilege is resolved.'' \42\ He further stated that Mr. 
     Bannon would refuse to produce any documents or appear for 
     testimony until after a court had ruled on, or former 
     President Trump and the Select Committee reached an agreement 
     on, the matter of executive privilege that the former 
     President had never actually communicated to the Select 
     Committee. In defiance of the clear instructions by the 
     Select Committee to appear at the deposition and state any 
     privilege concerns as they applied to specific questions, Mr. 
     Bannon refused to appear to make any objections in person. 
     Further, he refused to engage at all with the specifics of 
     the document demands, including failing to provide a 
     privilege log identifying any privilege claims regarding 
     specific documents.
       On October 14, 2021, at 10 a.m., Mr. Bannon failed to 
     appear at the designated location to provide testimony 
     relevant to the Select Committee's inquiry in response to 
     questions posed, as was required by the subpoena.\43\
       At 2:05 p.m. on October 15, 2021, Chairman Thompson sent a 
     letter to Mr. Costello noting 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. The 
     Chairman also reiterated that Mr. Bannon does not enjoy 
     absolute immunity from testifying before the Select 
     Committee. The Chairman reminded Mr. Costello that the Select 
     Committee views Mr. Bannon's conduct as willful non-
     compliance with the subpoena. He notified Mr. Costello that, 
     accordingly, the Select Committee would meet on October 19, 
     2021, to consider a criminal contempt referral for Mr. 
     Bannon, and invited Mr. Costello to submit any written 
     materials he believed the Select Committee should consider in 
     its deliberations on this referral.
       On October 18, 2021, Mr. Costello wrote Chairman Thompson 
     requesting a ``one-week adjournment of our response'' to the 
     Chairman's October 15th letter, citing the need to ``assess'' 
     litigation Mr. Trump filed on October 18, 2021, concerning 
     the Select Committee's request for documents from the 
     National Archives.\44\ The Chairman replied on October 19, 
     2021, that Mr. Trump's lawsuit was immaterial to the Select 
     Committee's subpoena to Mr. Bannon, and accordingly, no 
     grounds existed for any further delay in Mr. Bannon's 
     compliance with the subpoena.\45\
     C. Mr. Bannon's purported basis for non-compliance is wholly 
         without merit
       Mr. Bannon has relied on no legal authority to support his 
     refusal to comply in any fashion with the subpoena. Mr. 
     Bannon's refusal to comply with the subpoena is ostensibly 
     based on his decision to ``honor [former President Trump's] 
     invocation of executive privilege'' and instruction that, 
     ``to the fullest extent permitted by law,'' Mr. Bannon 
     ``invoke any immunities and privileges he may have from 
     compelled testimony,'' ``not produce any documents concerning 
     privileged material,'' and ``not provide any testimony 
     concerning privileged material.'' \46\ Far from being 
     ``permitted by law,'' Mr. Bannon's conduct in response to the 
     Select Committee's subpoena constitutes a violation of the 
     contempt of Congress statutory provisions.
       1. Executive privilege has not been invoked
       Mr. Trump has had no communication with the Select 
     Committee. In an October 7th letter to the Select Committee, 
     Mr. Bannon's attorney referred to purported correspondence 
     from Mr. Trump's attorney, Justin Clark, in which Mr. Clark 
     asserted that the Select Committee subpoena seeks information 
     that is ``potentially protected from disclosure by executive 
     and other privileges, including among others the presidential 
     communications, deliberative process, and attorney-client 
     privileges.'' \47\ According to Mr. Bannon's attorney, Mr. 
     Clark also stated that, ``President Trump is prepared to 
     defend these fundamental privileges in court.'' \48\
       In United States v. Reynolds, 345 U.S. 1, 7-8 (1953), the 
     Supreme Court held that executive privilege:

       [B]elongs to the Government and must be asserted by it; it 
     can neither be claimed nor waived by a private party. It is 
     not to be lightly invoked. There must be a formal claim of 
     privilege, lodged by the head of the department which has 
     control over the matter, after actual personal consideration 
     by that officer.\49\

       Here, the Select Committee has not been provided with any 
     formal invocation of executive privilege by the President, 
     the former President,\50\ or any other employee of the 
     executive branch.
       In fact, in an October 18, 2021, letter to Mr. Bannon's 
     attorney, the White House Counsel's Office specifically 
     stated that ``at this point we are not aware of any basis for 
     [Mr. Bannon's] refusal to appear for a deposition.'' The 
     letter also informed Mr. Bannon's counsel that:

       [P]resident 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 [Mr. 
     Bannon's] deposition testimony and to any documents [Mr. 
     Bannon] may possess concerning either subject.\51\

       With respect to the former President, the Select Committee 
     has not received a formal invocation of executive privilege. 
     Mr. Costello's October 13th letter merely states that the 
     attorney for former President Trump had informed him that 
     ``President Trump is exercising his executive privilege.'' 
     This third-hand, non-specific assertion of privilege, without 
     any description of the documents or testimony over which 
     privilege is claimed, is insufficient to activate a claim of 
     executive privilege.
       2. Even assuming an invocation of executive privilege 
           (which is not justified here), assertion of privilege 
           could not bar the Select Committee from lawfully 
           obtaining the documents and testimony it seeks from Mr. 
           Bannon
       The Select Committee seeks information from Mr. Bannon on a 
     wide range of subjects that it is inconceivable executive 
     privilege would reach. Mr. Bannon was a private citizen 
     during the relevant time period and the testimony and 
     documents the Select Committee is demanding do not concern 
     discussion of official government matters with the President 
     and his immediate advisors. The law is clear that executive 
     privilege does not extend to discussions between the 
     President and private citizens relating to non-governmental 
     business or among private citizens. In United States v. 
     Nixon, 418 U.S. 683, 708 (1974), the Supreme Court recognized 
     a qualified, presumptive privilege for presidential 
     communications. The scope of the so-called ``presidential 
     communications privilege'' was further defined by the Court 
     to apply only to ``communications in performance of [a 
     President's] responsibilities of his office and made in the 
     process of shaping policies and making decisions.'' \52\
       In In re Sealed Case (Espy), 121 F.3d 729, 752 (D.C. Cir. 
     1997), the DC Circuit extended the presidential 
     communications privilege to ``communications authored or 
     solicited and received by those members of an immediate

[[Page H5751]]

     White House adviser's staff who have broad and significant 
     responsibility for investigating and formulating the advice 
     to be given the President on the particular matter to which 
     the communications relate.'' The court stressed that the 
     privilege only applies to communications intended to advise 
     the President ``on official government matters.'' \53\ In 
     Judicial Watch, Inc. v. Department of Justice, 365 F.3d 1108, 
     1123 (D.C. Cir. 2004), the court reaffirmed that the 
     presidential communications privilege applies only to 
     documents ``solicited and received by the President or his 
     immediate advisers in the Office of the President.'' Relying 
     on In re Sealed Case and the principle that ``the 
     presidential communications privilege should be construed as 
     narrowly as is consistent with ensuring that the 
     confidentiality of the President's decision-making process is 
     adequately protected,'' \54\ the court refused to extend the 
     privilege even to executive branch employees whose sole 
     function was to provide advice to the President in the 
     performance of a ``quintessential and nondelegable 
     Presidential power.'' \55\
       Here, neither Mr. Bannon nor former President Trump has 
     asserted that Mr. Bannon's testimony would reveal 
     communications involving the President or members of his 
     immediate White House staff regarding the performance of the 
     President's responsibilities of his office. At no point 
     during the time period under investigation by the Select 
     Committee was Mr. Bannon a government employee, much less a 
     key White House adviser in the Office of the President. 
     Moreover, the matters under review by the Select Committee 
     concern efforts to overturn legitimate election results and 
     an attack on our democratic institutions. Communications 
     regarding these subjects (or any other matter related to the 
     presidential campaign), by definition, would not 
     constitute advice on ``official government matters'' that 
     could be shielded by executive privilege. In any event, 
     any confidentiality interest in such communications would 
     be far outweighed by the oversight needs for this 
     information that are at stake in the Select Committee's 
     investigation.
       In sum: In this instance, there is no reasonable argument 
     that Mr. Bannon's communications with the President regarding 
     January 6th are the type of matters on which privilege can be 
     asserted. Also, the Select Committee is confident that no 
     executive privilege assertion would bar Mr. Bannon's 
     testimony regarding his communications directly with the 
     President regarding January 6th--because the privilege is 
     qualified and could be overcome by an appropriate showing of 
     need. Again, there is no conceivable assertion that privilege 
     could apply to other information sought that does not 
     constitute communications with Mr. Trump during his 
     presidency. Beyond communications between Mr. Bannon and Mr. 
     Trump, the Select Committee seeks documents and testimony 
     from Mr. Bannon regarding his own actions and interactions 
     with other private citizens relating to the events of January 
     6th. For example, the subpoena to Mr. Bannon includes 
     requests for documents related to many other matters, 
     including:
       His presence, purpose, statements, and activities at a 
     meeting with Members of Congress at the Willard Hotel on 
     January 5, 2021, or the presence, purpose, statements, or 
     activities of others in attendance related to that meeting.
       Anyone with whom he communicated by any means with respect 
     to any aspect of the planning, objectives, conduct, or 
     participation in the January 6, 2021, rally, including but 
     not limited to Boris Epshteyn.
       Anyone with whom he communicated with respect to efforts, 
     plans, or proposals to contest the 2020 presidential election 
     results or delay, influence, or impeded the electoral count, 
     including but not limited to communications with Boris 
     Epshteyn, Kashyap Patel, and Ezra Cohen-Watnick.
       All public relations, advertising, or other communications 
     efforts to persuade Americans that the election was stolen.
       The January 6, 2021, rally on The Mall and Capitol grounds 
     in Washington, DC, in support of President Donald J. Trump 
     and opposition to the counting of the results of the 2020 
     presidential election, including its permitting, planning, 
     objectives, financing, and conduct, as well as any 
     communications to or from any person or group involved in 
     organizing or planning for the January 6, 2021, rally.
       The financing or fundraising to assist any individual's or 
     organization's travel to or accommodation in Washington, DC, 
     to attend or participate in the January 6, 2021, rally.
       The ``War Room'' podcast, insofar as at any time he 
     communicated through it statements referring or relating to 
     the January 6, 2021, rally, including all statements 
     concerning its planning, objectives, purpose, organization, 
     message, or sponsorship.
       The organization or group named ``March for Trump'' and its 
     activities relating to the January 6, 2021, rally, including 
     any communications Mr. Bannon had with any officer or member 
     of ``March for Trump'' relating in any way to the planning, 
     objectives, organization, message, sponsorship, and 
     participation in the January 6, 2021, rally.
       No colorable claim of executive privilege could possibly be 
     made with respect to documents or testimony related to these 
     and other matters sought by the subpoena, or any other topics 
     that were not connected to official decisionmaking by the 
     President.
       3. Mr. Bannon is not entitled to absolute immunity
       Mr. Bannon has refused to provide any responsive documents 
     or appear for a deposition based on his asserted reliance on 
     Mr. Trump's purported invocation of executive privilege. 
     However, even if Mr. Trump had invoked executive privilege, 
     and even if certain testimony or documents would fall within 
     that privilege, Mr. Bannon would not be immune from compelled 
     testimony before the Select Committee.
       The law is clear that even senior White House aides who 
     advise the President on official government business are not 
     immune from compelled congressional process. To the extent 
     there has been a formal invocation of executive privilege by 
     the Office of the President, and in the unlikely event that 
     testimony by Mr. Bannon relates to information covered by 
     that privilege, Mr. Bannon was nonetheless required to appear 
     before the Select Committee to provide testimony and invoke 
     executive privilege where appropriate. If there are 
     responsive documents that Mr. Bannon claims include 
     privileged information, he was required to provide the Select 
     Committee with a privilege log that ``identifies and 
     describes the material in a manner `sufficient to enable 
     resolution of any privilege claims.' '' Mr. Bannon did 
     neither. He should be held in contempt.
     D. Precedent supports the Select Committee's position to 
         proceed with holding Mr. Bannon in contempt
       An individual who fails or refuses to comply with a House 
     subpoena may be cited for contempt of Congress. Pursuant to 2 
     U.S.C. Sec.  192, the willful refusal to comply with a 
     congressional subpoena is punishable by a fine of up to 
     $100,000 and imprisonment for up to 1 year. A committee may 
     vote to seek a contempt citation against a recalcitrant 
     witness. This action is then reported to the House. If a 
     resolution to that end is adopted by the House, the matter is 
     referred to a U.S. Attorney, who has a duty to refer the 
     matter to a grand jury for an indictment.
       In his October 8th letter to Mr. Bannon's counsel, the 
     Chairman of the Select Committee advised Mr. Bannon that his 
     claims of executive privilege were not well-founded and did 
     not absolve him of his obligation to produce documents and 
     testify in deposition. The Chairman made clear that the 
     Select Committee expected Mr. Bannon to appear for his 
     scheduled deposition on October 14th and produce the 
     requested documents at that time. The Chairman 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 
     a willful failure to comply with the subpoena.


                     select committee consideration

       The Select Committee met on Tuesday, October 19, 2021, with 
     a quorum being present, to consider this Report and ordered 
     it and the Resolution contained herein to be favorably 
     reported to the House, with an amendment, by a recorded vote 
     of 9 ayes to 0 noes.


                         select committee votes

       Clause 3(b) of rule XIII requires the Select Committee to 
     list the recorded votes during consideration of this Report:
       1. A motion by Vice Chair Cheney to report the Select 
     Committee Report for a 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 favorably to the House, as amended, 
     was agreed to by a recorded vote of 9 ayes to 0 noes 
     (Rollcall No. 1).

                     Select Committee Rollcall No. 1
      [Motion by Vice Chair Cheney to Favorably Report, as Amended]
                      [Agreed to: 9 ayes to 0 noes]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                         Members                               Vote
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ms. Cheney, Vice Chair..................................             Aye
Ms. Lofgren.............................................             Aye
Mr. Schiff..............................................             Aye
Mr. Aguilar.............................................             Aye
Mrs. Murphy (FL)........................................             Aye
Mr. Raskin..............................................             Aye
Mrs. Luria..............................................             Aye
Mr. Kinzinger...........................................             Aye
Mr. Thompson (MS), Chairman.............................             Aye
------------------------------------------------------------------------

                  select committee oversight findings

       In compliance with clause 3(c)(1) of rule XIII, the Select 
     Committee advises that the oversight findings and 
     recommendations of the Select Committee are incorporated in 
     the descriptive portions of this Report.


                  congressional budget office estimate

       The Select Committee finds the requirements of clause 
     3(c)(2) of rule XIII and section 308(a) of the Congressional 
     Budget Act of 1974, and the requirements of clause 3(c)(3) of 
     rule XIII and section 402 of the Congressional Budget Act of 
     1974, to be inapplicable to this Report. Accordingly, the 
     Select Committee did not request or receive a cost estimate 
     from the Congressional Budget Office and makes no findings as 
     to the budgetary impacts of this Report or costs incurred to 
     carry out the Report.


         statement of general performance goals and objectives

       Pursuant to clause 3(c)(4) of rule XIII, the objective of 
     this Report is to enforce the Select Committee's authority to 
     investigate the facts, circumstances, and causes of the

[[Page H5752]]

     January 6th attack and issues relating to the peaceful 
     transfer of power, in order to identify and evaluate problems 
     and to recommend corrective laws, policies, procedures, 
     rules, or regulations; and to enforce the Select Committee's 
     subpoena authority found in section 5(c)(4) of House 
     Resolution 503.


                                ENDNOTES

       1. Steve Bannon, ``War Room: Pandemic, `EP 634--Tuesday 
     Special (with Maggie VandenBerghe, Ben Berquam, and Peter 
     Navarro),' '' (Jan. 5, 2021), available at https://
rumble.com/vch0pu-ep-634-tuesday-special-w-maggie-
vandenberghe-ben-berquam-and-peter-navarro.html.
       2. Aaron Blake, ``Who could have predicted the Capitol 
     riot? Plenty of people--including Trump allies,'' Washington 
     Post, (Jan. 28, 2021), available at https://
www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2021/01/28/who-could-have-
predicted-capitol-siege-plenty-people/.
       3. See Appendix, Exs. 1, 2 (Subpoena from Chairman Bennie 
     G. Thompson to Stephen K. Bannon and attachments (Sept. 23, 
     2021)).
       4. See Appendix, Ex. 3 (Letter from Robert J. Costello to 
     Chairman Bennie G. Thompson (Oct. 7, 2021)).
       5. See Appendix, Ex. 4 (Letter from Chairman Bennie G. 
     Thompson to Robert J. Costello (Oct. 8, 2021)).
       6. The prison term for this offense makes it a Class A 
     misdemeanor. 18 U.S.C.  3559(a)(6). By that classification, 
     the penalty for contempt of Congress specified in 2 U.S.C.  
     192 increased from $1,000 to $100,000. 18 U.S.C.  
     3571(b)(5).
       7. United States v. Bryan, 339 U.S. 323, 331 (1950).
       8. Trump v. Mazars USA LLP, 140 S.Ct. 2019, 2036 (2020) 
     (emphasis in original; internal quotation marks removed). See 
     also Watkins v. United States, 354 U.S. 178, 187-88 (1957) 
     (stating of citizens that ``It is their unremitting 
     obligation to respond to subpoenas, to respect the dignity of 
     the Congress and its committees, and to testify fully with 
     respect to matters within the province of proper 
     investigation.'').
       9. Mazars, 140 S.Ct. at 2031 (2020) (citing Watkins, 354 
     U.S. at 187) (internal quotation marks removed).
       10. Mazars, 140 S.Ct. at 2031 (2020) (citing McGrain v. 
     Daugherty, 273 U.S. 135, 174 (1927)).
       11. Ashland Oil, Inc. v. FTC, 409 F.Supp. 297, 305 (D.D.C. 
     1976), aff'd, 548 F.2d 977 (D.C.Cir. 1976) (quoting McGrain, 
     273 U.S. at 175).
       12. Pub. L. 79-601, 79th Cong.  136, (1946).
       13. Pub. L. 91-510, 91st Cong.  118, (1970).
       14. Steve Bannon, ``War Room: Pandemic, `EP 634--Tuesday 
     Special (with Maggie VandenBerghe, Ben Berquam, and Peter 
     Navarro),' '' (Jan. 5, 2021), available at https://
rumble.com/vch0pu-ep-634-tuesday-special-w-maggie-
vandenberghe-ben-berquam-and-peter-navarro.html.
       15. Id.
       16. Brian Bennett, `` `You Got to Be the Last Guy He Talks 
     To.' The Rise and Fall of Trump Adviser Steve Bannon,'' Time, 
     (Aug. 21, 2020), available at https://time.com/5882072/rise-
and-fall-of-steve-bannon/.
       17. Jeff Mason and Steve Holland, ``Trump fired adviser 
     Bannon,'' Reuters, (Aug. 18, 2017), available at https://
www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-bannon/trump-fires-
adviser-bannon-idUSKCN1AY205.
       18. Daniel Lippman, ``Steve Bannon launches radio show and 
     podcast on impeachment,'' Politico, (Oct. 24, 2019), 
     available at https://www.politico.com/news/2019/10/22/steve-
bannon-radio-show-podcast-impeachment-055167.
       19. E.g., KUSI Newsroom, ``Steve Bannon explains how the 
     Democrats are plotting to steal the 2020 election,'' KUSI, 
     (Oct. 1, 2020), available at https://www.kusi.com/steve-
bannon-explains-how-the-democrats-are-plotting-to-steal-the-
2020-election.
       20. Bob Woodward and Robert Costa, Peril, (New York: Simon 
     & Shuster, 2021), p. 207.
       21. Id., pp. 207, 233-234.
       22. Id., p. 207.
       23. Rob Kuznia, et al., ``Stop the Steal's massive 
     disinformation campaign connected to Roger Stone,'' CNN (Nov. 
     14, 2020), available at https://www.cnn.com/2020/11/13/
business/stop-the-steal-disinformation-campaign-invs/
index.html.
       24. Aaron Blake, ``Who could have predicted the Capitol 
     riot? Plenty of people--including Trump allies,'' Washington 
     Post, (Jan. 28, 2021), available at https://
www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2021/01/28/who-could-have-
predicted-capitol-siege-plenty-people/.
       25. Steve Bannon, ``War Room: Pandemic, `EP 634--Tuesday 
     Special (with Maggie VandenBerghe, Ben Berquam, and Peter 
     Navarro),' '' (Jan. 5, 2021), available at https://
rumble.com/vch0pu-ep-634-tuesday-special-w-maggie-
vandenberghe-ben-berquam-and-peter-navarro.html.
       26. Aaron Blake, ``Who could have predicted the Capitol 
     riot? Plenty of people--including Trump allies,'' Washington 
     Post, (Jan. 28, 2021), available at https://
www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2021/01/28/who-could-have-
predicted-capitol-siege-plenty-people/.
       27. Id.
       28. Woodward and Costa, pp. 233-234; Andre J. Ellington, 
     ``Steve Bannon Confirms His Involvement in January 6 
     Insurrection on `War Room' Podcast,'' Newsweek, (Sept. 22, 
     2021), available at https://www.newsweek.com/steve-bannon-
confirms-his-involvement-january-6-insurrection-war-room-
podcast-1631667.
       29. Woodward and Costa, pp. 233-234; Michael Wolff, 
     ``Donald Trump's January 6; The view from inside the Oval 
     Office,'' New York, (June 28, 2021), available at https://
nymag.com/intelligencer/article/michael-wolff-landslide-
final-days-trump-presidency-excerpt.html; Seth Abramson 
     (@SethAbramson), Twitter (June 12, 2021, 10:51 a.m.), https:/
     /twitter.com/SethAbramson/status/1403726643722547200/photo/3.
       30. Woodward and Costa, p. 233.
       31. There were a number of events organized to take place 
     on January 5th and January 6th at which supporters of 
     President Trump gathered, and made and heard speeches, in 
     support of the position that Congress should not affirm that 
     Joe Biden had won the 270 or more electoral college votes 
     necessary to be elected President.
       32. See, e.g., Woodward and Costa, p. 207.
       33. See Appendix, Exs. 1, 2.
       34. See Appendix, Ex. 1.
       35. See Appendix, Ex. 2 (Emails between Select Committee 
     staff and Robert J. Costello (Sept. 23-24, 2021)).
       36. See Appendix, Ex. 3 (Letter from Robert J. Costello to 
     Select Committee staff (Oct. 7, 2021)).
       37. Id.
       38. See Appendix, Ex. 4 (Letter from Chairman Bennie G. 
     Thompson to Robert J. Costello (Oct. 8, 2021)).
       39. U.S. House of Representatives, ``117th Congress 
     Regulations for Use of Deposition Authority,'' 167 Cong. 
     Rec., (Jan. 4, 2021), p. H41.
       40. See Appendix, Ex. 4 (Letter from Chairman Bennie G. 
     Thompson to Robert J. Costello (Oct. 8, 2021)).
       41. See Appendix, Ex. 5 (Letter from Robert J. Costello to 
     Chairman Bennie G. Thompson (Oct. 13, 2021)).
       42. Id.
       43. See Appendix.
       44. Letter from Robert J. Costello to Chairman Thompson, 
     (Oct. 18, 2021).
       45. Letter from Chairman Thompson to Robert J. Costello, 
     (Oct. 19, 2021).
       46. See Appendix, Ex. 3 (Letter from Robert J. Costello to 
     Select Committee staff (Oct. 7, 2021)).
       47. Id.
       48. Id.
       49. See also United States v. Burr, 25 F. Cas. 187, 192 
     (CCD Va. 1807) (ruling that President Jefferson had to 
     personally identify the passages he deemed confidential and 
     could not leave this determination to the U.S. Attorney). In 
     Reynolds, the Court addressed the ``state secrets 
     privilege,'' which can be viewed as a subset of executive 
     privilege.
       50. The Supreme Court has held that a former President may 
     assert executive privilege on his own, but his claim should 
     be given less weight than that of an incumbent President. 
     Nixon v. Administrator of General Services, 433 U.S. 425, 451 
     (1977) (the ``expectation of the confidentiality of executive 
     communications thus has always been limited and subject to 
     erosion over time after an administration leaves office''). 
     The Supreme Court in Nixon v. GSA made note of the fact that 
     neither President Ford nor President Carter supported former 
     President Nixon's assertion of privilege, which, the Court 
     said, ``detracts from the weight of his contention [that the 
     disclosure of the information at issue] impermissibly 
     intrudes into the executive function and the needs of the 
     Executive Branch.'' Id., p. 449.
       51. Letter to Robert J. Costello from Jonathan C. Su, 
     Deputy Counsel to the President, (Oct. 18, 2021).
       52. Nixon v. Administrator of General Services, 433 U.S. at 
     449 (internal citations and quotations omitted).
       53. Id. (Italics added.)
       54. Id., p. 1116.
       55. Id., p. 1111. See also Committee on the Judiciary v. 
     Miers, 558 F. Supp.2d 53, 100 (D.D.C. 2008) (privilege 
     claimants acknowledged that executive privilege applies only 
     to ``a very small cadre of senior advisors'').
       56. See Appendix, Ex. 1.
       57. See also Committee on the Judiciary v. McGahn, 415 
     F.Supp.3d 148, 214 (D.D.C. 2019) (and subsequent history) 
     (``To make the point as plain as possible, it is clear to 
     this Court for the reasons explained above that, with respect 
     to senior-level presidential aides, absolute immunity from 
     compelled congressional process simply does not exist.''); 
     Committee on the Judiciary v. Miers, 558 F. Supp.2d 53, 101 
     (D.D.C. 2008) (holding that White House counsel may not 
     refuse to testify based on direction from the President that 
     testimony will implicate executive privilege).
       58. See Comm. on Oversight and Gov't Reform v. Holder, 2014 
     U.S. Dist. Lexis 200278 at *7 (D.D.C., Aug. 20, 2014) 
     (quoting Miers, 558 F. Supp. 2d at 107).
       59. Eastland v. United States Servicemen's Fund, 421 U.S. 
     491, 505, 515 (1975).
       60. See supra note 6. The prison term for this offense 
     makes it a Class A misdemeanor. 18 U.S.C.  3559(a)(6). By 
     that classification, the penalty for contempt of Congress 
     specified in 2 U.S.C.  192 increased from $1,000 to 
     $100,000. 18 U.S.C.  3571(b)(5).
       61. See 2 U.S.C. Sec.  192.


                                appendix

       The official transcript that memorialized Mr. Bannon's 
     failure to appear at his deposition as ordered by subpoena, 
     along with exhibits included in that record, is as follows:

[[Page H5753]]

  

     SELECT COMMITTEE TO INVESTIGATE THE JANUARY 6TH ATTACK ON THE 
         U.S. CAPITOL, U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, WASHINGTON, 
         DC
     DEPOSITION OF: STEPHEN K. BANNON (NO-SHOW)
     THURSDAY, OCTOBER 14, 2021
     WASHINGTON, DC
       The deposition in the above matter was held in * * * * 
     commencing at 10:00 a.m.
     PRESENT: Representative Schiff.
     APPEARANCES:
     FOR THE SELECT COMMITTEE TO INVESTIGATE THE JANUARY 6TH 
         ATTACK ON THE U.S. CAPITOL:
       * * * *, * * * *
       Sean Tonolli, Senior Investigative Counsel
       * * * *, * * * *
       * * * *, * * * *
       * * * *, * * * *
       * * * *, * * * *
                                 ______
                                 
       Mr. TONOLLI. So we are on the record. Today is October 14, 
     2021. The time is 10:00 a.m. We are convened in * * * * for 
     the deposition of Stephen K. Bannon to be conducted by the 
     House Select Committee to Investigate the January 6th Attack 
     on the United States Capitol.
       My name is Sean Tonolli. I am the designated Select 
     Committee staff counsel for this proceeding. And I'd ask 
     everyone else to please go around the room and introduce 
     themselves.
       * * * *. * * * *.
       * * * *. * * * *.
       * * * *. * * * *.
       * * * *. * * * *.
       * * * *. * * * *.
       Mr. TONOLLI. For the record, it is 10:01 a.m., and Mr. 
     Bannon is not present. The person transcribing this 
     proceeding is the House stenographer and notary public 
     authorized to administer oaths.
       On September 23, 2021, Chairman Bennie Thompson issued a 
     subpoena to Mr. Bannon both to produce documents by October 
     7, 2021, and to testify at a deposition today, October 14, 
     2021, at 10:00 a.m.
       The subpoena is in connection with the Select Committee's 
     investigation into the facts, circumstances, and causes of 
     the January 6th attack and issues relating to the peaceful 
     transfer of power, in order to identify and evaluate lessons 
     learned and to recommend to the House and its relevant 
     committees corrective laws, policies, procedures, rules, or 
     regulations.
       This inquiry includes examination of how various 
     individuals, to include Mr. Bannon, and entities coordinated 
     their activities leading up to the events of January 6, 2021. 
     Mr. Bannon has not produced any documents or appeared today 
     to testify.
       I will mark as exhibit 1 and enter into the record the 
     Select Committee's subpoena to Mr. Bannon, included with 
     which are the materials that accompanied the subpoena, 
     namely, a letter from the chairman, a document scheduled with 
     accompanying production instructions, and a copy of the 
     deposition rules.

                                SUBPOENA

  By Authority of the House of Representatives of the Congress of the 
                        United States of America

     Stephen K. Bannon
     c/o Robert Costello, Esq., Davidson, Huthcher and Citron, LLP
     To
       You are hereby commanded to be and appear before the Select 
     Committee to Investigate the January 6th Attack on the United 
     States Capitol of the House of Representatives of the United 
     States at the place, date, and time specified below.
     x to produce the things identified on the attached schedule 
     touching matters of inquiry committed to said committee or 
     subcommittee; and you are not to depart without leave of said 
     committee or subcommittee.
       Place of production: * * *
       Date: October 7, 2021   Time: 10:00 a.m.
       x to testify at a deposition touching matters of inquiry 
     committed to said committee or subcommittee; and you are not 
     to depart without leave of said committee or subcommittee.
       Place of testimony: * * *
       Date: October 14, 2021   Time: 10:00 a.m.
       {time}  to testify at a hearing touching matters of inquiry 
     committed to said committee or subcommittee; and you are not 
     to depart without leave of said committee or subcommittee.
       Place of testimony: ______
       Date:____   Time:____
     To any authorized staff member or the United States Marshals 
     Service _________ to serve and make return.
           Witness my hand and the seal of the House of 
     Representatives of the United States, at the city of 
     Washington, D.C. this 23rd day of September, 2021.
                                                Bennie G. Thompson
                                    Chairman or Authorized Member.
       Attest:
                                                 Cheryl L. Johnson
                                                            Clerk.


                            proof of service

     Subpoena for Stephen K. Bannon
       c/o Robert Costello, Esq., Davidson, Huthcher and Citron, 
     LLP
     Address * * *
     * * *
     before the Select Committee to Investigate the January 6th 
     Attack on the United States Capitol
     U.S. House of Representatives
     117th Congress
                                 ______
                                 
     Served by (print name) * * *
     Title * * *
     Manner of service * * *
     * * *
     Date 7/23/21
     Signature of Server * * *
     Address * * *
         Select Committee to Investigate the January 6th Attack on 
           the United States Capitol,
                                               September 23. 2021.
     Mr. Stephen K. Bannon
     c/o Mr. Robert J. Costello
     * * *
       Dear Mr. Bannon: Pursuant to the authorities set forth in 
     House Resolution 503 and the rules of the House of 
     Representatives, the Select Committee to Investigate the 
     January 6th Attack on the United States Capitol (``Select 
     Committee'') hereby transmits a subpoena compelling you to 
     produce the documents set forth in the accompanying schedule 
     by October 7, 2021, and to appear for a deposition on October 
     14, 2021.
       The Select Committee is investigating the facts, 
     circumstances, and causes of the January 6th attack and 
     issues relating to the peaceful transfer of power, in order 
     to identify and evaluate lessons learned and to recommend to 
     the House and its relevant committees corrective laws, 
     policies, procedures, rules, or regulations. This inquiry 
     includes examination of how various individuals and entities 
     coordinated their activities leading up to the events of 
     January 6, 2021,
       The Select Committee has reason to believe that you have 
     information relevant to understanding important activities 
     that led to and informed the events at the Capitol on January 
     6, 2021. For example, you have been identified as present at 
     the Willard Hotel on January 5, 2021, during an effort to 
     persuade Members of Congress to block the certification of 
     the election the next day, and in relation to other 
     activities on January 6.\1\ You are also described as 
     communicating with then-President Trump on December 30, 2020, 
     and potentially other occasions, urging him to plan for and 
     focus his efforts on January 6.\2\ Moreover, you are quoted 
     as stating, on January 5, 2021, that ``[a]ll hell is going to 
     break loose tomorrow.'' \3\ Accordingly, the Select Committee 
     seeks both documents and your deposition testimony regarding 
     these and multiple other matters that are within the scope of 
     the Select Committee's inquiry.
       A copy of the rules governing Select Committee depositions, 
     and a copy of document production definitions and 
     instructions are attached. Please contact staff for the 
     Select Committee at 202-225-7800 to arrange for the 
     production of documents.
           Sincerely,
                                               Bennie G. Thompson,
                                                         Chairman.
     ------

     \1\ E.g., Bob Woodward & Robert Costa, Peril at 233 (2021).
     \2\ Id. at 207.
     Rub Kuznia, Curt Devine, & Drew Griffin, How Trump Allies 
     Stoked the Flames Ahead of Capitol Riot, CNN (Jan. 18, 2021), 
     https://www.cnn.com/2021/01/18/politics/trump-bannon-stone-
giuliani-capitol-riot-invs-index.html.


                                schedule

       In accordance with the attached Definitions and 
     Instructions, you, Stephen K. Bannon, are hereby required to 
     produce all documents and communications in your possession, 
     custody, and control--including any such documents or 
     communications stored or located on personal devices (e.g., 
     personal computers, cellular phones, tablets, etc.), in 
     personal or campaign accounts, and/or on personal or campaign 
     applications (e.g., email accounts, contact lists, calendar 
     entries, etc.)--referring or relating to referring or 
     relating to the following items. If no date range is 
     specified below, the applicable dates are for the time period 
     April 1, 2020-present:
       1. The January 6, 2021, rally on the mall and Capitol 
     grounds in Washington, D.C., in support of President Donald 
     J. Trump and opposition to certification of the results of 
     the 2020 presidential election, including any permitting, 
     planning, objectives, financing, and conduct, as well as any 
     communications to or from any person or group involved in 
     organizing or planning for the January 6, 2021, rally.
       2. Then-President Trump's participation in the January 6, 
     2021, rally, including any communications with President 
     Trump or any paid or unpaid attorney, advisor, aide, or 
     assistant to President Trump relating to the nature, context, 
     or content of President Trump's intended or actual remarks to 
     those attending the January 6, 2021, rally.
       3. Communications referring or relating to the nature, 
     planning, conduct, message, context, or participation in the 
     January 6, 2021, rally between or among any person who, 
     during the administration of President Donald J. Trump, 
     worked in the White House complex, including any employee or 
     detailee.
       4. Documents or other materials referring or relating to 
     the financing or fundraising to assist any individual or 
     organization's travel to or accommodation in Washington, 
     D.C., to attend or participate in the January 6, 2021, rally.
       5. ``The `War Room' podcast,'' insofar as at any time you 
     communicated through it statements referring or relating to 
     efforts to contest the election results, including planning 
     for the January 6, 2021, rally, including all statements 
     concerning its planning, objectives, purpose, organization, 
     message, or sponsorship.

[[Page H5754]]

  

       6. The organization or group named ``March for Trump'' and 
     its activities relating to the January 6, 2021, rally, 
     including any communications you had with any officer or 
     member of ``March for Trump'' relating in any way to the 
     planning, objectives, organization, message, sponsorship, and 
     participation in the January 6, 2021, rally.
       7. Your presence, purpose, statements, and activities at a 
     meeting at the Willard Hotel on January 5, 2021, or the 
     presence, purpose, statements, or activities of others in 
     attendance, related to that meeting.
       8. Your communications with President Donald J. Trump 
     concerning events on January 6, 2021, including but not 
     limited to communications on December 30, 2020.
       9. Your communications with President Donald J. Trump 
     between November 3 and January 20, 2021, concerning efforts 
     to contest the election results or delay or impede the 
     electoral count.
       10. Anyone with whom you communicated by any means with 
     respect to any aspect of the planning, objectives, conduct, 
     or participation in the January 6, 2021, rally, including but 
     not limited to Boris Epshteyn, Kashyap Patel, and Ezra Cohen-
     Watnick.
       11. Anyone with whom you communicated by any means with 
     respect to efforts, plans, or proposals to contest the 2020 
     Presidential election results or delay, influence, or impede 
     the electoral count, including but not limited to 
     communications with Boris Epshteyn, Kashyap Patel, and Ezra 
     Cohen-Watnick.
       12. All public relations, advertising, or other 
     communications efforts to persuade Americans that the 
     election was stolen or to attend the rally on January 6.
       13. The role of the Vice President as the Presiding Officer 
     in the certification of the votes of the electoral college.
       14. Any communication with any employees of President 
     Trump's 2020 presidential campaign, the Republican National 
     Committee, or any Trump Administration personnel including 
     appointees, employees, and interns, about any of the 
     foregoing topics.
       15. Any communication regarding any of the foregoing topics 
     with Proud Boys, Oath Keepers, Three Percenters, and Alex 
     Jones.
       16. Any communications with Representative Scott Perry and/
     or other Members of Congress about any of the foregoing 
     topics.
       17. Any communications with Rudolph Giuliani, John Eastman, 
     Michael Flynn, Jenna Ellis, or Sydney Powell about any of the 
     foregoing topics,


            DOCUMENT PRODUCTION DEFINITIONS AND INSTRUCTIONS

       1. In complying with this request, produce all responsive 
     documents, regardless of classification level, that are in 
     your possession, custody, or control, whether held by you or 
     your past or present agents, employees, and representatives 
     acting on your behalf. Produce all documents that you have a 
     legal right to obtain, that you have a right to copy, or to 
     which you have access, as well as documents that you have 
     placed in the temporary possession, custody, or control of 
     any third party.
       2. Requested documents, and all documents reasonably 
     related to the requested documents, should not be destroyed, 
     altered, removed, transferred, or otherwise made inaccessible 
     to the Select Committee to Investigate the January 6th Attack 
     on the United States Capitol (``Committee').
       3. In the event that any entity, organization, or 
     individual denoted in this request is or has been known by 
     any name other than that herein denoted, the request shall be 
     read also to include that alternative identification.
       4. The Committee's preference is to receive documents in a 
     protected electronic form (i.e., password protected CD, 
     memory stick, thumb drive, or secure file transfer) in lieu 
     of paper productions. With specific reference to classified 
     material, you will coordinate with the Committee's Security 
     Officer to arrange for the appropriate transfer of such 
     information to the Committee. This includes, but is not 
     necessarily limited to: a) identifying the classification 
     level of the responsive document(s); and b) coordinating for 
     the appropriate transfer of any classified responsive 
     document(s).
       5. Electronic document productions should be prepared 
     according to the following standards:
       a. If the production is completed through a series of 
     multiple partial productions, field names and file order in 
     all load files should match.
       b. All electronic documents produced to the Committee 
     should include the following fields of metadata specific to 
     each document, and no modifications should be made to the 
     original metadata:
       BEGDOC, ENDDOC, TEXT, BEGATTACH, ENDATTACH, PAGECOUNT, 
     CUSTODIAN, RECORDTYPE, DATE, TIME, SENTDATE, SENTTIME, 
     BEGINDATE, BEGINTIME, ENDDATE, ENDTIME, AUTHOR, FROM, CC, TO, 
     BCC, SUBJECT, TITLE, FILENAME, FILEEXT, FILESIZE, 
     DATECREATED, TIMECREATED, DATELASTMOD, TIMELASTMOD, INTMSGID, 
     INTMSGHEADER, NATIVELINK, INTFILPATH, EXCEPTION, BEGATTACH.
       6. Documents produced to the Committee should include an 
     index describing the contents of the production. To the 
     extent more than one CD, hard drive, memory stick, thumb 
     drive, zip file, box, or folder is produced, each should 
     contain an index describing its contents.
       7. Documents produced in response to this request shall be 
     produced together with copies of file labels, dividers, or 
     identifying markers with which they were associated when the 
     request was served.
       8. When you produce documents, you should identify the 
     paragraph(s) or request(s) in the Committee's letter to which 
     the documents respond.
       9. The fact that any other person or entity also possesses 
     non-identical or identical copies of the same documents shall 
     not be a basis to withhold any information.
       10. The pendency of or potential for litigation shall not 
     be a basis to withhold any information.
       11. In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552(d), the Freedom of 
     Information Act (FOIA) and any statutory exemptions to FOIA 
     shall not be a basis for withholding any information.
       12. Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552a(b)(9), the Privacy Act shall 
     not be a basis for withholding information.
       13. If compliance with the request cannot be made in full 
     by the specified return date, compliance shall be made to the 
     extent possible by that date. An explanation of why full 
     compliance is not possible shall be provided along with any 
     partial production, as well as a date certain as to when full 
     production will be satisfied.
       14. In the event that a document is withheld on any basis, 
     provide a log containing the following information concerning 
     any such document: (a) the reason it is being withheld, 
     including, if applicable, the privilege asserted; (b) the 
     type of document; (c) the general subject matter; (d) the 
     date, author, addressee, and any other recipient(s); (e) the 
     relationship of the author and addressee to each other; and 
     (f) the basis for the withholding.
       15. If any document responsive to this request was, but no 
     longer is, in your possession, custody, or control, identify 
     the document (by date, author, subject, and recipients), and 
     explain the circumstances under which the document ceased to 
     be in your possession, custody, or control. Additionally, 
     identify where the responsive document can now be found 
     including name, location, and contact information of the 
     entity or entities now in possession of the responsive 
     document(s).
       16. If a date or other descriptive detail set forth in this 
     request referring to a document is inaccurate, but the actual 
     date or other descriptive detail is known to you or is 
     otherwise apparent from the context of the request, produce 
     all documents that would be responsive as if the date or 
     other descriptive detail were correct.
       17. This request is continuing in nature and applies to any 
     newly-discovered information. Any record, document, 
     compilation of data, or information not produced because it 
     has not been located or discovered by the return date shall 
     be produced immediately upon subsequent location or 
     discovery.
       18. All documents shall be Bates-stamped sequentially and 
     produced sequentially.
       19. Upon completion of the production, submit a written 
     certification, signed by you or your counsel, stating that: 
     (1) a diligent search has been completed of all documents in 
     your possession, custody, or control that reasonably could 
     contain responsive documents; and (2) all documents located 
     during the search that are responsive have been produced to 
     the Committee.
     Definitions
       1. The term ``document'' means any written, recorded, or 
     graphic matter of any nature whatsoever, regardless of 
     classification level, how recorded, or how stored/displayed 
     (e.g. on a social media platform) and whether original or 
     copy, including, but not limited to, the following: 
     memoranda, reports, expense reports, books, manuals, 
     instructions, financial reports, data, working papers, 
     records, notes, letters, notices, confirmations, telegrams, 
     receipts, appraisals, pamphlets, magazines, newspapers, 
     prospectuses, communications, electronic mail (email), 
     contracts, cables, notations of any type of conversation, 
     telephone call, meeting or other inter-office or intra-office 
     communication, bulletins, printed matter, computer printouts, 
     computer or mobile device screenshots/screen captures, 
     teletypes, invoices, transcripts, diaries, analyses, returns, 
     summaries, minutes, bills, accounts, estimates, projections, 
     comparisons, messages, correspondence, press releases, 
     circulars, financial statements, reviews, opinions, offers, 
     studies and investigations, questionnaires and surveys, and 
     work sheets (and all drafts, preliminary versions, 
     alterations, modifications, revisions, changes, and 
     amendments of any of the foregoing, as well as any 
     attachments or appendices thereto), and graphic or oral 
     records or representations of any kind (including without 
     limitation, photographs, charts, graphs, microfiche, 
     microfilm, videotape, recordings and motion pictures), and 
     electronic, mechanical, and electric records or 
     representations of any kind (including, without limitation, 
     tapes, cassettes, disks, and recordings) and other written, 
     printed, typed, or other graphic or recorded matter of any 
     kind or nature, however produced or reproduced, and whether 
     preserved in writing, film, tape, disk, videotape, or 
     otherwise. A document bearing any notation not a part of the 
     original text is to be considered a separate document. A 
     draft or non-identical copy is a separate document within the 
     meaning of this term.
       2. The term ``communication'' means each manner or means of 
     disclosure or exchange of information, regardless of means 
     utilized, whether oral, electronic, by document or otherwise, 
     and whether in a meeting, by telephone, facsimile, mail, 
     releases, electronic

[[Page H5755]]

     message including email (desktop or mobile device), text 
     message, instant message, MMS or SMS message, message 
     application, through a social media or online platform, or 
     otherwise.
       3. The terms ``and'' and ``or'' shall be construed broadly 
     and either conjunctively or disjunctively to bring within the 
     scope of this request any information that might otherwise be 
     construed to be outside its scope. The singular includes 
     plural number, and vice versa. The masculine includes the 
     feminine and neutral genders.
       4. The term ``including'' shall be construed broadly to 
     mean ``including, but not limited to.''
       5. The term ``Company'' means the named legal entity as 
     well as any units, firms, partnerships, associations, 
     corporations, limited liability companies, trusts, 
     subsidiaries, affiliates, divisions, departments, branches, 
     joint ventures, proprietorships, syndicates, or other legal, 
     business or government entities over which the named legal 
     entity exercises control or in which the named entity has any 
     ownership whatsoever.
       6. The term ``identify,'' when used in a question about 
     individuals, means to provide the following information: (a) 
     the individual's complete name and title; (b) the 
     individual's business or personal address and phone number; 
     and (c) any and all known aliases.
       7. The term ``related to'' or ``referring or relating to,'' 
     with respect to any given subject, means anything that 
     constitutes, contains, embodies, reflects, identifies, 
     states, refers to, deals with, or is pertinent to that 
     subject in any manner whatsoever.
       8. The term ``employee'' means any past or present agent, 
     borrowed employee, casual employee, consultant, contractor, 
     de facto employee, detailee, assignee, fellow, independent 
     contractor, intern, joint adventurer, loaned employee, 
     officer, part-time employee, permanent employee, provisional 
     employee, special government employee, subcontractor, or any 
     other type of service provider.
       9. The term ``individual'' means all natural persons and 
     all persons or entities acting on their behalf.

     [From the Congressional Record--House, Page H41, Jan. 4, 2021]

     * * * health, safety, and well-being of others present in the 
     Chamber and surrounding areas. Members and staff will not be 
     permitted to enter the Hall of the House without wearing a 
     mask. Masks will be available at the entry points for any 
     Member who forgets to bring one. The Chair views the failure 
     to wear a mask as a serious breach of decorum. The Sergeant-
     at-Arms is directed to enforce this policy. Based upon the 
     health and safety guidance from the attending physician and 
     the Sergeant-at-Arms, the Chair would further advise that all 
     Members should leave the Chamber promptly after casting their 
     votes. Furthermore, Members should avoid congregating in the 
     rooms leading to the Chamber, including the Speaker's lobby. 
     The Chair will continue the practice of providing small 
     groups of Members with a minimum of 5 minutes within which to 
     cast their votes. Members are encouraged to vote with their 
     previously assigned group. After voting, Members must clear 
     the Chamber to allow the next group a safe and sufficient 
     opportunity to vote. It is essential for the health and 
     safety of Members, staff, and the U.S. Capitol Police to 
     consistently practice social distancing and to ensure that a 
     safe capacity be maintained in the Chamber at all times. To 
     that end, the Chair appreciates the cooperation of Members 
     and staff in preserving order and decorum in the Chamber and 
     in displaying respect and safety for one another by wearing a 
     mask and practicing social distancing. All announced 
     policies, including those addressing decorum in debate and 
     the conduct of votes by electronic device, shall be carried 
     out in harmony with this policy during the pendency of a 
     covered period.
                                 ______
                                 

       117TH CONGRESS REGULATIONS FOR USE OF DEPOSITION AUTHORITY

                                               Committee on Rules,


                                     House of Representatives,

                                  Washington, DC, January 4, 2021.
     Hon. Nancy Pelosi,
     Speaker, House of Representatives,
     Washington, DC.
       Madam Speaker: Pursuant to section 3(b) of House Resolution 
     8, 117th Congress, I hereby submit the following regulations 
     regarding the conduct of depositions by committee and select 
     committee counsel for printing in the Congressional Record.
           Sincerely,
                                                James P. McGovern,
                                     Chairman, Committee on Rules.

            Regulations for the Use of Deposition Authority

       1. Notices for the taking of depositions shall specify the 
     date, time, and place of examination. Depositions shall be 
     taken under oath administered by a member or a person 
     otherwise authorized to administer oaths. Depositions may 
     continue from day to day.
       2. Consultation with the ranking minority member shall 
     include three days' notice before any deposition is taken. 
     All members of the committee shall also receive three days 
     written notice that a deposition will be taken, except in 
     exigent circumstances. For purposes of these procedures, a 
     day shall not include Saturdays, Sundays, or legal holidays 
     except when the House is in session on such a day.
       3. Witnesses may be accompanied at a deposition by 
     personal, nongovernmental counsel to advise them of their 
     rights. Only members, committee staff designated by the chair 
     or ranking minority member, an official reporter, the 
     witness, and the witness's counsel are permitted to attend. 
     Observers or counsel for other persons, including counsel for 
     government agencies, may not attend.
       4. The chair of the committee noticing the deposition may 
     designate that deposition as part of a joint investigation 
     between committees, and in that case, provide notice to the 
     members of the committees. If such a designation is made, the 
     chair and ranking minority member of the additional 
     committee(s) may designate committee staff to attend pursuant 
     to regulation 3. Members and designated staff of the 
     committees may attend and ask questions as set forth below.
       5. A deposition shall be conducted by any member or 
     committee counsel designated by the chair or ranking minority 
     member of the Committee that noticed the deposition. When 
     depositions are conducted by committee counsel, there shall 
     be no more than two committee counsel permitted to question a 
     witness per round. One of the committee counsel shall be 
     designated by the chair and the other by the ranking minority 
     member per round.
       6. Deposition questions shall be propounded in rounds. The 
     length of each round shall not exceed 60 minutes per side, 
     and shall provide equal time to the majority and the 
     minority. In each round, the member(s) or committee counsel 
     designated by the chair shall ask questions first, and the 
     member(s) or committee counsel designated by the ranking 
     minority member shall ask questions second.
       7. Objections must be stated concisely and in a non-
     argumentative and non-suggestive manner. A witness's counsel 
     may not instruct a witness to refuse to answer a question, 
     except to preserve a privilege. In the event of professional, 
     ethical, or other misconduct by the witness's counsel during 
     the deposition, the Committee may take any appropriate 
     disciplinary action. The witness may refuse to answer a 
     question only to preserve a privilege. When the witness has 
     refused to answer a question to preserve a privilege, members 
     or staff may (i) proceed with the deposition, or (ii) either 
     at that time or at a subsequent time, seek a ruling from the 
     Chair either by telephone or otherwise. If the Chair 
     overrules any such objection and thereby orders a witness to 
     answer any question to which an objection was lodged, the 
     witness shall be ordered to answer. If a member of the 
     committee chooses to appeal the ruling of the chair, such 
     appeal must be made within three days, in writing, and shall 
     be preserved for committee consideration. The Committee's 
     ruling on appeal shall be filed with the clerk of the 
     Committee and shall be provided to the members and witness no 
     less than three days before the reconvened deposition. A 
     deponent who refuses to answer a question after being 
     directed to answer by the chair may be subject to sanction, 
     except that no sanctions may be imposed if the ruling of the 
     chair is reversed by the committee on appeal.
       8. The Committee chair shall ensure that the testimony is 
     either transcribed or electronically recorded or both. If a 
     witness's testimony is transcribed, the witness or the 
     witness's counsel shall be afforded an opportunity to review 
     a copy. No later than five days after the witness has been 
     notified of the opportunity to review the transcript, the 
     witness may submit suggested changes to the chair. Committee 
     staff may make any typographical and technical changes. 
     Substantive changes, modifications, clarifications, or 
     amendments to the deposition transcript submitted by the 
     witness must be accompanied by a letter signed by the witness 
     requesting the changes and a statement of the witness's 
     reasons for each proposed change. Any substantive changes, 
     modifications, clarifications, or amendments shall be 
     included as an appendix to the transcript conditioned upon 
     the witness signing the transcript.
       9. The individual administering the oath, if other than a 
     member, shall certify on the transcript that the witness was 
     duly sworn. The transcriber shall certify that the transcript 
     is a true record of the testimony, and the transcript shall 
     be filed, together with any electronic recording, with the 
     clerk of the committee in Washington, DC. Depositions shall 
     be considered to have been taken in Washington, DC, as well 
     as the location actually taken once filed there with the 
     clerk of the committee for the committee's use. The chair and 
     the ranking minority member shall be provided with a copy of 
     the transcripts of the deposition at the same time.
       10. The chair and ranking minority member shall consult 
     regarding the release of deposition testimony, transcripts, 
     or recordings, and portions thereof. If either objects in 
     writing to a proposed release of a deposition testimony, 
     transcript, or recording, or a portion thereof, the matter 
     shall be promptly referred to the committee for resolution.
       11. A witness shall not be required to testify unless the 
     witness has been provided with a copy of section 3(b) of H. 
     Res. 8, 117th Congress, and these regulations.

[[Page H5756]]

  

                                 ______
                                 

 REMOTE COMMITTEE PROCEEDINGS REGULATIONS PURSUANT TO HOUSE RESOLUTION 
                           8, 117TH CONGRESS

                                               Committee on Rules,


                                     House of Representatives,

                                  Washington, DC, January 4, 2021.
     Hon. Nancy Pelosi,
     Speaker, House of Representatives,
     Washington, DC.
       Madam Speaker: Pursuant to section 3(s) of House Resolution 
     8, 117th Congress, I hereby submit the following regulations 
     regarding remote committee proceedings for printing in the 
     Congressional Record.
           Sincerely,

                                            James P. McGovern,

                                                         Chairman,
                                               Committee on Rules.

Remote Committee Proceedings Regulations Pursuant to House Resolution 8


                         a. presence and voting

       l. Members participating remotely in a committee proceeding 
     must be visible on the software platform's video function to 
     be considered in attendance and to participate unless 
     connectivity issues or other technical problems render the 
     member unable to fully participate on camera (except as 
     provided in regulations A.2 and A.3).
       2. The exception in regulation A.1 for connectivity issues 
     or other technical problems does not apply if a point of 
     order has been made that a quorum is not present. Members 
     participating remotely must be visible on the software 
     platform's video function in order to be counted for the 
     purpose of establishing a quorum.
       3. The exception in regulation A.1 for connectivity issues 
     or other technical problems does not apply during a vote. 
     Members participating remotely must be visible on the 
     software platform's video function in order to vote.
       4. Members participating remotely off-camera due to 
     connectivity issues or other technical problems pursuant to 
     regulation A.1 must inform committee majority and minority 
     staff either directly or through staff.
       5. The chair shall make a good faith effort to provide 
     every member experiencing connectivity issues an opportunity 
     to participate fully in the proceedings, subject to 
     regulations A.2 and A.3.
  

       Mr. TONOLLI. I will mark as exhibit 2 and enter into the 
     record an email exchange between * * * * and Robert Costello, 
     Mr. Bannon's attorney.

     From: Costello, Robert J. * * *
     Sent: Friday, September 24, 2021 1:24 PM
     To: * * *
     Subject: Re: subpoena to Mr. Bannon
       In response to your email of yesterday, this will advise 
     you that I have been authorized by Steve Bannon to accept 
     service of the subpoena from the House Select Committee on 
     his behalf.
           Very truly yours,
                                               Robert J. Costello.
       Sent from my iPhone
       On Sep 23, 2021, at 6:38 PM, * * * wrote:


 CAUTION: EXTERNAL MAIL. DO NOT CLICK ON LINKS OR OPEN ATTACHMENTS YOU 
                              DO NOT TRUST

       Dear Mr. Costello,
       I am following up on our conversation today in which you 
     confirmed that you represent Stephen Bannon. I understand 
     that you are checking with Mr. Bannon regarding whether he 
     will authorize you to accept service of a subpoena on his 
     behalf. The Select Committee to Investigate the January 6th 
     Attack on the United States Capitol is today issuing the 
     attached subpoena to Mr. Bannon for his testimony and the 
     production of documents to the Committee. In the event that 
     you will accept service, I am attaching to this email the 
     subpoena, along with a letter from Chairman Bennie Thompson, 
     a document schedule with accompanying production 
     instructions, and a copy of the deposition rules.
       Please confirm whether you will accept service of this 
     subpoena on Mr. Bannon's behalf.
       Thank you,
        * * *
       
       IMPORTANT NOTICE: Beware of Cyber Fraud. You should never 
     wire money to any bank account that our office provides to 
     you via email without first speaking with our office. 
     Further, do not accept emailed wiring instructions from 
     anyone else without voice verification from a known employee 
     of our office. Even if an email looks like it has come from 
     this office or someone involved in your transaction. Please 
     call us first at a number you know to be correct for this 
     office to verify the information before wiring any money. Be 
     particularly wary of any request to change wiring 
     instructions you already received.


                      STATEMENT OF CONFIDENTIALITY

       The information contained in this electronic message and 
     any attachments to this message are intended for the 
     exclusive use of the addressee(s) and may contain 
     confidential or privileged information. If you are not the 
     intended recipient, please notify us immediately by email 
     reply to sender or by telephone to Davidoff Hutcher & Citron 
     LLP at (800) 793-2843, ext. 3284, and destroy all copies of 
     this message and any attachments.


                         IRS DISCLOSURE NOTICE

       In accordance with Internal Revenue Service Circular 230, 
     we inform you that any discussion of a federal tax issue 
     contained in this communication (including any attachments) 
     is not intended or written to be used, and it cannot be used, 
     by any recipient for the purpose of (i) avoiding penalties 
     that may be imposed on the recipient under United States 
     federal tax laws, or (ii) promoting, marketing or 
     recommending to another party any tax-related matters 
     addressed herein.
                                  ____

       Mr. TONOLLI. On September 23, 2021, * * * * emailed Mr. 
     Costello the subpoena to Mr. Bannon and the accompanying 
     materials included in exhibit 1 and asked whether Mr. 
     Costello was authorized to accept service of the subpoena on 
     Mr. Bannon's behalf.
       Mr. Costello replied to * * * * on September 24, 2021, that 
     he was authorized to accept service of the subpoena on Mr. 
     Bannon's behalf.
       I will mark as exhibit 3 and enter into the record a letter 
     Mr. Costello sent to * * * * on October 7, 2021.

                                    Davidoff Hutcher & Citron LLP,


                                       Attorneys at Law, * * *

                                  Washington, DC, October 7, 2021.
     * * *
     Re: The Subpoena for Stephen K. Bannon dated September 23, 
         2021.

       Dear * * *
       I write today on behalf of Stephen K. Bannon with respect 
     to the above referenced subpoena, which I accepted on behalf 
     of Mr. Bannon. On the afternoon of October 6, 2021, I 
     received a letter from Justin Clark, as counsel for then 
     President of the United States Donald J. Trump. That letter 
     references the subpoena that your Committee served upon Mr. 
     Bannon, and notes that the subpoena:

       ``seeks records and testimony purportedly related to the 
     events of January 6th, 2021, including but not limited to 
     information which is potentially protected from disclosure by 
     executive and other privileges, including among others the 
     presidential communications, deliberative process, and 
     attorney-client privileges. President Trump is prepared to 
     defend these fundamental privileges in court.
       Therefore, to the fullest extent permitted by law, 
     President Trump instructs Mr. Bannon to: (a) where 
     appropriate, invoke any immunities and privileges he may have 
     from compelled testimony in response to the Subpoena; (b) not 
     produce any documents concerning privileged material in 
     response to the Subpoena; and (c) not provide any testimony 
     concerning privileged material in response to the Subpoena.''

       It is therefore clear to us that since the executive 
     privileges belong to President Trump, and he has, through his 
     counsel, announced his intention to assert those executive 
     privileges enumerated above, we must accept his direction and 
     honor his invocation of executive privilege. As such, until 
     these issues are resolved, we are unable to respond to your 
     request for documents and testimony.
       We will comply with the directions of the courts, when and 
     if they rule on these claims of both executive and attorney 
     client privileges. Since these privileges belong to President 
     Trump and not to Mr. Bannon, until these issues are resolved, 
     Mr Bannon is legally unable to comply with your subpoena 
     requests for documents and testimony.
           Very truly yours,
     Robert J. Costello.
                                  ____

       Mr. TONOLLI. In sum and substance, the letter states that 
     Mr. Bannon is, ``legally unable to comply with your subpoena 
     requests for documents and testimony,'' because President 
     Trump's attorney informed Mr. Costello by letter, dated 
     October 6, 2021, that President Trump is invoking executive 
     privilege, ``to the fullest extent permitted by law,'' and 
     instructing Mr. Bannon not to provide documents or testimony, 
     ``concerning privileged material,'' in response to the Select 
     Committee's subpoena.
       I will mark as exhibit 4 and enter into the record a letter 
     that Chairman Thompson sent to Mr. Costello in response on 
     October 8, 2021.

         Select Committee to Investigate the January 6th Attack on 
           the United Staes Capitol,
                                                  October 8, 2021.
     Mr. Robert J. Costello,
     Davidoff Hutcher & Citron LLP
     * * *
       Dear Mr. Costello, I write in response to your October 7, 
     2021 letter which states that your client, Stephen Bannon, is 
     ``legally unable to comply'' with the September 23, 2021 
     subpoena (the ``Subpoena'') issued by the Select Committee to 
     Investigate the January 6th Attack on the United States 
     Capitol (the ``Select Committee''). Your letter relies on an 
     apparent instruction from former President Donald Trump that 
     appears limited to requesting that Mr. Bannon not disclose 
     privileged information. Despite this limited instruction, 
     your letter takes the inappropriate position that Mr. Bannon 
     will not comply with any request for information or testimony 
     sought by the Select Committee. Moreover, Mr. Trump's stated 
     ``intention to assert those executive privileges'' that may 
     or may not belong to him, does not provide a legal basis for 
     Mr. Bannon's refusal to comply with the Subpoena.
       You accepted service of the Subpoena for documents and 
     testimony on Mr. Bannon's behalf on September 24, 2021. The 
     Subpoena required that, by October 7, 2021 at 10:00 a.m., Mr. 
     Bannon produce certain documents and

[[Page H5757]]

     other records referring or relating to the matters described 
     in the Subpoena's schedule. All the requested documents 
     relate directly to the inquiry being conducted by the Select 
     Committee, serve a legitimate legislative purpose, and are 
     within the scope of the authority expressly delegated to the 
     Select Committee pursuant to House Resolution 503. In the 
     letter accompanying the Subpoena, the Select Committee set 
     forth the basis for its determination that the documents and 
     records sought by the Subpoena and Mr. Bannon's deposition 
     testimony are of critical importance to the issues being 
     investigated by the Select Committee.
       Your letter indicates that the sole basis for defiance of 
     the Subpoena is Mr. Trump's ``direction'' to your client and 
     his decision to ``honor [Mr. Trump's] invocation of executive 
     privilege.'' That position has no basis in law, and your 
     letter does not cite any statute, case law, or other legal 
     precedent for support.
       First, virtually all the documents and testimony sought by 
     the Subpoena concern Mr. Bannon's actions as a private 
     citizen and involve a broad range of subjects that are not 
     covered by executive privilege. You have provided no basis 
     for Mr. Bannon's refusal to comply with those portions of the 
     Subpoena not covered by any privilege. Furthermore, blanket 
     assertions of the deliberative process and attorney-client 
     privileges, such as those apparently requested by Mr. Trump, 
     have been rejected by courts as ``unsustainable'' even when--
     unlike the situation with Mr. Bannon--the subpoena recipient 
     is an Executive Branch agency. See Comm. on Oversight and 
     Gov't Reform v. Holder, 2014 WL 2662665, at *2 (D.D.C. 2014) 
     (rejecting DOJ's assertion of deliberative process privilege 
     on all documents after a particular date and noting that the 
     ``Attorney General has not cited any authority that would 
     justify this sort of blanket approach'').

       Second, the Select Committee has not received any 
     assertion, formal or otherwise, of any privilege from the Mr. 
     Trump. Even assuming that, as a former President, Mr. Trump 
     is permitted to formally invoke executive privilege, he has 
     not done so. At most, Mr. Trump has ``announced his intention 
     to assert those executive privileges.'' The Select Committee 
     is not aware of any legal authority, and your letter cites 
     none, holding that the mere intention to assert a privilege 
     absolves a subpoena recipient of his duty to comply.

       Third, your letter indicates that Mr. Trump has requested 
     that your client ``to the fullest extent permitted by law . . 
     . not provide any testimony concerning privileged material in 
     response to the Subpoena.'' Even if your client had been a 
     senior aide to the President during the time period covered 
     by the contemplated testimony, which he was most assuredly 
     not, he is not permitted by law to the type of immunity you 
     suggest that Mr. Trump has requested he assert. To the 
     contrary, every court that has considered the absolute 
     immunity Mr. Trump alludes to has rejected it. See, e.g., 
     Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800 (1982); Comm. on the 
     Judiciary v. Miers, 558 F. Supp. 2d 53, 106 (D.D.C. 2008) 
     (rejecting former White House counsel's assertion of absolute 
     immunity from compelled congressional process). Miers made 
     clear that even the most senior Presidential advisors may not 
     resist a congressional subpoena ``based solely on their 
     proximity to the President. `` Id. at 101 (citing Harlow, 457 
     U.S. at 810).' If there is no absolute immunity for senior 
     Presidential advisors, then there certainly can be no such 
     immunity for private citizens, such as Mr. Bannon, who 
     occasionally communicate with the President on nonofficial, 
     non-governmental, or campaign-related matters.
       Regardless of any purported privilege assertion by Mr. 
     Trump, Mr. Bannon has an ongoing obligation to produce 
     documents to the Select Committee. Accordingly, please 
     produce all responsive documents and records identified in 
     the Subpoena. Should Mr. Bannon seek to withhold specific 
     responsive documents, consistent with the Subpoena 
     instructions, he must provide the Select Committee with a 
     privilege log that ``identifies and describes the material in 
     a manner `sufficient to enable resolution of any privilege 
     claims.''' See Comm. on Oversight, 2014 WL 12662665 at *2 
     (quoting Miers, 558 F. Supp. 2d at 107). Such a privilege log 
     should, at a minimum, provide the author(s) and recipient(s), 
     indicate the general subject matter of each document being 
     withheld, and the specific basis for withholding it.
       Finally, the Select Committee expects Mr. Bannon's 
     appearance at the time and place designated in the Subpoena 
     for a deposition and respond fully to questions by the Select 
     Committee. If there are specific questions at that deposition 
     that you believe raise privilege issues, Mr. Bannon should 
     state them at that time for the deposition record for the 
     Select Committee's consideration and possible judicial 
     review.
       Please be advised that the Select Committee will view Mr. 
     Bannon's failure to respond to the Subpoena as willful non-
     compliance with the Subpoena. His willful non-compliance with 
     the Subpoena would force the Select Committee to consider 
     invoking the contempt of Congress procedures in 2 U.S.C. 
     Sec. Sec. 192, 194--which could result in a referral from the 
     House to the Department of Justice for criminal charges--as 
     well as the possibility of having a civil action to enforce 
     the Subpoena brought against Mr. Bannon in his personal 
     capacity.
           Sincerely,
                                               Bennie G. Thompson,
                                                         Chairman.
     ------
     \1\ It is also worth noting that the court in Miers rejected 
     the former White House Counsel's claim of absolute immunity 
     from congressional testimony even though the sitting 
     President had formally invoked executive privilege. Id. at 
     62.
                                  ____

       Mr. TONOLLI. And I'll take a brief pause to recognize that 
     Mr. Schiff has joined us.
       Turning back to the letter that Chairman Thompson sent on 
     October 8th, in sum and substance, the response states that 
     Mr. Costello's, ``letter relies on an apparent instruction 
     from former President Donald Trump that appears limited to 
     requesting that Mr. Bannon not disclose privileged 
     information. Despite this limited instruction, your letter 
     takes the inappropriate position that Mr. Bannon will not 
     comply with any request for information or testimony sought 
     by the Select Committee. Moreover, Mr. Trump's stated 
     `intention to assert those executive privileges' that may or 
     may not belong to him does not provide a legal basis for Mr. 
     Bannon's refusal to comply with the subpoena.''
       The letter states the Select Committee's expectation that 
     Mr. Bannon would appear today for the deposition and respond 
     fully to the Select Committee's questions and to state for 
     the record any objections to particular questions for the 
     Select Committee's consideration and possible judicial 
     review.
       The letter concludes by advising that the Select Committee 
     will view Mr. Bannon's failure to respond to the subpoena as, 
     ``willful noncompliance,'' that would force the Select 
     Committee to consider invoking the contempt of Congress 
     procedures entitled to United States Code, sections 192 and 
     194, which could result in a referral from the House to the 
     Department of Justice for criminal charges as well as the 
     possibility of a civil action against Mr. Bannon personally 
     to enforce the subpoena.
       I will mark as a final exhibit, exhibit 5, and enter into 
     the record a reply letter that Mr. Costello sent to Chairman 
     Thompson, the evening of October 13, 2021.

                                    Davidoff Hutcher & Citron LLP,


                                       Attorneys at Law, * * *

                                 Washington, DC, October 13, 2021.
     Hon. Bennie G. Thompson,
     Chairman, House Select Committee to Investigate the January 
         6th Attack
     * * *
     Re: The Subpoena for Stephen K. Bannon dated September 23, 
         2021

       Dear Congressman Thompson: I write on behalf of Stephen K. 
     Bannon to respond to some of the inaccurate statements made 
     in your letter to me dated October 8, 2021, which purports to 
     address the positions taken by Mr. Bannon with respect to the 
     above-referenced subpoena.
       As an initial matter, your use of the word ``defiance'' is 
     inappropriate. Mr. Bannon's position is not in defiance of 
     your Committee's subpoena; rather, Mr. Bannon noted that 
     President Trump's counsel stated that they were invoking 
     executive and other privileges and therefore directed us not 
     to produce documents or give testimony that might reveal 
     information President Trump's counsel seeks to legally 
     protect. Mr. Bannon has testified on three prior occasions, 
     before the Mueller Investigation, the House Intelligence 
     Committee and the Senate Intelligence Committee. In each of 
     those instances, when President Trump waived his invocation 
     of the executive privileges, Mr. Bannon testified.
       As recently as today, counsel for President Trump, Justin 
     Clark Esq., informed us that President Trump is exercising 
     his executive privilege; therefore, he has directed Mr. 
     Bannon not to produce documents or testify until the issue of 
     executive privilege is resolved. Your Committee will have the 
     right to challenge that exercise or its scope. That is an 
     issue between the Committee and President Trump's counsel and 
     Mr. Bannon is not required to respond at this time. See Comm. 
     on the Judiciary v. McGahn, 415 F. Supp. 3d 148, FN 34 
     (D.D.C. 2019) (``The President can certainly identify 
     sensitive information that he deems subject to executive 
     privilege, and his doing so gives rise to a legal duty on the 
     part of the aide to invoke the privilege on the President's 
     behalf when, in the course of his testimony, he is asked a 
     question that would require disclosure of that 
     information.'')
       Until such time as you reach an agreement with President 
     Trump or receive a court ruling as to the extent, scope and 
     application of the executive privilege, in order to preserve 
     the claim of executive and other privileges, Mr. Bannon will 
     not be producing documents or testifying. As noted 
     previously, Mr. Bannon will revisit his position if President 
     Trump's position changes or if a court rules on this matter.
       Mr. Bannon's communications with President Trump on the 
     matters at issue in the Subpoena are well within the scope of 
     both the presidential communications and deliberative process 
     executive privileges. See In re Sealed Case (Espy), 121 F.3d 
     729 (D.C. Cir. 1997) (holding that the presidential 
     communications privilege covers communications made or 
     received by presidential advisors in the course of preparing 
     advice for the President even if those communications are not 
     made directly to the President); Coastal States Gas Corp. V. 
     U.S. Dep't of Energy, 617 F.2d 854, 868 (D.C. Cir. 1980) 
     (finding that deliberative process privilege applies to 
     ``recommendations, draft documents, proposals, suggestions, 
     and other subjective documents

[[Page H5758]]

     which reflect the personal opinions of the writer rather than 
     the policy of the agency.'')
           Very truly yours,
     Robert J. Costello.
                                  ____

       Mr. TONOLLI. In sum and substance, the letter reiterates 
     that Mr. Bannon is abiding by President Trump's invocation of 
     executive privilege and direction to Mr. Bannon not to 
     produce documents or testify.
       In support of Mr. Bannon's position, the letter cites 
     several judicial opinions on executive privilege, including a 
     2019 decision of the United States District Court in 
     Washington in the case of Committee on the Judiciary v. 
     McGahn.
       In particular, the letter cites the following sentence from 
     the court's opinion: ``The President can certainly identify 
     sensitive information that he deems subject to executive 
     privilege, and his doing so gives rise to a legal duty on the 
     part of the aide to invoke the privilege on the President's 
     behalf when, in the course of his testimony, he is asked a 
     question that would require disclosure of that information.''
       However, Mr. Bannon is not here today to assert executive 
     privilege on a question-by-question basis. He chose instead 
     not to appear at all, just as he chose not to produce any 
     documents at all or even a log of responsive documents that 
     he is withholding based on the claim of executive privilege.
       With that, I will note for the record that it is 10:06 
     a.m., and Mr. Bannon still has not appeared or communicated 
     to the Select Committee that he will appear today as required 
     by the subpoena.
       Accordingly, the record is now closed as of 10:06 a.m.
       [Whereupon, at 10:06 a.m., the deposition was concluded.]
  Mr. THOMPSON of Mississippi. 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
  The Clerk read the title of the resolution.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 727, the 
resolution is considered read.
  The text of the resolution is as follows:

                              H. Res. 730

        Resolved, That Stephen K. Bannon shall be found to be in 
     contempt of Congress for failure to comply with a 
     congressional subpoena.
       Resolved, That pursuant to 2 U.S.C. Sec. Sec.  192 and 194, 
     the Speaker of the House of Representatives shall certify the 
     report of the Select Committee to Investigate the January 6th 
     Attack on the United States Capitol, detailing the refusal of 
     Stephen K. Bannon to produce documents or appear for a 
     deposition before the Select Committee to Investigate the 
     January 6th Attack on the United States Capitol as directed 
     by subpoena, to the United States Attorney for the District 
     of Columbia, to the end that Mr. Bannon be proceeded against 
     in the manner and form provided by law.
       Resolved, That the Speaker of the House shall otherwise 
     take all appropriate action to enforce the subpoena.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The resolution shall be debatable for 1 hour 
equally divided and controlled by the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. 
Thompson), the gentlewoman from Wyoming (Ms. Cheney), and an opponent, 
or their respective designees.
  The gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Thompson), the gentlewoman from 
Wyoming (Ms. Cheney), and the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Banks) each 
will control 20 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Mississippi.


                             General Leave

  Mr. THOMPSON of Mississippi. 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.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Mississippi?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. THOMPSON of Mississippi. 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.
  Ms. CHENEY. 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.

[[Page H5759]]

  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.

                              {time}  1445

  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.
  Mr. BANKS. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Madam Speaker, 3 months ago, for the first time in the history of 
Congress, Speaker Pelosi vetoed   Jim Jordan and me from serving on the 
Select Committee to Investigate the January 6th Attack on the United 
States Capitol.
  Not all firsts are worth celebrating. It was a shameful and divisive 
decision with real consequences. Today, because of that decision, there 
is no committee conducting a legitimate investigation into January 6. 
Congress is prohibited from conducting criminal investigations, period.
  But that is exactly what the select committee is doing, conducting an 
illicit, criminal investigation into American citizens. Steve Bannon 
was a private citizen before, after, and during January 6.
  So why is the select committee interested in Steve Bannon?
  It is simple. He is a Democratic Party bogeyman. The select committee 
despises Steve Bannon's politics, so they are abusing their power to 
put him in jail.
  The committee explained it is seeking documents from Mr. Bannon 
because he helped ``construct and participated in'' the permitted and 
legal Stop the Steal rally.
  To date, the select committee has subpoenaed 11 other private 
citizens for organizing the Stop the Steal rally.
  Here, in the land of the free, 12 American citizens are under 
congressional investigation for the sole crime of planning a legal 
political protest. Never in the history of Congress has a committee or 
a political party stooped so low.
  Congress has no authority to conduct criminal investigations. 
Congress can only issue subpoenas to serve a legislative purpose.
  The question that the committee must answer is: Why are they seeking 
information about a permitted political rally?
  What legislative purpose does that serve?
  Is the committee considering laws to limit Americans' right to 
political protest?
  It is clear that the select committee doesn't give a lick about 
Congress' subpoena authority.
  Does the committee share the same disdain for the First Amendment?
  I wouldn't put it past them. As we all know, the Department of 
Justice has a highly active criminal investigation into the January 6 
attack. They have made something like 600 arrests--as I said, very 
active, even hyperactive, compared to the Biden Department of Justice's 
typical reaction to political violence. But the Department of Justice's 
investigation isn't comprehensive.
  There are still questions that only Congress can answer. Congress 
still has a role to play, but the select committee has completely 
abandoned that role.
  Why else does the select committee want to hear from Mr. Bannon?
  Because on January 5, Mr. Bannon warned that ``all hell was going to 
break loose tomorrow.''
  So according to the select committee, no person could have predicted 
that violence might occur that day. According to the committee, that 
because Mr. Bannon warned of violence on the 5th is proof that Mr. 
Bannon had ``foreknowledge'' of the attack on the 6th.
  Never mind that the FBI found that the attack wasn't coordinated. 
Never mind that the Capitol Police received actionable intelligence 
about potential violence occurring weeks before the 6th. Never mind 
that every Member of Congress, every single D.C. resident, and every 
American with internet access knew that violence was a possibility on 
January 6.
  The question the committee should be asking is this: How did the 
United States Capitol Police, the D.C. Metropolitan Police, and the FBI 
all have no

[[Page H5760]]

clue that ``all hell was going to break loose?''
  Steve Bannon, a private citizen, knew.
  So why didn't the Capitol Police have enough riot shields?
  Why did it take multiple hours to deploy the National Guard?
  These are worthwhile questions, and Congress has a duty to answer 
them because January 6 was an enormous intelligence failure. There was 
a breakdown in security, a breakdown that was repeated on Good Friday 
when Officer Billy Evans was brutally murdered.
  The issues that plagued the Capitol Police on January 6 have not been 
fixed. In fact, according to a Capitol Police whistleblower, the 
officers most responsible for the intelligence failure on the 6th were 
promoted by Speaker Pelosi's team.

  To be clear, the select committee is engaged in an unconstitutional, 
political investigation. It is a sham investigation conducted by a sham 
committee that refuses to answer real questions about what happened on 
January 6.
  The Capitol was attacked, and instead of figuring out what went 
wrong, the committee launched its own attack on Congress' norms.
  The Select Committee's politicization of January 6 cuts both ways. 
The committee's inaction has made the Capitol less secure, and the 
committee's actions have further separated Congress from its 
constitutional role.
  The American people and the United States Capitol Police deserve a 
real investigation into the 6th, and the select committee has abandoned 
them.
  Madam Speaker, I urge all of my colleagues to make the moral vote. Do 
the right thing. I urge Members to vote for the rule of law, for the 
institution of Congress, and against the select committee's dangerous 
abuse of Congress' oversight authority.
  Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. THOMPSON of Mississippi. 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.
  Ms. CHENEY. 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.
  Ms. CHENEY. Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
California (Ms. Lofgren).
  Ms. LOFGREN. 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. BANKS. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Madam Speaker, no one has said that the select committee doesn't have 
a legislative purpose.
  Let's be very clear. There is important work that, frankly, we wish 
they were doing; like answering, why was this campus left unprotected? 
And what are we doing to keep it from happening again? That hasn't 
happened yet.
  What we are saying is that the subpoenas that have so far been issued 
do not ask for information that would meet any legitimate legislative 
purpose.
  Madam Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman 
from the great State of Illinois (Mr. Rodney Davis).
  Mr. RODNEY DAVIS of Illinois. 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

[[Page H5761]]

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?

                              {time}  1500

  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.


                             TRUMP'S SPEECH

       Trump made an incendiary speech at a nearby rally shortly 
     before the riot, repeating false claims that the 2020 
     election was stolen and urging supporters to march on the 
     Capitol to pressure lawmakers to reject Biden's victory.
       In public comments last month to the Democratic-led 
     congressional committee formed to investigate the violence, 
     police officers injured in the mayhem urged lawmakers to 
     determine whether Trump helped instigate it. Some Democrats 
     have said they want him to testify.
       But the FBI has so far found no evidence that he or people 
     directly around him were involved in organizing the violence, 
     according to the four current and former law enforcement 
     officials.
       More than 170 people have been charged so far with 
     assaulting or impeding a police officer, according to the 
     Justice Department. That carries a maximum sentence of 20 
     years.
       But one source said there has been little, if any, recent 
     discussion by senior Justice Department officials of filing 
     charges such as ``seditious conspiracy'' to accuse defendants 
     of trying to overthrow the government. They have also opted 
     not to bring racketeering charges, often used against 
     organized criminal gangs.
       Senior officials had discussed filing such charges in the 
     weeks after the attack, the sources said.
       Prosecutors have also not brought any charges alleging that 
     any individual or group played a central role in organizing 
     or leading the riot. Law-enforcement sources told Reuters no 
     such charges appeared to be pending.
       Conspiracy charges that have been filed allege that 
     defendants discussed their plans in the weeks before the 
     attack and worked together on the day itself. But prosecutors 
     have not alleged that this activity was part of a broader 
     plot.
       Some federal judges and legal experts have questioned 
     whether the Justice Department is letting defendants off too 
     lightly.
       Judge Beryl Howell in July asked prosecutors to explain why 
     one defendant was allowed to plead to a misdemeanor charge 
     carrying a maximum sentence of six months, rather than a more 
     serious felony charge.
       Spokespeople for the Justice Department and U.S. Attorney's 
     office in Washington, which is leading the Jan. 6 
     prosecutions, declined to comment.
       The congressional committee investigating the attack will 
     talk with the FBI and other agencies as part of its probe.
                                  ____


                 [From Business Insider, Aug. 20, 2021]

FBI Finds No Evidence That Trump and His Allies Were Directly Involved 
        With Organizing the Violence of the Capitol Riot: Report

                           (By Bryan Metzger)

       The FBI has found no evidence that Trump was directly 
     involved in organizing Capitol-riot violence.
       It also found little evidence of an organized plot to 
     overturn the election results.
       Ninety to ninety-five percent of these are one-off cases,'' 
     said one former official.
       See more stories on Insider's business page.
       The FBI hasn't found any evidence that the January 6 
     assault on the US Capitol was part of an organized plot to 
     overturn the election results, Reuters reported, citing law-
     enforcement officials.
       The officials also said that the FBI has ``so far found no 
     evidence'' that former President Donald Trump or ``people 
     directly around him were involved in organizing the 
     violence,'' Reuters reported.
       ``Ninety to ninety-five percent of these are one-off 
     cases,'' a former law-enforcement official familiar with the 
     investigation told Reuters. ``There was no grand scheme with 
     Roger Stone and Alex Jones and all of these people to storm 
     the Capitol and take hostages.''
       More than 570 participants have been arrested by federal 
     officials. Investigators have found that groups such as the 
     Oath Keepers

[[Page H5762]]

     and Proud Boys did plan ahead of time to break into the 
     Capitol, but they didn't engage in much planning beyond that 
     step. Reuters reported that 40 percent of the defendants are 
     being prosecuted on conspiracy charges, implying a certain 
     amount of planning and coordination.
       But prosecutors have generally shied away from alleging a 
     broader plot. Senior Department of Justice officials do not 
     intend to bring forward seditious-conspiracy charges or even 
     racketeering charges, which are commonly used against 
     organized criminal gangs.
       A Democratic congressional source told Reuters that senior 
     lawmakers who have been briefed on the FBl's investigation 
     find the results credible.
       Though the FBI has not found an organized plot or direct 
     involvement by Trump, that doesn't mean that Trump didn't 
     play an important role in instigating the violence. Earlier 
     this year, the House of Representatives impeached Trump on 
     the charge of ``incitement of insurrection'' after he spent 
     weeks promoting conspiracy theories about the results of the 
     2020 election. On January 6, Trump gave a speech on The 
     Ellipse where he urged supporters to march on the Capitol.
       Read the original article on Business Insider.
  Mr. RODNEY DAVIS of Illinois. 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.
  Mr. THOMPSON of Mississippi. 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.
  Mrs. MURPHY of Florida. Madam Speaker, I rise in support of this 
resolution to refer Stephen Bannon to the Department of Justice for 
prosecution for contempt of Congress.
  It didn't have to be this way. Mr. Bannon, a self-professed patriot, 
could have done the patriotic thing and cooperated with our bipartisan 
committee.
  If Mr. Bannon was proud of the role he played in connection with 
January 6, he should be eager to tell his side of the story. Instead, 
he is acting like a man who has something to hide. Our committee seeks 
only the truth. That is our legal charge and our moral obligation. We 
cannot let any individual impede our inquiry, and we will not tolerate 
Mr. Bannon's evasion.
  Why must we be so unrelenting in our pursuit of truth? Because on 
January 6, the greatest Nation on Earth came under attack. And this 
attack wasn't carried out by officials in Beijing, Moscow, or Tehran, 
or by foreign terrorists even. It was an attack conducted by our fellow 
citizens, regular Americans who were radicalized because they believed 
outrageous lies fed to them by other Americans in positions of power 
and influence.
  The attack was launched against the seat and symbol of our Republic. 
It was designed to disrupt the certification of the Presidential 
election results, to defy the will of the voters. This was no peaceful 
protest in a proud American tradition. It was violent and vicious. 
Members of the mob wielded weapons. They called for the death of the 
Vice President. They hunted Members of Congress. They caused severe 
harm to law enforcement officers. And the real disservice to the police 
comes from those who want to whitewash the violence of January 6 and 
pretend that the riot of that day was anything short of the violent 
attack it was, aimed at derailing the peaceful transfer of power.
  America is not just a place; it is an idea. And on January 6, there 
was an attack on the very idea of America. I believe that patriots of 
all political stripes should want to protect our Capitol, this country, 
and her Constitution. Our committee will make a full accounting of what 
happened, and we will make recommendations to ensure it never happens 
again.
  Ms. CHENEY. Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Aguilar).
  Mr. AGUILAR. Madam Speaker, I thank the vice chair for yielding.
  Like many of my colleagues, I was right here on the House floor when 
the violent mob attacked our Capitol. I saw those doors shaking, nearly 
overrun with rioters attempting to enter. I saw my colleagues shed 
their jackets and roll up their sleeves preparing for the eventuality. 
And I saw Capitol Police acting quickly and thoughtfully to conduct a 
successful evacuation of Members from this Chamber. Their actions, 
undoubtedly, saved lives.

  What we didn't know at the time was that on the steps of the Capitol, 
the Capitol Police and the Metro PD officers were engaged in brutal 
hand-to-hand combat. Officer Michael Fanone told us he was grabbed, 
beaten, and tased, all while being called a traitor to this country.
  This is what officers dealt with to defend our democracy. Some lost 
their lives; many are still living with both the physical wounds and 
the trauma that they suffered that day. This is what our officers dealt 
with to defend democracy.
  Officer Harry Dunn told us more than 6 months later, January 6 still 
isn't over for me. These officers are heroes. I want to thank the chair 
and the vice chair for their leadership in making our first order of 
business hearing directly from those heroes in their own words.
  We wanted to hear and make sure that all of our colleagues and this 
country heard firsthand what we experienced on the ground that day. We 
asked them to explain the violence they had to endure to protect our 
democratic process, and in return, they made one simple request: to get 
to the bottom of this.
  They want answers, and, quite frankly, they deserve answers. So far, 
both the Metro PD and the Capitol Police

[[Page H5763]]

have been excellent allies in this investigation. They have cooperated, 
shared their stories and expertise, and provided us with key evidence 
and accounts of the violence they endured that day. And we owe it to 
them to see this investigation through.
  The vote we take today is a crucial step toward removing a roadblock 
in our investigation. We owe it to every officer who put their life on 
the line that day and every day to protect us here in the Capitol. We 
owe them answers. And this committee intends to get to those answers by 
all means necessary.
  Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on this 
resolution.
  Mr. BANKS. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. THOMPSON of Mississippi. 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.
  Mr. KINZINGER. Madam Speaker, I thank the chairman for yielding. Let 
me just say first, Madam Speaker, as a Republican, don't let my side 
use the security posture as the straw-man argument in this. The reality 
is that that is the equivalent of blaming the victim of a crime for the 
crime. And while it is important, that is not what we are here to talk 
about today.
  Madam Speaker, voting on a criminal contempt resolution is not the 
position we had hoped to be in, but Steve Bannon went out of his way to 
earn this resolution before us and now we must approve it.
  Mr. Bannon's willful disregard for the select committee's subpoena 
demonstrates his utter contempt for the American people's right to know 
how the attacks on January 6 came about. He has advanced a ludicrous 
legal argument in support of his decision not to corroborate or comply, 
a decision that defies the rule of law and rejects the will of the 
American people.
  Mr. Bannon's reported actions put him near the center of the 
investigation into the events surrounding January 6. His own words 
strongly suggest that the actions of the mob that stormed the Capitol 
and invaded this very Chamber came as no surprise to him. He and a few 
others were, by all accounts, involved in planning that day's events, 
and encouraged those who attacked the Capitol, our officers, and our 
democracy.
  I have no doubt that Mr. Bannon's scorn for our subpoena is real. But 
no one--and I repeat, no one--is above the law, and we need to hear 
from him.
  As the select committee's contempt report states, it was Mr. Bannon 
who on January 5 predicted with chilling accuracy: ``All hell is going 
to break loose tomorrow.''
  On his radio show that day he stated: ``It's not going to happen like 
you think it's going to happen. Okay. 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.''
  And it was Mr. Bannon, who was recorded as saying: ``It's all 
converging, and now we're on the point of attack tomorrow.''

                              {time}  1515

  Mr. Bannon said these things publicly, as a private citizen, someone 
deeply involved with the Stop the Steal movement, and he said them 
nearly 3 years after leaving his job at the White House.
  Mr. Bannon was also reportedly among the small group of Trump 
confidants assembled at the Willard Hotel to discuss plans to stop or 
delay the January 6 count.
  Is it any wonder that the select committee needs to hear from him; 
that we want to see related materials that he has?
  Furthermore, does anyone really believe Mr. Bannon's actions are 
covered by a blanket, no-questions-asked claim of executive privilege? 
One the former President has never actually made.
  Madam Speaker, Steve Bannon is a key witness to the select 
committee's probe. He has yet to say or produce anything in response to 
the subpoena. His assertion of executive privilege is farfetched in the 
extreme and not his to make.
  I urge my colleagues to join me to support the contempt resolution.
  Ms. CHENEY. Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Maryland (Mr. Raskin).
  Mr. RASKIN. Madam Speaker, today, Donald Trump said the insurrection 
took place on November 3. No, Mr. Trump. I am sorry. That is what we 
call an election in America; an election that was validated by more 
than 60 Federal or State courts, including before eight judges 
nominated to the bench by President Trump himself, and all the way up 
to the United States Supreme Court, all of them rejecting every claim 
of electoral fraud and corruption that was advanced.
  We know an insurrection when we see one in this body, because we 
lived through one. Under the banner of this continuing and deranged big 
lie, the Stop the Steal movement brought down a violent insurrection 
against this Congress in an attempted coup against Vice President Mike 
Pence. They interrupted the counting of electoral college votes for the 
first time in American history. They caused the worst attack on 
Congress since the War of 1812; and they injured and wounded more than 
140 police officers, Capitol Police officers, Metropolitan Police 
Department officers, and others, breaking their noses, breaking their 
necks, breaking their vertebrae, breaking their arms, breaking their 
legs, breaking their hearts and their spirits.
  We are investigating the attack on American democracy because we are 
Americans. We are investigating the attack on Congress by domestic 
enemies of our Constitution because we are sworn to do so by our oaths 
of office.
  But now, the big lie has become a big coverup. After being impeached 
twice by the House, after losing in 61 different courts, after seeing a 
57-43 vote against him in the U.S. Senate, in the most sweeping 
bipartisan Senate Presidential conviction vote in American history, 
Trump now tries to get his followers, like Steve Bannon, not to testify 
here and not to turn over evidence that they have about this vicious 
assault on American democracy.
  In America, when you are subpoenaed to testify in court or in 
Congress, you show up, period. You can invoke your Fifth Amendment 
privilege against self-incrimination to specific questions if you think 
you committed a crime. You can claim executive privilege to specific 
questions if you think you are President of the United States. But you 
cannot blow off a subpoena in America. You cannot sit on your couch and 
defy the people's representatives in Congress.
  So we must enforce the rule of law here, my colleagues. We must do 
it. If you act deliberately, with sneering, cavalier contempt for the 
American people and their representatives, we will hold you in 
contempt. We will get to the truth of the violent assault on America.
  Mr. BANKS. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Madam Speaker, you don't have to look far to realize the absurdity of 
what is happening in Congress today. In fact, Politico just reported 
moments ago that the Capitol Police whistleblower is telling us--
telling Politico--that they have not been contacted by the January 6 
select committee.
  The Capitol Police whistleblower said that the United States Capitol 
Police deserves more scrutiny than it has gotten so far and that he 
would talk to investigators if they reach out to him. And the select 
committee has not reached out to the Capitol Police whistleblower.
  Yet, here we are today focused on holding a private citizen in 
contempt, an unprecedented action by this sham committee and their sham 
investigation.
  Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to my colleague from Florida (Mr. 
Gaetz).
  Mr. GAETZ. Madam Speaker, why are we here on the floor of the House 
of Representatives listening to the Democrats and socialists and their 
Republican puppets reviewing Steve Bannon's podcast?
  I can't imagine that that would be the case if they actually had a 
bill, a reconciliation deal, legislation to help the American people. 
We are not here because of democracy. Save me the alligator tears on 
that. These are the folks who assaulted our democracy for 2 years under 
the specter of the Russia hoax. It is sure not about violence, because 
they didn't seem to give a damn

[[Page H5764]]

when our country was being engulfed in flames during the riots of the 
summer of 2020.
  It is not about Congressional process. If it was about Congressional 
process, Democrats would be doing what they have done in other cases; 
they would go to court. But the reason they haven't gone to court, like 
they did for Trump's taxes, in the Deutsche Bank subpoenas, in the 
Mazars matter, or in the Don McGahn matter, is because in each of those 
circumstances, they did not prevail in court. The courts realized that 
their subpoenas were overly broad.
  So instead of using the real process, here we are just enduring this 
politics. And because they can't build back better, they have just 
decided to build back meaner.

  Mr. THOMPSON of Mississippi. 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.
  Mrs. LURIA. Madam Speaker, to ``support and defend the Constitution 
of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic.''
  We reaffirmed that oath on January 3. Yet only 3 days later in this 
very Chamber, this body was assaulted while carrying out the peaceful 
transfer of power, the very hallmark of our democracy.
  I first took that oath when I was 17 years old and entered the Naval 
Academy. I was willing to put my life on the line to serve my country 
and protect the foundation of this republic, a foundation that was 
shaken but not broken on January 6.
  Mr. Bannon, a former naval officer like me, at one point understood 
this oath. He took it multiple times. He served his country honorably 
in the Navy.
  I don't know what happened between the time Lieutenant Bannon left 
the Navy and today. What forces corrupted his understanding of this 
oath?
  Mr. Bannon has been given the opportunity to voluntarily provide 
information relevant to the work of our committee, but he has not 
complied.
  Truly, this is larger than Mr. Bannon, this is larger than this 
investigation, and this is larger than the tragic and horrific events 
of January 6.
  This vote is a test of that oath. To my colleagues who chose to vote 
against enforcing the subpoena, you are saying to all future men and 
women who are called before this body that they can ignore a subpoena 
from Congress without consequence.
  You can make that choice today. But that will be a vote to abdicate 
the power of the legislative branch in which you are elected to serve. 
That will be a vote to undermine the government and the Constitution 
which you took an oath to support and defend.
  The consequences of that vote won't be limited to this investigation 
and this subpoena alone. Your vote will do serious, long-lasting damage 
to Congress as an institution. That, in turn, will do serious damage to 
our country, which we all love so dearly.
  We ask our young men and women in uniform to go forth every day and 
protect us, to protect this republic, to protect our form of 
government. I am asking you to do the same, to protect our democracy 
from those forces seeking to destroy it from within.
  Ms. CHENEY. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. BANKS. Madam Speaker, I yield as much time as he may consume to 
the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Jordan).
  Mr. JORDAN. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Look, we have seen the worst 10 months of any administration in 
history. We went from a secure border to chaos. We went from safe 
streets to violent crime. We have seen stable prices turn into 
inflation and empty shelves. The respect around the world we had has 
now turned into the debacle that was the exit from Afghanistan. And we 
went from peace in the Middle East with the Abraham Accords to 
thousands of rockets being fired on our friend and ally, Israel; not to 
mention, energy independence to now the spectacle of the President of 
the United States begging OPEC to increase production.
  But what scares me most is what this administration and Democrats are 
doing to freedom. Every right we enjoy under the First Amendment has 
been assaulted over the last year.
  Your right to practice faith. There are still places today in the 
country where a full congregation can't meet on Sunday morning.
  Your right to petition your government, your right to assemble, 
freedom of the press, freedom of speech--every single one has been 
attacked.
  We just learned in the Judiciary Committee from the Attorney General 
that the National School Boards Association last month, September 29, 
sends a letter to the President of the United States asking the FBI to 
get involved in local school board matters. Five days later, the 
Attorney General issues a memo to do just that.
  The first sentence of the Attorney General's memo says this: In 
recent months, there has been a disturbing spike in harassment, 
intimidation, and threats at school board meetings.
  We asked him a simple question: What is the evidence for a spike in 
threats? What is the data? What did you review?
  Guess what his answer was. His only evidence, the only thing he 
reviewed, was the letter from the school boards association, from a 
political organization. Now, they are going to target parents at school 
board meetings.
  And we have the January 6 committee issuing subpoena after subpoena. 
Eleven of the people they have issued subpoenas to were names on an 
application asking the government for permission to hold a rally. 
Individuals exercising their First Amendment right to assemble, asked 
the government for permission, the government granted them permission, 
and now these 20- and 30-year-olds, whose names are on that 
application, they are going to be deposed by these guys for simply 
exercising their First Amendment right.
  Here is what they are asking them, we want to know who the speakers 
were and how were they selected. We want to know any communications 
these people--who put their names on a permit, got permission from the 
government--we want to know any Member of Congress you talked to.
  Wow. Your right to petition your government, that is why they are 
subpoenaing these people? This is scary, where they want to go.
  These questions--coordination of speakers, discussions of contents--
this sounds like what the IRS did to people 10 years ago when they were 
asking 501(c) groups applying for tax-exempt status, do you pray at the 
start of your meeting?
  First, it is school boards, then it is people applying for a permit. 
We saw what the IRS did to people just a few years ago; not to mention 
what else the committee is doing; preservation letters to all of the 
carriers, all of the companies; preserve every call, every email, every 
text. Think about that. Every call someone made to--hundreds and 
hundreds, supposedly, according to news reports. They have done this 
for texts to your spouse, calls to your mom. Preserve it all. And this 
is just what we know about. This is just what has been reported.
  And now Steve Bannon. Now Steve Bannon. Mr. Bannon is a target of the 
investigation, for the investigation, because--and this is the select 
committee's own report--``His efforts to plan political activity.''
  That is the standard. If you are involved in political activity, they 
are going to investigate you.
  We know what this is really about. This is about getting at President 
Trump. They tried to stop President Trump before he was even elected 
with the Russia investigation; tried to remove President Trump from 
office twice while he was in office. And now they are trying to get him 
after the fact, after he has left, all because this guy cut taxes, 
reduced regulation, gave us the greatest economy in 50 years, lowest 
unemployment, all because he built the wall, got us out of the Iran 
deal, put the embassy in Jerusalem. When President Trump was President, 
Americans got their Christmas presents on time. But they are coming 
after him.

[[Page H5765]]

  The Reuters story said this: The FBI has found no evidence that 
President Trump, or people directly around him, were involved in 
organizing the violence.
  They don't care. They don't care that the FBI has no evidence. The 
Senate report said no evidence of a coordinated plan. They don't care. 
They are going to drag these 11 people in for depositions with 
subpoenas, because they are so determined to get their political 
enemies.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman from Indiana has 
expired.

                              {time}  1530

  Mr. THOMPSON of Mississippi. 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.
  Mr. SCHIFF. Madam Speaker, we are here this afternoon to test a 
proposition as old as the country's founding: Are we a nation of laws?
  We are here because one man has decided that we are now only a nation 
of men and that rich and powerful men need not follow the law. And the 
question we must confront is nothing less than this: Is he right?
  Are some people now truly above the law, beholden to nothing and no 
one, free to ignore the law and without consequence?
  Congress is investigating the worst attack on our Capitol in over a 
century, made worse still by the fact that it was carried out by our 
own people, people who had been misled to believe that their election 
had been stolen and that violence was now justified, people who are 
still being misled by a dangerous lie that may lead to even more 
bloodshed.
  This is not some theoretical matter. We were here. We heard the doors 
breaking, the glass shattering, the cries from outside the Chamber. And 
we saw the bloody results, the officers injured, and those who died.
  And in the wake of the horrors of that day, a day in which the 
Capitol Police put their lives on the line to defend our democracy, it 
falls on us to defend that same democracy, albeit at far less risk to 
ourselves.
  The Founders intended that ambition should be made to check ambition. 
If we fail to uphold Congress' power to compel information, then we 
cease to be a coequal branch of government, unable to perform our 
oversight or check any abuses of executive power.
  Take away a court's power to subpoena witnesses, and it fails to be a 
court. Take away the Congress' ability to do the same, and it fails to 
be a Congress, becoming instead a mere plaything for a corrupt 
executive.
  Do not believe for one moment that if we fail to hold Steve Bannon 
accountable that he will be the exception. He will become the rule--not 
a rule of law, but the misrule of men.
  Either we are all equal before the law or none of us is. This is the 
essence of our democracy.
  As Lincoln said, ``Whatever differs from this, to the extent of the 
difference, is no democracy.''
  Ms. CHENEY. Madam Speaker, may I inquire as to how much time is 
remaining.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentlewoman from Wyoming has 5\1/2\ 
minutes remaining. The gentleman from Mississippi has 2 minutes 
remaining. The gentleman from Indiana has no time remaining.
  Ms. CHENEY. 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.
  Mr. THOMPSON of Mississippi. 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.
  Mr. THOMPSON of Mississippi. 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.

[[Page H5766]]

  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.

  Mr. THOMPSON of Mississippi. 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.

  Mr. THOMPSON of Mississippi. 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.

  Mr. THOMPSON of Mississippi. 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

[[Page H5767]]

     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.

  Mr. THOMPSON of Mississippi. 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.

  Mr. THOMPSON of Mississippi. 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. DANNY K. DAVIS of Illinois. Madam Speaker, Congress has a long-
recognized and essential role in conducting oversight. The Select 
Committee to Investigate the January 6th Attack on the United States 
Capitol has the solemn responsibility to investigate and report upon 
the facts, circumstances, and causes related to the attack on January 
6, 2021. This domestic terrorist attack sought to interfere with the 
peaceful transfer of power and undermine American representative 
democracy during the exercise of a constitutional process.
  Mr. Bannon reportedly held multiple roles and had specific knowledge 
relevant to the investigation of the January 6th attack on the Capitol. 
Mr. Bannon has defied a lawful Congressional subpoena. The 
investigation by the Select Committee is fundamental to our democracy, 
and I will vote today to hold Mr. Bannon in contempt of Congress for 
his failure to comply with a Congressional Subpoena. Mr. Bannon has a 
duty to cooperate with the Congressional investigation into the 
fundamental attack on our democracy on January 6th. Therefore, I will 
vote in support of finding Stephen K. Bannon in contempt of Congress 
for failure to comply with a Congressional subpoena.
  Ms. JACKSON LEE. 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;''

[[Page H5768]]

  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.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. All time for debate has expired.
  Pursuant to the rule, the previous question is ordered on the 
resolution.
  The question is on adoption of the resolution.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. BANKS. Madam Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to section 3(s) of House Resolution 
8, the yeas and nays are ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 229, 
nays 202, not voting 1, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 329]

                               YEAS--229

     Adams
     Aguilar
     Allred
     Auchincloss
     Axne
     Barragan
     Bass
     Beatty
     Bera
     Beyer
     Bishop (GA)
     Blumenauer
     Blunt Rochester
     Bonamici
     Bourdeaux
     Bowman
     Boyle, Brendan F.
     Brown
     Brownley
     Bush
     Bustos
     Butterfield
     Carbajal
     Cardenas
     Carson
     Carter (LA)
     Cartwright
     Case
     Casten
     Castor (FL)
     Castro (TX)
     Cheney
     Chu
     Cicilline
     Clark (MA)
     Clarke (NY)
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Connolly
     Cooper
     Correa
     Costa
     Courtney
     Craig
     Crist
     Crow
     Cuellar
     Davids (KS)
     Davis, Danny K.
     Dean
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     DeLauro
     DelBene
     Delgado
     Demings
     DeSaulnier
     Deutch
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doyle, Michael F.
     Escobar
     Eshoo
     Espaillat
     Evans
     Fitzpatrick
     Fletcher
     Foster
     Frankel, Lois
     Gallego
     Garamendi
     Garcia (IL)
     Garcia (TX)
     Golden
     Gomez
     Gonzalez (OH)
     Gonzalez, Vicente
     Gottheimer
     Green, Al (TX)
     Grijalva
     Harder (CA)
     Hayes
     Herrera Beutler
     Higgins (NY)
     Himes
     Horsford
     Houlahan
     Hoyer
     Huffman
     Jackson Lee
     Jacobs (CA)
     Jayapal
     Jeffries
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson (TX)
     Jones
     Kahele
     Kaptur
     Katko
     Keating
     Kelly (IL)
     Khanna
     Kildee
     Kilmer
     Kim (NJ)
     Kind
     Kinzinger
     Kirkpatrick
     Krishnamoorthi
     Kuster
     Lamb
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lawrence
     Lawson (FL)
     Lee (CA)
     Lee (NV)
     Leger Fernandez
     Levin (CA)
     Levin (MI)
     Lieu
     Lofgren
     Lowenthal
     Luria
     Lynch
     Mace
     Malinowski
     Maloney, Carolyn B.
     Maloney, Sean
     Manning
     Matsui
     McBath
     McCollum
     McEachin
     McGovern
     McNerney
     Meeks
     Meijer
     Meng
     Mfume
     Moore (WI)
     Morelle
     Moulton
     Mrvan
     Murphy (FL)
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Neguse
     Newman
     Norcross
     O'Halleran
     Ocasio-Cortez
     Omar
     Pallone
     Panetta
     Pappas
     Pascrell
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Perlmutter
     Peters
     Phillips
     Pingree
     Pocan
     Porter
     Pressley
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Raskin
     Rice (NY)
     Ross
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruiz
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan
     Sanchez
     Sarbanes
     Scanlon
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schneider
     Schrader
     Schrier
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, David
     Sewell
     Sherman
     Sherrill
     Sires
     Slotkin
     Smith (WA)
     Soto
     Spanberger
     Speier
     Stansbury
     Stanton
     Stevens
     Strickland
     Suozzi
     Swalwell
     Takano
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Titus
     Tlaib
     Tonko
     Torres (CA)
     Torres (NY)
     Trahan
     Trone
     Underwood
     Upton
     Vargas
     Veasey
     Vela
     Velazquez
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watson Coleman
     Welch
     Wexton
     Wild
     Williams (GA)
     Wilson (FL)
     Yarmuth

                               NAYS--202

     Aderholt
     Allen
     Amodei
     Armstrong
     Arrington
     Babin
     Bacon
     Baird
     Balderson
     Banks
     Barr
     Bentz
     Bergman
     Bice (OK)
     Biggs
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (NC)
     Boebert
     Bost
     Brady
     Brooks
     Buchanan
     Buck
     Bucshon
     Budd
     Burchett
     Burgess
     Calvert
     Cammack
     Carl
     Carter (GA)
     Carter (TX)
     Cawthorn
     Chabot
     Cline
     Cloud
     Clyde
     Cole
     Comer
     Crawford
     Crenshaw
     Curtis
     Davidson
     Davis, Rodney
     DesJarlais
     Diaz-Balart
     Donalds
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Ellzey
     Emmer
     Estes
     Fallon
     Feenstra
     Ferguson
     Fischbach
     Fitzgerald
     Fleischmann
     Fortenberry
     Foxx
     Franklin, C. Scott
     Fulcher
     Gaetz
     Gallagher
     Garbarino
     Garcia (CA)
     Gibbs
     Gimenez
     Gohmert
     Gonzales, Tony
     Good (VA)
     Gooden (TX)
     Gosar
     Granger
     Graves (LA)
     Graves (MO)
     Green (TN)
     Greene (GA)
     Griffith
     Grothman
     Guest
     Guthrie
     Hagedorn
     Harris
     Harshbarger
     Hartzler
     Hern
     Herrell
     Hice (GA)
     Higgins (LA)
     Hill
     Hinson
     Hollingsworth
     Hudson
     Huizenga
     Issa
     Jackson
     Jacobs (NY)
     Johnson (LA)
     Johnson (OH)
     Johnson (SD)
     Jordan
     Joyce (OH)
     Joyce (PA)
     Keller
     Kelly (MS)
     Kelly (PA)
     Kim (CA)
     Kustoff
     LaHood
     LaMalfa
     Lamborn
     Latta
     LaTurner
     Lesko
     Letlow
     Long
     Loudermilk
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     Malliotakis
     Mann
     Massie
     Mast
     McCarthy
     McCaul
     McClain
     McClintock
     McHenry
     McKinley
     Meuser
     Miller (IL)
     Miller (WV)
     Miller-Meeks
     Moolenaar
     Mooney
     Moore (AL)
     Moore (UT)
     Mullin
     Murphy (NC)
     Nehls
     Newhouse
     Norman
     Nunes
     Obernolte
     Owens
     Palazzo
     Palmer
     Perry
     Pfluger
     Posey
     Reed
     Reschenthaler
     Rice (SC)
     Rodgers (WA)

[[Page H5769]]


     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rose
     Rosendale
     Rouzer
     Roy
     Rutherford
     Salazar
     Scalise
     Schweikert
     Scott, Austin
     Sessions
     Simpson
     Smith (MO)
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smucker
     Spartz
     Stauber
     Steel
     Stefanik
     Steil
     Steube
     Stewart
     Taylor
     Tenney
     Thompson (PA)
     Tiffany
     Timmons
     Turner
     Valadao
     Van Drew
     Van Duyne
     Wagner
     Walberg
     Walorski
     Waltz
     Weber (TX)
     Webster (FL)
     Wenstrup
     Westerman
     Williams (TX)
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Womack
     Young
     Zeldin

                             NOT VOTING--1

       
     Pence
       

                              {time}  1609

  Messrs. SIMPSON and FULCHER changed their vote from ``yea'' to 
``nay.''
  Mr. GOMEZ changed his vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
  So the resolution was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.


    Members Recorded Pursuant to House Resolution 8, 117th Congress

     Adams (Brown)
     Cooper (Clark (MA))
     DeFazio (Brown)
     Frankel, Lois (Clark (MA))
     Garcia (TX) (Escobar)
     Hice (GA) (Greene (GA))
     Huffman (Stanton)
     Khanna (Bowman)
     Kirkpatrick (Stanton)
     Lawson (FL) (Evans)
     Lynch (Trahan)
     Meng (Jeffries)
     Moore (WI) (Beyer)
     Napolitano (Correa)
     Ocasio-Cortez (Escobar)
     Payne (Pallone)
     Rodgers (WA) (Joyce (PA))
     Rush (Underwood)
     Salazar (Cammack)
     Sires (Pallone)
     Stewart (Crawford)
     Tlaib (Omar)
     Wasserman Schultz (Soto)
     Wilson (FL) (Hayes)

                          ____________________