Zoe Lofgren

Ms. LOFGREN

Ms. LOFGREN. Madam Speaker, the January 6th Committee has as its obligation to recommend legislative changes that would make the country safer. We have done that. I will say that the partisan split in the House Administration Committee has always been six majority, three minority. On the select committee, it is not that far off, seven majority, two minority. We have worked together, and I hear Mr. Davis' concern that he didn't participate. It wasn't me. It was Leader McCarthy that withdrew his name. Had his name been left in, he would have been a member of the committee, and he would have been able to participate in the obligation our committee has undertaken. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer), our majority leader.

Ms. LOFGREN. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Madam Speaker, just a quick correction. Right now and in the 2020 election, we had States that said, gosh, there is fraud. It was completely bogus, but they tried to monkey with the system. This bill prevents that. It defines a major natural disaster as any natural catastrophe, including hurricane, tornado, historically significant widespread snowstorm, historically significant widespread flooding, historically significant destructive fire, tidal wave, tsunami, earthquake, or volcanic eruption that prevents a large sector of a State from voting enough that it could impact the election. Then it limits how long you could accommodate that disaster. The decision isn't made by partisans. It is Federal judges who would make that determination. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California (Mr. Aguilar), an esteemed member of the January 6 Select Committee.

Ms. LOFGREN. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Massachusetts (Ms. Clark).

Ms. LOFGREN. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi), the Speaker of the House.

Ms. LOFGREN. Madam Speaker, may I inquire how much time remains?

Ms. LOFGREN. Madam Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from New Mexico (Ms. Leger Fernandez).

Ms. LOFGREN. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. Langevin).

Ms. LOFGREN. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I think it is important to talk about the January 6th Select Committee. Since its creation more than a year ago, the select committee has given substantial attention to the issues related to the Electoral Count Act and its need for reform. Let's recall that in addition to finding out all the facts of the events leading up to January 6, the select committee is tasked with recommending changes in the law or in procedures that will prevent such an occurrence in the future. The select committee has devoted multiple public hearings, over more than 4\1/2\ hours, to issues related to the Electoral Count Act and the former President's efforts to overturn the election on January 6. During these hearings, the committee heard from at least four witnesses regarding the electoral college votes and other issues related to the act. Importantly, conservative judge, Michael Luttig, who is a legal expert and served in the Reagan administration and was appointed by President H.W. Bush to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, testified before the select committee that the Electoral Count Act, `` . . . is not only a work in progress for the country, but at this moment in history an important work in progress that needs to take place.'' He testified with reference to the Electoral Count Act that, `` . . . Donald Trump and his allies and supporters are a clear and present danger to American democracy.'' Now, why is that? Because even though the presiding officer of the Senate, the Vice President, has never had more than a ministerial role to play in the counting of the votes, the former President told people that he could change the outcome. He said so in his speech. He said so in tweets. He threatened the Vice President. And we saw that that armed mob that came here to attack us believed what the former President said. In fact, they read allowed the tweets as he delivered them, and how Mike Pence had disappointed him. Madam Speaker, Judge Luttig said this about the bill that Ms. Cheney and I have introduced: ``Had this bill, the Presidential Election Reform Act, been the law during the 2020 Presidential election, there never would have been the fateful January 6 that the country witnessed and experienced that day.'' He also went on to say this bill is masterfully drafted. Now, why would he say that? Well, it is. But we also sought his considered judgment and expertise as we crafted this bill. Madam Speaker, I include in the Record his remarks on this: This week, Congresswoman Liz Cheney and Congresswoman Zoe Lofgren introduced a bipartisan bill in the House to reform the Electoral Count Act of 1887. This bill represents a comprehensive and compelling Rule of Law overhaul of the anachronistic ECA. Had this bill, the Presidential Election Reform Act, been the law during the 2020 Presidential election, there never would have been the fateful January 6 that the country witnessed and experienced that day. Indeed, had this bill been the law before the 1876 presidential election, which was the impetus for the current Electoral Count Act, the country never would have experienced the election upheaval of that quadrennial presidential election. The Cheney-Lofgren bill is masterfully drafted so as to require the state governors to transmit to Congress only what are defined by the bill as the `conclusive' electoral votes for the presidency representing the popular vote of the states, a transmittal that will only occur after any and all disputes over those votes have been resolved by the state and federal courts. Then, during the Joint Session, Congress will be allowed only a few, very narrow grounds to object to these `conclusive' votes, all of which grounds are related to the technical constitutional qualifications of the electors or their electoral votes. Thirty percent of each, the Senate and the House, must concur in an objection in order for it to be put before the two Chambers of Congress for resolution and decision. An objection must be agreed upon by fifty percent of both chambers in order for it to be sustained. With the Cheney-Lofgren bipartisan bill scheduled to be voted on in the House tomorrow, it now appears that there is not only bipartisan, but also bicameral, support for the desperately-needed reform of the ECA. I urge the Senate and the House to quickly conference and resolve their differences in a law that will ensure there will never again be another January 6 in America. Madam Speaker, this is a bill that has been well received across the political spectrum. Now, we have got a Wall Street Journal report saying: ``The good news is that the House now has a bill to update the 1887 Electoral Count Act. . . . '' They go on to say, ``There's no excuse for Congress's delay in fixing this invitation to political trouble.'' Madam Speaker, I include in the Record an article from the Wall Street Journal and an article from the Washington Post. [From the Wall Street Journal, Sept. 20, 2022] Liz Cheney's Electoral Count Act Bill to Stop a Jan. 6 Repeat (By the Editorial Board) The good news is that the House now has a bill to update the 1887 Electoral Count Act, the antiquated law implicated in the Jan. 6 Capitol riot. Even better, the legislation unveiled this week by Republican Liz Cheney and Democrat Zoe Lofgren reads like it's an improvement, in some respects, of the Senate version. The House plan says the Vice President's role when Congress tallies the Electoral College ``is ministerial.'' The VP can't on his own ``order any delay in counting.'' This responds to President Trump's claim in 2020 that Mike Pence could seize control of the joint session. Mr. Trump's legal argument relied on a lack of clarity in the 12th Amendment, which can't be fixed by statute. Still, it would be helpful to have Mr. Trump's theory contradicted by the law and Congress's explicit procedure. The House bill says Electoral College certificates ``shall be accepted as conclusive'' if submitted by a state's Governor, unless a court orders otherwise. If a rogue Governor refuses to certify the real winner, federal courts could ``direct another official of the State'' to complete the job. A three-judge panel would preside, with appeal to the Supreme Court. The date for electors to vote would be pushed to Dec. 23, providing more room for challenges to play out. Where the House bill might be an improvement is in making it harder for partisans in Congress who want to get C-Span- famous to lodge phony Electoral College objections. Only a specified set of complaints would be heard, such as if a state sends too many electors; if electors vote on the wrong day or are ineligible; or if the presidential or vice presidential candidate is ineligible. No whining on the House floor that somebody had a funny feeling about the vote totals in west southeastern Pennsylvania. The Senate bill offers similar finality to the Governor's certificate. Yet it would continue to permit Congress to object vaguely that an elector's vote wasn't ``regularly given.'' That's the same phrase Congress has abused for years, and in 2020 an alarming 147 House and Senate Republicans objected. An ideal reform would stop this grandstanding. Hence, the House bill's idea to enumerate specific grounds for legitimate objections. Ms. Cheney and Ms. Lofgren also propose to lift the threshold for objections. Under the current Electoral Count Act, a single Senator working with a single Representative can force Congress to debate their wild claims. The Senate bill would require signatures from a fifth of each chamber. The House bill raises that to a third. How about they keep going and compromise at two fifths? More is better, but requiring 33 Senators is better than needing only Sen. Josh Hawley or Rep. Jim Clyburn. The best approach remains for lawmakers to get out of this objection business and leave such disputes to the courts. The House bill retains a purported authority to reject Electoral College votes if Congress decides that the incoming President is constitutionally ineligible. But isn't 14 days before Inauguration Day a little late for that, folks? Imagine if President Trump wins a landslide in 2024 and then Democrats move to invalidate his electors, saying that Mr. Trump led an ``insurrection'' as defined under the 14th Amendment. Perhaps it's unrealistic to expect lawmakers to give up the power they arrogated in 1887, but the madness of Jan. 6, 2021, should have made a convincing case. It's asking for trouble to enshrine any political process for overturning the will of the voters two weeks before the transfer of power is scheduled to take place. Last time it was voting machines in Michigan, and before that it was Russian interference, and before that it was voting machines in Ohio . . . but it's always something for Congress's partisans. Nevertheless, a bill to make that prospect less likely goes in the right direction, especially if it cuts off the microphone for the sour grapes and conspiracy theories that marred the counting after 2000, 2004, 2016 and 2020. This reform should have been the top priority for Congress and the Jan. 6 committee from the beginning, but their priority has been replaying the riot rather than trying to prevent the next one. Let's hope it isn't too late in this Congress to get this done at last.

Ms. LOFGREN. Madam Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Wyoming (Ms. Cheney), the vice chair of the January 6th Select Committee.

Ms. LOFGREN. Madam Speaker, we are prepared to close, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. LOFGREN. Madam Speaker, I was very happy to get that support from the organization, from The Wall Street Journal, but we also got kudos from Cato, that well-known conservative institution, that they say this bill is actually more conservative and originalist as compared to other measures. It is not every day that the Center for American Progress and the Cato Institute see it the same way. But they do in this case. Both organizations, right to left, agree that this is an appropriate step to take and that it will help make our country safer. Madam Speaker, I would address a couple other issues before closing. First, it is unfortunate that my friend, Mr. Davis, has said something that is clearly inaccurate. In the bill itself it defines what is a disaster. It is not somebody saying, gosh, there's COVID. It is a tightly defined set of catastrophes that will be decided by a Federal three-judge panel and will be limited just in time and scope so that people could have their votes cast and counted. I also want to address something I think is very unfortunate, the suggestion that somehow I had a role in trying to overturn the election in Iowa. Nothing could be further from the truth. The Federal Contested Election Act says this: A candidate challenging an election, is required within 30 days after the result of their election, to file with the clerk and serve upon the contestee written notice of the intention to contest an election. Once that is done, it is assigned to the House administration committee. It wasn't my idea. That is what our rule says. And there is a process that has to be undertaken. Now, we didn't finish that process because the contestee withdrew, which was her right, and frankly, I was glad that the matter was terminated. But that is just what the law requires. Madam Speaker, I would make a final comment about the objections under this proposed law. It is true that Members of both sides of the aisle have randomly objected to certification of the electoral college. I think, honestly, that is unfortunate. But we never saw a majority of one party vote to overturn the election as we did on January 6 of 2020. What this bill would do would be to make sure you could never have those kinds of objections in the future. We did some research. We believe that under our bill, not a single objection in the last 100 years would have been allowed under this bill. The last example was a disagreement in 1873 about whether a candidate who passed away after the election still qualified as a person for Article II purposes. That would be covered under the limited set. But this would put an end to using frivolous challenges to the electoral count. And that is another good reason why we should pass this bill today. Madam Speaker, 234 years ago, the authors of The Federalist Papers asked this: ``Who are to be the electors of the Federal Representatives? Not the rich, more than the poor; not the learned, more than the ignorant; not the haughty heirs of distinguished names, more than the humble sons of obscurity. . . . The electors are to be the great body of the people of the United States.'' That is the message that resonates to this day. This bill will ensure that the voice of the American people is the final word on the future of our Republic. All told, the reforms in this bill confine Congress to its true narrow role in Presidential elections under the 12th Amendment. I hope and trust that my colleagues on both sides of the aisle would join us in this critical effort to protect American democracy and to ensure, in President Lincoln's words at Gettysburg, ``that government of the people, by the people,'' and ``for the people'' long endures. Madam Speaker, I urge all my colleagues to support this bill, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. LOFGREN

Ms. LOFGREN. Madam Speaker, I rise today in memory and in honor of Jenny Do, who passed away on Thursday, August 4, 2022, at the age of 56. She was a talented artist, attorney, and activist who was beloved and deeply respected in my district. Jenny fled Vietnam as a child refugee. She came to this country to begin a new life and pursue her education. She earned a legal degree and became very involved in issues affecting the Vietnamese American community. She served in numerous organizations, including the notable Friends of Hue Foundation, to provide services to improve and implement sustainable solutions in impoverished communities. She sat on the City of San Jose's Art Commission and was committed to raising awareness about Vietnamese arts, culture, and social issues. As the founder of Ao Dai Festival and Green Rice Gallery, she curated many well-received exhibitions around the Bay Area. With almost 20 years of legal experience, Jenny was an attorney specializing in worker's compensation cases. She was a fearless advocate for everything she believed in and was willing to help anyone that needed support. Jenny battled cancer for 15 years and established a support network for Vietnamese American cancer patients. She shared her experience living with cancer over the years and her resiliency was an inspiration to many. In 2017, Jenny led the efforts to combat the devastating flood of Coyote Creek and made sure the impacted community received assistance from all levels of government. She established a training program to increase disaster preparedness amongst Vietnamese Americans. During the COVID-19 pandemic, Jenny was at the forefront of the community mobilizing efforts to distribute more than 40,000 sets of PPE equipment to healthcare workers. She also led efforts to distribute food to the homeless and elderly throughout the Santa Clara County. Jenny Do touched people from all around the world and was an extraordinary human being. She was a beacon of light and a role model for many. I was honored to see her work firsthand throughout San Jose and am thankful for her tireless commitment and service to the community. Jenny will be greatly missed. Please join me in honoring her and sharing my deep condolences with her family and our community that mourns her loss.

Ms. LOFGREN

Ms. LOFGREN. Madam Chair, I thank the gentleman from Colorado for his leadership on this issue. Climate change has brought the most severe drought to the West in hundreds and hundreds of years, and it has created an environment where wildfires are roaring through the West. In fact, seven of the worst wildfires in California history have occurred in the last 4 years. They are destroying homes, farms, infrastructure. They cause injury. That is why this bill is so important. I am proud that four of my bills are incorporated in the legislation that will allow firefighters to get overtime they have earned and allow for FEMA to predeploy assets and, yes, to use science in the fight against wildfires. I am proud of the chair and ranking member of the Committee on Science who have turned their attention to the things that can be done to advance funding for the critical research that is happening at places like San Jose State University in their Wildfire Interdisciplinary Research Center. We can't prevent all disasters, Madam Chair, but we can use our power and use our science to better prepare, to better counter these disasters, and, yes, to make sure that those who are victimized by the disasters are treated fairly. They are our neighbors. We need to help them in their time of loss. Madam Chair, I thank the Speaker for making this a priority.

Ms. LOFGREN

Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, America doesn't have to be the only country where mass shootings occur, sometimes daily. Sometimes I hear people say, ``Well, it is a mental health problem.'' I will tell you what, people have mental health problems in countries all over the world, but only one country has mass shootings the way America does. We need to have an answer to this. The killer that killed my constituents at the Gilroy Garlic Festival couldn't buy the assault weapon in California, so he just went over to Nevada and bought it there. We need a national answer. We know it works. When the last ban expired, the number of mass shooting deaths increased by 483 percent. Americans deserve to be safe and to be free, free of fear that when their kids go to school, they will be obliterated. We need to put the American people ahead of politics. We need to put American children ahead of politics. We need to vote ``yes.''

Ms. LOFGREN

Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this bill. My State of California has several provisions in law that are included in this bill, but it doesn't work as a patchwork because individuals can cross State lines and endanger people. Everything in this bill is consistent with the Second Amendment. That is why it got such bipartisan support in the Senate. In the last 3 years alone, my district has had two cities added to the long list of communities that have experienced mass shootings. America doesn't have to be the only country in the world where mass shootings are a near-daily occurrence. There is broad support in the country for reform that will prevent this epidemic of gun violence. This bill doesn't do everything that I think should happen, but it does something. It will make people safer. I strongly urge its support.

Ms. LOFGREN

Ms. LOFGREN. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the gentlewoman from California, the Honorable Connie Conway, be permitted to take the oath of office today. Her certificate of election has not arrived, but there is no contest, and no question has been raised with regard to her election.

Ms. LOFGREN

Ms. LOFGREN. Madam Speaker, on behalf of my California colleagues and the House of Representatives, I welcome Representative Connie Conway to Congress. A lifelong San Joaquin Valley resident, Representative Conway has served as a businesswoman, healthcare worker, Tulare County supervisor, president of the California State Association of Counties, and director of the National Association of Counties. From 2008 to 2014, she served in the California State Assembly. During her tenure she also served as the Assembly minority leader. In 2019, Representative Conway was appointed to the USDA Farm Service Agency as the California executive director. In that role, she administered more than $100 million in safety net and disaster relief programs serving California farmers, ranchers, foresters, and agricultural producers. Representative Conway previously operated her own consulting business and comes with experience in the healthcare sector--previously working for the Women's Health Department at Tulare District Hospital and coordinating a wellness program for Visalia's Kaweah Health Medical Center. We look forward to working with Representative Conway. Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from California (Mr. Calvert).

Ms. LOFGREN

Ms. LOFGREN. Madam Speaker, I would like to now welcome our newest Representative to the podium. Madam Speaker, I yield to Representative Conway.

Ms. LOFGREN

Ms. LOFGREN. Madam Speaker, I rise today to express my sincere condolences to the family of Thang Do, who passed away on May 8, 2022. He has been an important part of our community and will be greatly missed. Thang Do fled Vietnam in 1975, as a refugee, and supported himself through college, where he earned his degree in architecture from Cal Poly San Luis Obispo. Recruited after graduation by Aedis Architects, a San Jose-based architectural firm, Thang Do quickly advanced within the company and has led it for the past 30 years. His advocacy for sustainable design practices and focus on urban design issues, led him to be designated an American Institute of Architects Fellow, an honor held by less than four percent of their members. As lead architect of the recently-completed Vietnamese American Service Center in San Jose, he received the Community Impact Award from the Silicon Valley Business Journal. A notable steward of revitalizing downtown San Jose and the SoFa district, Thang Do dedicated his time as a Chair of the San Jose Planning Commission, a member of the San Jose Architectural Review Committee, and a board member of the San Francisco Bay Area Planning and Urban Research Association. He also volunteered as a board member to the San Jose Museum of Art and the Housing Trust of Silicon Valley. Thang Do was heavily involved as a community activist who helped uplift the Vietnamese community and culture. With his advocacy work and bilingual skills, he supported nationwide policy education by helping found the Progressive Vietnamese American Organization (PIVOT). The organization has been recognized nationally for helping increase civic engagement and fighting misinformation to Vietnamese residents. I have been honored to see his architectural work firsthand throughout San Jose and am thankful for his commitment and service to the community. Thang Do will be greatly missed. Please join me in honoring him and sharing my deep condolences with his family and our community that mourns his loss.

Ms. LOFGREN

Ms. LOFGREN. Madam Speaker, I rise to recognize our former colleague and my friend Norman Mineta--an amazing man who broke ground in so many ways and was thoroughly committed to public service. Norm's commitment was strong despite the injustices he and his family suffered. During World War II, they were sent from our shared hometown of San Jose to an internment camp in Wyoming. The imprisonment of Norm and his family was a terrible wrong, but it never interfered with Norm's love of the United States. He just kept going. Kept striving to make our country better. To make it more inclusive. I knew Norm since the 1970s. When Norm was elected to the House of Representatives, I worked with his office when I was a staffer for my predecessor, Congressman Don Edwards. I always found Norm to be tenacious--focused on getting things done. And he did accomplish quite a lot. He authored the Civil Liberties Act of 1988, which officially apologized for the internment of Japanese- Americans during World War II. That meant so much to so many people. Another law authored by Norm was ISTEA, which set up many of the transportation corridors we use today. Norm and I only overlapped as Members of Congress in 1995, but throughout the years, I've looked up to his spirit of bipartisanship. Norm, well-known as a transportation leader and Chair of the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, often said, ``bridges and tunnels are not Democratic or Republican.'' And his ability to work across the aisle was useful when he served as a Cabinet Member for Presidents of both parties: Commerce Secretary in President Bill Clinton's Administration--and Transportation Secretary for George W. Bush. One thing I always found fascinating about Norm was that he never forgot anyone's name. He could meet someone once . . . and then, 10 years later walk up and know exactly who that person was and when they first met. Not many of us in this Chamber would be able to do that, I presume. And not many of us could say we achieved so many ``firsts.'' Norm went from becoming the first non-white Member of the San Jose City Council to the first Asian American serving in two Presidential Cabinets. While, the whole time, he served as an all-American representative for his constituents. Norm Mineta made a huge impact on our San Jose community, and he changed our country for the better. He will be missed.

Ms. LOFGREN

Ms. LOFGREN. Madam Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 3525, the Commission to Study the Potential Creation of a National Museum of Asian Pacific American History and Culture Act. I am proud to represent a district that is home to hundreds of thousands of Asian Pacific Americans with the largest concentration of Vietnamese-Americans in the country. For years, I've seen firsthand how our Asian Pacific American community embodies the American experience. That is why, as chairperson of the Committee on House Administration, I convened hearing in 2020 to examine a previous version of this bill. It is also why, during this Congress, I have worked to ensure this bill made it to the House Floor for a vote. During our 2020 hearing, witnesses testified to the troubling lack of knowledge of Asian Pacific American history and culture among American students and associated that lack of knowledge with a shortage of exposure, rather than with a shortage of Asian Pacific American contributions to the Nation. For example, witnesses noted--among many other startling datapoints--only 3 percent of sites in the National Register of Historic Places are associated with Asian Pacific American history, and studies of U.S. history textbooks show a shocking lack of content on Asian Pacific Americans. This is disconcerting, as Asian Pacific Americans have been in the United States since the early 19th century and, today, are the fastest growing demographic in the country. Asian-Americans built the Transcontinental Railroad and much of our Nation's agricultural infrastructure, fought in the Civil War, helped lead the fight for farmworkers' rights and made key breakthroughs in atomic science and more. Unfortunately, notwithstanding all the ways in which Asian Pacific Americans have strengthened the United States, the community has repeatedly been subject to cruelty. From the Chinese Exclusion Act and Japanese internment to the spike of racism and violence we have all witnessed over the past several years, America must do better by the Asian Pacific American community. We must do everything we can to honor the history and culture of Asian-Americans. I can think of few better ways to do that than a museum dedicated to their story. By establishing a commission to study the potential creation of an Asian Pacific American museum, we will be taking a meaningful step toward achieving that goal. I strongly support H.R. 3525 and encourage my colleagues to do so as well.

Ms. LOFGREN

Ms. LOFGREN. Madam Speaker, I rise today to honor Chris Wilder who is retiring after 18 years as the President and Executive Director of the Valley Medical Center Foundation. His impact and contributions can be seen throughout our community. In 2004, Chris Wilder joined the Valley Medical Center Foundation, which is the nonprofit organization that acts as the community fundraising arm for Santa Clara County Valley Medical Center. This center provides care to 1 in 4 valley residents and is home to San Jose's only top-level trauma center. Since joining the foundation, Chris has raised more than $100 million for our safety net health system. In his first two years alone in the position, he led two multimillion-dollar capital campaigns that allowed for the completion of the Parisi House on the Hill and the purchase of a new linear accelerator for the Sobrato Cancer Center. He also was a major champion for Measure A, which generated $840 million to build Sobrato Pavillion, the new adult hospital building and a major health center in downtown San Jose. Chris was integral in Santa Clara County's COVID-19 response, where he helped secure over $30 million in funds and donated supplies to protect healthcare workers, expand testing, and support vaccination efforts. I have been honored to see his work firsthand and am so grateful for his steadfast resolve to help ensure that our safety net remains strong. He's been rightfully called a ``nonprofit superhero'' as his efforts can be seen throughout the Valley Medical Center campus. Please join me in thanking Mr. Wilder for his years of dedication and wishing him the very best in his retirement.

Ms. LOFGREN

Ms. LOFGREN. Madam Speaker, no one is above the law. We have all heard that phrase. It is a bedrock principle, and we know it is what distinguishes democracies like ours from autocracies such as Russia. Sadly, a few of the former President's closest aides and allies seem to think they are special, that they are above the law, including senior communications official Daniel Scavino, Jr. Now, who is he? According to many reports, Mr. Scavino worked with the former President to use social media to spread lies regarding nonexistent election fraud and to recruit a violent, angry mob to D.C. Mr. Scavino also followed violent, extremist social media on behalf of Mr. Trump. We have reason to believe that doing so provided Mr. Scavino with explicit advance warnings of the violence that was to occur on January 6. He may have shared these warnings of violence with Mr. Trump before the 6th, and we need to ask him about that. He reportedly attended several meetings with Mr. Trump and others regarding reversing the legitimate victory of President Biden and was also with the former President during the Capitol attack when Mr. Trump failed to immediately try to stop it, despite urgent bipartisan calls for him to do so. Madam Speaker, a Federal court recently concluded that Mr. Trump likely committed a Federal felony and that he and his allies ``launched a campaign to overturn a democratic election'' that ``spurred violent attacks on the seat of our Nation's government, led to the deaths of several law enforcement officers, and deepened public distrust in our political process.'' The court said that his effort was ``a coup in search of a legal theory.'' The court found that if President Trump's ``plan had worked, it would have permanently ended the peaceful transition of power, undermining American democracy and the Constitution.'' Democrats and Republicans have agreed that the very foundation of our constitutional republic was threatened. We must prevent that from ever happening again. Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell rightly explained that the public needs to know everything about what caused and occurred on January 6. To inform both the American people and legislative reform proposals, the select committee needs to speak with Mr. Scavino. He has to fulfill his legal and moral obligation to provide testimony and documents. Otherwise, he should face consequences. We must vote ``yes'' on this resolution to find him in contempt of Congress. In the United States of America, no one, including Mr. Scavino, is above the law.

Ms. LOFGREN

Ms. LOFGREN. Madam Speaker, I rise to address H.R. 4521, the America COMPETES Act of 2022, which the House is considering. I have worked closely with several committees on key parts of this legislation-- including the creation of a new class of start-up visas to attract the next generation of Immigrant entrepreneurs and the reauthorization of the National Science Foundation to supercharge our country's investments in cutting-edge research. However, I have concerns with another part of this bill--the inclusion of the ``SHOP SAFE Act'' in Section 80301. The laudable intent behind the SHOP SAFE Act is to help combat the on line sale of counterfeit goods, which I certainly share. However, the SHOP SAFE Act as presently constructed has three flaws. First, SHOP SAFE could raise the administrative burdens and transaction costs of many small businesses and small sellers. This could be especially disruptive for the sale of used goods and other secondary markets, and for artisanal and other non-mass market products that do not fit neatly into the big-brand templates that this bill would likely impose. As a result, consumers could also suffer as costs go up and sellers could go down in many of these markets. Second, only the largest online marketplaces with the deepest pockets may be able to bear the full technological and economic burdens that SHOP SAFE would impose. As a result, the bill risks entrenching their dominance at the expense of nascent and future competitors. Third, SHOP SAFE takes a ``kitchen-sink'' approach to combat counterfeit listings, imposing over a dozen sweeping requirements that platforms must implement to avoid crippling liability for third-party infringement. Yet no one has been able to explain which of these steps, if any, will really make a difference over the status quo in stemming the flow of counterfeits. Indeed, some online marketplaces already police their listings in many different ways, without the legal pressure imposed by this bill. These concerns came up during the Judiciary Committee's markup of the SHOP SAFE Act last fall. Members, including several who voted to advance the bill, called for further work on the bill. Based on public discussion at the markup, it was expected a committee-driven process to make changes to the SHOP SAFE Act would happen before it moved forward. Regrettably, given that the ordinary legislative process towards the floor did not occur, we now find SHOP SAFE has been inserted without improvements into this much larger legislation. There is another approach included in the America COMPETES Act, in Section 20213, the INFORM Consumers Act. This legislation would boost enforcement efforts through regulation by requiring on line marketplaces to verify the identity of high-volume sellers, while requiring the disclosure of basic information about seller identity to consumers. Some of these requirements overlap with those imposed in the SHOP SAFE Act. As such, the America COMPETES Act contains two visions of how to make sure on line marketplaces are safe. It is my hope that a targeted approach, like the INFORM Consumers Act, will help bring forth a sensible resolution to this issue as the America COMPETES Act moves to a conference committee.

Ms. LOFGREN

Ms. LOFGREN. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.