Recommending That the House of Representatives Find Peter K. Navarro and Daniel Scavino, Jr., in Contempt of Congress
Floor Speech
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. THOMPSON of Mississippi. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Select Committee to Investigate the January 6th Attack on the United States Capitol, I call up the report (H. Rept. 117-284) and accompanying resolution recommending that the House of Representatives find Peter K. Navarro and Daniel Scavino, Jr., in contempt of Congress for refusal to comply with subpoenas 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 report.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. THOMPSON of Mississippi. Mr. 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. 1037) recommending that the House of Representatives find Peter K. Navarro and Daniel Scavino, Jr., in contempt of Congress for refusal to comply with subpoenas 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.
Mr. Speaker, I want to start our debate by talking a little bit about what the American people ought to expect of their leaders, of those who hold positions of public trust and the responsibilities that come with it.
I have been thinking about those responsibilities for more than 50 years, in all the time I have been fortunate enough to hold a position of public trust. It doesn't matter if you are an alderman, a mayor, Member of Congress, President of the United States, or a staff member working as a civil servant, or a political appointee. When you work for the public, when the people's taxes pay your salary, those jobs come with serious rules and serious obligations.
Dan Scavino and Peter Navarro both held positions of public trust. Mr. Scavino was a top communications official in the Trump White House. Mr. Navarro was a trade adviser. They each drew salaries paid by the American people to the tune of over $180,000 per year. They both were to abide by certain rules and obligations. They both swore oaths of allegiance to the Constitution.
The select committee wants to talk to both of them, but about a lot more than their White House jobs. We want to talk to them about their roles in trying to overturn the 2020 election. We subpoenaed them for their records and testimony. They told us to buzz off. Not a single record. No-shows for their deposition.
Their excuse was: As former White House employees, the information we wanted--again, information about overturning an election--was shielded by executive privilege, a protection for the President to make sure sensitive, official conversations stay private.
In other words, they are arguing that their roles in trying to overturn an election had to stay secret because they had official roles as advisers to the ex-President.
If they want to make those claims, ridiculous as they sound, here is what the law requires: They need to show up and make those claims on the record, under oath. They refused to do that. That alone means they are in contempt of Congress. But I want to dig a little deeper into the argument these men are making.
As I mentioned before, these are rules and obligations that bind public servants. One of the most important rule is that you can't do campaign work on government time or using taxpayer money. Pretty straightforward. Plenty you can do on your own time, but not when you are on the clock. That is the law.
If you have heard of the Hatch Act, it has probably been when a Cabinet Secretary or White House official had crossed the line from their official duties into political matters. In fact, in 2020, Mr. Navarro was dinged by a government watchdog for violating the Hatch Act by using his official role to attack President Joe Biden. That law prohibits, among other things, someone from using ``official authority or influence for the purpose of interfering with or affecting the results of an election.''
Sounds familiar? In the case of Mr. Navarro and Mr. Scavino, trying to affect the result of an election wasn't knocking on doors or putting signs in people's front yards. They were trying to help a defeated President stay in power. It is not conceivable that their involvement in that effort could have legally overlapped with their official duties.
But beyond that, it was a betrayal of the oath these men took. It was a betrayal of the public trust. Even if you do it on your own time, trying to overturn an election is still trying to overturn an election. We know that the people who stormed this building on January 6 had the same goal: trying to overturn an election. That is what the select committee is investigating. That is why we need to hear from Mr. Scavino and Mr. Navarro.
But as the select committee works to provide answers to the American people, these two are saying: ``I worked at the White House when all this took place. Even if I was plotting to overturn the government, I was collecting a government salary at the time, so I don't have to talk about it.''
Can you imagine? I have served my community and my country most of my life. Like my colleagues in this body, I have labored to uphold my oath and do right by the people I serve. I know my constituents expect that of me.
To run into this kind of obstruction, this kind of cynical behavior, as we investigate a violent insurrection, is just despicable. It can't stand.
Dan Scavino and Peter Navarro must be held accountable for their abuses of the public trust. They must be held accountable for their defiance of the law. They are in contempt of Congress, which is a crime, and I call on my colleagues to do their duty to defend this institution and the rule of law and to vote ``yes'' on this resolution.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. THOMPSON of Mississippi. Madam Speaker, just for the record, let me say that we are here for this contempt process today, but the President's own daughter complied with the wishes of the committee. I would think that if his daughter complied with the wishes of the committee, everyone else should, even the people who worked for him.
Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer), the distinguished majority leader of the House.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. THOMPSON of Mississippi. Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Kinzinger), a distinguished veteran of the Air Force and a member of the select committee.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. THOMPSON of Mississippi. Madam Speaker, I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. THOMPSON of Mississippi. Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lofgren), the chairperson of the Committee on House Administration and a member of the select committee.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. THOMPSON of Mississippi. Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from Virginia (Mrs. Luria), a veteran of the United States Navy.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. THOMPSON of Mississippi. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. THOMPSON of Mississippi. Mr. Speaker, I have no further speakers, and I am prepared to close.
Mr. Speaker, let me say for the record, if there is any Member on the other side who feels the strength to come and testify before our committee, I invite them, right now, to let us know and we will gladly entertain whatever information they have as to what happened on January 6. Some of them ran out of this building fearing for their lives, so there is no question that something happened.
And H. Res. 503 says, absolutely, we have to find the facts and circumstances as to what happened and why and make recommendations; and that is what we have to do.
We have the constitutional power to issue subpoenas. If people do not follow subpoenas, we have the right to bring them before this body and recommend contempt citations; and that is what we are doing today.
So it doesn't matter if they were a father, a mother, a sister, or a brother, had children; if they break the law, they break the law. No one is above the law, and that is the point we are trying to make.
We asked the individuals, subpoenaed them to come before the committee, and they chose not to come and, therefore, they broke the law, and that is why we are here today.
So, Mr. Speaker, as I have mentioned, when I testified before the Rules Committee, it is absurd that there should be any disagreement at all about why we are here for this contempt resolution.
If you listen to the arguments from some of my friends on the other side, they have very little to say of substance of this matter. We hear excuses. We hear attacks about process. We hear scare-mongering about the select committee.
Let me remind my colleagues, we have conducted over 830 interviews and depositions. And again, I invite any of them to come talk to us if they want to. Now, if, for some reason, they are reluctant or afraid, then I feel sorry for them.
Our constitutional democracy was challenged on January 6. We have to fix this. Over 200 years, we have operated in complete freedom, and all of a sudden, this institution was attacked; and we have to fix that.
We are the number one democracy in the world, but we lead by example. Democrats are leading by example. The select committee is leading by example by bringing these two gentlemen who broke the law, who decided that it is better to deal with the law of Donald Trump rather than the Constitution of the United States of America.
Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleagues, especially my friend from Wyoming (Ms. Cheney).
Mr. Speaker, I urge every Member to support adoption of this resolution, and I yield back the balance of my time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Source