Just very quickly, I think that is the best way to proceed. I don't think.... You know, this individual last time was in the Middle East, so who knows where he is? To issue a summons to make it seem as though he's unwilling to come before the committee, when we haven't even communicated with him, I think seems a little draconian.
As for Mr. Gagliano, it's a reasonable thing for him to try to make conditions. Our just issuing a summons instead of telling him that his conditions have been rejected and giving him an opportunity to say “Okay, well, I'll come”, is very heavy-handed and draconian. I think the intelligent, logical thing to do is to advise him, by way of a letter, that all members of the committee are basically rejecting his conditions, and if he were to not accept to come to the committee, the committee would be considering a motion to drag him by subpoena here.
I can well imagine that he wouldn't want that to happen and that this would be enough to bring him here. Then the committee would, I think, have used its powers judiciously and appropriately.
As for the man missing in action, unfortunately we don't have any bounty hunters under our employ. Maybe the government wants to consider it; I fear giving them any ideas.
At any rate, I'm sure every effort will be made to track down this fellow, wherever in the world he is. He has appeared before the committee before, so....