The committee will come to order. The chair is authorized to declare a recess of the committee at any time. Pursuant to Committee Rule five and 11, houseful 11 the chair may postpone for the proceedings today on the question of approving any measure or matter when adopting an amendment which the recorded vote is ordered. Pursuant to notice i call up a report in a contempt resolution. I have a point of order. Map please finish . Thank you. Now pursuant to notice a call up report containing a claim to the 2020 census. The clerk will report which is been distributed in advance. Mr. Chairman, i have appointed border. The gentleman is not recognize. From a parliamentary standpoint, ive appointed border. My point of order is that rule to f has been violated and the chairman has received the letter, which would outline that particular rule requires a three day notice, mr. Chairman and because the notice was put out on june 10 at 548, this committees rule was violated. The chairman may be able to overrule this point of order, but i would like to clarify that if this committee overrule this point of order, then it would be subject to litigation by House Counsel and you will require the department of justice to file a brief and will be litigated because this is violating the house rules that everyone here agrees to. I would like to address the letter that the Ranking Member sent last night raising a technical argument about the committees rule about circulating memo at todays meeting. Basically argues that the memo shouldve been sent last friday instead of this past monday. I sent a letter back to him this morning explaining my position and i can summarize that here. In last congress the Committee Ruled rules used to require 72 hours before business meeting. In january we, on this committee unanimously adopted rules that made that requirement to three days. As i stated our purpose was to make sure that the Committee Rules matched the house rule. The timing of our Committee Rule was drawn from the house rule on noticing this meeting. That rule provides that the third calendar date before it is noticed. The house parliamentarian has interpreted this role as including the date the notice is sent and the date the business meeting occurs. Committee staff confirmed this interpretation again yesterday, so another words we needed to send a notice on monday for a mockup today. Matte finish . That is exactly what we did here and that is how we have been interpreting our rules for the past six months and that is now our rule today. That said, i understand if this has led to some confusion. There are slight differences in the wording of our rule in the house rule. The problem with the Ranking Members interpretation is that the committee could send a memo out to members before we even notice the markup. I dont think that process makes sense and that is not the intent of the rule. I have stated my interpretation of the rule, however, as i wrote in my letter to the Ranking Member this morning, if he still feels that there is any confusion whatsoever, because all of this has been in good faith, i would be opened for the discussion to clarify or to amend the memo rule in the future. With that, mr. Chairman, may have followup on my point of order. While i appreciate where the staff is giving you clarity from the parliamentarian house, this committee purposefully, with your word took different language, and i will read three calendar days, excluding saturdays and sundays and legal holidays before each meeting or hearing and in your words, the minority wanted to give board fans notice for hearing memos, so we did that. That was a quote from you and we purposefully, in this committee, because of the importance of this committee made a difference between the house rule, and so i would suggest respectfully that this particular rule is indeed intentionally different, and by that we are opening ourselves up to litigation on this particular issue were just postponing by one day wouldve made us in compliance and i respectfully yield back. I have offered to work with the Ranking Member Going Forward and i point out that the rule also includes a separate independent vision allowing the committee to go forward in unusual circumstances. The Ranking Members letter last night for the first time raising a novel technical issue with our rules that has never been raised over the past six months certainly would qualify under that provision and i would remind my colleagues that they did not object when they were in charge. For example, in 2016 they summoned fbi director comey before committee with less than 48 hours notice. The only unusual circumstance in that case was that he did not like the fact that no criminal charges were filed against Hillary Clinton. The bigger point here is that members were aware that we were going to vote on contempt this week and it was the subject of many letters back and forth between the committee and the administration and the Ranking Member was copied on all the letters. Ive stated my position and offered to work in good faith with the Ranking Member Going Forward can i comment . Thank you, i appreciate what you just said. The bottom line is exactly what the gentleman from North Carolina said earlier. The notice is legally defective and it will, in fact be litigated. The remedy was simple. The remedy was real simple. Just wait before you do this contempt vote, but understand that you guys cannot do that because you were so concerned that the Supreme Court was going to rule on this that you have to get it done before it happened. We know that. Members of this committee have said they are trying to influence the court. We, as the gentleman pointed out we wanted this notice for three full days because when youre getting ready for something as important of holding the attorney general in contempt, you want every minute you can to be ready for that debate. That is what is at stake here. The notice is, in fact defective, it will in fact, be litigated. The remedy is simple to postpone the hearing, but you wont do that because there is a Supreme Court case coming any day and that is the problem. And that is why the point of order is right and we can have a markup on the other issues, but on this one. I yield back. Thank you very much. Without objection has the chair ruled. All those in favor, cest aye can ask for roll call. Mr. Cummings . No. Mr. Cummings votes no. Mr. Clay. Mr. Cooper. Mr. Cooper votes no. Mr. Connolly votes no. Mr. Morrissey votes no. Mr. Raskin votes no. Mr. Ruta votes no. Mint hill votes no. Miss Wasserman Schultz. Miss Wasserman Schultz votes no. Mr. Welch . Miss kelly . Miss kelly votes no. Mr. Dasani . Miss lawrence votes no. Miss vasquez mr. Gomez. Mr. Gomez votes no. Miss presley votes no. Miss to leave votes no. Mr. Jordan votes yes. Mr. Marsh votes yes. Mr. Massey votes yes. Mr. Meadows votes yes. Mr. Gibbs mr. Gibbs votes yes. Mr. Higgins mr. Higgins both yes. Mr. Norman votes yes. Mr. Roy votes yes. Ms. Miller both yes. Mr. Armstrong votes yes. How is mr. Grossman recorded . Mr. Grossman is not recorded. This box is not recorded. Miss fox votes yes. This hill is recorded as no. How is miss norton recorded. Ms. Norton is not recorded. Miss norton votes no. I just want to confirm that i was recorded. Mr. Cross hill cortez is not recorded. The clerk will give us the tally. On this vote we have 50 yes and 20 knows. The motion is not agreed to. Let me say this i will work to clarify that ruling. I now recognize myself on opening statements. Today we are considering a resolution that would recommend Holding Attorney general william barr and secretary of commerce, wilbur ross in contempt of congress of the u. S. They both refused to comply with duly authorized subpoenas issued by this committee that require them relating to the addition of the Citizenship Question to the 2020 census against the advice of experts at the Census Bureau. What we have learned in this investigation is quite disturbing. Secretary ross said he added the questions solely, in response to request from the department of justice in december 2017 to help enforce the Voting Rights act. We now know that this was a pretext and we have obtained evidence showing that secretary ross was aggressively pressing his staff months before any request from the Justice Department in the spring of 2017 and he was doing it at the urging of the white house. At the urging of the white house. We also have evidence that President Trump had advisors long before the president took office. After his inauguration the president discussed this idea with white house aides, who in turn discussed it with secretary ross. Although we have limited information, we have been blocked from determining the real reason that the administration thought to add the Citizenship Question. That is because the department of justice and the department of commerce have refused to turn over key documents requested by this committee. For these reasons, on april two, 2019, more than two months ago, this committee voted on a bipartisan basis to authorize subpoenas for general bar and secretary ross to see documents or guarding their efforts to add the Citizenship Question. During that time weve tried repeatedly to resolve this impasse and as an accommodation we narrowed the scope of the subpoenas to a very small subset of the documents we originally requested. I even invited secretary ross to meet with me personally so that we could discuss away forward. Unfortunately, he refused. That is why we are here today. Ive heard arguments about moving forward with this and i would like to address them directly. First, there is a claim that the administration has produced 17,000 pages of documents. This is true but the vast majority of these documents were already published. Others were heavily redacted and many were not responsive to the subpoenas that all that 17,000 number is meaningless if it has pages that are blacked out. Second is a claim that we are trying to interfere with the Supreme Court case and this is not true. Congress hasnt independent responsibility independent, to oversee the census. Separate from any private litigation, period. The Supreme Court has made clear that congresss authority does not it ignores the fact that we have been pursuing this for more than a year long before the Supreme Court ever took up the case. I first called this investigation in march 2018 as a Ranking Member. That was just one day after secretary ross announced his decision. When i became the chairman in january, i renewed these requests again before the supreme course took the case. Finally let me speak about executive privilege. Last night we received a letter from the department of justice asking us to delay a vote today so the president could have more time than he is had to consider whether to claim executive privilege. I was it. They did not produce any documents required by the subpoena coming from this committee. They did not produce any of these documents in the future. And they did not make any kind of counter offer for these key documents. Heres the bottom line. We have been seeking these documents for more than a year we issued a bipartisan subpoena in april and we made it clear that we were moving forward with contempt this week and we offer the if they began producing one or two categories of the key documents in the subpoenas, would be willing to consider postponing todays vote. But both departments declined this offer which is why we are proceeding today census is critical to our democracy and critical to every one of our constituents. Congress gives us the responsibility and authority that this is working as was intended to work. That includes making sure that it is used properly to allocate federal funds and a portion of the legislative district and we must protect the integrity of the census and standout for the authority of congress in addition, i want to update the committee on documents received from the department of justice and commerce. The letter states that the president has exerted executive privilege over all the subpoenaed documents and it asserts executive privilege over the key documents that are essential to our inquiry and include a protective assertion of executive privilege over the rest of the documents. The agency has waited until the last minute to the day before our contempt vote test the president if you wanted to assert privilege. The subpoenas have been outstanding for more than two months. They are bipartisan, they are based on request letters sent months before that they delineate specific, unredacted documents that are a priority for this committee. I wrote letters last week making clear that the committee would vote on contempt this week if we did not receive a subset of these documents. If the agency has produced none of the unredacted documents required by the subpoena and they made no commitments to produce any of these key documents and theyve made no counter offers relating to these key documents the department of justices letter said that they were prepared to produce additional documents responsive to the subpoena. But they made clear that they will not produce the key documents that we have identified as a priority. This does not appear to be an effort engaged in good faith negotiations accommodation. Instead, it appears to be an example of the administrations defiance in congress is constitutionally mandated responsibility. The liberty of process and Attorney Client privilege. For months the Trump Administration has claimed the decision to add the Citizenship Question was made at the Department Level rather than at the white house. The now the president is asserting executive privilege over all of these documents. This begs the question, what is being hidden . Heres what im going to do. I have copies of this letter made for every member us all of you can review it for yourselves and next we will proceed to debating the contempt motion, however, i will postpone the vote until later this afternoon some members have additional time to review this letter and any other material they may deem necessary, and with that, i yield to the Ranking Member, but i want to reiterate that the amendment in the nature of a substitute will serve as the base text and now i recognize the distinguished Ranking Member. Why dont they want to know . That is the fundamental question. Why dont they want to know how many citizens are in the country . Ask anyone anywhere across this country and walk up to them and say, hey, do you think that on the census we should ask how many citizens are in the country or ask are you citizen . Every Single Person you will encounter will say, yeah, of course we should ask for the next question would be are we doing that already, and we would have to answer, yes we are. We have been doing it for decades and doing it on a 10 year census and doing it on the American Survey annual census. Why dont they want to know . The question that the United Nations recommends as a best practice and it was asked of other countries. How did we get here today . How do we get to the point today where we are going to hold the secretary of commerce, the attorney general of the u. S. In contempt because we dont want to ask a question that everyone thinks we are already asking and in fact we already are. You can do all of that. But when you boil it down, it is a fundamental question. Why dont they want to know. Heres the other thing. Democrats and the Supreme Court will rule on this question and they hope to use this oversight power to create a controversy around this issue and the democrats want to hold, as i said, the secretary of commerce and the attorney general in contempt because of an alleged lack of cooperation for information. That is in stark contrast to the claim that theyre not getting information from the agency. Trump administration continues to cooperate in this partisan investigation. The ministration has produced 31,000 pages of documents, 14,000 from commerce 17,000 injustice relating to this question. Secretary ross sat here for six hours and answered all kinds of questions. Several administration witnesses have voluntarily part participated in interviews at the heart of this partisan investigation. In fact, just yesterday, a transcribed interview with a former commerce official in the interview lasted nearly the entire day. Two more interviews are scheduled in the next week and the idea is the administration s stonewalling and the fact that they are engaging in a coverup does not engage. Contempt of congress is a powerful tool and should be used responsibly. This is an attempt by the democrats to muddy the waters and to influence the Supreme Court and the consideration of this issue. Instead of considering legislation about the question itself, something we can do and have been doing decade after decade. And the democrats refuse to use their Oversight Authority to interfere with the Supreme Court. Not what we should be doing. I urge members to vote against it and remind everyone here why dont they want to know. Why dont they want to know something that everyone in the district knows could be ask and is just good common sense i would say it the only people that dont want to ask the question democrats in washington. That is the only one everyone else does need to be asked. I would go back. I think the chair. I guess the distinguished Ranking Member must live in a different world than i do. And if he is looking for people who would say why would we ask this question, unless it is to keep people from complying, welcome to northern virginia. We would give you lots of people who actually understand what this is. That it is not a normal question and has not been asked in the census since 1950, the year i was born. And for reason. It is because it is going to intimidate and discourage and it has to be seen in the context of an antiimmigrant policy coming out of this white house and it is designed to intimidate and instill fear. And the question is not the one that my distinguished friend has posted to us. It is what are they afraid of that we will discover if you have nothing to hide your proud of your policy and the formulation of this question, these documents wouldve been here yesterday. Instead, as the chairman has indicated, the administration is going to extreme lengths at something that doesnt pass the test to say executive privilege will cover all subpoena documents. And annette overreach i believe that no Serious Court in the land will hold that as executive power. It also comes in the context of massive Voter Suppression millions of people have been unfairly excluded. Stringent laws designed to discourage certain voters, especially voters of color from participating in a Free Democratic electoral process. Cutting back on early voting. This is been a pattern to make it harder for people, certain people to vote, i would say to my friend from ohio, come to my district and explain to them why we need this question and listen to their reactions because if youre looking for people who share our view about this question, i have plenty of people in my district who share my point of view and get what is at stake and what the real agenda is and that is why the subpoenas are so important. This is not a fight between the executive and legislative branch. This is about the future of our democratic process. Will people be able to freely vote without worrying about intimidation, without worrying about questions that get at data they are uncomfortable about. And for good reason in the climate of fear that has been created by this white house. And i find it interesting that the Ranking Member says to us that the question of contempt is a serious matter and needs to be judiciously arrived at. I dont remember him saying that when friends on the other side controlled this committee and railroaded eric holder with the contempt citation was designed for one person only that was to discredit him, even though unlike this case they were responding to document requests. In this case it is totally different and we have 17,000 pieces of paper, but none of them are responsive. Most of them are redacted redundant. It is a cynical ploy to say that we have responded. It is not true. For the sake of the people who represent and for the state of new americans who protect them as any fellow american would expect and for the sake of the legislation and the sake of the legislative process and the role of our constitution, we must insist on the subpoenas. Thank you very much. The chair recognizes mr. Hice. Move to strike the last word. Everyone in this room is in favor of vigorous oversight and i certainly as much as anyone else, but there is a right way and wrong way to go about it and this is the wrong way to hold them in contempt when they are already expressing a willingness to cooperate. This is not the way to go about this. The attorney general and the commerce secretary stated there willing to provide this committee with everything they want. The only answer is they want to influence the Supreme Court and that is not the role of this committee. Is not the role of this committee to try to influence or sway the Supreme Court and we know and that has been stated by member of this committee. Was literally stated that the democrats sought information from the Commerce Department so the courts can use it. That is Public Knowledge and what has been stated. So even if you set that aside and the majority to influence the Supreme Court, there are also issues with the mayor process. It is something that should be reserved after all other options have been placed on the table. And we are not there. We are far from that. This is an investigation that is still underway and weve not run up against a brick wall. There is no reason for vote of contempt. I understand the Majority Party is frustrated that they have not received what they want, some fast, the ferries conspiracy. I get that, but the issue is they were still underway with the investigation and this is not the time to have a contempt resolution. The American People need to know what is going on here. Democrats do not want to have the Citizenship Question and it is important for us to ask why. We know that the question cannot be used for Immigration Enforcement and it cannot be used for deportation in these types of things are in the federal law. So the question is why do the democrats not want to know how many citizens are in this country. Is that asking too much . For us to know how many citizens or how many noncitizens are in this country. That is information we ought to know and the question becomes why is it that the democrats are are fighting tooth and nail to prevent that question being asked. That is the issue and i think the chairman and i yield back. Thank you. You know, so many of those across the aisle think this is a debate about asking who is a citizen or not. The census is a constitutionally mandated operation that we are required to implement every 10 years. It is one of the most vital and sensitive things that we do in our government. Any change to the census in any addition of a question takes five years of a process to make sure it is vetted and every word has been tested and to make sure it is effective because it is one of the most important things that we do. So it is not this is not about i want to know who is a citizen in the u. S. Or not, but what i want to know is why this question was added and why two years have been taken off of that five year process. I want to know why we have skipped every normal mandated procedure and testing how this question gets added in the census. I want to know why this question was magically added after we have seen that a political operative new details to in timid date racial and immigrant communities for partisan purpose saying this will hurt democrats and help republicans. I want to know why wilbur ross continues to meet with people of political affiliations after his own administration warned him to stop. He came here and i asked him if you continued speaking with him and he said no and we had an email and he did. I want to know why people like chris croll batch with a documented history of overseeing he has a resume of Voter Suppression a little like how people like that have their fingerprints all over the most sensitive operations that we have in the u. S. Government and this determines who is here and determine to us power in the us and that is what we want to know. I want to know about the racism in the very disturbing history that we are seeing. And so we gave the opportunity to ask and we asked why are all these things happening and why is all disconnected and wireless only people, everyone from steve bannon to chris kobach having a political intent all over the u. S. Census. Why . And what do we get . Nothing. No response. Stonewalling and obstruction and a lack of answers. I dont want to issue a subpoena. No one wants to be in a position where you have to issue a subpoena of an Administration Official because we are coequal branches of government and should be accepted that will we ask a question, we get a response. But we dont, you have to do our job. No one wants to be in a position we have to issue a subpoena, but today because of the secretary in the attorney generals refusal to cooperate with the coequal branch of government, we have no choice. It is about the rule of law in respect of the institutions and the power of all of us as a body of the u. S. Congress in the integrity of the government of the u. S. Thank you very much. The gentlelady yields. When i became chairman of this committee i made it very clear that i took the issuance of this very seriously. In the past we have had chairman that of put up hundreds of subpoenas. We put out very few and weve been very careful for the reasons that you just stated. We see it is a very serious matter and youre absolutely right. We have come to this point and we need to be clear. This is our job. And i would consider this legislative malpractice if we dont do our job. We are not sworn to the president or sworn to the party. We are sworn to the constitution and i want to thank you for your comments. Mr. Meadows. Thank you, mr. Chairman. I want to make some comments and part of that in light of this argument that we have from both sides of the aisle, i do want to add knowledge the chairmans willingness to work with me and trying to actually get some of the transcribed interviewed witnesses to appear before this committee and so i want to thank the chairman for that. I fundamentally disagree with the timetable of holding secretary ross in contempt of Congress Based on two main factors. One is this question will be resolved by the highest court in the land with the next two weeks and we know that it could very will happen next week. Any legislative purpose that this body has certainly could be conducted in a very methodical way, and as we work toward handling any legislative oversight, i fail to see how one to two weeks would hamper our authority the bigger issue is as we work to compel witnesses, and the chairman knows full well that ive been willing to sign off on bipartisan letters and work in a bipartisan way to make sure that even this administration complies with providing information that this committee holds, i would suggest that when we rush to hold people in contempt, it has a Chilling Effect on anyone wanting to go the extra mile to provide documents. Becomes very troubling in terms of the cooperative ability that this committee has long valid. Obviously i would respectfully ask the chairman, i appreciate his willingness to hold a vote on contempt for later today. I would respectfully ask him to hold off until after the Supreme Court ruling to actually have this particular vote. Now there are some that would argue we are a totally separate branch and i would join them in the argument. But i will say this. When you have something that is being adjudicated by the Supreme Court and we know that their decision will be made known to the American People and really be binding in law within the next two weeks, why the rush . Why the rush . Mr. Chairman, i respectfully disagree with this contempt vote. Certainly am prepared to offer amendments if the chairman plans to go through with this vote. But would respectfully ask him to consider delaying a vote for at least two weeks. I yelled back. Yield back. Let me start out by addressing this claim that wilbur ross and others have been in cooperative. Anyone who is here for the duration of secretary rosss testimony must agree regardless of what side of the aisle you are on, that was painful. That was painful. He was anything but cooperative before this committee. Every question was dragged out in design. Every answer was designed to produce pain and to consume time. It was the most uncooperative. He feigned inability to answer questions on a consistent basis. Let me also just talk about our ability to influence the Supreme Court and their decision. For the entire history of this country, the Supreme Court has disregarded the right to determine what the constitution requires. We can go back to justice marshall. They have jealously guarded that decision. The claim that what is going on in this Committee Room here will influence their decision, i can hear them laughing at that proposition. That is absolutely ridiculous. If you know how the Supreme Court works, that opinion has been written. That decision has been made. Before we banged the gavel on this hearing. Let me also talk about the other levels of cooperation. We were told to wait a bit because they are cooperating. This is one of the 17,000 key documents that we asked the secretary to provide us with. This is not helpful. Is that from this production or the production we got from the obama administration. Reclaiming my time. This is not helpful. 17,000 of these does not help the process. This is one of the key documents we are trying to get. This is wilbur ross from Earl Comstock to wilbur ross. Can i put that one up on the screen as well. This reads i agree mr. Secretary on the questions, we will get that in place. The broad talk its broad topics of what we sent to congress when the census questions are submitted to congress. We need to work with the justice to reflect the citizenship. He added back as a census question. When mr. Ross testified here, he said that he got the request and then the process began. This email indicates that seven months prior he was working with mr. Comstock to get Citizenship Questions put in place. This is not cooperation. His conduct is misleading congress. Not cooperating. That is why i believe that the time is now to vote on contempt. We have given them plenty of time in terms of truly cooperating with the process. And as mr. Causey of cortez said this is a constitutional duty on our part to make sure the laws our upheld. That we support and defend the constitution. This is essential in that duty. The proposition that these folks have been cooperative is laughable. They have been obstructionists from the very beginning. And i think the chairman has shown extreme patience and thoughtfulness and consideration for the other side of the aisle, but i think we have reached our limit. And i think we should proceed on contempt. Mr. Chairman, i yield. The president has made it clear we are fighting all subpoenas from house democrats. All the subpoenas. And i want to enter into the record this article dated april 24 2019 entitled trump, without objection. I have an amendment. We will pause for a second to review the amendment. Thank you. The court will distribute the amendment to all members and then i want to have a chance to read it. Does every member have a copy of the amendment . The court will read. An amendment to the amendment. Thank you mr. Chairman. In light of the conversation that is currently underway, like it or not agree with details or not, the fact is that the attorney general and director of commerce have cooperated with this committee and continue to cooperate both by coming forth as witnesses to this committee, providing documents and publicly stating they will continue to cooperate with this committee. And they themselves are saying after the Supreme Court decision they will supply additional documents. They dont want themselves to be involved in interfering. I think it needs to go on record that they are, they have, and they continue to cooperate with this committee and that is what this amendment takes. I would urge our colleagues on both side of the aisle to support it. Thank you, i yield back. I oppose this amendment. Let me tell you why. First of all, i dont agree with it. The cooperation has already been stated quite clearly. The cooperation has not been all that is said in this amendment. As a matter of fact we have bent over backwards trying to get the documents we wanted. I want to take this moment to complement mr. Meadows who worked very, very hard, very hard and he was able to get us the three witnesses we wanted. But we also needed specific documents. We were successful, but not as successful as we need it. Even up until the last minute the administration has said basically they are not going to give us the documents. The statement has been made several times that i want to clear up. I checked with staff because i had not heard this. The administration to my knowledge has never said that they are going to give us the documents that we want after any kind of decision but that is not relevant anyway. We are an independent body. This is about us doing our job. As getting with the census. Ms. Maloney who has worked so hard for all of the 20 some years i have been on this committee knows what im talking about. For those reasons i would object to the amendment. Anybody else want to be recognized . Mr. Clay. Thank you mr. Chairman. I moved to strike the last word. Are we on the consideration, is the amendment on the consideration . I speak recognition to oppose the amendment. Mr. Hice in this amendment says there has been significant cooperation from this administration and that is not factual. There has been no cooperation. Let me share with my republican colleagues an example of what took place yesterday. In fact, the department of commerce refused for more than two months to make officials available for interviews so the department relented only after the committee made clear it would subpoena them. We held one of those interviews yesterday with james from the department of commerce. He is a key witness and worked directly to at the Citizenship Question. He communicated with the white house about it and he wrote the memo from the department of commerce to the department of justice but yesterday following instruction from the department of commerce, he refused to answer 100 questions from the committee. He refused to say what he had done with secretary ross. He refused to say who he talked to at the white house and he refused to tell us what was in the memo to doj. In other words, the interview was just one more example of obstruction from his administration. To call this cooperation on the part of the administration is just not factual. So we need to be honest in this committee about where we go and what our authority is. My friend from massachusetts, we do have the authority to issue subpoenas to get to the truth, to get to the facts. Mr. Chairman, this is Serious Business. This is about how we document all americans. How we count them every 10 years in accordance to the constitution. And what is riding on all of that data and all of that information. We need to uphold our duty and we all took an oath to do that. So why now we are blocking for an administration that has no sense of the law and has conducted themselves in a lawless manner is beyond me. So, at this point mr. Chairman i would just say the amendment seems to be a farce. And i urge this committee to vote it down. At this point i would like to yield the balance of my type to the gentleman from maryland. Thank you for yielding. I just wanted to commend the chairman for the deliberate and conscientiously in which you have proceeded on this matter. Because the language of this amendment which alludes to the fact that the courts will take some measure and notes of how the proceedings were undertaken , it calls to mind how careful you have been. And i actually think that if this gets into a position where the courts are having to make a judgment about where the cooperation was being initiated, who was being careful and dotting all the eyes and crossing all the teas, the courts are going to conclude that that is what you have done mr. Chairman. And i think that will ultimately carry the day when the request for information comes down. I yield back my time. The chair has been very careful, very. I dont like being in this position, i do not. Im going to defend this committee and i will defend the integrity of this committee. We have issued properly done subpoenas and we have to make sure that we do every single thing in our power to enforce them and i think you. Mr. Chairman . Thank you mr. Chairman. I wanted to just weigh in on actually a transcribed interview and this amendment. Literally what we have got is both sides characterizing what we believe to be the truth. Somewhere between the way it is being characterized on the other side and by the way it is being characterized here is the truth. Lets make sure that we are clear that the interview that happened yesterday was one that you and i worked on together to make sure that this individual got there. I know my good friend from missouri is talking about all the questions that were answered. Of the questions that were answered, you can come on back and sit down, im not going to say anything negative about it. But, some of the questions that were answered was the fact that that witness had nothing to do, didnt actually have any position with art newman and didnt even know who oft fell or was. He did answer those questions. Lets make sure we are fully engaged in terms of what happened and what didnt happen. I say that respectfully to my good friend. And yet, i want to come back to one other key issue as we are dealing with this amendment. We keep talking about how this is not about the Supreme Court case and it is about legitimate oversight and we have to do this. I guess the question i have is since we are here and since member of this very committee has put forth a bill that would strike the Citizenship Question from the senses, why are we not having a markup on that bill . This is a markup. Instead we are talking about contempt instead of having a markup on the very bill that would be the legislative responsibility of this very committee. So if we want to be serious about it, why dont we get serious and do a markup on a bill that would prohibit it and move it to the floor. And because my friend is so nice and smiling, i will yield to the gentleman for a quick question in case when to go back and forth from missouri. Let me think the gentleman from North Carolina for yielding. The issue here is one, the secretary of commerce ross came here to this committee for seven hours and was not factual. I would caution the gentleman if you lied to this committee, lets bring him and Michael Cohen back in here. I will reclaim my time. Wait a minute, hold it. One at a time. It is your time. I will yield 30 more seconds to the gentleman to make an incorrect point. Look, you can call it incorrect if you like. You know it is factual. We were told one scenario of how the question but to the senses. And we know that is not true after we reviewed the evidence. And we know that the stargate was incorrect. Im reclaiming my time. I will work with the gentleman and the chairman to make sure that any testimony that was false is certainly corrected. I think we have an obligation to do that. I would remind the gentleman that mr. Cohen actually came here and did like to this committee so we have obligation. If the gentleman is willing to work with me on mr. Ross, work with me on mr. Cohen, i will work on mr. Ross. Are you willing to work with me on both of those . I was asking the gentleman from missouri, are you willing to work with me on both of those issues . Im willing to work with you on the ross issue. I bet. All right. I will yield back to the chairman. I will yield back. There being no further discussion on the height amendment . Are you speaking on the heise amendment . Okay. The question now is on the amendment offered by mr. Hice. All in favor signify by saying aye. All those opposed, no. Ask for roll call. Roll call. What we are going to do is hold the vote until around 4 00 so people will be present. I know everybody wants to be present for this vote. You will have plenty of notice. Mr. Raskin. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much. What are they afraid of . The gentleman from ohio asked a critical question. What are they afraid of . Three Federal District courts have ruled that the Citizenship Question proceeded on a pretextual basis because they violated every rule in the book. Every rule that was violated along the way to put it in. We couldnt figure out what was behind the Citizenship Question that was implanted outside of regular governmental administrative process. Well, one of the documents came back heavily redacted but there is enough in it that we can figure out what is really going on. It is one of the clues. I would ask the staff to put it on the screen if they would. This is an email sent by wilbur ross on may 2, 2017. You see most of that redacted part. A very critical sentence appears sandwiched in between the redacted section. They emphasize they have meddled with congress on the questions to be asked. I am mystified that nothing has been done in response to my month old request should we include the citizens question, why not . Notice the day of the email, that is may 2, 2017. Secretary ross said that he added the Citizenship Question fully in response to a request from the department of justice in december 2017, seven months later. Here he is in may 2017 seven months before saying he had been pressing for the Citizenship Question months before that. So, we at least have a seven month, or 11 or 12 mudslide. And the gentleman yield . Does the gentleman suggests that the executive branch be suppressed . Does the gentleman suggest that amongst the staff of our governments, does he suggest that that communication be suppressed . Reclaiming my time. Thank you for asking that question. Im not saying theres anything illegal about him having written this. But i think it is highly dubious if not lawless for him to have testified that the sole reason for inserting this question was a request from the department of justice about the Voting Rights act which was his testimony before this committee. That is number 1. Number 2 is an article appears in the New York Times on may 29, 2019 headlined the yield and review new details on the census Citizenship Question. Thomas received after he died last summer his estranged daughter discovered hard drives that revealed something else. He played a crucial role in the Trump Administrations decision to add a Citizenship Question to the 2020 census. Files show he wrote a study in 2015 concluding that adding the Citizenship Question would allow republicans to draft even more extreme gerrymandered maps. This is what they are afraid of america knowing. This had nothing to do with the Supreme Court. Mr. Chairman i am baffled by the heated claims that the work of this committee is to influence the Supreme Court. Our colleagues know that every member of the committee on the majority side understand how the Supreme Court works. You bring controversy under article 3 before the Supreme Court. If you want to intervene in someone elses case you apply for it. Are they accusing us of unethical or unlawful conduct . It is ridiculous. The Supreme Court justices know exactly how they are supposed to proceed. We have an independent constitutional obligation under article 1 to conduct the census, that is our job. To see that the American People are counted. The very first sentence of the constitution is we the people. It is directly into article 1 of the constitution setting forth the powers and duties of the congress. One of them is to conduct the census in actual enumeration of the people. They may not like the fact that women werent counted, everyone is counted under our senses. That is what we fear the administration is trying to disrupt them the truth has come out about it. Mr. Chairman you have asked this with characteristic reason and this is long overdue, it is urgent and justified. I yield back. I have a unanimous consent request. He met mr. Chairman i would ask unanimous consent that we put in an article from june 2, 2019 from the Editorial Board and it is john robert which contradicts everything the gentleman from maryland that i ask unanimous consent for this to be included in the record. So ordered. In mckenna and i have an amendment. Someone has an amendment at the desk. If it can be distributed to all members. Hold up for a second while it is distributed. An amendment to the amendment from louisiana. You are recognized. My amendment states this hearing is reflective of the division that we witnessed unnecessarily within our nation partially because of the american citizenry observes the action of this congress and it is not reflected in their own communities and their own families and their own intent for the future of our country. We have clearly established constitutional parameters for the executive branch, the legislative branch and the Judicial Branch of our government. In the Supreme Court case before the United States a dissent regarding a case that they determined to hear raises a warning that specific individuals including the secretary be not subject to public inquiry. This was arranged by two Supreme Court justices. The problem here as witnessed by the American People is that this is certainly could we get more public . This is why the actions of this committee can influence a pending Supreme Court case. One moment, and then yes. For the president to have to executive exercise executive privilege is reflective of the kind of division being presented to this nation unnecessarily. We should let the Supreme Court move forward, make their decision and do our jobs very publicly with the media present and ideal to my dissing was friend. I think my friend and i have two questions about the statement you made and want to make sure i get it right. Is the implication that the American People have no First Amendment rights to discuss any matter that is in the Supreme Court, any cases in the Supreme Court . That is my first question. The second is i am sure you as i am believe in taking the language of the constitution seriously. Where does the language executive privilege appear in the constitution . In response to your first question i will reclaim my time. It is never my intent to restrain the constitutional obligations of the body for this committee. However, a warning issued in rent by a sitting Supreme Court justice should be something carefully considered and the two Supreme Court justices did indeed issue a writ warning against public interview while the Supreme Court case was pending. And this is why the actions of this committee could potentially influence that case. We would never want that done. Would you sure that warning with the committee . It has been shared before but i shall. Regarding our obligation to recognize executive privilege, that is reflective of the parameters of our own. Will the gentleman yield . Yes i yield. The gentleman is trying to get cute because he is a constitutional professor and i get that. But he knows very well in the jurisprudence of this particular, and i will be glad to go off line and we can have this debate and i will be glad to do that. But, the gentleman knows all too well that executive privilege has been recognized, does he not . Yes or no. Theres a huge debate about it. It is not written in the constitution. I reclaim my time. I would just like to say that this is the legislative branch of government. This committee did not succumb to the level of visceral division that we witnessed unnecessarily across our nation and i yield. And a gentleman yield . So is the gentleman from maryland, he strictly is going with the text of the constitution . This would be a new move by the gentleman from maryland. He said he didnt want anybody in the executive branch testifying. I think you said something to that effect. He said no more subpoenas, no more cooperation, no more do overs. So for two years we heard from the Republican Leadership of this committee that we wont do any investigation into the lawlessness and criminality of the alleged administration because we will allow the Mueller Report to do it. It came out and they will not pursue any validations there because it is a do over. We understand the Supreme Court said and repeatedly ruled that the legislative branch of government, congress has investigative powers which are essential and integral to the lawmaking function. And yet this administration has tried to pull a curtain down over the executive branch and say we are not cooperating with the census investigation and we are not cooperating with the request for the president s tax returns. The first in the last seven or eight to not produce tax returns. We will not cooperate on an investigation of corruption in the white house were 25 people were denied security clearance. And the professional staff was overruled by the president and his political appointees in this committee is trying to get to the bottom of that. They simply are not respecting the constitutional role of congress. And that is something i would hope every member of this committee regardless of which side would consider a grave threat to american democracy. My friends on the other side of the aisle got billions of documents in the benghazi investigation. And in the Hillary Clinton email investigation. They did a great job. We are still missing 30,000 emails, i can tell you that. I know you think you have the right to them and we would agree that congress has the right to obtain any information at once. This is not a frivolous partisan matter. This goes to the heart of whether or not we will have Constitutional Government and the rule of law in the United States of america. When Congress Asks for document, it receives the document. When Congress Asks someone to testify in the normal course of business, the person comes to testify. We are not playing games here. As chairman has been utterly solicitous and has bent over backwards for secretary of commerce to come before the committee. He wrote him a letter and i hope someone will show the letter. This is may 8. He said mr. Secretary i would like to meet with you in person to ensure that you are fully apprised of the absence of your staff to determine whether there is any way to resolve this impasse before initiating potential enforcement action. He closes by saying in order to try to resolve this matter i would like to meet with you directly before taking any further action. I would like to determine whether there is any way we can address our committees oversight interest without further investigative depth. I would encourage you to bring your counsel to this meeting so we can discuss various options in an efficient and effective manner. I am from maryland and i know congressman cummings. Chairman cummings is known as the gentleman of our state. He has done everything in his power to bring the secretary of commerce and and give him every opportunity. All we get from the administration is the middle finger. That is not appropriate for the chairman of this committee or the power of congress. We will vindicate article 1. The president has executive privilege to not cooperate with congress in any way, let him assert it. Why would we finger point . Is ridiculous. Maybe at some point the administration you know what we were viewed falsely accused we investigate the false accusations . Do we investigate the false accusations or do we continue to look at something mueller said and came back and said no collusion. After 10 months, and let the fbi look at it, no collusion. Will you yield . Of course. Will you show the special counsel report works is no collusion . On page 1 and two he said we do not address no collusion. Collusion there were more than 125 contacts. I noticed something that is happening here that is disturbing. I try to be flexible but you wont let me be flexible. When somebody has time, it is their time. I cannot have members talking at each other. It doesnt make sense. As a matter of fact it opens the door to problems. So, whoever is talking lets just go quickly by the rule. So, gentleman you have time. It is mr. Hices time yielded it to me and i think the gentleman to do that. Who has time now . Following the rules is important. All right, go ahead. Following the rules is important. That is why the first issue raised was the fact that we didnt follow the rules on the notice requirement raised by the gentleman from carolina. Following the rules is important. Thank you. I am thinking. Theres only things i want to respond to im trying to prioritize. The bottom line is of course. For two years we used the term conspiracy interchangeably. Did the special counsel concludes there was can hear or see between the Trump Campaign and russia . After 22 months the fbi was looking at the same darn thing. 32 month of investigation by the democrats, they dont want to ask the question why do we investigate why the false accusation started in the first place . They dont want to do that. They want to say we are going to keep investigating something that the special counsel spent 22 months on and the fbi spent 10 months on. We will keep looking at that. Okay, okay, if thats where we are going to be that fine. But to say the administration hasnt complied, i yield back to the gentleman. I yield back. All right. Is there no further discussion . I have an amendment. Mac no, we are trying to get through this one first. The question now is on the amendment offered by mr. Higgins. All in favor signify by saying aye. Those opposed, no. We will record the vote around 4 pm. You have unanimous consent vote. I have unanimous consent that be entered into the record and responsive my distinguished friends request, doctrine from the Supreme Court of the United States dated october 22, 2018 which was by Justice Thomas that the next logical step regarding the state of public interview is to simply say all records of discovery pending our review and theres another factor here weighing in favor of a more complete stay and the need to protect, we invite and they specifically cite secretary ross here. I asked that this document be entered into the record. So ordered. Ms. Martin. Thank you mr. Chairman for holding this important business meeting. Each person took an oath of office to protect and defend the constitution of the united. We repeat that oath of office each time we are elected to serve in this amazing body of congress. However, this amendment does not seem to understand the concept of separate but equal branches of government as outlined by the same constitution that we as members of congress and then as executive Branch Officials defend before taking this office. I am losing sleep because of this administrations refusal to abide by the constitution. We have a constitutional obligation to conduct the oversight of the executive branch. Yes, this includes claims each time we request information critical to fulfilling our investigative responsibilities. Today we vote to hold secretary ross in contempt of congress for their complete disregard for the constitution and refusal to provide this committee with relevant documents related to the committees investigation into the 2020 census. This is no small matter. And in accurate census can cause damaging consequences and it will have an impact not only on democratic districts but all of our districts. Comply with these investigations, this administration and i will say on the record it seems my colleagues on the other ill are more interested in protecting the president instead of the people of this country. Look no further than the president and his own words who not long ago stated we are going to fight every subpoena. Checks and balances. The statement that he continues to make, the democrats are trying to win 2020. Mr. President , congress has the responsibility to conduct oversight on issues that are critical to this country and i intend to fulfill that role. Two months ago this committee voted to subpoena barr and ross for documents related to the census and we keep hearing just wait, just wait, why are you rushing . Two months. My colleagues on the other side are saying wait. I am telling my constituents and they are asking why are you doing your job, get to work. Stop sitting around watching this happen. Didnt we put you in office to do your job . I urge my colleagues to support this resolution not just for administration sake but we must maintain a separate but equal branch of government. I yield. Just a quick question. If you have nothing to hide, if you were proud of the process do you think you would abide a simple request for the documents to request it . Presumably you are proud of that edition. Mac i have served in local government. I have been the mayor of the city. I have always been ready and available and transparent in any policy i bring forward and i welcome the debate because i knew it was my obligation to be in the public transparent process and share why we are doing what we do. At the end of the day i dont work for donald trump, i dont work for an administration, i work for the people. This is a place where the people can get the answers. I yield back. Chairman i have an amendment. I noticed your portrait is on the wall mr. Chairman. Let me make it clear that when i became german said make sure the portraits go up. It is out of respect. Mr. Hice and i went toe to toe quite a bit. But, when all the dust settled i have a lot of respect for him. And i really mean that. I am sure i showed him a few things, too. Will determine yield . We wished he hadnt thought you quite so well. It is good to see you back. You much you look much younger than the portrait. Mac they said to me the lord and finished with me yet. All right, where are we . Mr. Chairman while you are thinking about that i was going to say welcome back. It took a democrat to put the portraits back on the wall. And you know what mr. Chairman . Maybe we ought to follow isis procedures with respect to subpoenas. That might be a cleansing act or on the committee. Exactly. I knew that wasnt so popular anymore. Lets move forward. We needed a little break. This question has been asked and if you go back on the foreign Population Survey on this survey if the person was born in a foreign country, this person is a naturalized citizen, i wasnt around in 1950. But i think the common sense approach that many people have mentioned and realized is that now with the influx of people from other countries, now more than ever we need this question asked. I would tell you that this is a meaningful way to do it. It is something that is long overdue and should be done. I oppose this amendment. The Citizenship Question has not been included in the centennial census in decades. The administration bypassed the procedures for adding the question and i oppose it. Mr. Chairman would you yield . Yes. I appreciate the points made by our friends. But lord almighty, almighty, 19. Lets see, harry truman was in the white house. I love lucy had not yet hit television. Your mother, ms. Deborah wau Wasserman Schultz, was 4. We were still fighting in korea. And, you know, the world was just a wonderfully different place. And for the ensuing 69 years, which kind of is conveniently glossed over in this motion, we didnt do it. If you would allow me to finish my thought. And i appreciate the sincerity of the author of this amendment, but its in a series of clearly dilatory motions by the other side. Im not quite sure why my friends on the other side are so anxious to protect the production of documents about a simple question, the answer to which could easily clarify our concerns or not. And its the or not part that i guess im getting really suspicious about the more i get these amendments. What is it youre trying to protect . What is it youre afraid of . And, oh, by the way, as ms. Lawrence indicated, we all take an oath. Im just curious and i ask it rhetorically at what point do you honor that oath as opposed to protecting whoever is in the white house . And im really looking forward to the day that happens. All of my friends are sincere. They all took the same oath, and im deeply troubled by the fact that they dont see incumbent upon them some responsibility to hold the executive Branch Accountable at some level. And so, yeah, you know, the Citizenship Question is indeed asked on the American Community survey, which is a limited subgroup. But this resolution begs the question of impact. Our concerns on this side are twofold. One is what is the motivation . What is the motivation for adding back this question after 69 years . And, secondly, what is the impact . And we have expert testimony and evidence that the impact will be to reduce compliance with the census. And what could wrong with that . Well, that affects the allocation of federal resources to localities, and it affects ultimately how people are represented in their state legislatures, their local boards and councils and here in the United States congress. And thats a legitimate concern for anyone who takes the oath we do as a member of congress to guard against. Will the gentleman yield for a second . Yes, i will. I support the gentlemans statement and point out that experts have said that adding the Citizenship Question will result in an undercount of 6. 5 million americans. Six different heads of the Census Bureau, republican and democrat, came out against it, saying it will produce an undercount. And id like to place in the record the memo from mr. Hofler, on the use of citizen voting, age, population and redistricting, and he says and i quote without objection, so ordered. He says, and i quote, a switch to the use of citizen voting age population as the redistricting population base for will the gentle lady yield . On your own time. Would be advantageous to republicans and nonhispanic whites. He points out that this will benefit dramatically the Republican Party in redistricting and says that it will also result in an extreme undercounting of minority populations in america. So i am opposed to the gentlemans amendment, and, mr. Chairman, id like to get back to the real purpose of this, which is the contempt, which id like to speak on. Time is expired. Mr. Chairman . Mr. Jordan. I dont get why youre opposed. The amendment states three facts. For 130 years the Citizenship Question was asked. It was on at long form census for 30 years, and its been on every American Community survey from 2005 to present. Three facts. Three facts that say we ask this question, weve been doing it since 1820, for 200 years in one form or another. Thats all the amendment says, and the democrats are opposed to putting facts, to putting truth in their resolution. I dont get that. It seems to me weve had all this wonderful talk about will the gentleman yield . Getting truth, getting answers. All this says, this amendment is as simple and basic as you can make it. Three factual statements. We have been asking this question for 200 years in one form or another, and for some reason the democrats weve had three of them, the chairman and two others have said, oh, cant put it in the resolution. Three statements that are absolutely true. One plus one is two. Cant put that in a resolution. Cant put facts and truth in the resolution. These are three factual statements. Thats all his amendment does. We think that makes sense to put it in the resolution. I support the gentlemans amendment. Will the gentleman yield . Be happy to yield. I think its important that we look at these amendments in really trying to set a record, and i say that with all sincerity. Im going to offer an amendment here shortly. I think, mr. Chairman, part of the consideration because this, i believe, could be a landmark vote. When youre holding an executive Branch Cabinet in contempt at a particular time, its part of history, and i think its important that we get it right. I think its important that we include all the facts because historians later will come back, and they will say what was the context of when that happened . So i think for us to just say were going to exclude something or not have it included, i think is troublesome for the record, and i yield back to the gentleman not one cabinet member. Two. This is historic. Two of them. All were asking is can you put in three factually three true statements . Nope, cant do that. Were in a hurry to hold two people in contempt about a question thats been asked for 200 stinkin years. I dont get it. Mr. Jordan, would you yield . Ill be happy to yield to the gentleman from south carolina. Thank you. Let me just add, my friend on the other side cited 69 years. Its not done but every ten years, so the years are kind of misleading. Secondly, as my good friend from louisiana mentioned, technology has replaced doortodoor census gathering. People used to go door to door, and they would ask the question, are you a u. S. Citizen . So thats kind of disingenuous to cite the years. I would just add that the American Community survey is not some random, small survey. Like mr. Jordan said, this is a very simple amendment that really ought to be unanimous from everybody on this committee. I yield. Ms. Wasserman schultz. Thank you. I want to move to strike the last word on this amendment, particularly because the author and the minority is arguing that this was language that was asked on the census for decades, that its something that, you know, we used to do and so should do again, and that there wasnt any issue with it before. However, that is not the case, and i would ask unanimous consent to enter this article from nbc news that quotes the Census Bureau at the time they discontinued asking the Citizenship Question for the 1960 census. Without objection, so ordered. Thank you, mr. Chairman. Where it says, any effort to agoag ascertain citizenship will inestly jeopardize the overall accuracy of the population count. An argument the bureau has consistently upheld over the years. So there are decisions made to both include and exclude questions. It has been repeatedly excluded and consistently excluded since the last time this question appeared on the census directly because it results in an undercount. It results in fewer people being counted, which is directly contrary to the intent of having a census in the first place and, quite frankly, is the intent of the republicans desire to put the question back on the census as evidenced and revealed by the documents that have been that have come to light, and which is why we need to make sure that we get more information to expose the true reasoning behind the administrations desire to add citizenship to the census once again, which we have significant evidence thus far that the reason is so that theres an undercount. Will the gentle lady yield . Id be happy to yield to the gentleman from maryland the gentleman from maryland behind me, but i dont have much time. Thank you very much. Your point is an excellent one, and all of the information that we needed about american citizens, we were able to get through the very mechanisms that the gentlemans amendment contains within it. So the reason why three District Courts struck down putting the Citizenship Question on the form thats given to every american citizen is, one, its unnecessary. Two, it will, in fact, result in a severe undercount of millions of people. And, three, it was completely outside of the procedure and the rules, and it was the fact that the secretary of commerce apparently has tried to cover that up and suppress the fact of where it really came from that brings us here today. Mr. Chairman, we should proceed with the contempt motion. Mr. Chairman, do i have any remaining time . Yeah no, you dont. Okay. Then i yield back. All right. Mr. Chairman . Now, listen up weve got to vote, so i want to take a vote on this if you dont mind. But go ahead. I just want to ask for a recorded vote. Not yet. Yeah, not yet. I know were excited about the amendment. Lets slow it down a little bit. The question now occurs on the amendment offered by distinguished gentleman mr. Norman. All those in favor, signify by saying aye. Aye. Those opposed no. No. The noes have it and we will i have a unanimous consent request. Please do. Thank you, mr. Chairman. Ask unanimous consent and insert into the record the American Community survey dated 2019 where it asks the question on number 8. Okay. Without objection. So ordered. Very well. Let me tell members what were doing. We only have one vote, is that right . We only have one vote. We could keep going. Mr. Chairman, unanimous consent request. Yeah. I ask unanimous consent that the three courts that have actually ruled on this question and found it wanting be entered into the record, their opinions be entered into the record. Without objection, so ordered. I thank the chair. Are we coming back to this . We are coming back. Theres a vote, ladies and gentlemen. Theres only one vote, so we will come back to give people hold on give people a chance to get something to eat. Well come back at 1 00, all right . The committee will come to order. I have an amendment at the desk which has been distributed, i think. Has it been distributed . Very well. The clerk will designate the amendment. Amendment to the amendment in the nature of a substitute to the Committee Report for the resolution recommending that the house of representatives find william p. Barr, attorney general of the United States, and wilbur l. Ross jr. , secretary of commerce, in contempt of congress for refusal to comply with subpoenas duly issued by the committee on oversight and reform. The amendment shall be considered as read. I recognize myself for five minutes to describe my amendment. First, this amendment simply documents the letters we received this morning from the departments of justice and commerce asserting executive privilege. Second, the amendment explains that the committee has concerns with the assertion in this case such as a blanket quote, protective assertion of executive privilege, end of quote. Third, the amendment provides that even if this were a valid assertion, that assertion would be overcome because the committee has demonstrated our critical need for these documents, and we cannot obtain them expeditiously from another source. Finally, the amendment finds that the president s assertion does not change the fact that the attorney general and the secretary of commerce are sadly in contempt. I encourage all members to support the amendment. The question now carries on the amendment offered by mr mr. Cummings. All those in favor signify by saying aye. Aye. All those signify by saying no. No. In the opinion, the ayes have it. The ayes have it. Might as well id respectfully ask for a roll call if were going to roll call all the others, well roll call this one as well, mr. Chairman. Well have roll call when we take the other votes. Thank you very much. Mr. Chairman, i have an amendment at the desk. The gentleman from North Carolina, mr. Meadows, is recognized. Whoa, whoa, whoa. Has it been distributed . All right. Everybody has it . All right. Yes or no . No. I think their distributing it now, mr. Chairman. All right. In the interest of time, mr. Chairman, im willing to go ahead and speak on it if you want while no, the parliamentarian doesnt want to do that. We know that its a great amendment coming from you. Thank you, mr. Chairman. Very thoughtful, im sure. Actually, it is. You act like youre surprised. Well, sometimes midnight aren mine arent. But this one is. I think youll agree. The kwlerk will report. The amendment to an amendment in the nature of a substitute offer by mr. Meadows of North Carolina. Very well. Mr. Meadows. Thank you, mr. Chairman. Obviously this is a very short amendment, and i was sincere earlier when i was talking about this particular moment holding two cabinet members in contempt and what will be viewed by historians and perhaps by the courts, but certainly by historians at a later time, is the actions of congress. And i think its very important for us to lay out the context, and this is not a provocative amendment. Essentially all it does is state the fact that the Supreme Court has already heard oral arguments on this particular issue of the Citizenship Question and that they as it relates to the legal challenges by this administration or those that are taken against this administration. And candidly, that the Supreme Court is expected to rule on this. You want me to wait while and candidly, that the Supreme Court is set to rule on this over the next couple of weeks, certainly by the end of june. And i just think from a historical perspective, adding this amendment would be an important addition to the resolution. And with that, i would encourage a bipartisan adoption of this amendment. I yield back. Let me say this to the gentleman. I wish you had submitted this earlier. I mean i have no problem with the amendment. Let me be clear. You, rightfully so, have said and youve said it three or four times, and i totally agree with you when you say that this is a significant moment in our history, the history of this country. I tell my constituents that 200, 300, 400 years from now, people will look back at this moment and ask the question, what did you do . What did you do when you had an opportunity to defend the committee and the committees integrity . What did you do when you had an opportunity to defend the democracy . What did you do when it came time for you to stand up and stand out and not betray generations yet unborn . And i want you to understand and im saying this to all of us that this is a significant moment. This moment is not just about us. Its not just about us. Ill be dancing with the angels when some of the ramifications of the things that are happening today are changed. But the fact is, is that we have got to, as mr. Meadows has said it, and he said it quite eloquently, we got to get it right. Weve got to get it right. And i lose sleep over this. When i thought about what ms. Cortez said when she talked about how what happens with regard to the census touches everybody, and the thing i think we all want is a fair count, a fair count. I think one thing that i love about the american spirit, the american spirit is about fairne fairness. Fairness. And, you know, so, again, i see nothing wrong with the amendment. But i want to make sure we keep all of this in context not for us, because you know what . Sometimes when i think about the people who have sat in this room over the 23 years that ive been here, and some of them are dead. Some of them lost elections. Other ones just gave up. They got frustrated. But theyre not here. So i think about the idea that this is our watch. This is our watch. This is it right here. Nobody is trying to be harmful to our attorney general. Its not about him. Nobody is trying to be harmful to the secretary of commerce. Its not about him. Its about our country. Its about this phenomenal country that allows people like yours truly to come up with a fourth grade education, to rise up to the congress of the United States of america. Come on now. And so i put it all in context too. And, again, i accept the im going to vote for the amendment. I wish it had gotten to me sooner because theres nothing wrong with it. All right . Whos next . I thank the chairman. Mr. Maloney, did you have something . Mr. Chairman . Mr. Raskin. Thank you very much. I move to strike the last word. Im very skeptical of this amendment because it seems like theres been an effort from the very beginning to impute an illicit motive to what we are doing in trying to obtain information about the census and about the department of commerces imposition of a Citizenship Question completely outside of the administrative procedures act process, which is why three District Courts struck it down. So i just dont know what the relevance of this sentence is, and i can see how it gives some support to the suggestion that has been circulated by the gentleman that we are somehow trying to impose ourselves on the Supreme Court, and were not. We would be doing this if there were no case in the Supreme Court because we have an independent constitutional mandate and obligation to make sure that the United States census counts every american person whos here in the country. Thats our role. So im very skeptical of this sentence. You know, it seems to me again an example of just fingerpainting on the contempt motion. If you want to talk to people about the Supreme Court, talk to them. But i thought you guys were saying this has nothing to do with the Supreme Court, which is our position. Its got nothing to do with the Supreme Court. My friend, mr. Meadows, introduced before and perhaps i misheard him but he said he wanted to introduce into the record an article by Supreme Court Justice John Roberts which refuted everything that i had said about the constitution. The article at least that was given to me, census target, john roberts, is not by john roberts. Its about john roberts. Thats correct. Its written by the wall street journal Editorial Board, and it is extremely unconvincing to say the least, and id be happy to go through it with the gentleman. I also had the chance to read the passage that was cited by my friend from louisiana in the ongoing census case, which was written by Justice Gorsuch and thomas. Again, ive squinted very hard. I cannot see a single word in here which would suggest that the congress of the United States should not be executing its constitutional obligations to make sure that there is a complete count in the census and for us to do oversight over the executive branch, nor is there anything will the gentleman yield for a short second . By all means. I want to applaud the points that you are raising because its our constitutional right to exercise oversight, which is what and why we have had subpoenas, why we are voting on contempt, because we are not getting any cooperation from the other side. Now, this whole day ive sat here, and this side of the aisle, the republican side of the aisle, you keep bringing up the Supreme Court. We dont. You do. You keep alleging that were doing this for the Supreme Court. Were not doing this for the Supreme Court. Were doing it because we have asked for information about getting a proper and accurate count, and it has been stonewalled and stopped and roadblocked by the republican side of the aisle and the executive branch. So i applaud the information that youve put forward, representative raskin, and i suggest we get back to oversight, and i would really respectfully like to ask my republican colleagues to stop bringing up the Supreme Court. Thank you very much, ms. Maloney. I yield back. Thank you. Reclaiming my time, just to complete that point, so even in that descentiissenting excerpt Justice Gorsuch, theres nothing in there that suggests we shouldnt be doing our job in conduct oversight over the census, which we are constitutionally charged to supervise. This is our responsibility. What are the three most important words in the constitution of the United States . Weve got a lot of young people here today. We the people. How do we know who we the people are unless we go out and count all the people . Thats the whole purpose of it. And we have mechanisms for doing it on a decennial basis, and the administration violated those mechanisms. Three District Courts said so. And were trying to get to the bottom of it, and weve got all this information suggesting it was a complete political hit job on the census because they thought that it would benefit the president s political party. Now, i can understand the urge to try to submerge all of this evidence, but, mr. Chairman, we have the obligation and the power and the right to get the information that we want. And im sorry, i cannot vote for this amendment as much as i would like to because it is fingerpainting on very Serious Business of the committee. So im going to be voting no. Mr. Chairman, move to strike the last word. Mr. Norman. Chairman, i yield. Strike the last word. Yield to mr. Meadows. I thank the gentleman. Let me just respond, and i want to be real clear. I think the gentleman knows this. I have never, not today or prior to this, ever associated a motive or impugned a motive. My unanimous consent acknowledged that it was a wall street journal opinion about john roberts, and so i want to be clear about that. Im certain it was an honest mistake. No, it wasnt i mean if we want to read back the record, i promise you that i can assure you that thats what i said. The second part of that is when we talk about impugning motives, i have purposely not quoted a member of this particular body on your side of the aisle who has said that thats the whole reason for that, has gone on record in the media to say that, and that individual knows that i have not used that individuals name so to not impugn their motive. So to suggest that there are motives here, i can tell you that there are people from your side of the aisle that are on the record that this is to influence the Supreme Court. Now, that being said, this amendment has nothing to do with that, and i think in the context of that, hopefully it is viewed in such a way to put a contextual framework around this vote so that historians 100 years from now can say that this is what was happening at the time that the vote. Certainly your students would have liked to have had that in the record, and thats the total reason i offer that today, and i would i thank the gentleman from south carolina, and i yield back. Gentleman yield. Yield the balance of the time to mr. Jordan. The gentleman from maryland said we brought the supreme no, we didnt. March 14th, on npr, the gentleman from california said this. He hopes the hearing with mr. Ross provides, quote, something the courts can use. We didnt say it. We didnt bring it up. You guys did. Were just highlighting the fact that you did bring it up. Once again we have an amendment which simply states facts, simply states facts. Did the court hear this case on april 23rd, 2019 . Yes, they did. Will they rule sometime this month . Yes, they will. So now this is the Second Amendment the majority thank goodness the chairman is seeing the light. But members of the majority, the Second Amendment, because we just had an amendment about an hour and a half ago where we had three facts. The fact that weve asked the citizenship from 1820 to 1950. The long form census asked it from 1970 to 2000. And the Community Survey from 2005 to present. So for 200 years weve asked the question and they didnt want that amendment either because we dont want facts in this resolution were going to pass. Cant have that. So this is just another statement of fact. The court heard the case. We didnt bring up the court. You guys did. You did it in a public interview for the whole world to see. The reason you had mr. Ross in here was so you could get information that would influence the court, plain and simple. And were simply pointing out facts that we should be in the resolution, and the majority says no. I yield back to the gentleman from south carolina. Let me say this, mr. Norman. You yield back . I yield. All right. I think we need to get back to center here. You know, the rules of the house of representatives are pursuant to the rulemaking clause of the constitution establishes the committee on oversight and reform as a Standing Committee of the house and representatives. I just wanted to remind you. What it says is under house rule 10, the committee our committee that is says legislative jurisdiction over issues including population, demography generally, including the census and the overall economy, efficiency and management of Government Operations and activities. I want i think we really do have to kind of wall this off, and i do not want the court piece to be all up in this because its not about the court. It really isnt. Its about us trying to make sure that we do our job as a coequal branch of government no matter what. And as ive said, there are certain things that come to our attention that if we dont look at them, it is legislative malpractice. And so, again, i think we need to be careful. I dont want us to go too far afield, but i want us to zero in on what our job is, not what the courts job is, but what our job is. And so thats why i wanted to just remind everybody. Im going to go to mr. Lee. Then im going to come back to you, ms. Maloney. Thank you, mr. Chairman. I do have concerns about the amendment. I move to strike the last word. In many ways it infers in some ways that were deferring our responsibility and our duty, and this constant referral as if the United States Supreme Court, whatever actions that theyre having somehow coincides with our responsibility. It doesnt. I think we are missing the center, mr. Chairman. The people that are impacted by this. I represent close to 90 africanAmerican Community in the city of detroit. 60 of my district is africanamerican. I bring this up because of this. I want to know what this memo by this political appointee at the Commerce Department named james otter meyer, i want that document because this isnt about the Citizenship Question getting on or not, whatever decisions are being made at whatever levels. This is about the intent by the Current Administration to not include communities of color who tend to vote aligned with maybe different perspectives or aligned different political parties. This is about not counting everyone that is in our country. This is a political motive. And, yes, mr. Chairman, i have to say to this fact. This is cheating in many ways an election. This is cheating by saying, we dont want to count everybody. We want to count as less people as possible, and that impacts directly communities of color. So the less they count, they draw the lines so that people are currently in power, maybe those in the administration have more power. The fact of the matter is a political appointee a memo, which we knows that james otter meyer printed a copy of this memo, walked it over to the department of justice. He didnt email it. He hand delivered it. We have a right as this body to see that memo, to see the intent here. Put the political debate or party, whatever, aside. This is about whether or not we as a country want to count every Single Person no matter their status and so forth. But doing this, this is political motivation. This is very racialized. This is because you dont want communities like mine being represented here in this chamber equally. This is about that. And it really it breaks my heart honestly to be in this chamber and talking about, well, this is whats happening, and, oh, they didnt do this, and they didnt do that. No. Remember these are about people that have every right to be counted, every right to have access to opportunities based on whatever we do, maybe around education, health care, whatever it is. This is corruption at its core. This is political corruption when somebody outside of the agency, outside of the administrative rules is telling people in this chamber, this is what were going to do. Were going to put the Citizenship Question forward. Well, im sorry. I want to see the memo, mr. Chairman. I have a right to see the memo. My district wants to see the memo. And maybe your districts dont. Maybe not. But majority of our districts want to see the memo. We want to know what this political appointees true intent was. Is it really about citizenship . No. Its about reducing the number of people of color in this country being counted in the census. Thats exactly what its about because you want to cheat. He wants to cheat, mr. Chairman. He wants to cheat this process. Well, not on our watch, and i will not defer my responsibility as a member of congress to the United States Supreme Court. 650,000 people depend on me doing my job here, and i will not support this amendment because i will not infer anything that says that my responsibility as the representative here in this chamber is taken away by supporting this amendment. Thank you, mr. Chairman. I yield the rest of my time. Would you yield to me . I will yield to mr. Chairman. Let me ask you this. When you said somebody cheating you, youre talking about otter meyer . Im talking about political appointees that are outside. Mr. Chairman, we know that these are folks dr fos this is thee first time were asking for information. Now were at this point where were obviously putting forward a contempt. This is about the political appointee at commerce. Before he comes over i remember this moment where he says, well, no, department of justice asked me to put the Citizenship Question. No. There was some dialogue and conversation, political gamesmanship thats happening behind closed doors, and they were cheating the administrative pro s process. They were cheating us, the American People, of knowing what their true intent is. I yield back, i think. Are you finished . I really hope so. I really want to vote on this. I really want the information. Mr. Chairman, you know how passionate i am about this. I feel it. I feel it all up in here. Mr. Chairman, my father went up to fourth grade education, my mother eighth grade, just similar to you. Mr. Chairman, i know my mother has been a u. S. Citizen for almost 42 years. But you know whats going to make her hesitate is when they ask her about that in her question. Its going to make her hesitate even though shes been in this country for four decades. And we all know thats exactly their true intent here. The gentle ladys time has expired. Okay. Ms. Maloney. Ms. Maloney. Thank you. Thank you, mr. Chairman. I would like to return to the purpose of this hearing today. The votes that well be taking here today on criminal and civil contempt of congress for secretary ross and attorney general barr, and these votes are not taken lightly by the chairman or anyone else on this committee. But in my opinion, they are justified in every moral, practical, and constitutional sense. Since secretary ross decided to add a Citizenship Question to the census, this committee has worked diligently, tirelessly to determine the real reason for adding the question that experts, one after another, believe could result in an undercount of 6. 5 million americans. Thats not me talking. Its not democrats talking. This is independent researchers, analysts saying adding this question will be an undercount. And on top of it, three federal judges have ruled that adding this question, that secretary ross violated federal law, the constitution, or both. And while the Committee Conducted its constitutional duty, our requirement on behalf of the American People, we requested documents. We had interviews. We had hearings. We asked for witnesses. Which asked for more information. Why, why, why do you want to add a question that experts say are going to result in an inaccurate census that wont be counting all of us . And we gave secretary ross and a. G. Barr numerous opportunities to show a single ounce of good faith and cooperation. But the Current Administration resisted at every single turn, at every single request without right refusals to cooperate even with bipartisan and i want to underscore bipartisan subpoenas issued by this committee, requesting information. They have yet to comply with the subpoenas this Committee Approved more than two months ago. And now were up against a deadline. The census forms are set to go to print at the end of the month. We no longer have the luxury of giving the administration more and more and more time as they refuse to give us the information we justly requested. This administrations continuous stonewalling of all of our oversights efforts is a direct threat to the rule of law. It is the definition of criminal contempt of congress and, by extension, contempt for the American People. The behavior of attorney general barr and secretary ross make it clear that they are desperate to hide their improper activities with each new piece of information that is uncovered, we see that they indeed have a great deal to hide. The administration has repeatedly misled, mischaracterized and misrepresented the truth. The first misrepresentation and im being generous when i call it a misrepresentation was when we were told that this question was needed to better enforce the Voting Rights act. Secretary ross misrepresented and covered up further when he told us that he responded solely to the department of justices request for the question for that purpose. Now we know that that is untrue with information weve seen. Secretary ross personally asked attorney general sessions to get doj to cooperate in requesting the question. And two weeks ago, we finally learned the real reason why secretary ross and the administration were willing to break federal law and violate the constitution thanks to the courage of one patriotic woman and the sharp eyes of pro bono attorneys. While going through her deceases fathers belongings, a brave woman discovered evidence that explains the origins of this unconstitutional question. Her father was a republican strategist named thomas hofler, who had a reputation and was called the michaelangelo of gerrymandering, who wrote a blueprint on voter disenfranchisement. In 2015, he wrote a study concluding that adding the Citizenship Question the gentle ladys time has expired. Okay. Every american should read his memo. The gentle ladys time is expired. Okay. Thank you. Mr. Chairman, i have a unanimous consent request. What is it . Go ahead. This is a public decision memo from wilbur ross in which it states that the department and the Census Bureaus review of the doj request with all significant census assessment prioritizes the goal of obtaining complete and accurate data. Without objection, so ordered. Thank you, sir. Mr. Chairman . Mr. Chairman . Mr. Chairman . Go ahead. Thank you. I just wanted to make sure in speaking on this amendment again, and while i respect the intent of trying to acknowledge the historic moment and the historic ruling that is before us and before the Supreme Court, i want to reiterate the sentiment that mr. Raskin and ms. Tlaib expressed because there is a reason that our government is designed the way that it is. And it is because it is designed to acknowledge the flawed human nature in our grand experiment of selfgovernance. Unspeakable horrors have been executed by the United States in the name of citizenship, in the name of determining who is a citizen and by citizen, we mean who is a person in our democracy. That is what citizenship means. It is an acknowledgement of personhood in american democracy, an acknowledgement of power. And when i think about Supreme Court decisions, with this i think about dred scott. I think about cor mat sue versus the United States where the Supreme Court upheld japanese interment regardless of the citizenship status of japanese americans. How did that start . It starts with the United States census. We have laws on the books saying that information from the census cannot be used in any other way, that it must be confidential. And what happened . When the federal government, the executive branch, the president of the United States i dont care if he was a democrat. I dont care if he was a republican. It was wrong. And what he did, he asked for information and the Census Bureau broke the law and divulge ed information on zip codes where japaneseamericans were concentrated. And that information was used to intern american citizens and nonamerican citizens alike. And the Supreme Court upheld that. Dred scott, a black man suing for his freedom, came right before the United States Supreme Court. And what they said was that the u. S. Constitution did not give africanamericans citizenship. They have gotten it wrong. The Supreme Court has gotten it wrong. An unspeakable violations of human rights and Civil Liberties have been executed by the United States government in that in light of that. And i can tell you with this Supreme Court argument, they could very well get it wrong again. And i dont even want to think about how far that could be pushed. But that is not even what the question is at hand today because what this subpoena is about and what this contempt is about is the fact that we have asked for information, and there is a refusal to comply with a coequal branch and our power. Thats all that this is about. Thats all that this is about. So we have to execute our power and hold that power to account and vote on contempt. So the reason i do not want to support this amendment is because i dont want to muddy our waters. I want to make sure that we are laser focused, that we are effective, that we are efficient, and we dont add any bloat and dont confuse people. We are voting conconteming on c because we need to do our jobs. Regardless of whats happening in the executive branch, we need to do our job, and that is what this vote is about today. Will the gentle lady yield . Yes. Ill yield to the chairman. Thank you. Your statement about the japanese internment camps is so real. I dont know if you noticed, theres an article in the paper today, i think it is, that says that the Trump Administration is now using those same camps to put immigrants, people trying to get into our country, and children. And i just wanted to say that i when i listened to mr. Raskin and i listened to our arguments and then i heard mr. Jordan say he suggested the true purpose of the amendment is to be able to argue that we are interfering with the Supreme Court. I dont want that either. I want our committee to do what our committee is supposed to do. I want our congress to do what its supposed to do. And i want to preserve the power that the Founding Fathers gave us in their wisdom. I do not want it diluted. I dont want it powerlight. I want the full power that the congress is supposed to have, and so im not going to be supportive of this. Okay . Who else . Whos next . Chairman cummings . Thank you. I mr. Rouda. Im a freshman. I had never run for office before coming here. And my message was that most americans are between the 20 yard lines. We have a lot more in common than what separates us. And one of the most poignant moments in my journey here was when i raised my right hand with my eyes welling up and taking an oath to the constitution of the United States of america. And in taking that oath, were not taking an oath to a party. Were not taking an oath to a president. Were taking an oath to uphold the constitution of the United States of america. And i take the issues we are facing here today and appreciate the enormity when we are contemplating this resolution with secretary ross and attorney general barr. And i wanted to study and look and try and find information and support as to where i should land on this. And i also wanted to look at the pros and cons of what i see as the major issues. The first major issue we seem to be talking a lot about is executive privilege, and i dont think anybody in here thinks that the white house and the administration have absolute, unbridled executive privilege, that there should be limitations on the exercise of executive privilege. In fact, i actually agree with the chairman of this committee, who said the executive branch has executive privilege. Its narrow. Its well defined. There is case law. If you do not find a legitimate basis to deny us material weve asked for, we will seek the remedies necessary to compel. And i cant agree more with past chairman issa and the republican side of the aisle making that statement. Those are appropriate statements regarding executive privilege. I also take exception with the Ranking Members comment about the democrats. Why dont we want to know who is a citizen . The reason is because we already know. We already know through Administrative Functions such as Social Security who has citizenship in our country. But dont take my word for it. The Census Bureaus chief scientist under the Trump Administration, dr. John aboud, wrote to secretary ross that, quote, adding a Citizenship Question to the 2020 census is very costly, harms the quality of the consensus count, and would use substantially less accurate citizenship status data than are available from administrative sources. But dont take his word for it. Six former Census Bureau directors who served in both democratic and Republican Administrations sent a letter to secretary ross opposing the addition of the Citizenship Question. We also seem to be taking a lot of time talking about the volumes of pages that have been delivered to the committee. Theyve been nonresponsive. This is no different than receiving a book from amazon that you didnt ask for and them telling you to read it instead of the one you ordered. We deserve to have the documents we have requested given to us. There was a statement that this is a vast and nefarious conspiracy in the belief of democrats. For me, nothing could be further from the truth. I do not think this is a vast and nefarious conspiracy. I think its a nefarious group of individuals within the administration who are trying to do harm to our census, which leaves me thinking that the speaker said it correctly. No Justice Department is above the law, and no Justice Department is above the constitution, which each of us has sworn to uphold. I could not agree more with Speaker Boehner when he uttered those words. The question im always asked as a freshman is whats the biggest unexpected thing you have come to see in congress . And for me its the hypocrisy. It is the hypocrisy when we have all taken an oath to the constitution. And that oath should stand firm. It should not be swayed by political winds, by polling, or who is in office. That oath must stand firm, and i would ask that all members in this body reflect on staying true to the oath you took regardless of the party in power. Thank you. I yield back. The question now carries on the amendment offered by mr. Meadows. All those in favor, signify by saying aye. Aye. Although opposed, no. No. The noes have it. Take a roll call. We will suspend the vote until the the roll call until we take all the other votes. Mr. Chairman . Yes. Theres an amendment on the desk. Mr. Gibbs . Lets pause for a second and get it districted. Distributed. An amendment to the amendment in the nature of a substitute offer by mr. Gibbs of ohio. Thank you, mr. Chairman. This is just really a simple amendment that i think should be included in the resolution so when we talked a lot about historians, but how about the average american . When this amendment passes out, i want to read the resolution when the resolution passes out, see whats in it. I think its important that we document some facts. The fact that the attorney general has produced over 17,000 documents in response to the april 2nd, 2019 subpoena. The fact that the Deputy Assistant a. G. , john gore, voluntarily appeared before chairman cummings at his request for a transcribed interview march 7th of this year. And i think its just important for the average american who reads the resolution to know the other side of things that happened and have that transparency and to show that the administration has been forthcoming on some of these requests. And i think its good for the historians but also for the average american. And i urge all members of the committee to support this amendment. Just to document the actual facts thats happened and it will be part of the record and the resolution. I disagree with this amendment. It basically its not accurate. The responses weve gotten have not been responsive. As has been stated already, most of the material was redacted. A number of pages. I mean i cant count. Quite a bit of it was already in the media. The very things we really wanted we have not gotten. And weve asked for it over and over and over again. So i would oppose the amendment. Yes, mr. Shar bains. Thank you, mr. Chairman, for yielding. I oppose the amendment as well. If you look at these amendments weve been getting over the last few hours, they strike me as attempts to kind of normalize bad behavior. And were not going to be complicit in that kind of a narrative here. I mean we had the Supreme Court one. Thats kind of a distraction because it was pointed out compellingly thats really irrelevant to what were doing here. We had this thing about when and how the Citizenship Question has been presented in the past, which is sort of to 55 of those went directly to Rural Communities and the federal government distributed 33 billion specifically to rural areas in the fiscal year 2000 and we can show the impact on urban communities, getting the accounts right. For School Systems we depend on those funds and this is why it is so important to get the number right. Leaving aside whether you had concerns about motivation behind the questions, putting the question on their, there is no way to know how to unpack that and we need to make sure that their power is represented. That is a legitimate source for anxiety that we are bringing to bear. The second is the concern for over motivation. The evidence in this is why we are trying to get more. The evidence is that the Trump Administration is actually looking to optimize the Citizenship Question. This is for political gain and this is the deepest anxiety. If you put the two together you know the impact it will have based on what the experts are telling you if you include that. You then have enough evidence and suggestion that the motivation is insidious and you put those two things together. No wonder we are concerned. Americans need to be deeply concerned if there is a Campaign Underway to take this question, what denies it in a way that is designed to diminish the power and presence, the voice of certain communities across this country and all we are asking is we want to get to the bottom of this to do our duty in fulfilling our responsibility to the people of this country that we are asked to do every 10 years as part of this consensus. That is a straight as i can possibly make it this morning when i left baltimore at 530, i was coming to dc, i saw people getting early flights. Next they were the people who janitors, restaurant workers, the people who take out the trash and i said to myself, when they get their paystub at the end of two weeks there are taxes taken out for them. The least we can do is make sure that they get what they are due, in other words making your point, when it comes to the consensus that we dont get it right, it means that they are being denied the refunds that they have put out there and they need it the most. They needed the most. We are talking about 10 years. Not one year, 10 years. The kid that was one years old now, in 10 years it is 10. That is a lot of years. The part of that is the kid is being deprived of things like education, healthcare, all of that, they are denied. This is why you are right, we have to get it right, we have to do it. Question now on the amendment. All those in favor . The new secondhand. We will record that the. Mister chairman . Thank you, i feel like people forgot how to take turns around here. I am in support of the amendment and the reason why is because the defense that everyone mentioned is it is a big deal, it is been used throughout history to empower the marginalized community because it has an impact on our government resources. You name it, it is the fundamental Building Block of our country. What we are trying to discover is, is this to marginalized or to empower . I believe it is to marginalized. They have started a strategy of dodge, delay and deceive. They dodge questions when they become in front of a committee. They then delay and deceive congress and the American People about the true intentions and motivations of adding those questions to the census. Yes i know originally we were told that the department of justice wanted more census locked the data and citizenship so they can enforce the Voting Rights act. Yet, the voters right act has been enforced since 1965 without a problem. Now its an issue . This is highly unlikely. Later, we discovered that it was not the doj making the request originally, what they did was first the department of commerce asked the doj to submit a request to add the Citizenship Question, but they did not respond. Then they went to other departments trying to get them to ask. If it was really the department of justice asking for it, why are you shopping around for departments to enforce and do your dirty work . When we keep looking at it, you just shows that there is something not right in their arguments. When it comes to the last amendment, they basically used him before the committee on march 7. He did not answer not one or two questions, he refused to answer 150 questions before the staff. Why would you dodge so many questions . They want to hide the true motivations. Lets go back last week, the committee released a number that they can describe interview and after they saw it, they said the memo is accurate and it describes how the Voter Suppression specialist proposed a Citizenship Question and explained his rationale he wrote, the lack of Citizenship Questions leads to the problems that aliens do not actually reside in the United States and it is still in force for congressional purposes. The secretary testified and he rejected the question. He had a different recollection. His interview said about secretary ross, i do not recall what he said, i could say this, if he had let us know, whatever, i think this is a bad idea i probably would have remembered that. I dont remember his specific response, but im pretty sure it was not absolutely no. That is pretty clear. Of course secretary ross ultimately did add a Citizenship Question and it matched the one used on the Community Survey differed only slightly from the one they proposed. Let me show you the two versions of the questions up on the screen. This is once they get it up. No. My point is that if the department has nothing to hide, it is a simple way of proving it, stop withholding documents, stop doing the dodge, delay deceive, we know where this will end up. The folks on the other side of the aisle, they say it is all about history. I want to show something great clearly, history will show that they are on the wrong side of this issue. It is simply enough and with that i yield. I have an amendment. Read the amendment. This is a simple amendment that basically states the fact that the secretary of commerce has produced over 14,000 documents responsive to the april 2 subpoena including on june 3, we could be very clear about this. They say that two senior officials are available for interviews including one yesterday. The Commerce Department and Justice Department have produced over 31,000 pages of documents including a document to commerce june 3. Theres also extensive Public Record about the decisionmaking process in the various lawsuits. I can go on and on with other facts that i think everyone on the committee knows including the use. Already over 93,000 documents for 2019 were produced. For the sake of time i would just move for the adoption of my amendment that basically states the fact of what the commerce cabinet has done with this. The question now is what is going on the amendment. All those in favor . As amended, the report is to be measured. Mister chairman, down here. I was waiting on the last word. Okay. I dont mean to cut off the gentleman. Are you sure . Go ahead. During the democratic and Republican Administration like. They like control of the private industry and the previous employer is lobbying interests. The issue is to allow personnel to do this and to allow this it is the fundamental right to know that these exist and when and where and when and why needs to know. In january 2017, common sense dictates the administration that has pledged this would make every effort to avoid the influence and welcome every opportunity to find out about who stacy is working behind doors and this is not been the case. According to the investigative administrations, President Trump had already hired formal lobbyists. They included the Lieutenant General and for government interests. In march 2017, a spokesman for the attorney general confirmed that he never had an opportunity to find this. During the 24 days on the job, the same month he registered with the department of justice with the industry. Despite this, the administration initially blocked all requests by the Ethics Office to disclose the waivers at all. The white house has since committed to providing these and they failed to disclose this. As reported, it is the citizens responsibility. Some waivers may have been granted. This is after they already works on these matters. The white house lasted these waivers five months ago. They still dont know what happened five months ago in the private sector. We will be able to do better to serve the American People. Remember, this is important to our collective oversight responsibility. Im remembering my republican colleagues, there will soon be a democratic president and you will need to remember this. With this change, help both sides. We voted and we said we were going to go to regular order. Criticizing, optimizing or any other ways for the democrats to do this, this is exactly what they want from us. With this it requires every employee to sign an ethics pledge. This requires these waivers to be posted on the agencys website. They can use these waivers and it gives the government transparency. However the administration hardly makes these available, it is clearly not about this, it is about targeting the president and his administration. It requires these waivers to be made publicly available, but not all previously issued waivers. The only requires transparency for ethics waivers issued since january 20, 2017. Imagine that is right for the retroactive availability of the bill highlights the democrats for the legislation. Last only get this information for the last two years for this administration. It seems as it may that we will pass the bill like any other bill and it will become law and then it will be applicable to this administration the moves forward and any other that will be in office for the years to come or we can make it retroactive for everyone else, but no, just since january 20 2017. It is still yet another tool to harass the president and my colleagues are trying to do this. Can i just say, resident obama voluntarily posted ethics waivers that were issued under his executive orders and so they are already available. Do i take the gentlemans point to be if we make it fully retroactive back to the obama writ administration or to the beginning that he would support the bill because in that case i would amend to do it. I think we should do legislation like we are supposed to. We pass a law and it is then the law, not retroactive, but the law from that point on. As you point out the sharp administration is also making these available. Ive spoken to the gentleman. The Ranking Members are saying this because there is a republican in the white house. I say this to submit a letter from senator Charles Grassley of iowa and it is in this letter dated june 11, 2009, that the senator urged the white house to make and that time it was obama in the white house, they needed to make transparency ethics waivers public. This is exactly what we are trying to do with the Trump Administration, the difference here is that when president obama got the request he responded to it and made them public. That is not what we are seeing from the Trump Administration. His last posting was incomplete and it was back in january, five months ago and we still have individuals in the administration that we now have conflict, yet there is no waiver indicating that they have been allowed to engage in the activities that they are currently engaging in. That is the difference that obama made public and he posted it and it was uniformed, it was widespread and he was accountable, the Trump Administration is not doing this. They are making it public. They are pushing it too. Know they arent. Heres the deal, they are not disclosing the individuals, they are just saying heres a list of employees without naming individuals have been giving a waiver. The also undated and so they go retroactively i guess, they can give waivers for people who have already been lobbying in the area were they used to be employed and the customer situation is really troubling. He has a portfolio that covers saudi arabia and other countries in the middle east and his familys business was at the verge of bankruptcy, a middle east Company Comes in and basically prepays the lease and so they get a 99 year lease on the customer family property and they prepaid the lease for 99 years upfront. They bailed out the Kushner Family property. And looking at the list now, from this administration and hear the name you know. Wears kushners . You said there were no individuals. I know i said it is actually incomplete. Here claiming my time. I dont see kushners name, i dont see it heard is the special advisor to the president on middle east affairs. He is also receiving direct benefit and by the way he did not invest himself of his interest and his direct interest of the property, he is being bailed out. I yelled to the gentleman in maryland. Thank you. I just want to step back a little bit because if you look at many of the Ethics Reforms that are contained, what they were recognizing as a situation where things had become the norm and this is being ignored by the administration. Things we never thought we would have to codify expectations, guidelines, rules that prior administrations had a lighted by, had met the expectation of the public and etc. These are being ignored. A lot of what you see in the Ethics Reform is required of hr one and these are really designed to codify what the public expects and this should be the guidelines. This is just another example of that. It is common sense. Want to know if theres any conflicts of interest so that we know whether the administration is acting in the publics interests or on behalf of a special interest. If there are waivers, the public needs to know this to her else itll make sense. I yelled. This bill is included in hr one. This will require the ethics waivers are issued to political appointees under president Donald Trumps executive order and to be publicly available. I think the American People are crying out for this and for accountability. President obama voluntarily posted this waivers of his ethics executives on the white house website. The Trump Administration has refused to release the waivers under president Donald Trumps executive order on august 1 senator gary peters sent a letter to the white house that said we expect the administration to make these waivers publicly available as they are mandated. Yielding to the public, the Trump Administration disclosed waivers issued at the beginning of the administration, but the white house is not posted any new ones. This goes about accountability that i strongly implore. I yield. When youre ready id like to go over this last part. Thank you. Mister chairman, i think it is imperative and entirely reasonable to want to know exactly how many white house employees the Trump Administration has decided does not have to comply with our ethics laws. This is what this is about. I dont know that, this committee does not notice in the office of government ethics doesnt even know this, why . Because the Trump Administration refuses to provide comprehensive details about the waivers that they issued for employees of the white house per the executive office of the president. The handful of waivers lacks information. Representations that are being made seem to think it is acceptable to just pick and choose what pieces of information you provide and unit transparency. That should be deeply troubling to every person sitting in this room. I would think we would want to know what potential conflicts of interest there were in the white house by people who are making decisions every single day that can affect their own personal bottomline that they may be ethical compromise the making. When the issue in ethics waiver the American People should know who received the waiver and why they received it. All this bill does is make a commonsense change and it should be holy and controversial. We shouldnt have to pass it because its the law that already requires all of this information and the administration appears to try to do well to ignore. Our ethics clause is not a guideline, the constitution is not optional. These policies are in place and the guidelines are in place to stave off corruption and identify conflicts of interest. I will say this, the administration is certainly the Government Office of ethics busy. The government and the public deserve nothing less to know this. They need to know the policies that are impacting our lives. I support the bill. I want to say, i associate myself for remarks that i think we need to be very clear, what is going on here is not quibbling about how much you or when, it is about a complete and tethering of the white house with the enabling of hearing congress. This is what is going on. On our side of the hour we are fighting to restore accountability. We need to restore a legitimate form of our government. Lets not have any illusions about what is really going on and that is why im happy to support the measure in front of us. I think my friend for yielding. I yield back my time. There will be no further discussion on the amendment. All those in favor . All those opposed . The amendment is adopted. The bill is distributed in advance. Hr 2003 the United States code qualifies that on the last appropriation this will be the Health Benefits program the expected services are for the acts and other purposes. This is open to amendment at any point, offer an amendment and copies have already been distributed. The clerk will report. Amendment in the nature offered by Mister Cummings of maryland. This is considered red and this will serve as the base section. Thank you to my colleagues. Thank you for working with me in about partisan basis on this very important bill this was for federal employees unable reset recently to pay medical bills for their newborn because of the 35 day shutdown. January 10 the senator read a letter regarding a decision about the furlough. These employees were entered in and the letter was accompanied by two photos of a federal employee and their baby and they said this is a victim, my son was born on new years eve 10 weeks early and the local hospital to take babies born before 32 weeks is not a network of our insurance. I cannot exchange my insurance because of the Government Services being closed due to the shutdown. I want to thank the representatives for bringing this issue to our attention. This would ensure that employees who experience a qualifying life or death decision to immediately enroll their dependents in the Health Benefits plan even if the government is shutdown. The substitute amendment is being considered this would adjust any amendments provided by the personal management. It was made clear that the legislation made during open season in the event that a shutdown occurs and it will allow the Life Insurance benefits to be supported by the American Federation of government employees. I urge my colleagues to support this to distinguish. Thank you, i thought mister meadows would be here for opening statements. I will just touch base, we are working with the legislation and thank you for your work. This one would yield back. There will be no further discussions, but the resolution will be discussed. All in favor . The amendment passes. Questions . Lets call it 2004. During this shutdown act, we will report the bill. Hr 2004 amendment for the United States code to continue supplemental dental and launcher longterm healthcare. They will serve as the base for the amendment. During the recent shutdown this would report any employees may lose coverage with dental and vision. Coverage would continue only through this. After, this will ensure that employees dental vision and medical benefits will continue during any period of a government shut down. The substitute amendment addresses the technical, provided by the office of personal management and among other things this would ensure those who transitioned to other programs and the spell would be supported by the American Association of federal employees. I urge you to join me in supporting this. I yelped out. We support this as well. They will be of further amendments. All those in favor . The member is adopted. All those in favor say i. Now we are going to notice hr 2530. They will support the bill which was computed in. This is to provide temporary authority to the general counsel of the merritt protection board to grant stays of personal accents. Without objections is considered red and open. In this amendment, these have already been attributed and will report. Amendment in the nature of substitutes to hr. This will serve as the base and we recognize and distinguish our committees and subcommittees. Thank you. Thank you for bringing this to our attention. This is a small area that seeks to protect the workforce. This qualifies and will effectively manage this for the American People. However, the agency has been without a form. The board has had zero appointed numbers since march 1 of this year. This is the longest act in the form for the history of the agency. Unlike other agencies, this should not be filled by an individual and the last two years of vacancies have been unprecedented and impaired agencies. In february of the subcommittee of operations help the first hearing on the subject. We heard testimony that the absence of the form has prevented the board from performing adverse Agency Actions in excess of 14 days and theres miles of restoration of reemployment rights. They had to add violations. They have also been unable to hear wrongful terminations in retaliation. This means they are unable to enforce the law in this committee and congress in order to protect those who would lure them away. According to the legal director, and one of our witnesses, the Current Situation is disastrous for whistleblowing. The lack of form is also from 75 cases. This is also the subcommittee. This act is for the chairman and they say that eliminating the backlog will take at a minimum three years. This is a clear example of justice delayed and denied. This bill is a stopgap measure that is the most immediate threat and will do this for retaliation. They suspect the agency has taken unfair action. In those cases, they can stay temporarily stable and they can enter the case and plane. Without this the agency cannot extend the stay to prevent those other actions from being void. This bill is a stopgap measure in the event of the lack of the form. This would delegate the authority to stay agency ask for the agency. This is delegated and for the authority that is for the appointment of a single board member. They do not solve this, but it does provide that. This is for the time to do the right thing. The dell continues this and has the crisis in which they have prohibited personnel actions to disclose wrongdoing. This was avoidable and we hope to have Board Members in place as soon as possible. My colleagues who attended the meeting including mister meadows will recall that this idea came out of a bipartisan method that we had a problem with. Not only this, but as a lack of action from the senate. My friend will recall that we called upon the senate at least someone turning the lights on. We had three full nominators who did not have this combination. This will hopefully never again be needed, but we have to protect whistleblowers and protect the bipartisan leaders on our board and i hope they will take action. I yield now. Mister meadows . They have an interim authority and the member is well spoken and accurate in their announcement and that we have to get this fixed. It is all about protection for the whistleblowers and all about protecting the rights of the individuals who are truly willing to speak up, not just that, but making sure that they are protected for the federal workforce and there is no one who has been more diligent and that then the gentleman from virginia, might i add the gentleman from virginia and mister byers as well. As you may recall he is not a member, but the three of us working together on this was good and i support this. At the same time i think it is important that we need to reiterate that the senate needs to get their job done. They take more naps than they do votes. Im at the point where im willing to call out both sides because they are unwilling to do it. I did talk to the administration to make sure that we get enough of the nominations and so with that i would encourage my colleagues to support this bill and i thank you for your leadership. I want to thank him for his partnership and leadership and we have received a great deal of support. I really want to thank you for that. He is taking time out of his schedule for that. Not many members take the time to do so. I know it is appreciated. I would just like to remind you of your comments in respect to the senate. Speaker of the house would like to respond in a different context. The senate is the enemy. I would second that. I agree with the gentleman. I yield. Thank you mister chairman. Id like to thank my colleagues on the subcommittee for operations for your leadership and i want to reiterate what Mister Conley just said. So often, our federal employees are seen as unnoticed and unappreciated. I would like to thank both of these gentlemen are making sure that they can do this. I need to make sure that they are beneficial and i think it is so very important that i have the Social Security administration in my district and i know that those many federal employees and we all appreciate what you have done. The 30 respect that and this is for the federal government and this is for any members for the situation we are now facing. This is for the terms and the last board member. They pass the legislation that we introduced that would have extended this to take action before. He was already through the msb and they stayed in certain. There are no Board Members and the subsequent amendment being considered would be a minor amendment. There being no further discussion for the amendments all of those in favor . It tears that the question is on the recording for all those in favor for this . It will be recorded. Now as i called up, there is things that we will discuss for the bill and this, before i go there, just one moment, please, members note, we will be voting around 4 pm. We will take all of that. How may votes do we have coming up . Seven. Will be taking all of our votes at 4 pm. The leverage for the federal government will increase the security for the internet for other purposes. Its it is considered red. They recognize to offer an amendment in the nature of the subsequent law. They will report. Amendment in the nature of substitutes. This is offered by ms. Kelly of illinois. This is considered red and will serve as a base. Thank you for including the bipartisan story act. In 2017 the subcommittee held a hearing on Cyber Security following the october 2016 distributed denial of service for the provider. This stepped on Internet Access for the east coast. This was torn down and in this case it was proposed that hundreds of thousands of compromised unsecured devices. As such there is a pressing need for the federal government to ensure that they divide this. Our devices can benefit employees and increase efficiencies as well as the potential for harm cannot be overlooked. Many devices today are built with almost no security at all. These devices can Service Gateways that can launch cyber attacks. Recent error for the Global Survey showed that eight out of 10 organizations have experienced a cyber attack in the past year. This trend does not show any signs of going away. They recorded 32. 7 million ioc attacks globally in 2018. 217. 5 percent increase over the 10. 3 million ilt attacks in 2017. This is an urgent need for congress to act now to make sure that the unsafe devices are not added to federal networks. This omits the final version of the 8228 8228 considerations for managing these Cyber Security and privacy risks before taking into account at least the obscure development and identify management and pasty configuration management. This will adopt then for them to make minimum requirements. The director in consultation with the direct air of Cyber Security and Infrastructure Security Agency of the department of Homeland Security will then propagate this safety of the federal devices. To ensure that these are kept up to date and not vulnerable to attack, this thing conjunction with the research and private Industry Expert as well as public guidance will help coordinate the vulnerability disclosure program. They will create the cbd program for key devices. They do not comply with the cbd program, and this will be done except for one cover devices necessary and the National Security of the research purposes. I would like to thank the congressman for leading on the republican side as well as the chairman and the government ops security for strengthening Cyber Security. This committee has a history of approaching Government Technology on the bipartisan basis. Ive worked cooperatively with the majority for months to make sure the field can pass on the bipartisan basis. This bill has 24 cosponsors, 12 republicans and 12 democrats. Theres nothing partisan about the bill. It has brought outsides before and the Software Lines as well and schematics. These members support the bipartisan dell. This will prevent agencies from wasting money on devices that make the government and the personal data on americans less secure. Thank you. Think my friends from illinois, i just want to thank her for her leadership and she was the Ranking Member for the Sub Committee and it and it was a privilege to work with her. She showed great leadership in this area and shes adding another bill to see how the federal government will work in it. I think it is very consequential and i think we are beginning to really make a difference i just want to thank ms. Kelly for her leadership and her willingness to cooperate. Thank you. Thank you, i have a few concerns i first want to thank ms. Kelly and chairman conley and others who work in legislation to ensure that our Cyber Infrastructure is secure. This is important. There needs to be in place rules and standards. This is to be done before being acquired. I do have some concerns that i would like to go on the record with. First the federal government already has standards in place for Cyber Security. The reason that these it devices are not covered. I would worry that this would be redundant and create a patchwork. The federal government buys a lot of stuff. It is not obscure to set standards this would essentially be creating regulations for the entire ilt spectrum. These devices are expected to add 11 trillion for the Global Economy and just the next six years. These it devices know that making their products more secure will result in a better product. This is all part of doing business. That being said given the complexities of the terms i have, i hope we can work a little bit longer together to get this bill right. I dont expect to be done overnight. I would like to thank them for introducing the bill along with the amendments for both sides of the committee. The bill will require the establishment of the federal standards and devices. I strongly support this bill. With this being no further discussion, on the announcement of the amendment offered by the chairman all those in favor . All those opposed . The question now is for the recording . All those in favor . All those opposed . The bill appears that it is recorded to the house. Now im starting to notice, i call on this bill to reorganize the historical applications, the clerk will report this, it was distributed in advance. Hr 2978 to amend the code to reauthorize the National Historical for other decisions. With this nation of subsequent, and amendment was already distributed. We will report. Amendment in the nature of the substitute we will serve the base text. I now recognize the gentleman in our subcommittee hearing. Thank you. The National Historic publication director commission reauthorization act, i would also like to thank the Ranking Member of our subcommittee mister meadows who is co leading on the republican side for the spill, it would reauthorize the publications and records commissions in addition to five years and add the council of state activists as the members of the committee. The records commissioned was originally established in congress back in 1934. This is a grantmaking arm of the National Archives and records administration. They provide experience for the State Government and universities to preserve this, this is related to the history of the united dates. It is made up of 15 members including representatives of the three branches of the federal government as well as professional occupants, historians editors and records administrators. They commit the small staff and for grant proposals and this is for the assistance of applicants. The authorization for the nac or c expires at the end of 2009. Nearly 10 years ago it expired. The majority of the fiscal year, 1991 through that time, 2009 the commissions authorization was set at 10 million a year. This is the most recent authorization and congress has continued to appropriate approximately 6 million every year for the commission. That amount has not an adequate to support ongoing programs and keep up with the demand for the records. Many institutions have been doctor archives which require extensive staff to create more accessible digital archives. This is important, but due to lack of funding, they are only able to award a fraction of the grant applications they receive. In 2017 they received more than 100 grant applications for archival record and was able to award only 20 out of the 100. I have the records of a number of our members. Ohio has hundreds and this is all the respective states
comparemela.com © 2020. All Rights Reserved.