Certainly, there are numerous positions that need to be confirmed by the senate that there is this revolving door. We are going to leave this recorded event. Live now to the House Rules Committee meeting on a resolution that would find attorney general william barr and wilbur ross in contempt of congress. Refusing to comply with subpoenas issued by the Oversight Committee. A consensus is critical. That means counting every american the way it has always been done without turning the census into another tool for the crusade against immigrants. The president has retreated from adding the Citizenship Question to the census. The rule of law Still Matters despite this administrations best efforts. The houses work here is not over. We are continuing our constitutional oversight responsibilities. And this administration is stone walling us at every turn. The department of justice and commerce have refused to turn over unredacted copies of key documents requested by the Oversight Committee after the committee worked to resolve the impasse by narrowing the scope of the request to a small subset of documents. Chairman cummings offered to meet personally with mr. Ross and he refused. The resolution we are sending to the floor will allow the full house to vote on this and vote on it this week. We are also adding language that creates a process to consider the nearly two dozen Senate Resolutions disapproving of the president s decision to sell weapons to saudi arabia, United Arab Emirates and jordan. The third measure we are considering is hr582 to raise the wage act. It has been more than a decade since federal minimum wage has been increased, the largest gap since implemented. There is no place in America Today where a fulltime worker making the federal minimum wage can afford the basic essentials. In alabama a minimum wage worker would have to work 68 hours a week to rent a modest one bedroom apartment. Our workers deserve a raise. Some colleagues are trying to paint this bill as a radical concept. In 2018, voters in arkansas overwhelmingly a passed the measure to increase minimum wage to 11 by 2021. That is consistent with the raise the wage act. So American Workers want to see an increase in minimum wage. Im proud we are moving to finally give them one this week. Now let me turn this over to the Ranking Member for any remarks. Todays meeting covers three items. I want to start on a positive note and first cover 3494, intelligence authorization act for fiscal years 2018, 19 and 20. This bill provides needed authorization for critical piece of National Infrastructure namely the Intelligence Community and intelligence operations government wide. As we will hear from Ranking Member nunez represents a bipartisan compromise which has been rare this year. This bill provides certainty for intelligence operations which is essential to protecting the United States. Im encouraged by the work done in committee and must point out my hope that it remains so. Here today that means refraining from the inclusion of partisan poison pill amendments. I hope the committee will keep that in mind as we consider the bill. Unfortunately, my comments on hr582 and i dont have the resolution number, dont strike the same tone. Both items are deeply partisan and represent the efforts to ram through the controversial agenda. Hr582 is called the raise the wage act. This bill raiseathize federally required minimum wage from the current 7. 25 per hour to 15 per hour over a period of five or six years. While its wellintentioned without a doubt, the majority is taking it a step too far in pushing for such a significant increase in relatively short period of time. It is unsustainable and will do more harm than good. In the industrialized world has the minimum wage been increased so dramatically in such a short amount of time. While a handful of municipalities, no state has followed suit. Reasons for that are complex. But i believe some of the answers may be found in the Congressional Budget Office estimate of economic impact. Cbo estimates that close to 4 million jobs may be lost if hr582 becomes law. This bill while well intentioned may cause up to 4 million lost jobs. Those job losses would impact women, Young Workers and workers without a high school diploma. The few municipalities that experimented with a 15 minimum wage have been areas in the country with high cost of living like seattle or san francisco. If a city feels it is in their interest to impose such a minimum wage then the city may do so, but it makes little sense to me to mandate from washington the same minimum wage in rural areas in the country with a low cost of living. It makes no sense to impose the same minimum wage in norman, oklahoma, as you would in new york city. I fear that this bill would cause significant job losses in rural areas as will as Small Businesses kutding hours for existing employees. During the Education Labor Committee markup, republicans offered a number of amendments to try to mitigate potential harms including one to exclude enterprises with fewer than ten employees. And one that would prevent the bill from taking effect unless the Unemployment Rate for 16 to 24 year olds was under eight percent. All the amendments were defeated in committee. I think these are excellent examples of the kinds of good ideas members have that should be considered on the floor. We have been asked to consider a resolution Holding Attorney general barr and ross in contempt for failing to comply on subpoenas regarding the administrations attempt to reinstate a question concerning citizenship on the 2020 census. As we all saw last week, the administration has decided not to move forward with that plan and will not be flcluding such an item on the census. This brings into question whether or not the resolution is necessary. Without the administrations recent announcement, this resolution was premature. Contempt while a powerful tool should be a last resort used when other methods fail. Here there is no indication that the Oversight Committee has exhausted the other methods. The administration produced and provided over 30,000 documents to the committee in response to their request. Secretary ross testifying before the committee on this topic for over six hours and other Administration Officials have sat through recorded interviews with the committee. There is no indication that the process of engaging with the administration is over or has failed. Continuing to engage the majority pushing forward to require the house to vote on holding the officials in contempt of congress over a topic made moot. I dont understand why this item is being pushed forward at this time beyond the desire for more political theater or perhaps to unite the democratic caucus. The process of engagement between the two branches of government is still ongoing. There is zero evidence that the process has failed. The easiest way to ensure that it fails is to push for a premature and deceptive house vote on contempt. Contempt should not be the final step should be the final step in the investigation used only when other avenues have failed. This is not what the majority is doing here. I urge the majority to take a step back, reevaluate and allow the process to continue to operate before turning to a contempt motion. That concludes my opening remarks. Thank you very much. For the record, i should respond to why this is coming to the committee now. We will hear from chairman cummings when he gets here. The committee has tried for months. The administration has refused to cooperate at all. The committee has narrowed request for documents and given additional opportunities to produce them, tried to negotiate with the parties concerned but the departments produced none of the key unredacted documents. The department of commerce has produced items heavily redacted and held the key unredacted documents. Secretary ross failed to answer key questions and the attorney general directed john gore to defy the subpoena for deposition. Commerce and Justice Department employees refused to answer hundreds of questions during interviews. The white house instructed a private citizen not to answer questions about his meetings with the president and his senior white house advisers about the Citizenship Question. The committee tried to avoid taking the action, but the administrations obinstruction left no choice. We will go into that when we have the chair and Ranking Members before the committee. I want to thank you for your opening statement. I would like to welcome our witnesses to provide testimony on hr3495. Intelligence authorization act. Chairman schiff, we are delighted to have you here. I now recognize the gentleman from california, mr. Schiff for opening remarks. Make sure your moiicrophone on. Thank you. I appreciate the opportunity to appear before you regarding h rr3495 the intelligence authorization act for fiscal years 2018, 2019 and 2020 which the House Intelligence Committee approved unanimously last month. I will make only a few points as i know members have many commitments before the evenings votes and this is not the only item on the busy agenda. As you all know, although the iaa has unclassified bill text, the bill is classified annex and authorizations neither of which can be discussed in the setting. It has made classified components ofrt legislation available for viewing in secure spaces for all members. Having said this, i wish to stress that it embodied sound policy and enables serious oversight of Intelligence Community and imp proves analysis while sustaining support to critical Counter Terrorism and proliferation efforts. It helps to adapt in an environment of rapid technological change and promote a highly qualified workforce. I do wish to point off a few specific provisions. The bill includes measures that will enhance u. S. Ability to understand and respond to influence efforts by foreign governments including those directed at democratic processes in the United States and elsewhere. It incentivises Cutting Edge Research posed by u. S. Transition to 5 g network and creates a new program which guarantees every ic employee 12 weeks of paid paternal leave. This leads me to my second point which is hr3494 is bipartisan. And though it contains many initiatives authored, it also preserves initiatives authored by democratic and republican members during Ranking Member nunezs tenure, issuatives which passed by the bill has maintained the bipartisan character over the russia investigation and related issues. Th im pleased once again we have been able to put those aside to focus on important work. The result is a strong bill reflected in the support it has garnered so far for both majority and minority members. Members of this committee may not know that the iaa is named in honor of to damon was a friend to all of us and his devotion to the committee are still missed even after eight months. His absence is felt by Ranking Member and his former colleagues on the minority staff. This bill will provide authorizations for 2020, but also 2018 and 2019 is a fitting tribute to him and to matt. Hr 3494 provides increased resourcing for foreign material acquisitions programs which is also great importance to damon. One of the important responsibilities is insuring the resources and authorities it needs to keep our nation safe and others overseeing the resources and authorities given to it. This legislation does both and i urge the committee and members to support 3494 as it moves to the floor. I yield back. Thank you very much. Thank you. Ranking member, thank you for giving us the opportunity to testify today on hr 3494. Hr 3494 honors the life of those who unexpected passed away in to18. The intelligence authorization act thunderstorm primary vehicle to establish legislative and oversight priorities of the Intelligence Community. It is a product of bipartisan work and folds in several priorities from fiscal years 2018 and 19 which were passed by the house but never enacted into law. This years intelligence authorization act amends the act which protects covered personnel at the cia from being publically disclosed and repeals many reporting requirements. On june 27, the committee reported to the house. While we welcomed the opportunity for the house to monday the bill, in the interest of National Security i hope in closing, i would like to thank the Committee Members and staff for their work and welcome any questions that the committee has. That i yield that the balance of my time. I want to thank both of you for your testimony and for the hard work that went into producing this. I think i will probably pass on asking questions because it will probably just under cut the spirit of bipartisan and good will. I will turn it. Thank you very much. I want to thank both of my former colleagues that served on this committee. I spent a lot of time on diversity and so have they. I appreciate the fact that all the language that i had last year is all included. I do have a recommendation, if it isnt already scheduled. And that is that a personnel hearing be held with reference to diversity. We did it frequently, and it produced some results. One percent among minorities and two percent among women just aint good enough. Thank you all. Thank you for your contributions. We agree. We did an open hearing about a month or so ago on that very topic. And we will continue pressing the issue. Its a very high priority for all the members. Thank you. Mr. Cole. First i want to associate myself with the chairmans remarks. I appreciate the fact that you guys worked together in what is a difficult bill. And it just speaks very well to both of you and your staff and Committee Members from being able to accomplish that. There has been a lot of controversy around the russia investigation, i do think there is a bipartisan commitment without questions to confronting with the russians about interfering in our elections. Im curious if you both are satisfied that we will have the tools and policies in place to be able to do that as we move toward the election. Im satisfied that we have done everything we can in terms of intelligence bill itself. And i dont think were prepared. There are challenges that are difficult to prepare for all together. One of those that greatly concerned me, we had a hearing on, as well, that is the use of deep fake technology. That allows you to create highly realistic video and audio content. It is now so easily accessible. You can go online. You can essentially send these outfits, the person you want to create the video about and the word you want them to speak and theyll produce it for you. It may not be as sophisticated as what a nation state can do. And if the nation states decide to do it, they can probably do it with difficult attribution and assert it into the social media system and before it can be stopped tens of millions of people can see it. That may be the new stateoftheart which it comes to election interference and as significant a threat as tampering with voting systems. There are new challenges, i think we are doing all we can in the bill to address them. A lot will depend on whether the agency is served with protecting us, prioritizing and talking among themselves which the talking among themselves to make sure they are aware of discrete information and we are doing our oversight to make sure that that takes place. I would just add to that that its not just russia. Chinas capabilities have increased. Then you have the other nonstate actors that are out there that could pose a challenge. The only thing that i would add a to what mr. Schiff said is that i also remain concerned about some of the Voting Machines in states especially if there is no paper accounting. I think there was a movement to go paperless a decade ago. I think thats potentially a problem if there are some irregularities at some point where you have no way to go back and check and verify the election. That would be all i would add to that. This is really probably not dealt with in the bill. Im curious on your opinions on this because you think deeply on these types of issues. And i have also thought there should be a sort of protocol or policy developed as we worry about this election thing where frankly i would hope im not pointing fingers at anybody over the last elections, because i think we were dealing with something new, but we now know a lot more thanks to the Mueller Report and a lot of other things. But i would hope i dont know if this was expressed in your discussions about this all the Law Enforcement authorities ought to give the campaign a heads up if they think somebody is trying to penetrate it. I mean, really, i think you deserve that kind of warning. We picked something up. We want you to be extra alert. If you notice anything, please report to us. Did you ever look into that sort of issue at all . You know, we have certainly looked into that issue and my colleague and i may have different views on this. I think part of the issue in 2016 is you had deep suspicions and i think founded suspicions involving the Campaign Chairman and how do you notify a campaign when some of those who may be under investigation are running the campaign. Its one thing if you see a foreign power trying to infiltrate your database, your system. Thats one kind of investigation problem where you do want to give a heads up. Its another when you are concerned whether people within the campaign are acting in and the question is who do you notify then. All ill say is that in the spirit of bipartisanship i dont think we want to get into that debate here because i think we want this bill to pass. Im just talking about going forward. What i would add is that i think chairman schiff and i have the same concern and that is with the Counter Intelligence division at fbis lack of timely responses now going on for several years. And one of the things we are trying to do in this bill is to ensure that we get regular briefings because those briefings have not been occurring for the chair and Ranking Member. Thats not appropriate. We are committed to getting that solved. One last question actually, representative nunez touches on this. This is the relationship between chinese telecommunication firms and the Chinese Government. Are you comfortable we have what we need in the bill in terms of policy to understand that, to begin to combat that and certainly to make sure that the world is alerted to the dangers of using Chinese Technology . Pits a great question. Beginning under chairman nunezs leadership, we began a deep dive on china and challenges. We continue that deep dive examination including hearings and oversight focussed specifically on use of technology, concerns about huawhei. We are i think we realigning resources. We have been so heavily focussed for a long time that we have perhaps not placed as much as a priority as we need to on historic rival in russia and a rise in power in china. I think across every plain, china is a worthy rival in technology, in foreign assistance and development, in military capability and space. And we did years ago a bipartisan investigation and had concerns then and those concerns have only multiplied. Probably the biggest challenge that we face in terms of our allies is the lack of more advanced competitors. And the fact that the Chinese Government can so heavily subsidize and price that product in a noncompetitive way visavis the other companies. So i think it is going to challenge us to think big about how do we compete in that kind of Global Environment where we have such a strict division between the government and industry when china can throw its weight and essentially so heavily subsidize a product that for most other countries seems like a reasonable choice. The chairman alluded to the work this committee has done for a long time back before i was chair and before mr. Schiff was chair. This committees focus really led the effort on the china problem and especially the one of the reasons that it is important to get this bill passed and for this bill to be clean so that we can get an agreement with the senate is because this is the there are some times where the ic falls behind and gets focussed on something that is wrong. There are tons of problems. This committee is always dealing with dark clouds. This committee did identify the growing china problem. And its a reason because of that, i think its our record of accomplishment which is what i would say is a reason that this bill always needs to be bipartisan. We need to be careful about any type of partisan amendments that we add to it. Ill close by saying without strong competitors in the 5 g sector, we are at a tremendous disadvantage right now. There are provisions in this bill that i think get at those challenges. Thank you. Congratulations to both of you for working so well together and bringing us a bipartisan product. Thank you. I think these guys took nice pills today. So to you two gentlemen, you have been remarkably restrained and i will not upset the apple cart, so ill pass. No questions. I have no questions, other than i wanted to add my voice of thanks to the chair and the Ranking Member. As someone who is understandably troubled by comments that come out of anywhere that seriously questions the work of our Intelligence Community particularly when they seem to have the uninimity and concerns about outside influences im pleased to see a bipartisan approach and appreciate all your hard work. Thank you. Thank you. Thanks to our witnesses. Thanks to your staff for helping those of us who arent on the committee. Its always been my experience that your staff is extremely helpful in getting through that. This may not be the place for it, but mr. Cole referenced the ability for briefing the heads of organizations or entities when there is information gather that suggests perhaps there has been a problem. We have had two classified briefings, one as a whole congress in december of 2016 and one just last week. And i was struck at how some of the same questions were asked in december of 2016 that are still being asked and not answered last week. Mr. Schiff, i understand your comments that there was concern that there was perhaps already compromise in the campaign, but there wasnt concern when the same unit that was involved in the alleged hacking of the democratic servers in april of 2016 had also been involved in the hacking of servers for the International Olympic committee in 2014 when the medical information on our athletes, our olympic athletes was obtained by russian actors in an effort to discredit the United States athletic performers. So i guess my point is this is not new information, its not new information today and wasnt new in april of 2016 and wasnt really new in november of 2014. When it rises to this level of importance, it just seems to me it is incumbent upon someone in the Intelligence Community to talk to the principles involved. In april of 2016, this was the president s party that had its server compromised. I realize we all have the Mueller Report and we can read the details there, but this was the president s party that was compromised. And it just seems to me that should have risen to a level where we are going to be sure we talk to the principles involved and people are at least aware of our concerns. Again, i appreciate in this setting you probably have a comment on that. I want you to know from the perspective of a rankandfile member this is my frustration. Mr. Coats did say he would make available to us additional briefings. I assure my request has already gone in. I hope that continues. I do think its important that every member of congress understand to the best of our ability what went on, but more so from just this was an endemic embedded problem that was happening long before april of 2016. Thank you, mr. Chairman. I appreciate our witness cant comment. I understand the restrictions on their ability. Thank you. Thank you, mr. Chairman. This question is to either one of you or both of you. In this, you are adding a climate security advisory council. I was just wondering why and why cant other agencies do it . And whats inpurpothe purpose o . Multiple military Intelligence Community leaders including the secretary of defense, chairman joint chiefs, multiple Service Secretaries and the director of National Intelligence during worldwide threats hearing have testified about the National Security impacts of climate. Its not the first thing we think of when we think about Climate Change. Mattis for example in his confirmation testimony talked about Climate Change impacting stability in areas of the world where our troops are operating. And it was important for the combattant commands to incorporate drivers of instability that impact the security environment in their planning. Similarly, general doneford talked about when he looks at Climate Change in the category of sources of conflict around the world and all sources of n conflict so they need to take into account. And the worldwide threat assessment produced by the Intelligence Community talks about climate hazards, droughts, floods, Sea Level Rise and oceans are intensifying threatening infrastructure, health and water and food safety and the impact that has on National Security. So this is a panel that would convene to look at those National Security implications and make sure we are prepared. There are places where rising sea levels are a threat to our naval presence. So this is an area within the oomic to bring that information together. I would just say this provision caused consternation but i think we worked with the majority to the point where it is a reasonable alternative. And members have a right to be heard. The majority of the members on the committee wanted to have this looked at. We agreed on the republican side we agreed to allow their concerns to move forward, but in something that doesnt become a big bureaucracy which was a big concern that we had. I think we reached a spot where i think everybody was satisfied. Thank you. Does any other member of the committee wish to ask a question . Seeing none, i would like to thank our witnesses for being here today. And please leave anything you would like inserted into the record with our stenographer. And you are now relieved. If we could continue. We welcome our next panel and are delighted you are here. Anything you brought in writing will be entered into the record. I recognize the distinguished gentleman from indiana, mr. Pence. Thank you. For allowing me to testify. You may recall that we authored this deeply personal amendment. This amendment provides a sliver of justice for the 241 American Service members killed in 1983 when an Iranian National affiliated with hezbollah drove a truck bomb into the u. S. Green barics in beirut. We can agree that terrorists must be held accountable for their actions. As i testified before the committee today, it is my hope this amendment is included in the underlying bill. When i joined the marines in 1979, i took an oath to core and country y. Made a promise of semper fi. It is not just a marine corps motto. It means never giving up on the 241 heroes who made the ultimatesultimate sacrifice. It means never giving up on the gold star families who lost their loved ones. This amendment is jermaine, bipartisan and this amendment deserves to come before the peoples house for a vote just as our colleagues in the senate have done. It stands for our obligation to recognize american heroes. Thank you. I yield back. I guess my only question is why is this coming up now decades later . Has your approach been presented to the congress before . Are you the first guy to present this . So the answer to that is im probably the first guy to present this, because i was in beirut, lebanon. I left ten days before they bombed that. So this is very personal to me and something i wanted to do even before i got here. And there are families that have approached me. I belong to an organization of the families of that had a deceased member. Thank you. I yield. Thank you for bringing this important amendment up. I appreciate you bringing it up during the debate, as well. I guess, whats unclear to me is the source of the funds that youre proposing that be used to compensate these families. I thought all of that money was given back to iran when the Iran Nuclear Deal passed in the previous administration. Are there still Funds Available . I dont know if it was given back then. A court case was won on behalf of the family. Particular count was identified that that money was moved over to europe. We know where that money is and we would like to get that money back over here. So then we can complete the litigation process. You believe you have identifiable source of funds. The money has been identified, yes, sir. Its 1. 6 billion. Thank you for bringing this up. I think it is important. Thank you. I have the same question. And that is are the funds in u. S. Hands in europe . No, maam. They are in luxenburg in a bank account. Who owns the bank account . The iranians own the bank account. We believe it should be moved back here. So does this bill how do you get the funds back . Im trying to figure out i have obviously am totally sympathetic with the marines particularly those and their families. But im trying to figure out where the the 1. 68 billion has been transferred to an iranian account, what does this bill do, then . If its in the hands of iranian snz. It certainly is a messaging bill. And we hope that the banking parties involved would respect the law that is passed as well as anything that passes in court and brings the money back. Thank you. I have no questions. Does any other member of the committee wish to ask a question . Seeing none, i would like to thank our witness for being here today. And i have already told you if you have anything to leave for the Court Reporter you may. You are dismissed. Are there any other members who wish to testify on hr3494 . Seeing none, this closes the hearing on hr3494. I would now like to call up our next panel to testify on the resolution recommending that the house find william barr and wilbur ross in contempt of congress for refusal to comply with subpoenas. Chairman cummings and Ranking Member jordan, we are delighted that you are here and anything that you brought in will be entered into the record. I now recognize the distinguished chairman from maryland. Thank you very much, mr. Chairman. To you, Ranking Member cole and to mr. Mcgovern. I want to thank you fl holding this meeting this afternoon. I support the proposed rule because this resolution to hold attorney general barr and secretary wilbur ross in contempt of congress is necessary to preserve the integrity of this body and of the United States census. The constitution mandates that we conduct a census every ten yea years, a thoughtful, fair and accurate count is critical to insuring that we properly allocate funding and congressional apportionment. For more than a year, the Trump Administration has stone walled the Oversight Committees investigation into the real reason commerce secretary wilbur ross was trying for the first time in 70 years to add a Citizenship Question to the 2020 census. Secretary ross testified under oath in front of congress that he added the Citizenship Question, quote, solely, end of quote, to help the Justice Department enforce the Voting Rights act. But we now know that claim was nothing but a pretense. The Supreme Court said that. Our committees investigation uncovered evidence that secretary ross launched a secret campaign to add the Citizenship Question within days after he assumed his post. We learned that secretary ross ignored warnings from experts inside and outside the Census Bureau including the bureaus chief scientist. They said that they told him that adding a Citizenship Question would be costly and harm the accuracy of the census. Our investigation also revealed that secretary ross spoke with attorney general sessions, steve bannon. Contrary to his testimony before the congress, the Commerce Department conjured up the Voting Rights rationale to hide these interactions. We first asked for documents from the department of commerce and department of justice when we were in the minority in april and may of 2018. Both departments ignored us. When i became chairman, i renewed these requests on behalf of the committee. And since then, the administration has engaged in a purposeful effort to obstruct our investigation. And i do not use the word obstruct lightly. The departments have refused to provide key unredacted documents that we need to understand the truth about why they really made this decision. Instead, they produced thousands of pages that were largely unresponsive, heavily redacted or publicly already available. When they let us interview witnesses, they ordered the witnesses not to answer more than 500 of our questions. Secretary ross even refused my request to meet with them to work it out. As a result, on april 2, more than three months ago, after a bipartisan vote, the committee subpoenaed the documents including a secret memo that the department of commerce wrote about the Citizenship Question and then gave to the department of justice. The departments have admitted to us that the memo exists. But they refused to produce this document and many others. Last month, the Oversight Committee passed a resolution to hold attorney general william barr and secretary wilbur ross in contempt of congress. That vote, by the way, was bipartisan. However, many of our republican colleagues apparently support the Trump Administrations refusal to comply with our duly authorized subpoenas. They claim that we were interfering with the Supreme Courts decision on this issue. That argument never made sense since we launched our investigation in 2018. More than ten months before the Supreme Court even took up the case. But even if you accept that misguided argument, the Supreme Court case is now over. So their argument is gone. The president announced last week thatlast week that he would no longer pursue adding a Citizenship Question to the census, however, in the same speech, the president admitted that he wanted to this is an chip citizenship data from these districts. It directly contradicts secretary ross this one testimony that the only and sole reason the trump illustration wanted this data was to help the Justice Department enforce the Voting Rights act. The departments of justice and commerce were engaged in a campaign to subvert our laws. And the processes that congress put in place to maintain the integrity of the census. So we need to understand how and why that happened, in order to ensure that it doesnt happen again. I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to put the resolution out to attorney general barr and the secretary in contempt of congress, i would asked the committee to expeditiously pass this legislation, with that i will yield back, missed her chairman. Monkey for your testimony, i recognize the member from ohio. Mr. Chairman, known has stonewalled, the department of justice, and commerce are cooperating, about the Citizenship Question, the ministration has produced to the committee 14,000 pages from the comers department, 70,000 from the Justice Department, secretary ross voluntarily testified for over six hours the spring. Several ministration witnesses, daylong transcribed interviews, providing information for investigation, and they expected to have another interview later this month, and all the testimony, all of it undercuts the conspiracy theories about the theory to have it on the census, we have no testimony, none to support shadowy political operatives, senior white house officials conspiring to use the census for improper purposes. The real question is simple. Why dont the democrats want to know how many citizens are in this country . In the decision a few weeks ago said this, no one disputes the idea that we should know how many inhabitants in this country are citizens, is way to figure that out, ask a question on the census, imagine that. Will ask anyone, on the street, and said you think we should ask on the census if people are citizens of this country, every person will say sure, are we doing that already . And would say yes, we have done it in one form or another for 200 years, United Nations says we should go tell other countries will do it, it will followed up, yes, the idea that they dont want to know boggles my mind, the ruling was narrow, the Supreme Court did not say asking it is wrong, but said it was appropriate for the government to elicit citizenship information, and President Trump is continuing, i applaud the president for his work to ensure that we know more about citizenship of our country more than ever before, given recent events, the contempt resolution, and the investigation frankly, has been rendered moot. Despite this, democrats are rushing this contempt resolution, contempt of congress should be wielded responsibly, this is not a responsible use of the authority, this is an attempt to delegitimize the Citizenship Question, frankly, is a said before, everyone thinks we should continue, pretty noncontroversial. Consider this, there is legislative jurisdiction over census, democrats want to remove the question, they could do just that, no hearings on that bill, they want to go with contempt instead, i would urge the committee to vote against it. A yield back. Thank you. Submitted an amendment, would you like to testify that . That is appropriate, five amendments, we offered them and committee. One amendment. I would do them real . , there are facts, the number of documents, and involuntary death voluntarily appeared, and to the one says that the secretary of commerce continued to engage with committee, witnesses later this month, the investigation is ongoing, last two are the most important, to reiterate what we said, we offer these committee, israel just fax. The Citizenship Question is asked by dozens of countries around the world, and the united kingdom, united recommend United Nations recommends a. The final amount is resolved, a Citizenship Question is not new, and appeared until 1950, and longform census from 19702000, and everyone from 2005 to the present, for some reason, to cash today we can. These are facts that were voted down, i would asked the committee to include them as amendments. Questions with reference offered by the gentleman. Im sorry tom, youre right there. Very uncharacteristically quiet, but i have to be a little louder, let me ask you, if i make a mr. Jordan, i want to get some of the facts that you raised in the record, how many pages has the Justice Department produced to date . 17,000. How many pages or documents does the Commerce Department done . 14,000. Has the Justice Department made people available . Mr. Gore and others, we have another one scheduled for later this month. Has the Commerce Department made any officials available . Because yes. Quite a bit of information has been forthcoming. Puzzles me, the negotiations going on right now between the toes promised her chairman you would know, ongoing negotiations now between commerce and the committee . And they are referring to amendment 4, and amendment 4, talks about the idea of commerce [ indiscernible low audio ] this amendment, the department of commerce has produced thousands of documents, that are redacted, already, not responded, but it has refused to produce any of the unredacted key documents identified in the subpoenas, which means that roscoes answers about the Citizenship Question, rosss. We have already lost a year of getting the census up and going, through this process, and we have not been able to get the document, they know what we need. We have narrowed it, they do a they usually do, with his mistress, they send a whole bunch of documents that are not the documents that we want, they know what we want, they know they exist. And by the way, is the Ranking Member just said, the Oversight Committee debated this, a similar amendment on june 12, and we rejected it on a bipartisan vote. s second, amendment number 5, the clause in the, they have been cooperative with the investigation, submitting 17,000 documents, this again is misleading. The Dark Department of justice has produced thousands of documents, they are redacted, already public or nonresponsive. But doj has refused to produce any of the unredacted e documents identified in the subpoena. For example, they have failed to produce a secret memo, and handwritten note that were hand delivered from commerce to doj. The Oversight Committee already debated a similar amendment on june 12, and rejected it on a bipartisan vote. Before you proceed, i offer the courtesy to mr. Jordan on his amendment, and i spoke to lets question him with reference to his amendment. And then go back to questioning our distinguished witnesses with reference to their testimony. Im sorry if i missed that. One second, what are we doing right now mr. Chairman . Are we doing all them together . All five of them. I would just add, the secretary himself testified under oath for six hours. Thats the best way to get information, talk to the secretary, who was there for over six hours answering every single members question. With all due respect, if i might, the secretary came screaming and hollering, he did not want to come, and when he came, im not knocking this, but it happened, he took about four bathroom breaks, each one of them was 30 or 40 minutes, 25 minutes, 30 minutes, take that time off of there, i want to be clear. Im not knocking them, when we get older. [ laughter ] i mold myself. [ laughter ] i understand that more than i care to. [ laughter ] i refer to my age, not yours, mr. Chairman. Mr. Jordan, did the president assert executive privilege over documents pursuant to the of subpoena, has that been the basis for a contempt resolution . Did the federal judge who pulled the . The april 2 subpoena, they exerted executive privilege, they are entitled to do, i dont know what more they can do, the documents they are allowed to give, they give, the testify for over six hours, we can get those, they exert privilege, they had carried out business, thats the way its supposed to be, maybe not focus on citizenship, have we had any hearings on the actual census process, zero . So instead of this singular focus on asking a question that everyone thinks in the country things we should ask and we have been, be we should figure out how the census is going to work, and asked the question. Getting it into the record, how many times has the Citizenship Question been listed from 1822 1950 . Weaker every time. How many times it was listed on the long form from 1970 2000. Every time. And the American Community survey from 2005 to the present . Every time. And the United Nations, you might have made this point, the best practice. You dont always like what they recommended, it makes sense to do it. Clearly, i would assume so, your view, you think this is a test premature, since there are ongoing negotiations to be bringing this before congress, this will put us in a legal situation as an institution. Good point. I dont go to those things in the sun absolutely sure im going to win, it weekends weakens the power of the institution. They are very respectful of the division of power between the institutions, they are never slamdunk, they usually will asked over and over again, have you really worked as hard as you can to work this out, as well. That was well said, youre exactly right, this is premature at best, even the Supreme Court in their decision started on a technical reason, they understand it should be asked, i would argue, everyone agrees we should us the question except for democrats in congress. Common sense. May i just answer that. With all due respect, you dont need to write at this point. I want to make sure the truth comes out here. I heard that. Mr. Borrelia . To be clear, none of these with ashley at the Citizenship Question to the form, thats not what you are intending to do . Bigger we can do that, only the Commerce Department and the administration can do it, these are statements in the resolution that we offered in the committee that we think makes the resolution there just fax, the truth, that we want if its going to go forward. It doesnt include the conversation about the redacted nature of the documentation which has been submitted, nor the fact that since 1950, this ashley has not been a question on the census, is that right mr. Chairman . This amendment is highly misleading, asked on the short form of the senses, the one that goes to everyone in the United States, it has not been asked for 70 years. That is to my point, the short form for every american has not included for dashes for 70 years. That is not reflected in the amendments, i note. I dont see it. Thank you. It is reflected in the amendments, on the senses, 1820 1950, and other types that have been done, long form in the american survey, it has been on those forms since that time, we spell it out. Thank you mr. Chairman, i find myself agreeing with mr. Jordan, i was not confused, from 18201950, whether or not it appeared 1960 her 1980, he did mention it, it led me to believe it was included, the next best thing, the long form, then the American Community survey. I understand that the two of you know this issue will, i believe i can go back home to georgia and ask every man and woman on the street about what is going on here in congress today, they would say is about whether not we can include a senses question, talking about citizenship, maybe that is just unheard of, and we shouldnt be involved in that, that is what congress is working on. The value i find in the jordan amendments is that it clarifies what is absolutely confusing to so many of my constituents about the process theyre going through. We just dont to the resolutions that often, for folks to have thought the court settled this already, and for congress to be working on it, it is confusing. We can what is offered in the amendments, we could add the language, amendment number 4, the secretary of commerce has produced over 14,000 documents responsive to the april 2, 2019 subpoena, including on june 3, some documents were redacted, and if the chairmans point if the amendments are misleading, in the public domain, out is that it seems we could improve these, if it is done to address exactly this issue. Members will not know that the question was on the short form through 19 50, the longform after that, the Community Survey after that, what is the harm comes to chairman, in including these, if there is an opportunity to mislead folks, we can correct that. Once again, mr. Jordan has testified regarding the amendment, we are questioning mr. Jordan with reference to his amendment. And not the chairman, having an opportunity to asked that same question at some point. I feel little funny doing it, out of deference and the Great Respect i have, but i will asked mr. Jordan, these seem like reasonable limits, why doesnt the chairman support these amendments, as well. The gentleman raises a good point, everything is fact, why not include more facts in the resolution thats going to be voted by the peoples house, at some point this week, if i understand this committees going to do would they think hes going to do. For me, it is so confusing, if the administration is refusing to give Congress Something that congress is legally entitled to, i want to fix that, too, i dont want any administration to Tell Congress know, when congress is asked test test with doing that oversight. But candidly, until i find myself with the benefit of all the work that you will have been doing, i didnt understand the full breadth and depth of this, and see the value there. Did you offer these amendments . Every single one. They were rejected . They were. In a bipartisan bipartisan support, but you couldnt get enough . Weaker party lines. We are test text tasked with different issues. I just want to make sure when we have bipartisanship, we noted. I will yield back. Thank you. Dr. Burgess . I will admit to be a little unclear, talking on the amendments . The amendments. When are we going to talk on the underlying data when they finish with the questioning with reference to the amendment. I will reserve my questions until we talk about the underlying bill. Thank you mr. Chair, i support mr. Jordans amendments, i hope they are ruled in older. And you came a little late, and the process of questioning, of mr. Jordan with reference to his amendments, i dont know whether you heard them at all, i assume you dont have any questions with reference to his amendment. No. All right, with that mind, then we will now go to the questioning of both of our witnesses, starting with the chairman, and here again, mr. Torres, i have no questions. We have no questions. So we can go to more questions. The dialogue, it answered the questions i had, i appreciate that and i yield back. Thank you mr. Chairman, i appreciate what he said, he and the dialogue mr. Jordan had about going to court to soon and undermining the institution, in a bipartisan way weve done to me thing to undermine the power of article 1, generally to the advantage of article 2, i dont have the benefit of doing the study that you two gentlemen have done on this issue. I have not asked the chairman, but i will stipulate on the chairmans behalf, this is not a political exercise, but it is a serious attempt to expand and enforce the rule that article one has under the United States constitution. My question to you, mr. Jordan, i believe that you also share that desire to ensure that article one is not eroded, and article 2 does not benefit to the detriment of article 1, these papers that the chairman has talked about, the redacted documents, and emails he wished had been produced, are there documents out there that your conclusion is that the administration has wrongfully withheld from the United States congress, and thus you want to continue negotiations to produce those, you just think a lawsuit is not the right way to do it . We want to get as many documents that we can, and do the work that the committee is required to do, and executive privileges executive privilege, and this is important for the committee to understand, in congress, and American People, some of this, a member of the committee that said we are doing this to impact the court, we are not supposed to do that either, there is a balance here, every bit of information we get, i know what it was like dealing with the previous demonstration, stuff we want to get to investigations, on the select committee and oversight, you have to do it in a way which is consistent with the Judiciary Branch and executive privilege, and secretary ross set over six hours in the committee and answered there but is questions, he was under oath, i think we should keep doing the investigation, and we should focus on is the census going to work right, we now know its not going to be on there, lets move forward, lets do what we need to do, but instead we are Holding People getting in contempt, it is at a minimum premature. When we held attorney general holder in contempt, i dont recall any beneficial outcome of that after the vote on the floor of the house. What is the outcome here . This is a different process . I dont know what the outcome will be, i wish i did, you said something that is so profound, which i agree with, you said when we are not getting the information that we are supposed to get, im not trying to put words in your mouth, i agree with you, i want to make sure we are clear, we ought to get those documents. And when you take away the power of the congress of the United States, we need to hold this administration, our duty, we are sworn to do, to check and balance, and if we cant test check and balance, if we can get documents, if the people that come before us wont answer questions, how can we hold any person accountable . I dont think anyone would allow this in our office, when you cant have any accountability. And let me say this, i think the thing that really bothers me about this, we are not johnny come lately to this, we started over a year ago try to get these documents, and we have been roper doped, they have done everything in their power not to give us what we need. Rope a doped, we narrowed it, we know what we need, they know what we need, as well. I know the American People are impatient on a number of fronts, we started this process over year ago, in capitol hill terms, Congress Versus the administration terms, is that a long time . My recognition recollection, fast and furious, it was much longer. Im a different kind of chairman. Life insured. We waited too long to hold the Obama Administration in contempt. Me tell you something, i worked with the majority then, and did everything in my power to work with the Obama Administration, i signed 700 letters with the majority, investigating the obama ministration. I dont get that kind of cooperation here. Im saying to you is that we need to put a mirror up to ourselves and make sure that we dont give away our power to the president , im not knocking the president , i just want to make sure that we are in a position to get what we need to do what we are sworn to do. Do you share any of the concerns that mr. Jordan talked about, if we move to contempt prematurely, we actually disadvantage article one relative to article 2 . No. Because i may be dead by the time we get around to this, we have to get this done, we have to deal with this. We can have a president just ropeadope all of us, im not just speaking of the democrats, im talking about the congress, the people to come after me, i want them to have the same power that i have, and that you have. Of course. When i expressed my concerns, im not speaking on behalf of republicans. I dont think anything otherwise, im just telling you where im coming from. The attorney general of United States, turned over 14,000, Commerce Department over 17,000, attorney general has been attorney general for 4 1 2 months, what is his reward for doing things the way you are supposed to, hold him in contempt. We know what this is about, we should be focused on the senses work awry, instead of focusing on the question, Everybody Knows should be asked, except for the democrats in the congress. This is so common sense why we would ask this question, but we are not going to, the easiest way to get the information is on the senses. Thats not going to happen, we will do it another way, lets figure out how to work the senses, instead of people in contempt that have been trying to work with this. Unredacted. The problem is we are not getting the documents that we want that is the problem. And looking Something Like this, we get documents all the time, it is just a black page, literally, lots of them. And observation, mr. Jordan has stated, when i talked people two people back home about this, they said you are not already doing that, why wouldnt we want the data, why would we want to know, the purpose of the census is so that there is allocation of resources, and of votes, why wouldnt we want to know . Why wouldnt we purposely construct dutch why would we purposely constructed construct it that way, we are better than that, we can solve the problem, i yield back. The problem here is credibility, in my district, people see the census question in the context of the rhetoric of the administration. And therefore they connect it with all of that. I do have a question, i dont understand, you said this as a social scientist, what is the reaction reduction, what would you redact when you are dealing with census data . I dont understand it and providing information to the congress that you all have requested. Reductions are not into actual census data, they are in relation to conversations between people in the administration, privilege has been asserted, that is were the reduction issue comes in, specific emails that they have requested, i point to the simple fact, we had the top guy, the commerce secretary, under oath, answering questions for six hours, and somehow that wasnt good enough. May i . We are trying to get to the truth. Lets not kid ourselves, the court has found, and i usually dont use the word lie, i try to stay away from it, the courts have said, they used pretext, they said that there were lies in coming up with the census rationale. I didnt say that, the court said it. Even the Supreme Court said it. So you know, and we want to get to the bottom of this, it comes under my committee, and it says that we are supposed to produce an accurate census. Congresswoman, there are people in the department of justice and in the Commerce Department, who said that if you put the Citizenship Question on there, youre not going to have an accurate census. And he knows that. They know it. And so all we are trying to do is what the constitution says, period. Ms. Lesko . Thank you mr. Chair, im going to say what i usually say in judiciary committee, i wish we would get to working on big issues that the people care about, in our country in a bipartisan fashion, like reforming the immigration laws, so we can help stop the crisis at the border, improving healthcare and information, and we are doing another contempt of congress, which we repeatedly are doing in judiciary, and all kinds of committees, i tell you what, people in arizona in my district, this is not what they want, i think it is going to backfire on the majority. May i respond . Every two years, as we know, we put up our hands to uphold the constitution of the United States of america, i know some people may be disappointed in some of the things that we do, i spend every hour and moment that im here trying to do what im sworn to do. For the 700,000 people who sent me here. And one of the things that i do want to do, too, for future generations and for us, is preserve the power of this congress, because it is so very important, to us, maintaining this thing we call democracy. This precious thing. Any other member have a question . Seeing undead just a . Motion, and quick motion. I would like to think our witnesses for being here, anything that you would like to assert on the record with our stenographer, youre dismissed, that concludes the hearing portion of this bill. We are going to consider hr 582, the raise the wage act, we have truman scott, and Ranking Member fox, we are delighted that youre here, and the House Rules Committee is moving to other business, you can watch this hearing again tonight, they are expected to take up this resolution tomorrow. Cspans washington journal live every day, with news and policy issues that impact you, tuesday morning, a new cspan poll that shows monitoring earths environment tops the interest for the space program, National Security and scientific experiments, and it showed little interest amongst americans and exploring the solar system, going to mars are traveling to the moon, members of the science, space and Technology Committee will talk about u. S. Space policy, and the 50th anniversary of the apollo moon landing, including the democratic congressman, frank lucas, Florida Republican congressman michael waltz, kt hill from california, brian babb and, and bernice johnson. Watch washington journal live at 7 pm eastern tuesday morning, join the discussion. Former special Counsel Robert Mueller is on capitol hill next week testifying in back to back earrings about possible obstruction of justice and abuse of power by President Trump and russian interference in the 2016 president ial election, live all day coverage on wednesday, july 24, 8 30 am eastern, watch live on cspan3, on cspan. Org or the cspan radio app. Drug earlier today, attorney general william barr delivered opening remarks at the Justice Departments antisemitism summit, what they are doing to combat antisemitism. [ applause ] good morning, inc. You for joining us at this