[Congressional Record Volume 165, Number 120 (Wednesday, July 17, 2019)]
[House]
[Pages H5941-H5949]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




 RECOMMENDING THAT THE HOUSE FIND WILLIAM P. BARR AND WILBUR L. ROSS, 
                      JR., IN CONTEMPT OF CONGRESS

  Mr. CUMMINGS. Madam Speaker, by direction of the Committee on 
Oversight and Reform, I call up the report (H. Rept. 116-125) to 
accompany the resolution recommending that the

[[Page H5942]]

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 Clerk read the title of the report.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Ms. DeGette). Pursuant to House Resolution 
491, the report is considered read.
  (For text of the report, see proceedings of the House in Books II and 
III of July 17, 2019.)
  Mr. CUMMINGS. Madam Speaker, by direction of the Committee on 
Oversight and Reform, I call up the resolution (H. Res. 497) 
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, 
and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the title of the resolution.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 491, the 
resolution is considered read.
  The text of the resolution is as follows:

                          House Resolution 497

       Resolved, That William P. Barr, Attorney General of the 
     United States, and Wilbur L. Ross, Jr., Secretary of 
     Commerce, shall be found to be in contempt of Congress for 
     failing to comply with subpoenas authorized by the Committee 
     on Oversight and Reform and duly issued by Chairman Elijah E. 
     Cummings relating to the 2020
       Resolved, That the Attorney General I(i) Census, failed to 
     comply with a Committee subpoena issued on April 2, 2019, to 
     produce documents, and (ii) ordered a Department of Justice 
     employee, John Gore, not to comply with a Committee subpoena 
     requiring him to appear for deposition testimony before the 
     Committee on April 11, 2019.
       Resolved, That the Secretary of Commerce failed to comply 
     with a Committee subpoena issued on April 2, 2019, to produce 
     documents.
       Resolved, That the Report of the Committee on Oversight and 
     Reform details the refusal of the Attorney General to produce 
     documents to the Committee as required by subpoena, the order 
     from the Attorney General directing John Gore to defy a duly 
     authorized Committee subpoena for deposition testimony, and 
     the refusal of the Secretary of Commerce to produce documents 
     to the Committee as required by subpoena.
       Resolved, That pursuant to 2 U.S.C. 192 and 194, the 
     Speaker of the House of Representatives shall certify the 
     Report of the Committee on Oversight and Reform, detailing 
     the refusal of William P. Barr, Attorney General of the 
     United States, to produce documents to the Committee on 
     Oversight and Reform as directed by subpoena, to the United 
     States Attorney for the District of Columbia, to the end that 
     Mr. Barr be proceeded against in the manner and form provided 
     by law.
       Resolved, That pursuant to 2 U.S.C. 192 and 194, the 
     Speaker of the House of Representatives shall certify the 
     Report of the Committee on Oversight and Reform, detailing 
     the refusal of Wilbur L. Ross, Jr., Secretary of Commerce, to 
     produce documents to the Committee as directed by subpoena, 
     to the United States Attorney for the District of Columbia, 
     to the end that Mr. Ross be proceeded against in the manner 
     and form provided by law.
       Resolved, That the Speaker of the House shall otherwise 
     take all appropriate action to enforce the subpoenas.
       Resolved, That the Chairman of the Committee on Oversight 
     and Reform shall take all necessary steps to enforce the 
     above-referenced subpoenas, including, but not limited to, 
     seeking authorization from the House of Representatives 
     through a vote of the Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group 
     pursuant to clause 8(b) of rule II, and H. Res. 430, to 
     initiate or to intervene in proceedings in any federal court 
     of competent jurisdiction, to seek judgements affirming the 
     duty of the subpoena recipients to comply with the above-
     referenced subpoenas, and to seek any appropriate ancillary 
     relief, including injunctive relief.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The resolution shall be debatable for 1 
hour, equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority 
member of the Committee on Oversight and Reform.
  The gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cummings) and the gentleman from 
Kentucky (Mr. Comer) each will control 30 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Maryland.


                             General Leave

  Mr. CUMMINGS. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members 
may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their 
remarks and to insert extraneous material.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Maryland?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. CUMMINGS. Madam Speaker, I yield myself 5 minutes.
  Madam Speaker, I support this bipartisan resolution to hold Attorney 
General William Barr and Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross in contempt of 
Congress because it is necessary to preserve the integrity of this body 
and of the Census.
  The Constitution mandates that we conduct a Census every 10 years, 
and that the Census count every person. A full, fair, and accurate 
account is critical to ensuring that we properly allocate Federal 
funding and congressional apportionment.
  I do not take this decision lightly. Holding any Cabinet Secretary in 
criminal contempt of Congress is a serious and somber matter, one that 
I have done everything in my power to avoid. But in the case of the 
Attorney General and the Secretary, Secretary Ross, they blatantly 
obstructed our ability to do congressional oversight into the real 
reason Secretary Ross was trying, for the first time in 70 years--in 70 
years--to add a citizen question to the 2020 Census.
  Secretary Ross testified under oath that he added a citizenship 
question solely--I want you to concentrate on that word, ``solely''--to 
help the Justice Department enforce the Voting Rights Act. But we now 
know that claim was nothing but a pretext.
  And do not take my word for that, Madam Speaker. The Supreme Court 
said that.
  Our committee's investigation uncovered evidence that Secretary Ross 
launched a secret campaign to add the citizenship question within days 
of assuming his post.
  We learned that Secretary Ross ignored warnings from experts inside 
and outside the Census Bureau, including the Bureau's chief scientist, 
that adding a citizenship question will be costly and harm the accuracy 
of the Census.
  In other words, they were saying: If you do this, you are not going 
to have an accurate Census.
  Our investigation also revealed that Secretary Ross spoke with 
Attorney General Sessions, Steve Bannon, and Kris Kobach. Contrary to 
his testimony to Congress, the Commerce Department conjured up the 
voting rights rationale to hide these interactions.
  This entire Congress should be insulted by this.
  Committee Democrats first asked for documents from the Department of 
Commerce and the 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. Since then, the administration has engaged in a purposeful 
effort to obstruct--and I do not use that word lightly--our 
investigation. The Departments have refused to provide key unredacted 
documents that we need to understand the truth, the whole truth, and 
nothing but the truth, about why they really made this decision.
  Instead, what did they do? They produced thousands of pages that were 
largely nonresponsive, heavily redacted, or publicly already available.

                              {time}  1415

  When they let us interview witnesses, what did they do? They ordered 
the witnesses not to answer more than 500 of our questions. Secretary 
Ross even refused my request to meet to try to work this out.
  Like I said, I do not come to this floor lightly. This is not an easy 
decision. But there comes a time when the Congress must be for the 
Congress.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. CUMMINGS. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  As a result, on April 2, more than 3 months ago, after a bipartisan 
vote, the committee subpoenaed these key documents, including a secret 
memo that the Department of Commerce wrote about the citizenship 
question and gave to the Department of Justice.
  The Departments have admitted to us that this memo does exist, but 
they refuse to produce this document and many others.
  I must say, to give credit where credit is due, that my good friend 
and colleague on the other side, Mr. Meadows,

[[Page H5943]]

worked tirelessly to try to help us get the things that we needed. I 
appreciate that, trying to work in a bipartisan way.
  Going on from there, last month, in light of this obstruction, the 
Committee on Oversight and Reform passed a resolution to hold Attorney 
General Barr and Secretary Ross in contempt of Congress. The vote was 
also bipartisan. However, many of our Republican colleagues apparently 
support the Trump administration's refusal to comply with duly 
authorized congressional subpoenas.
  Let me say to my colleagues that we need to be clear that we, as a 
body, have a constitutional duty to be a check on the executive branch. 
That is our job. Every 2 years, we swear to uphold the Constitution of 
the United States of America. That is what we are supposed to do.
  Some of my colleagues claim that we were interfering with the Supreme 
Court's decision on this issue. That argument never did make any sense 
to me since we launched our investigation in 2018, more than 10 months 
before the Supreme Court took up the case.
  Even if you accept that misguided argument, the Supreme Court case is 
now over. That argument is gone.
  The President announced last week that he would no longer pursue 
adding a citizenship question to the Census. However, in that same 
speech, the President admitted that he wanted citizenship data to 
implement partisan gerrymandering.
  The President's statements directly contradict Secretary Ross' sworn 
testimony that the only reason, the sole reason, the Trump 
administration wanted this data was to help the Justice Department 
enforce the Voting Rights Act.
  The Departments of Justice and Commerce have been engaged in a 
campaign to subvert our laws and the process Congress put in place to 
maintain the integrity of the Census.
  I would say to all of our Members: Let's be very careful about what 
we do with regard to the Census. It has a tremendous impact for 10 
years on how more than $660 billion in Federal funds are appropriated, 
over and over again--apportionment, redistricting, and making sure that 
every American gets their fair share back of their taxpayer dollars; 
that is, the money of the hardworking people who raised the money for 
our taxes.
  The resolution before us today is about protecting our democracy. It 
is about protecting the integrity of this body. It is bigger than the 
Census. It is about protecting the integrity of the Congress of the 
United States of America.
  We need to understand how and why the Trump administration tried to 
add a question based on a pretext so that we can consider reforms to 
ensure that this never happens again.
  There are those who will ask the question: Why, with the Supreme 
Court having decided what they have decided, do you want the documents? 
We want the documents because we want to make sure that we do not, in 
the future, spend a year or a year and a half chasing something that is 
not accurate--in the words of the Supreme Court, a pretext--delaying 
our process of getting an accurate account, which is exactly what the 
Constitution says we must do.
  I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support our 
resolution to hold Attorney General Barr and Secretary Ross in contempt 
of the Congress of the United States of America.
  Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. COMER. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume, 
and I rise in opposition.
  Madam Speaker, we are here today debating a premature and ill-advised 
resolution to hold Attorney General William Barr and Secretary of 
Commerce Wilbur Ross in contempt of Congress.
  In the eyes of the Democratic majority, their crime is not 
cooperating enough with the Democrats' investigation into the 
reinstatement of the citizenship question on the 2020 Census.
  First, this contempt citation is a misuse of one of the most powerful 
tools available to this body.
  Second, the idea that the Trump administration is stonewalling this 
investigation or even, in Chairman Cummings' words, engaged in a 
coverup from the top, is simply wrong.
  The bottom line is, the Department of Justice and the Department of 
Commerce are cooperating with the committee's investigation into the 
reinstitution of the citizenship question on the 2020 Census. The 
administration has produced a total of 31,000 pages of documents to the 
committee, 14,000 pages from the Commerce Department and 17,000 pages 
from the Justice Department.
  The committee had heard testimony from six witnesses, with more 
interviews expected this month. Secretary Ross himself testified for 
over 6 hours about his decision to reinstate the citizenship question 
on the Census.
  The real issue we should be debating is why the Democrats are afraid 
to ask how many citizens are in the United States of America.

  Let's remember, just 1 month ago, the Supreme Court ruled that asking 
a citizenship question on the Census is constitutional. Since the 
Supreme Court ruling, the President has said a citizenship question 
will not appear on the 2020 Census.
  To put away all doubt about asking a citizenship question on the 
Census and all future Censuses, I introduced a bill last night to add a 
citizenship question to the 2020 Census. My bill is intended to put 
away all doubt about asking a citizenship question on this and future 
Censuses.
  If the Democrats can't impeach President Trump, they will, instead, 
hold his Cabinet in contempt of Congress. This is just another episode 
in political theater. This exercise is not a responsible use of the 
contempt authority.
  This is just another attempt for the Democrats to delegitimize the 
efforts to accurately count the number of United States citizens in the 
United States, something that should not be controversial. This is all 
part of the same game plan to manufacture controversy around anything 
associated with the Trump administration.
  These are the sort of abusive tactics that we should reject. These 
are the sort of tactics that give Congress a bad reputation. We should 
be better than this.
  Madam Speaker, I urge all Members of the House to vote against moving 
this partisan contempt legislation, and I reserve the balance of my 
time.
  Mr. CUMMINGS. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Let me be very clear: This is not theater. I wish it was theater. It 
is not theater.
  This is about us making sure that we protect the integrity of the 
Census and of this Congress.
  Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman 
from Michigan (Mrs. Lawrence).
  Mrs. LAWRENCE. Madam Speaker, I rise today in strong support of this 
resolution to hold Attorney General Barr and Commerce Secretary Ross in 
contempt of Congress.
  Madam Speaker, we have reached a point that we, as Congress, must 
have the courage--and we have a duty to our constituents of these 
United States of America--to uphold the Constitution.
  Congress has an obligation to conduct oversight of the executive 
branch, yet this administration complains each time we request 
information critical to fulfilling our investigative responsibilities.
  Today, the full House will vote to hold Attorney General Barr and 
Secretary Ross in criminal contempt of Congress for their complete 
disregard of the Constitution--not of Democrats, of the Constitution--
and their refusal to provide our committee with relevant documents 
relative to the investigation of our 2020 Census.
  It is 100 percent within our congressional responsibility to ensure 
the Federal Government is ultimately working in the best interests of 
the people it serves.
  I urge my colleagues to support this resolution, to stand up and 
fulfill their duty and responsibility to the Constitution, which says 
we must take care of the people of this great country and that Congress 
will maintain its power as a separate but equal branch of government.
  Madam Speaker, I thank the chairman for his leadership.
  Mr. COMER. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania (Mr. Keller).

[[Page H5944]]

  

  Mr. KELLER. Madam Speaker, every Member of Congress was elected to 
work on issues that will positively impact their districts.
  As we stand here today, our Nation is dealing with a crisis at our 
southern border; our seniors are struggling with rising prescription 
drug prices; our farmers are waiting for a free and fair trade deal 
with Mexico and Canada; and our veterans deserve the care they have 
earned.
  Yet, today, House Democrats are, once again, putting off these 
important issues and continuing with their partisan investigations of 
President Trump and his administration.
  Madam Speaker, this administration has produced 31,000 pages of 
documents related to the Census. This administration has made five 
senior officials available for interview. All this is due to a 
disagreement over a citizenship question on the Census.
  Madam Speaker, a citizenship question is not new, nor should it be 
controversial. Every Census conducted by the United States Government 
from 1820 to 1950 asked about citizenship.
  Other countries ask about citizenship. The United Nations recommends 
it as a best practice. The Census Bureau today already asks a segment 
of the population about citizenship.
  Let's set these facts aside. Given that President Trump is no longer 
seeking to add a citizenship question to the 2020 Census, voting on a 
resolution to hold two Cabinet members in contempt of Congress is 
simply a Democratic tactic to waste this Chamber's time and avoid 
working on the serious issues facing our Nation.
  Madam Speaker, I urge Members to vote against the resolution so the 
House can stop this partisan nonsense and focus on meaningful policy.
  Mr. CUMMINGS. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman 
from New York (Mrs. Carolyn B. Maloney), a member of our committee.
  Mrs. CAROLYN B. MALONEY of New York. Madam Speaker, I thank the 
gentleman for yielding and for his great leadership.
  Madam Speaker, today, we vote to defend the interests of the American 
people, our system of checks and balances, and our very Constitution 
with this resolution to hold Secretary Ross and Attorney General Barr 
in criminal contempt.
  For well over a year, Trump administration officials have lied 
through their teeth about the reason for adding a citizenship question 
to the 2020 Census.

                              {time}  1430

  They have repeatedly lied to Congress, the Supreme Court, and the 
American people.
  In an effort to cover up their lies, they blocked every demand from 
our committee, every demand to comply with reasonable oversight, 
withholding documents, asserting illegitimate executive privilege, and 
blatantly ignoring bipartisan subpoenas, all to a degree that would 
literally break the Constitution if allowed to stand.
  New evidence in court, which I shared on this floor, revealed that 
the real reason for the question was to disenfranchise non-White 
voters. The Supreme Court ruled that the administration's explanation 
was contrived.
  A functional democracy depends on accountability. Accountability 
requires real oversight.
  The passage of this criminal contempt resolution is necessary to 
preserve the integrity of all congressional oversight on this and so 
many other issues now and into the future. This contempt resolution, in 
fact, allows both Democrats and Republicans to do their job.
  Never, ever during my time in Congress have I encountered such 
complete contempt for the law, and that contempt deserves to be 
punished.
  Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote for this. Our democracy 
depends on it.
  Mr. COMER. Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Meadows), one of the great leaders 
of this body.
  Mr. MEADOWS. Madam Speaker, let me give you a quote: ``Holding 
someone in contempt of Congress is one of the most serious and formal 
actions our committee can take, and it should not be used as a 
political tool to generate press as part of an election-year witch 
hunt.''
  Who is responsible for that quote? It is not Ranking Member   Jim 
Jordan. It is not Leader McCarthy. It is not Conference Chair Liz 
Cheney. It is Chairman Elijah Cummings. Those are his words.
  What we need to do is understand that we are using this as a 
political tool, and we are better than that. We are better than that.
  I am going to quote from another letter from Chairman Cummings. At 
that time, he was not the chairman. Chairman Cummings wrote a letter to 
Speaker Boehner. He said, ``A fundamental problem with conducting such 
a partisan investigation is that the results are not even-handed but 
instead are skewed, incomplete, and inaccurate.''
  Chairman Cummings went on further. He said: ``These deficiencies are 
magnified when we rush from a committee vote to a floor vote at 
breakneck speed, with little concern for the facts or the law.''
  What was he referring to? He was referring to a contempt vote on Eric 
Holder.
  Here we are today, in the same venue. I am using the chairman's 
words, so I am going to make an appeal to the chairman, with the hope 
that my good friend opposite will heed these words because, in that 
same letter, he made a direct appeal to the Speaker of the House at 
that particular time. He said that he hoped that the chairman would 
accept that the Attorney General is willing to come in to meet 
personally and enter into direct negotiations in good faith to try to 
resolve the matter.
  I am hoping that the gentleman opposite will withdraw his contempt 
resolution, not force a vote on this, but enter into a direct 
negotiation with the Attorney General of this great country and, 
hopefully, resolve this without taking this particular action.
  Madam Speaker, I think it is critically important that we understand 
why we are here today. It is because we are using two standards, one 
standard for the minority party at one time and one standard for a 
majority party at another time. Let's use the same standard and make 
sure that we give the Attorney General the ability to negotiate 
directly with the gentleman opposite.
  Madam Speaker, I certainly hope that cooler heads will prevail and 
that we get to the bottom of this. It is about allowing Congress to do 
its job but do it with respect.
  Mr. CUMMINGS. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Let me be clear. First of all, I thank the gentleman for quoting me 
so much. I am tremendously honored. I think the quotes that he used 
just reiterate what I said when I began about how seriously I take this 
matter. I wouldn't be here if I did not consider this to be very 
serious.
  The other thing I would say is that we have made tremendous efforts, 
and the gentleman knows it because he has helped, working with me to 
try to get the documents and the things that we need. We have not been 
able to get them.
  Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California 
(Mr. Gomez).
  Mr. GOMEZ. Madam Speaker, the Census can be used to either 
marginalize or to empower communities. This President decided on the 
path of marginalization.
  They did that by coming up with an idea to silence the voices of 
immigrant communities throughout the country by adding a citizenship 
question that they deemed necessary to enforce the Voting Rights Act.
  For 53 years, no Department of Justice had a problem enforcing the 
Voting Rights Act without Census block data on citizenship. All of a 
sudden, 2017 comes around, and you know what? We have a problem.
  This is the excuse that they had. This is the reason they had to add 
this question to the Census. It is just completely false, even to the 
extent that we saw that they said that the Department of Justice was 
the one that asked for it.
  Then, we find out later that they had to shop around to the 
Department of Homeland Security and other Departments in order to get 
somebody to try to ask the Census Bureau to add the question. Then, 
they went back to Jeff Sessions, who carried out their request.

[[Page H5945]]

  We are investigating because everything that they have said, the 
Department of Commerce and Wilbur Ross, has been a complete lie.
  If you don't believe me, the recent Supreme Court decision said, 
``Unlike a typical case in which an agency may have both stated and 
unstated reasons for a decision . . . the sole stated reason seems to 
have been contrived.''

  What does ``contrived'' mean? It means forced, artificial, 
manufactured, false. False, that is what it is. It is a contrived 
reason.
  The American people have a right to know the real reasons, not the 
contrived reasons, not the ones that were manufactured, not the ones 
that were made up. That is why we are asking for these documents. That 
is why, when Congress cannot perform its obligations for oversight and 
as a check on the executive branch, then we must hold these individuals 
in contempt.
  I ask my colleagues to do the same thing.


                Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair will remind Members to use the 
proper designation for the presiding officer.
  Mr. COMER. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished 
gentlewoman from West Virginia (Mrs. Miller).
  Mrs. MILLER. Madam Speaker, I rise today to oppose the resolution 
before us.
  Knowing who is in our country should not be controversial. Let me 
repeat that: Knowing who is in our country should not be controversial.
  Although my colleagues across the aisle have blurred fact and fiction 
on this issue, the truth is, asking a citizenship question is standard 
operating procedure. It is currently asked on censuses throughout the 
world, in Australia, Canada, Germany, Ireland, Mexico, the U.K., and 
many others. The United Nations even recommends asking the citizenship 
question as a census best practice so countries can gather accurate 
information about their citizens.
  It is not a new idea in the U.S. either. We first asked the 
citizenship question on the Census in 1820 and continued the practice 
for the next 130 years. It is still asked every year on the American 
Community Survey. The information collected is protected by Federal 
law, and our Justice Department uses the information to enforce the 
Voting Rights Act.
  We still ask the citizenship question on I-9 employment eligibility 
forms.
  Right here in the District of Columbia, a citizenship question is 
asked on driver's license applications. They do the same in Wisconsin.
  In California, anyone who applies for a firearm license has to answer 
a citizenship question. In Ohio, concealed-carry applicants must verify 
if they are citizens or not.
  These States believe it is fine to ask this question to obtain a 
firearm or driver's license, but it is not okay to ask on the Census?
  For anyone to claim that this is a hot-button issue, I just don't buy 
it. It seems a little bit more like hot air.
  I am glad that President Trump is working across Federal agencies to 
ensure that we can get this crucial information.
  I urge my colleagues to oppose this resolution so that we can get 
back to actual work.
  Mr. CUMMINGS. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Maryland (Mr. Raskin), the chairman of our Subcommittee on Civil Rights 
and Civil Liberties.
  Mr. RASKIN. Madam Speaker, like the chairman, I am charmed and 
tickled by the argument offered by our friend Mr. Meadows, who quotes 
our beloved chairman in resisting a rush to a contempt vote against 
Attorney General Holder.
  Of course, two sides can play this game because the gentleman from 
North Carolina, of course, voted for and championed a contempt citation 
against the Attorney General in that case.
  Why would he support a contempt finding as appropriate against one 
Attorney General who is acting in a recalcitrant way but not against 
another?
  Madam Speaker, this is not a policy battle about the citizenship 
question, although my friends seem to think that it is. They have 
already lost that battle. They lost it in the Federal district courts 
three times. They lost it in the United States Supreme Court. They lost 
it with Chief Justice John Roberts. They lost it with the majority of 
the Supreme Court, a Supreme Court that was gerrymandered by Senator 
McConnell for precisely occasions like this, so they could get the 
outcome they wanted, but even that Court rejected the contrived 
rationale that was offered by the Commerce Department.
  It has been rejected by six former Census Directors. It was rejected 
by their own chief scientist in the Commerce Department and the Census 
Bureau. They lost the case under the Census Act. They lost the case 
under the Administrative Procedure Act.
  Even President Trump acknowledges that they lost. At least, I think 
he acknowledges it today, although he does waver back and forth. And I 
hope nothing that we say today will prompt him to start over again.
  They lost because their justification was contrived, according to 
Chief Justice Roberts. It was made up, completely pretextual, according 
to the Federal district courts, arbitrary, capricious, irrational, 
silly.
  We get the citizenship information we need right now, and we have for 
the last 70 years, under what was called the long form. Now it is 
called the American Community Survey.
  It has been rejected, but six former Census Bureau Directors said 
that if we did what they wanted to do, we would get a far more 
inaccurate counting. We would get a far less accurate portrait of 
America.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. CUMMINGS. I yield the gentleman from Maryland an additional 1 
minute.
  Mr. RASKIN. If the minority wants to talk about the policy, we can, 
but we don't need to. They have already lost repeatedly on that, and 
they seem not to want to acknowledge that basic fact of this 
discussion.

  This is about congressional power, Madam Speaker, and that is 
something that should unify every Member of this body and institution. 
We must stand together.
  The Supreme Court and the Federal courts have said repeatedly that 
our factfinding power is inextricable, essential, and indispensable to 
our legislative power.
  We have the power of the people. The sovereign political power of the 
people has been given to us to legislate. We can't legislate if we 
can't get the information that we need.
  Sometimes we disagree, when they are in the majority, with the stuff 
that they want. I wasn't here then, but I would have disagreed maybe 
with some of the Fast and Furious stuff or the millions of documents 
that they got in the Benghazi investigation. It makes no difference. 
The majority has a right to get what it wants. We have a right to get 
what we want.
  If you act with contempt for the Congress of the United States of 
America and the people of the United States, we will hold you in 
contempt of the Congress and United States of America. I support these 
contempt resolutions.
  Mr. COMER. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished 
gentleman from California (Mr. McCarthy), the great minority leader.
  Mr. McCARTHY. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Before I walked out of my office, I first looked at my calendar. I 
knew it was July, but I wondered if it was back in February. It is 
another day on the floor, and it is like ``Groundhog Day'' all over 
again.
  Yesterday on this floor was a sad day. It is not a day about decorum. 
It is not a day about any of the issues that any of my constituents ask 
about.

                              {time}  1445

  They ask me when I go home, and, Madam Speaker, I envision that they 
ask most every Member in this body: Have you done anything about 
surprise billing? Have you made sure preexisting conditions are 
protected like that bill   Greg Walden has with so many cosponsors? 
Have you done anything to make sure the economy continues to grow?
  No, I go home, and I tell them: They had another resolution to attack 
President Trump or the administration. So we may be in July, but it is 
Groundhog Day all over again.

[[Page H5946]]

  Are we doing anything about a budget? Because, Madam Speaker, I 
listened to my colleagues when they say: Show me your budget; show me 
your values.
  And I know winning a majority is important, and I knew, Madam 
Speaker, when we were in the majority putting a budget out is not easy, 
but it is the fundamental responsibility of a majority. So, yes, I came 
to this floor hoping we would have that debate. But, no, no debate 
about a budget. I can't tell my constituents that the majority did a 
budget this year.
  When they ask me: Well, what about I read all these things about 
caps, that you have got to come into agreement to ever make something 
happen together.
  No, I am coming back down to the floor this time, and we are talking 
about contempt.
  They ask me, Madam Speaker: What contempt are you talking about?
  I said: Well, it is regarding the Census.
  Well, wasn't that all solved?
  Well, yes, that has already been solved and already been decided, 
but, Madam Speaker, this majority thinks it is another political 
opportunity.
  Then I listened and I heard this comment the other day. Madam 
Speaker, they said: I challenge you to find voters who can name a 
single thing House Democrats have done for their kitchen table this 
year, a single thing, challenging all voters to name one thing.
  And I wondered: Did my press operation put that out? No, it didn't 
come from my office.
  And then I wondered: Maybe it was another Republican inside this 
body. No, it wasn't. It wasn't one Member elected on the Republican 
side.
  This quote actually came from a chief of staff of one of the most 
prominent Members on the other side of the aisle. I agree with that 
chief of staff. Name me one thing that we have done for the kitchen 
table.
  Yesterday we did a resolution attacking the President, but we 
couldn't even get to that because, Madam Speaker, we couldn't even have 
decorum in this body.
  We set a record that we have never seen before based upon a Speaker's 
action. The very first page in Thomas Jefferson's manual talks about 
decorum. But not only did this body try to change the rules after the 
fact, they don't think everybody is equal, Madam Speaker. Because if 
your words get taken down, you don't have a right to speak that day. 
But, no, we should change that. We should show them. The majority 
should get what they want.
  Madam Speaker, I guess the majority doesn't want a budget. I guess 
the majority doesn't want to do anything about surprise billing. I 
guess the majority doesn't want to find, when it comes to our national 
defense to keep a 58-year history of bipartisanship, they broke that 
record, too. They made it partisan. And that is what we did last week.
  Well, now we are right back at Groundhog Day, and we are going to 
have contempt votes today. But that is not all we are going to do 
today. We are going to go for the third time on impeachment--
impeachment.
  Madam Speaker, I watched a crisis on the border. I listened to the 
other side, who asked the President if he would pause a court action so 
we could deal with it, and I patiently waited those 2 weeks to have a 
hearing on it because, Madam Speaker, I am not in the majority. I can't 
control these committees. The majority party can.
  They didn't have one hearing on it, but they have scheduled another 
one. They have got Mueller coming in. They even postponed it so they 
could have more time. I guess 22 months, $40 million, 13 countries, I 
guess that is not enough.
  Madam Speaker, I wonder if it is only one chief of staff challenging 
to find voters that can name a single thing House Democrats have done 
for the kitchen table this year, because when I am home, they don't 
come up to me and talk to me about party; they talk to me about what 
the House is doing. In their house, at their kitchen table, you know 
what they talk about there? They talk about their budget, because they 
do know their budget is their values, and they value having a budget. 
They will talk politics, but I don't think they get too petty.
  It is interesting, at the kitchen table in the House of 
Representatives, there are rules for different people. I thought the 
rule of law mattered in this country, and I was kind of excited when I 
watched a Problem Solvers Caucus stand up together, Republicans and 
Democrats, before there was a vote for a Speaker in this Congress, and 
they requested a Consensus Calendar. And what does a Consensus Calendar 
mean? It means, if a Member from any side of the aisle works really 
hard, that they believe in the issue, that they get 290 cosponsors--and 
you have to understand what that means.
  That doesn't mean walking up to a Congresswoman or Congressman and 
saying? Will you support my bill? Will you put your name on this? Do 
you believe this policy is so great you will put your name on this?
  It takes 218 to pass a bill, but that is not the number they put 
out--290, to get above politics. If you made that happen, your bill 
would come to the floor.
  Well, that was the rule. That is what we just put in.
  Madam Speaker, do you know what happened? There was this Congressman 
from South Carolina. He didn't get 290. He is up to 370. He followed 
the exact rule that the majority just put in. And do you know what 
happened the day that he was going to be the very first bill on a 
Consensus Calendar? And what was the topic that really brought people 
together? Survivor benefits for those who gave their life to defend 
this Nation.
  I was proud. I was proud that more than 370 people in this body did 
not play politics with that issue.
  But do you know what happened when that day came? The rules are not 
equal. The rules are not equal. They are written, but they are changed. 
They were changed last Friday. They were changed so he could not have 
his vote. So Congressman   Joe Wilson could not come to this floor.
  Was it changed in a committee? No. They put it in a rule, self-
executing.
  Yesterday, when I watched decorum on this floor, any other Member of 
this body would not have the right to speak if their words were taken 
down, if it were me, you, anybody else. But, no, the rules were changed 
once again, and everybody on one side of the aisle, Madam Speaker, 
voted to change those rules; they hold people who seem to be different, 
seem to be special, seems to be that they can break the rules.
  I guess the majority should get what they want, not what the people 
around the kitchen table of America want.
  I wonder, Madam Speaker, I wonder, when I watch people campaign and 
they talk about what they want to achieve here, how many said they 
wanted to have a week of contempt, of impeach and resolution, all after 
one entity, the President of the United States?
  I didn't have anybody on any side of the aisle ever ask me that 
question.
  I hold this job with a great deal of respect. There are less than 
12,000 people who ever had the privilege to serve here. I travel a long 
way each week to have that opportunity. I spend a lot of time thinking 
about it. I spend a lot of time listening and talking to my 
constituents.
  Last night I went home and I did a telephone townhall. Thousands of 
people were on that call. Not one person asked me about the contempt of 
a Census form that is already going out. They talked about an 
earthquake. They wondered if they would have enough money. I said: I 
don't know; we don't have a budget.
  The hospital, because this community is not very big, Ridgecrest, 
about 30,000, the earthquake did damage to the hospital. People can get 
some surprise billings, not anything their fault, but we are not 
talking about it on this floor. We are not solving that problem. But we 
are holding another person in the administration in contempt.
  Is this going to go anywhere? Is this going to do anything for 
anybody's kitchen table?
  I know some people on the other side of the aisle, Madam Speaker, 
might get mad at this chief of staff, but sometimes you get upset when 
people speak the truth. Sometimes it hurts.
  What hurts more to the American public is more of this, if it is just 
going to be Groundhog Day every day that we serve here, because once we 
get done with this, we will debate impeachment for the third time. For 
the third time, we will debate impeachment.

[[Page H5947]]

  When we go home this week and we talk about what we achieved, I don't 
know what I can say. That is not why we ran. We are better than this.
  When I watched the decorum yesterday, I know we are better than that. 
But what is most disturbing to me is, when somebody did not abide by 
the rules of the House, the rules were changed to protect that person.
  America is more than a country. America is an idea, an idea of self-
governance, an idea of rule of law, of respect. If you care so much to 
change the rule that you would have a Consensus Calendar, abide by it, 
not just because somebody on the other side of the aisle worked harder. 
If you cared so much that you said a budget matters, that it sets the 
tone of who you are, produce one.
  I understand there are winners and losers in elections, but, Madam 
Speaker, when I heard what a Member said of why they wanted to battle, 
they admitted to their colleagues they were using the Census 
investigation to gather information that, in his words, the courts 
could use in ongoing litigation.
  So are we really here because your constituents asked about it? Are 
we here because you just want to play a little more politics? Because I 
would tell you this: You have got another thing coming up right after 
they can play politics on it one more time.
  I would ask deep inside that, for once, let's put it aside. I know 
that election didn't turn out the way you wanted it, but at the end of 
the day, people expect us to find common ground. They expect us to give 
on both sides.
  I will guarantee you no one ever went to the polls to say: I want you 
to go there to spend a whole week just attacking an administration. I 
imagine the majority of people who voted for you had the same question 
as that chief of staff. They wanted you to change the kitchen table. So 
let's start focusing on the issues that the American public is talking 
about around their kitchen tables.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Members are directed to address their 
remarks to the Chair.
  Mr. CUMMINGS. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  I just want to make it clear, Madam Speaker, as I listened to the 
comments of our very distinguished minority leader, the fact is that 
what we are doing today is trying again to protect the integrity of 
this House and to protect the integrity of the Census and make sure 
that we get the records that we need to do our job, and I would hope 
that he would join us in making sure that happens. Because it is not 
just about us; it is about people who will come and fill these seats 
when we are dancing with the angels.
  I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Connolly), the 
very distinguished gentleman who leads our Government Operations 
Subcommittee excellently.

                              {time}  1500

  Mr. CONNOLLY. Madam Speaker, I thank my good friend, the 
distinguished chairman of the Oversight and Reform Committee, for 
yielding.
  Madam Speaker, what we just heard might be described as hyperanimated 
chutzpa to bemoan accountability, to talk about a kitchen table that 
is, I think, imaginary.
  I can tell you it doesn't characterize the kitchen tables in my 
district, and it probably doesn't characterize them all across America, 
which is maybe why the minority leader is called that instead of the 
``majority leader'' in this Congress, because my Republican friends 
abrogated any accountability, any oversight of this administration in 
the 2 years they were in the majority and Mr. Trump was in the White 
House.
  Americans are focused on economic and health issues, but that doesn't 
mean they don't care about what is happening to their country. They do.
  The Census, the distinguished minority leader doesn't want you to 
focus on why the Census question was so important because it is in a 
context that is disturbing. It is in a context of voter suppression all 
across America: Get rid of early voting; restrict absentee voting; have 
stricter ID laws; make it harder for students and people of color to 
vote; purge voting rolls; have manufactured assertions about phony 
voting, as if that were the major problem in America.
  Asking the citizenship question on the Census is part and parcel of 
that scheme to discourage minority voting in America, to frighten 
immigrant communities.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. CUMMINGS. Madam Speaker, I yield an additional 30 seconds to the 
gentleman from Virginia.
  Mr. CONNOLLY. Finally, Madam Speaker, maybe the worst of all, to 
bemoan the change yesterday to allow the Speaker to have her words 
considered and to allow her back on the floor. Why? Because we don't 
care about rules? No. Because we care about the impact on millions of 
Americans of harmful, racist words, and we felt that the duty to 
provide some comfort to those people that this House cared was more 
important than a juridical commitment to an ancient rule.
  Mr. COMER. Madam Speaker, may I inquire how much time is remaining 
for each side.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Kentucky has 18\1/2\ 
minutes remaining. The gentleman from Maryland has 7 minutes remaining.
  Mr. COMER. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Wisconsin (Mr. Grothman).
  Mr. GROTHMAN. Madam Speaker, prior to talking about the Census, I 
just want to make one brief point in response to some of the debate on 
the other side. I will give some of the speakers a little bit of a 
project here.
  When we say the Pledge of Allegiance, we pledge allegiance to the 
flag and the Republic for which it stands, and perhaps some of the 
speakers on the other side can do a little research as to why we pledge 
allegiance to the Republic.
  Today, again, we are debating because of a potential question on the 
Census. There are certain people who feel that it would be wrong to ask 
about citizenship on the Census.
  I can tell you, as a lawmaker, I would certainly like to know how 
many people in this country are citizens. I would also like to know how 
many people are legal or illegal, both of which may affect decisions we 
make, formulas we make here.
  I have a bill up--in the past; I already introduced it this year--
that says that people who are noncitizens shouldn't be eligible for 
public benefits. If that bill were ever to become law, I can easily 
imagine distributions of money from this place being affected by the 
results on a Census like that.
  Other countries do not have problems getting numbers if they ask 
about citizenship. Canada doesn't have a problem. Mexico doesn't have a 
problem. That is why the United Nations recommends we ask about 
citizenship.
  It didn't result in bad Censuses until 1950. It doesn't result in bad 
results on the long form or bad results on the Community Survey. It 
doesn't result in problems in the State of Wisconsin, where we have a 
citizenship question that you have to answer prior to getting a 
driver's license.
  So I wish we would put away this resolution today. I don't think it 
is right to spend more time debating the Census question.
  I hope if this does not appear on this Census, that it is eventually 
put on the Census for 2030.
  Mr. CUMMINGS. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished 
gentlewoman from the District of Columbia (Ms. Norton).
  Ms. NORTON. Madam Speaker, I thank my good friend for courageously 
bringing this contempt resolution to the House today.
  The authority and the very integrity of the House of Representatives 
has been challenged by this administration as never before in American 
history. If it were not for the Supreme Court, this administration's 
determination to deliberately prevent an accurate Census count would 
have succeeded.
  Neither the President nor the Republican House has the support of a 
majority of the American people.
  Using Secretary Ross, the administration tried to cheat its way to an 
undercount. Both Attorney General Barr and Secretary Ross have gone out 
of their way to refuse to provide needed documents or offered pretexts 
for not providing them pursuant to valid subpoenas.
  So serious has been this obstruction that the House must seek 
criminal contempt, which can carry stiff penalties

[[Page H5948]]

and prison time, or simply surrender to the administration and invite 
continuing obstruction of our ability to perform our legislative and 
oversight functions.
  To be sure, we fully recognize the difficulty of enforcement of 
criminal contempt against this administration by this administration, 
but the House would as soon surrender its authority as to take no 
action in the face of historic and willful defiance.
  Mr. COMER. Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Ohio (Mr. Jordan), my friend, the distinguished ranking member of the 
Oversight Committee.
  Mr. JORDAN. Madam Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from 
Kentucky (Mr. Comer) for yielding and for his great work on the 
committee.
  Secretary Ross and Attorney General Barr are doing their jobs. So 
what is their reward? Democrats are going to hold them in contempt.
  Both agencies, the Commerce Department and the Justice Department, 
have submitted 31,000 documents to the committee. They have made 
available all kinds of witnesses for depositions and transcribed 
interviews. In fact, we have got another one happening later this 
month.
  And the Secretary himself sat for over 6 hours in a hearing answering 
every single question the committee had. He raised his hand, said he 
swore to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so 
help him God, and answered all the questions. And what does he get for 
it? Democrats are going to hold him in contempt.
  And why are they doing this? All because they don't want a simple 
question on the Census: Are you a citizen of the United States of 
America? That one sentence is driving it all.
  Are you a citizen of the greatest nation in history is driving it 
all.
  They are going to hold two people doing their jobs in contempt, all 
because we don't want to do what has been done for 200 years in this 
country. Since 1820, in one form or another, we have been asking the 
citizenship question on the Census. They are going to hold them in 
contempt.
  All because they don't want to do what the U.N. says is the best 
practice, they are going to hold them in contempt.
  All because they don't want to do what is just plain old common 
sense.
  Listen to what Justice Alito said in his opinion a couple weeks ago: 
``No one disputes that it is important to know how many inhabitants of 
this country are citizens, and the most direct way to gather that 
information is to ask it in a Census.''
  Shazam. Imagine that. The best way to figure it out is to ask people 
in the country that you are surveying. Holy cow.
  And here is the kicker; here is the final thing: You go anywhere--go 
anywhere--in this country, any State you want to go to, some small 
town, some big city, walk up the street and ask someone on the street: 
Do you think when we do the Census to figure out how many people are in 
this country, it is appropriate to ask if you are a citizen?
  Every person you talk to, every single one of them will say: Well, 
heck yeah. And, oh, by the way, aren't we doing that already.
  You would have to say: Yes. We have been doing it for 200 years.
  This resolution is ridiculous, and we should vote it down.
  Mr. CUMMINGS. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Madam Speaker, I want to just remind our distinguished ranking 
member, when he talks about quoting from the courts, we might want to 
look at what the Supreme Court said about the language that Secretary 
Ross used in our committee, because it is the same language used in the 
Supreme Court case.
  What the Supreme Court said was that that was ``contrived,'' and that 
is a quote, and incongruent with what the record reveals. In other 
words, he was saying it was not accurate. He may have come to testify 
before us, but it wasn't accurate.
  Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman 
from the Virgin Islands (Ms. Plaskett), a member of our committee.
  Ms. PLASKETT. Madam Speaker, I want to respond first to the 
distinguished gentleman from California (Mr. McCarthy), the minority 
leader, when he talked about us doing work. He asked us if work was 
being done here in Congress and said that we weren't responding to the 
daily needs of America.
  Madam Speaker, I would remind him and remind the Speaker that we, in 
fact, have passed the Violence Against Women Act in the Judiciary 
Committee. The Energy and Commerce Committee passed the prescription 
drug bill that came to this floor. The Energy and Commerce Committee is 
working on Medicaid as we speak, right now.
  So 150 bills have been passed by this body and are sitting on the 
desk of his friend, the Senate leader, Mitch McConnell, who has decided 
that he is not interested in the work of the people of the United 
States.
  But guess what. We can walk and chew gum at the same time, as I have 
said. This committee's responsibility is oversight, not anything else. 
And that is what we are doing is oversight of this administration.
  I know that is difficult for that side of the aisle to want to think 
about, overseeing and reining in individuals who may be acting outside 
of the law.
  Last year when Secretary Ross testified before Congress, he said he 
added the citizenship question solely to help the Department of Justice 
enforce the Voting Rights Act. We understand now that may not have been 
true.
  And he has given us unresponsive--that is a legal term--unresponsive 
documents in those thousands of documents that he has turned over to 
us, not the documents that we have asked for.
  It is our responsibility as the Oversight Committee to hold 
individuals responsible. I would ask that my colleagues across the 
aisle consider their responsibility on this committee if you want to 
sit on the committee, to do the work of the committee, and that is 
overseeing this administration. I think that we have done our job, and 
we are doing it well.
  Madam Speaker, if he has not been responsive, we must hold him in 
contempt.
  Mr. COMER. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Hice).
  Mr. HICE of Georgia. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for 
yielding.
  The problem is that this is not the way we are supposed to go about 
the business of oversight. Contempt resolutions are generally something 
that happens deep inside and deep within an ongoing investigation when 
the committee has run up against brick walls and has exhausted all 
possibilities before then.
  That is certainly not the case here. We are in the middle of an 
investigation into Federal agencies that are complying with our 
requests. This is absurd.

                              {time}  1515

  The Oversight and Reform Committee has held six transcribed 
interviews with witnesses. Another one is on the way within days. The 
Commerce Department and the Justice Department have produced over 
31,000 pages, documents, combined--14,000 from Commerce and 17,000 from 
Justice. These are not things that happen when we are talking about 
Federal agencies that are stonewalling an investigation. That simply is 
not what is happening here.
  This investigation has only been going on for a couple of short 
months. I would like to remind this Chamber that it wasn't too long ago 
that then-Ranking Member Cummings was cautioned himself against 
pursuing a resolution of contempt in 2012, and that was after a year of 
stonewalling by the Obama administration. We are just a couple of 
months into this one.
  If these Federal agencies were legitimately stonewalling an 
investigation, as the Obama administration did, I would certainly feel 
differently, and I am sure others here would, as well. But they are not 
stonewalling, and the facts simply don't support this contempt 
resolution.
  Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues not to support this.
  Mr. CUMMINGS. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. COMER. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
North Carolina (Mr. Meadows).

[[Page H5949]]

  

  Mr. MEADOWS. Madam Speaker, I want to make a point that in this body 
now on 2 consecutive days, we have broken the rules of Congress to 
expedite things.
  In this particular contempt resolution, I want to make sure that the 
Record reflects that we broke rule 2(f) on the committee about notice. 
It was brought to the attention of the chairman, and here we are again 
going and violating the rules of this House, not rules that the 
minority put in place, but rules that the majority put in place. We 
gave the chairman the chance to perfect this procedural problem, and 
yet they continued on to hold this contempt violation.
  I can tell you, they may vote today to hold them in contempt, but it 
is a violation of Congress' very rules itself that should have been 
remedied. I ask that the gentleman opposite withdraws his resolution so 
that we can perfect this.
  Mr. CUMMINGS. Madam Speaker, I continue to reserve the balance of my 
time.
  Mr. COMER. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from North Dakota (Mr. Armstrong).
  Mr. ARMSTRONG. Madam Speaker, upon assuming the chairmanship of the 
committee in January 2019, the chairman of the Oversight and Reform 
Committee formally initiated an inquiry into Secretary Ross' decision 
to reinstitute the citizenship question on the 2020 census.
  Just recently, as of June 27, 2019, the Supreme Court has issued a 
ruling. The Supreme Court ruled that the administration may ask a 
citizenship question, but rejected the rationale presented by Secretary 
Ross for adding the question on the 2020 census.
  The committee's fact-finding is still active and ongoing. The 
administration is cooperating with the investigation. The DOC and the 
DOJ have produced 31,000 responsive documents--14,000 from the DOC and 
17,000 from the DOJ. The committee has held six transcribed interviews 
with witnesses, and a seventh interview is expected.
  In short, Madam Speaker, the Judiciary Committee has already held 
Bill Barr in contempt for not violating Federal law. And now the 
Oversight and Reform Committee is about to hold Bill Barr in contempt 
for cooperating with the committee. This is wrong. This is not how we 
are supposed to do business in this Chamber.
  Mr. CUMMINGS. Madam Speaker, I continue to reserve the balance of my 
time.
  Mr. COMER. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Texas (Mr. Gohmert).
  Mr. GOHMERT. Madam Speaker, this is such a disturbing time for those 
of us who have spent our adult lives trying to see that justice is 
done, laws are followed, and yet here we again come after Attorney 
General Bob Barr and another Cabinet official, Ross.
  The truth is, I didn't really know Bob Barr when he got nominated. I 
knew that he was friends with Bob Mueller. That caused me concern. But 
it appears we have an attorney general who is concerned about justice 
and he is concerned about stopping injustices. And yet, we still have 
people who are wanting to cause as much trouble for the President and 
stop his administration from getting as much accomplished for the 
American people as possible.
  It has got to stop at some point. It is like a game, we come here and 
we are going to hold him in contempt again. This is a double secret 
probation against Bob Barr. How many double, triple, quadruple secret 
probations are we going to do? This isn't going to amount to anything.
  If you take this to any Federal judge to try to enforce it, he or she 
will look at the procedure and go: This is ridiculous. You are not 
going to have me hold the attorney general in contempt for trying to 
follow the law, and you are wanting to interrupt his efforts to follow 
the law. That is not happening.
  So this is all about a show, when there is true injustice going on. 
Thank God that we have a President who wanted to see justice done. He 
knew he didn't collude. And now we have an attorney general who is 
trying to do the same thing.
  Madam Speaker, let's say no to this contempt. Let's get back to doing 
the job that the American people want us to do.
  Mr. CUMMINGS. Madam Speaker, I continue to reserve the balance of my 
time.
  Mr. COMER. Madam Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  Madam Speaker, I think that just about everyone who spoke on our side 
of the aisle made the factual points that this is not necessary. This 
resolution is an ongoing attempt by the majority party to try to 
do anything they can to disrupt the Presidency of our President of the 
United States.

  Every country, just about, in the world asks the citizenship 
question. Mexico and Canada ask the citizenship question. In fact, the 
United Nations recommends that countries ask the citizenship question.
  I don't for the life of me know why we would resort to this type of 
action in this body, especially after what happened yesterday. I 
wonder, Madam Speaker, is this an attempt to try to move the direction 
of the American people from their frustration at the lack of 
achievement by the majority party from a legislative standpoint to try 
to somehow enrage their anger at the President?
  This is unnecessary. This is more political theater, and I urge the 
Members of this fine body to oppose this resolution.
  Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. CUMMINGS. Madam Speaker, may I inquire as to how much time is 
left?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Maryland has 2 minutes 
remaining.
  Mr. CUMMINGS. Madam Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  Madam Speaker, some of my colleagues have argued that holding 
Secretary Ross and Attorney General Barr in contempt of Congress is 
premature. That is simply not true. If anything, it is long overdue.
  The Department of Commerce and the Department of Justice have failed 
to comply with congressional requests for more than a year. The 
Oversight and Reform Committee Democrats first asked for documents from 
the Department of Commerce in April of 2018 and from the Department of 
Justice May of 2018. Those requests were ignored.
  When I became chairman, I renewed those requests. In response, the 
administration produced thousands of pages. But most of the documents 
were either heavily redacted, already public, or nonresponsive to the 
committee's request. So the committee narrowed its request and issued 
bipartisan subpoenas to compel production of that narrow group of 
documents. That was in April, more than 3 months ago.
  I even asked Secretary Ross to meet with me personally. He refused.
  And, last month, the committee passed the bipartisan resolution 
before us to hold Secretary Ross and Attorney General Barr in contempt 
of Congress. Still neither department has provided the documents that 
we have asked for.
  So I have come to the floor to urge our Members to vote in favor of 
this. I do not, again, bring this lightly. This is not theater. This is 
about doing our job. This is about protecting the integrity of not only 
our census, but of our Congress.
  Madam Speaker, I urge all Members to vote for this resolution, and I 
yield back the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. All time for debate has expired.
  Pursuant to the rule, the previous question is ordered on the 
resolution.
  The question is on adoption of the resolution.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. COMER. Madam Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, further 
proceedings on this question will be postponed.

                          ____________________