[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.
____________________