Transcripts For CSPAN House Oversight Debates Contempt Charge Over 2020 Census 20240714

Ultimately they voted to hold those officials in contempt of congress. The committee will come to order. The committee will come to order. To declare a recess of the committee at any time. Pursuant pursuant to Committee Rule five therule 11, house rule 11, chairman further proceedings today on the question ofwhen ad an amendment which the recorded vote is ordered. Pursuant to notice i call up a report in a contempt resolution. I have a point of order. Map please finish . Thank you. Now pursuant to notice a call up report containing a claim to the 2020 census. The clerk will report which is been distributed in advance. Mr. Chairman, i have appointed border. The gentleman is not recognize. From a parliamentary standpoint, ive appointed border. My point of order is that rule to f has been violated and the chairman has received the letter, which would outline that particular rule requires a three day notice, mr. Chairman and because the notice was put out on june 10 at 548, this committees rule was violated. The chairman may be able to overrule this point of order, but i would like to clarify that if this committee overrule this point of order, then it would be subject to litigation by House Counsel and you will require the department of justice to file a brief and will be litigated because this is violating the house rules that everyone here agrees to. I would like to address the letter that the Ranking Member sent last night raising a technical argument about the committees rule about circulating memo at todays meeting. Basically argues that the memo shouldve been sent last friday instead of this past monday. I sent a letter back to him this morning explaining my position and i can summarize that here. In last congress the Committee Ruled rules used to require 72 hours before business meeting. In january we, on this committee unanimously adopted rules that made that requirement to three days. As i stated our purpose was to make sure that the Committee Rules matched the house rule. The timing of our Committee Rule was drawn from the house rule on noticing this meeting. That rule provides that the third calendar date before it is noticed. The house parliamentarian has interpreted this role as including the date the notice is sent and the date the business meeting occurs. Committee staff confirmed this interpretation again yesterday, so another words we needed to send a notice on monday for a mockup today. Matte finish . That is exactly what we did here and that is how we have been interpreting our rules for the past six months and that is now our rule today. That said, i understand if this has led to some confusion. There are slight differences in the wording of our rule in the house rule. The problem with the Ranking Members interpretation is that the committee could send a memo out to members before we even notice the markup. I dont think that process makes sense and that is not the intent of the rule. I have stated my interpretation of the rule, however, as i wrote in my letter to the Ranking Member this morning, if he still feels that there is any confusion whatsoever, because all of this has been in good faith, i would be opened for the discussion to clarify or to amend the memo rule in the future. With that, mr. Chairman, may have followup on my point of order. While i appreciate where the staff is giving you clarity from the parliamentarian house, this committee purposefully, with your word took different language, and i will read three calendar days, excluding saturdays and sundays and legal holidays before each meeting or hearing and in your words, the minority wanted to give board fans notice for hearing memos, so we did that. That was a quote from you and we purposefully, in this committee, because of the importance of this committee made a difference between the house rule, and so i would suggest respectfully that this particular rule is indeed intentionally different, and by that we are opening ourselves up to litigation on this particular issue were just postponing by one day wouldve made us in compliance and i respectfully yield back. I have offered to work with the Ranking Member Going Forward and i point out that the rule also includes a separate independent vision allowing the committee to go forward in unusual circumstances. The Ranking Members letter last night for the first time raising a novel technical issue with our rules that has never been raised over the past six months certainly would qualify under that provision and i would remind my colleagues that they did not object when they were in charge. For example, in 2016 they summoned fbi director comey before committee with less than 48 hours notice. The only unusual circumstance in that case was that he did not like the fact that no criminal charges were filed against Hillary Clinton. The bigger point here is that members were aware that we were going to vote on contempt this week and it was the subject of many letters back and forth between the committee and the administration and the Ranking Member was copied on all the letters. Ive stated my position and offered to work in good faith with the Ranking Member Going Forward can i comment . Thank you, i appreciate what you just said. The bottom line is exactly what the gentleman from North Carolina said earlier. The notice is legally defective and it will, in fact be litigated. The remedy was simple. The remedy was real simple. Just wait before you do this contempt vote, but understand that you guys cannot do that because you were so concerned that the Supreme Court was going to rule on this that you have to get it done before it happened. We know that. Members of this committee have said they are trying to influence the court. We, as the gentleman pointed out we wanted this notice for three full days because when youre getting ready for something as important of holding the attorney general in contempt, you want every minute you can to be ready for that debate. That is what is at stake here. The notice is, in fact defective, it will in fact, be litigated. The remedy is simple to postpone the hearing, but you wont do that because there is a Supreme Court case coming any day and that is the problem. And that is why the point of order is right and we can have a markup on the other issues, but on this one. I yield back. Thank you very much. Without objection has the chair ruled. All those in favor, cest aye i ask for rollcall vote. Chair will call the role. Mr. Cummings. Mr. Cummings votes no. Ms. Norton. Mr. Lynch. Mr. Lynch those no. Votes no. No. Mr. Connolly votes no. Mr. Morrissey votes no. Mr. Raskin votes no. Mr. Ruta votes no. Mint hill votes no. Miss Wasserman Schultz. Miss Wasserman Schultz votes no. Mr. Welch . Miss kelly . Miss kelly votes no. Mr. Dasani . Miss lawrence votes no. Miss vasquez mr. Gomez. Mr. Gomez votes no. Miss presley votes no. Miss to leave votes no. Mr. Jordan votes yes. Mr. Marsh votes yes. Mr. Massey votes yes. Mr. Meadows votes yes. Mr. Gibbs mr. Gibbs votes yes. Mr. Higgins mr. Higgins both yes. Mr. Norman votes yes. Mr. Roy votes yes. Ms. Miller both yes. Mr. Armstrong votes yes. How is mr. Grossman recorded . Mr. Grossman is not recorded. This box is not recorded. Miss fox votes yes. This hill is recorded as no. How is miss norton recorded. Ms. Norton is not recorded. Miss norton votes no. I just want to confirm that i was recorded. Mr. Cross hill cortez is not recorded. The clerk will give us the tally. On this vote we have 50 yes and 20 knows. The motion is not agreed to. Let me say this i will work to clarify that ruling. I now recognize myself on opening statements. Today we are considering a resolution that would recommend Holding Attorney general william barr and secretary of commerce, wilbur ross in contempt of congress of the u. S. They both refused to comply with duly authorized subpoenas issued by this committee that require them relating to the addition of the Citizenship Question to the 2020 census against the advice of experts at the Census Bureau. What we have learned in this investigation is quite disturbing. Secretary ross said he added the questions solely, in response to request from the department of justice in december 2017 to help enforce the Voting Rights act. We now know that this was a pretext and we have obtained evidence showing that secretary ross was aggressively pressing his staff months before any request from the Justice Department in the spring of 2017 and he was doing it at the urging of the white house. At the urging of the white house. We also have evidence that President Trump had advisors long before the president took office. After his inauguration the president discussed this idea with white house aides, who in turn discussed it with secretary ross. Although we have limited information, we have been blocked from determining the real reason that the administration thought to add the Citizenship Question. That is because the department of justice and the department of commerce have refused to turn over key documents requested by this committee. For these reasons, on april two, 2019, more than two months ago, this committee voted on a bipartisan basis to authorize subpoenas for general bar and secretary ross to see documents or guarding their efforts to add the Citizenship Question. During that time weve tried repeatedly to resolve this impasse and as an accommodation we narrowed the scope of the subpoenas to a very small subset of the documents we originally requested. I even invited secretary ross to meet with me personally so that we could discuss away forward. Unfortunately, he refused. That is why we are here today. Ive heard arguments about moving forward with this and i would like to address them directly. First, there is a claim that the administration has produced 17,000 pages of documents. This is true but the vast majority of these documents were already published. Others were heavily redacted and many were not responsive to the subpoenas that all that 17,000 number is meaningless if it has pages that are blacked out. Second is a claim that we are trying to interfere with the Supreme Court case and this is not true. Congress hasnt independent responsibility independent, to oversee the census. Separate from any private litigation, period. The Supreme Court has made clear that congresss authority does not it ignores the fact that we have been pursuing this for more than a year long before the Supreme Court ever took up the case. I first called this investigation in march 2018 as a Ranking Member. That was just one day after secretary ross announced his decision. When i became the chairman in january, i renewed these requests again before the supreme course took the case. Finally let me speak about executive privilege. Last night we received a letter from the department of justice asking us to delay a vote today so the president could have more time than he is had to consider whether to claim executive privilege. I was it. They did not produce any documents required by the subpoena coming from this committee. They did not produce any of these documents in the future. And they did not make any kind of counter offer for these key documents. Heres the bottom line. We have been seeking these documents for more than a year we issued a bipartisan subpoena in april and we made it clear that we were moving forward with contempt this week and we offer the if they began producing one or two categories of the key documents in the subpoenas, would be willing to consider postponing todays vote. But both departments declined this offer which is why we are proceeding today census is critical to our democracy and critical to every one of our constituents. Congress gives us the responsibility and authority that this is working as was intended to work. That includes making sure that it is used properly to allocate federal funds and a portion of the legislative district and we must protect the integrity of the census and standout for the authority of congress in addition, i want to update the committee on documents received from the department of justice and commerce. The letter states that the president has exerted executive privilege over all the subpoenaed documents and it asserts executive privilege over the key documents that are essential to our inquiry and include a protective assertion of executive privilege over the rest of the documents. The agency has waited until the last minute to the day before our contempt vote test the president if you wanted to assert privilege. The subpoenas have been outstanding for more than two months. They are bipartisan, they are based on request letters sent months before that they delineate specific, unredacted documents that are a priority for this committee. I wrote letters last week making clear that the committee would vote on contempt this week if we did not receive a subset of these documents. If the agency has produced none of the unredacted documents required by the subpoena and they made no commitments to produce any of these key documents and theyve made no counter offers relating to these key documents the department of justices letter said that they were prepared to produce additional documents responsive to the subpoena. But they made clear that they will not produce the key documents that we have identified as a priority. This does not appear to be an effort engaged in good faith negotiations accommodation. Instead, it appears to be an example of the administrations defiance in congress is constitutionally mandated responsibility. The liberty of process and Attorney Client privilege. For months the Trump Administration has claimed the decision to add the Citizenship Question was made at the Department Level rather than at the white house. The now the president is asserting executive privilege over all of these documents. This begs the question, what is being hidden . Heres what im going to do. I have copies of this letter made for every member us all of you can review it for yourselves and next we will proceed to debating the contempt motion, however, i will postpone the vote until later this afternoon some members have additional time to review this letter and any other material they may deem necessary, and with that, i yield to the Ranking Member, but i want to reiterate that the amendment in the nature of a substitute will serve as the base text and now i recognize the distinguished Ranking Member. Why dont they want to know . That is the fundamental question. Why dont they want to know how many citizens are in the country . Ask anyone anywhere across this country and walk up to them and say, hey, do you think that on the census we should ask how many citizens are in the country or ask are you citizen . Every Single Person you will encounter will say, yeah, of course we should ask for the next question would be are we doing that already, and we would have to answer, yes we are. We have been doing it for decades and doing it on a 10 year census and doing it on the American Survey annual census. Why dont they want to know . The question that the United Nations recommends as a best practice and it was asked of other countries. How did we get here today . How do we get to the point today where we are going to hold the secretary of commerce, the attorney general of the u. S. In contempt because we dont want to ask a question that everyone thinks we are already asking and in fact we already are. You can do all of that. But when you boil it down, it is a fundamental question. Why dont they want to know. Heres the other thing. Democrats and the Supreme Court will rule on this question and they hope to use this oversight power to create a controversy around this issue and the democrats want to hold, as i said, the secretary of commerce and the attorney general in contempt because of an alleged lack of cooperation for information. That is in stark contrast to the claim that theyre not getting information from the agency. Trump administration continues to cooperate in this partisan investigation. The ministration has produced 31,000 pages of documents, 14,000 from commerce 17,000 injustice relating to this question. Secretary ross sat here for six hours and answered all kinds of questions. Several administration witnesses have voluntarily part participated in interviews at the heart of this partisan investigation. In fact, just yesterday, a transcribed interview with a former commerce official in the interview lasted nearly the entire day. Two more interviews are scheduled in the next week and the idea is the administration s stonewalling and the fact that they are engaging in a coverup does not engage. Contempt of congress is a powerful tool and should be used responsibly. This is an attempt by the democrats to muddy the waters and to influence the Supreme Court and the consideration of this issue. Instead of considering legislation about the question itself, something we can do and have been doing decade after decade. And the democrats refuse to use their Oversight Authority to interfere with the Supreme Court. Not what we should be doing. I urge members to vote against it and remind everyone here why dont they want to know. Why dont they want to know something that everyone in the district knows could be ask and is just good common sense i would say it the only people that dont want to ask the question democrats in washington. That is the only one everyone else does need to be asked. I would go back. I think the chair. I guess the distinguished Ranking Member must live in a different world than i do. And if he is looking for people who would say why would we ask this question, unless it is to keep people from complying, welcome to northern virginia. We would give you lots of people who actually understand what this is. That it is not a normal question and has not been asked in the census since 1950, the year i was born. And for reason. It is because it is going to intimidate and discourage and it has to be seen in the context of an antiimmigrant policy coming out of this white house and it is designed to intimidate and instill fear. And the question is not the one that my distinguished friend has posted to us. It is what are they afraid of that we will discover if you have nothing to hide your proud of your policy and the formulation of this question, these documents wouldve been here yesterday. Instead, as the chairman has indicated, the administration is going to extreme lengths at something that doesnt pass the test to say executive privilege will cover all subpoena documents. And annette overreach i believe that no Serious Court in the land will hold that as executive power. It also comes in the context of massive Voter Suppression millions of people have been unfairly excluded. Stringent laws designed to discourage certain voters, especially voters of color from participating in a Free Democratic electoral process. Cutting back on early voting. This is been a pattern to make it harder for people, certain people to vote, i would say to my friend from ohio, come to my district and explain to them why we need this question and listen to their reactions because if youre looking for people who share our view about this question, i have plenty of people in my district who share my point of view and get what is at stake and what the real agenda is and that is why the subpoenas are so important. This is not a fight between the executive and legislative branch. This is about the future of our democratic process. Will people be able to freely vote without worrying about intimidation, without worrying about questions that get at data they are uncomfortable about. And for good reason in the climate of fear that has been created by this white house. And i find it interesting that the Ranking Member says to us that the question of contempt is a serious matter and needs to be judiciously arrived at. I dont remember him saying that when friends on the other side controlled this committee and railroaded eric holder with the contempt citation was designed for one person only that was to discredit him, even though unlike this case they were responding to document requests. In this case it is totally different and we have 17,000 pieces of paper, but none of them are responsive. Most of them are redacted redundant. It is a cynical ploy to say that we have responded. It is not true. For the sake of the people who represent and for the state of new americans who protect them as any fellow american would expect and for the sake of the legislation and the sake of the legislative process and the role of our constitution, we must insist on the subpoenas. Thank you very much. The chair recognizes mr. Hice. Move to strike the last word. Everyone in this room is in favor of vigorous oversight and i certainly as much as anyone else, but there is a right way and wrong way to go about it and this is the wrong way to hold them in contempt when they are already expressing a willingness to cooperate. This is not the way to go about this. The attorney general and the commerce secretary stated there willing to provide this committee with everything they want. The only answer is they want to influence the Supreme Court and that is not the role of this committee. Is not the role of this committee to try to influence or sway the Supreme Court and we know and that has been stated by member of this committee. Was literally stated that the democrats sought information from the Commerce Department so the courts can use it. That is Public Knowledge and what has been stated. So even if you set that aside and the majority to influence the Supreme Court, there are also issues with the mayor process. It is something that should be reserved after all other options have been placed on the table. And we are not there. We are far from that. This is an investigation that is still underway and weve not run up against a brick wall. There is no reason for vote of contempt. I understand the Majority Party is frustrated that they have not received what they want, some fast, the ferries conspiracy. I get that, but the issue is they were still underway with the investigation and this is not the time to have a contempt resolution. The American People need to know what is going on here. Democrats do not want to have the Citizenship Question and it is important for us to ask why. We know that the question cannot be used for Immigration Enforcement and it cannot be used for deportation in these types of things are in the federal law. So the question is why do the democrats not want to know how many citizens are in this country. Is that asking too much . For us to know how many citizens or how many noncitizens are in this country. That is information we ought to know and the question becomes why is it that the democrats are are fighting tooth and nail to prevent that question being asked. That is the issue and i think the chairman and i yield back. Thank you. You know, so many of those across the aisle think this is a debate about asking who is a citizen or not. The census is a constitutionally mandated operation that we are required to implement every 10 years. It is one of the most vital and sensitive things that we do in our government. Any change to the census in any addition of a question takes five years of a process to make sure it is vetted and every word has been tested and to make sure it is effective because it is one of the most important things that we do. So it is not this is not about i want to know who is a citizen in the u. S. Or not, but what i want to know is why this question was added and why two years have been taken off of that five year process. I want to know why we have skipped every normal mandated procedure and testing how this question gets added in the census. I want to know why this question was magically added after we have seen that a political operative new details to in timid date racial and immigrant communities for partisan purpose saying this will hurt democrats and help republicans. I want to know why wilbur ross continues to meet with people of political affiliations after his own administration warned him to stop. He came here and i asked him if you continued speaking with him and he said no and we had an email and he did. I want to know why people like chris croll batch with a documented history of overseeing he has a resume of Voter Suppression a little like how people like that have their fingerprints all over the most sensitive operations that we have in the u. S. Government and this determines who is here and determine to us power in the us and that is what we want to know. I want to know about the racism in the very disturbing history that we are seeing. And so we gave the opportunity to ask and we asked why are all these things happening and why is all disconnected and wireless only people, everyone from steve bannon to chris kobach having a political intent all over the u. S. Census. Why . And what do we get . Nothing. No response. Stonewalling and obstruction and a lack of answers. I dont want to issue a subpoena. No one wants to be in a position where you have to issue a subpoena of an Administration Official because we are coequal branches of government and should be accepted that will we ask a question, we get a response. But we dont, you have to do our job. No one wants to be in a position we have to issue a subpoena, but today because of the secretary in the attorney generals refusal to cooperate with the coequal branch of government, we have no choice. It is about the rule of law in respect of the institutions and the power of all of us as a body of the u. S. Congress in the integrity of the government of the u. S. Thank you very much. The gentlelady yields. When i became chairman of this committee i made it very clear that i took the issuance of this very seriously. In the past we have had chairman that of put up hundreds of subpoenas. We put out very few and weve been very careful for the reasons that you just stated. We see it is a very serious matter and youre absolutely right. We have come to this point and we need to be clear. This is our job. And i would consider this legislative malpractice if we dont do our job. We are not sworn to the president or sworn to the party. We are sworn to the constitution and i want to thank you for your comments. Mr. Meadows. Thank you, mr. Chairman. I want to make some comments and part of that in light of this argument that we have from both sides of the aisle, i do want to add knowledge the chairmans willingness to work with me and trying to actually get some of the transcribed interviewed witnesses to appear before this committee and so i want to thank the chairman for that. I fundamentally disagree with the timetable of holding secretary ross in contempt of Congress Based on two main factors. One is this question will be resolved by the highest court in the land with the next two weeks and we know that it could very will happen next week. Any legislative purpose that this body has certainly could be conducted in a very methodical way, and as we work toward handling any legislative oversight, i fail to see how one to two weeks would hamper our authority the bigger issue is as we work to compel witnesses, and the chairman knows full well that ive been willing to sign off on bipartisan letters and work in a bipartisan way to make sure that even this administration complies with providing information that this committee holds, i would suggest that when we rush to hold people in contempt, it has a Chilling Effect on anyone wanting to go the extra mile to provide documents. Becomes very troubling in terms of the cooperative ability that this committee has long valid. Obviously i would respectfully ask the chairman, i appreciate his willingness to hold a vote on contempt for later today. I would respectfully ask him to hold off until after the Supreme Court ruling to actually have this particular vote. Now there are some that would argue we are a totally separate branch and i would join them in the argument. But i will say this. When you have something that is being adjudicated by the Supreme Court and we know that their decision will be made known to the American People and really be binding in law within the next two weeks, why the rush . Why the rush . Mr. Chairman, i respectfully disagree with this contempt vote. Certainly am prepared to offer amendments if the chairman plans to go through with this vote. But would respectfully ask him to consider delaying a vote for at least two weeks. I yelled back. Yield back. Let me start out by addressing this claim that wilbur ross and others have been in cooperative. Anyone who is here for the duration of secretary rosss testimony must agree regardless of what side of the aisle you are on, that was painful. That was painful. He was anything but cooperative before this committee. Every question was dragged out in design. Every answer was designed to produce pain and to consume time. It was the most uncooperative. He feigned inability to answer questions on a consistent basis. Let me also just talk about our ability to influence the Supreme Court and their decision. For the entire history of this country, the Supreme Court has disregarded the right to determine what the constitution requires. We can go back to justice marshall. They have jealously guarded that decision. The claim that what is going on in this Committee Room here will influence their decision, i can hear them laughing at that proposition. That is absolutely ridiculous. If you know how the Supreme Court works, that opinion has been written. That decision has been made. Before we banged the gavel on this hearing. Let me also talk about the other levels of cooperation. We were told to wait a bit because they are cooperating. This is one of the 17,000 key documents that we asked the secretary to provide us with. This is not helpful. Is that from this production or the production we got from the Obama Administration. Reclaiming my time. This is not helpful. 17,000 of these does not help the process. This is one of the key documents we are trying to get. This is wilbur ross from Earl Comstock to wilbur ross. Can i put that one up on the screen as well. This reads i agree mr. Secretary on the questions, we will get that in place. The broad talk its broad topics of what we sent to congress when the census questions are submitted to congress. We need to work with the justice to reflect the citizenship. He added back as a census question. When mr. Ross testified here, he said that he got the request and then the process began. This email indicates that seven months prior he was working with mr. Comstock to get Citizenship Questions put in place. This is not cooperation. His conduct is misleading congress. Not cooperating. That is why i believe that the time is now to vote on contempt. We have given them plenty of time in terms of truly cooperating with the process. And as mr. Causey of cortez said this is a constitutional duty on our part to make sure the laws our upheld. That we support and defend the constitution. This is essential in that duty. The proposition that these folks have been cooperative is laughable. They have been obstructionists from the very beginning. And i think the chairman has shown extreme patience and thoughtfulness and consideration for the other side of the aisle, but i think we have reached our limit. And i think we should proceed on contempt. Mr. Chairman, i yield. The president has made it clear we are fighting all subpoenas from house democrats. All the subpoenas. And i want to enter into the record this article dated april 24 2019 entitled trump, without objection. I have an amendment. We will pause for a second to review the amendment. Thank you. The court will distribute the amendment to all members and then i want to have a chance to read it. Does every member have a copy of the amendment . The court will read. An amendment to the amendment. Thank you mr. Chairman. In light of the conversation that is currently underway, like it or not agree with details or not, the fact is that the attorney general and director of commerce have cooperated with this committee and continue to cooperate both by coming forth as witnesses to this committee, providing documents and publicly stating they will continue to cooperate with this committee. And they themselves are saying after the Supreme Court decision they will supply additional documents. They dont want themselves to be involved in interfering. I think it needs to go on record that they are, they have, and they continue to cooperate with this committee and that is what this amendment takes. I would urge our colleagues on both side of the aisle to support it. Thank you, i yield back. I oppose this amendment. Let me tell you why. First of all, i dont agree with it. The cooperation has already been stated quite clearly. The cooperation has not been all that is said in this amendment. As a matter of fact we have bent over backwards trying to get the documents we wanted. I want to take this moment to complement mr. Meadows who worked very, very hard, very hard and he was able to get us the three witnesses we wanted. But we also needed specific documents. We were successful, but not as successful as we need it. Even up until the last minute the administration has said basically they are not going to give us the documents. The statement has been made several times that i want to clear up. I checked with staff because i had not heard this. The administration to my knowledge has never said that they are going to give us the documents that we want after any kind of decision but that is not relevant anyway. We are an independent body. This is about us doing our job. As getting with the census. Ms. Maloney who has worked so hard for all of the 20 some years i have been on this committee knows what im talking about. For those reasons i would object to the amendment. Anybody else want to be recognized . Mr. Clay. Thank you mr. Chairman. I moved to strike the last word. Are we on the consideration, is the amendment on the consideration . I speak recognition to oppose the amendment. Mr. Hice in this amendment says there has been significant cooperation from this administration and that is not factual. There has been no cooperation. Let me share with my republican colleagues an example of what took place yesterday. In fact, the department of commerce refused for more than two months to make officials available for interviews so the department relented only after the committee made clear it would subpoena them. We held one of those interviews yesterday with james from the department of commerce. He is a key witness and worked directly to at the Citizenship Question. He communicated with the white house about it and he wrote the memo from the department of commerce to the department of justice but yesterday following instruction from the department of commerce, he refused to answer 100 questions from the committee. He refused to say what he had done with secretary ross. He refused to say who he talked to at the white house and he refused to tell us what was in the memo to doj. In other words, the interview was just one more example of obstruction from his administration. To call this cooperation on the part of the administration is just not factual. So we need to be honest in this committee about where we go and what our authority is. My friend from massachusetts, we do have the authority to issue subpoenas to get to the truth, to get to the facts. Mr. Chairman, this is serious business. This is about how we document all americans. How we count them every 10 years in accordance to the constitution. And what is riding on all of that data and all of that information. We need to uphold our duty and we all took an oath to do that. So why now we are blocking for an administration that has no sense of the law and has conducted themselves in a lawless manner is beyond me. So, at this point mr. Chairman i would just say the amendment seems to be a farce. And i urge this committee to vote it down. At this point i would like to yield the balance of my type to the gentleman from maryland. Thank you for yielding. I just wanted to commend the chairman for the deliberate and conscientiously in which you have proceeded on this matter. Because the language of this amendment which alludes to the fact that the courts will take some measure and notes of how the proceedings were undertaken , it calls to mind how careful you have been. And i actually think that if this gets into a position where the courts are having to make a judgment about where the cooperation was being initiated, who was being careful and dotting all the eyes and crossing all the teas, the courts are going to conclude that that is what you have done mr. Chairman. And i think that will ultimately carry the day when the request for information comes down. I yield back my time. The chair has been very careful, very. I dont like being in this position, i do not. Im going to defend this committee and i will defend the integrity of this committee. We have issued properly done subpoenas and we have to make sure that we do every single thing in our power to enforce them and i think you. Mr. Chairman . Thank you mr. Chairman. I wanted to just weigh in on actually a transcribed interview and this amendment. Literally what we have got is both sides characterizing what we believe to be the truth. Somewhere between the way it is being characterized on the other side and by the way it is being characterized here is the truth. Lets make sure that we are clear that the interview that happened yesterday was one that you and i worked on together to make sure that this individual got there. I know my good friend from missouri is talking about all the questions that were answered. Of the questions that were answered, you can come on back and sit down, im not going to say anything negative about it. But, some of the questions that were answered was the fact that that witness had nothing to do, didnt actually have any position with art newman and didnt even know who oft fell or was. He did answer those questions. Lets make sure we are fully engaged in terms of what happened and what didnt happen. I say that respectfully to my good friend. And yet, i want to come back to one other key issue as we are dealing with this amendment. We keep talking about how this is not about the Supreme Court case and it is about legitimate oversight and we have to do this. I guess the question i have is since we are here and since member of this very committee has put forth a bill that would strike the Citizenship Question from the senses, why are we not having a markup on that bill . This is a markup. Instead we are talking about contempt instead of having a markup on the very bill that would be the legislative responsibility of this very committee. So if we want to be serious about it, why dont we get serious and do a markup on a bill that would prohibit it and move it to the floor. And because my friend is so nice and smiling, i will yield to the gentleman for a quick question in case when to go back and forth from missouri. Let me think the gentleman from North Carolina for yielding. The issue here is one, the secretary of commerce ross came here to this committee for seven hours and was not factual. I would caution the gentleman if you lied to this committee, lets bring him and Michael Cohen back in here. I will reclaim my time. Wait a minute, hold it. One at a time. It is your time. I will yield 30 more seconds to the gentleman to make an incorrect point. Look, you can call it incorrect if you like. You know it is factual. We were told one scenario of how the question but to the senses. And we know that is not true after we reviewed the evidence. And we know that the stargate was incorrect. Im reclaiming my time. I will work with the gentleman and the chairman to make sure that any testimony that was false is certainly corrected. I think we have an obligation to do that. I would remind the gentleman that mr. Cohen actually came here and did like to this committee so we have obligation. If the gentleman is willing to work with me on mr. Ross, work with me on mr. Cohen, i will work on mr. Ross. Are you willing to work with me on both of those . I was asking the gentleman from missouri, are you willing to work with me on both of those issues . Im willing to work with you on the ross issue. I bet. All right. I will yield back to the chairman. I will yield back. There being no further discussion on the height amendment . Are you speaking on the heise amendment . Okay. The question now is on the amendment offered by mr. Hice. All in favor signify by saying aye. All those opposed, no. Ask for roll call. Roll call. What we are going to do is hold the vote until around 4 00 so people will be present. I know everybody wants to be present for this vote. You will have plenty of notice. Mr. Raskin. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much. What are they afraid of . The gentleman from ohio asked a critical question. What are they afraid of . Three Federal District courts have ruled that the Citizenship Question proceeded on a pretextual basis because they violated every rule in the book. Every rule that was violated along the way to put it in. We couldnt figure out what was behind the Citizenship Question that was implanted outside of regular governmental administrative process. Well, one of the documents came back heavily redacted but there is enough in it that we can figure out what is really going on. It is one of the clues. I would ask the staff to put it on the screen if they would. This is an email sent by wilbur ross on may 2, 2017. You see most of that redacted part. A very critical sentence appears sandwiched in between the redacted section. They emphasize they have meddled with congress on the questions to be asked. I am mystified that nothing has been done in response to my month old request should we include the citizens question, why not . Notice the day of the email, that is may 2, 2017. Secretary ross said that he added the Citizenship Question fully in response to a request from the department of justice in december 2017, seven months later. Here he is in may 2017 seven months before saying he had been pressing for the Citizenship Question months before that. So, we at least have a seven month, or 11 or 12 mudslide. And the gentleman yield . Does the gentleman suggests that the executive branch be suppressed . Does the gentleman suggest that amongst the staff of our governments, does he suggest that that communication be suppressed . Reclaiming my time. Thank you for asking that question. Im not saying theres anything illegal about him having written this. But i think it is highly dubious if not lawless for him to have testified that the sole reason for inserting this question was a request from the department of justice about the Voting Rights act which was his testimony before this committee. That is number 1. Number 2 is an article appears in the New York Times on may 29, 2019 headlined the yield and review new details on the census Citizenship Question. Thomas received after he died last summer his estranged daughter discovered hard drives that revealed something else. He played a crucial role in the Trump Administrations decision to add a Citizenship Question to the 2020 census. Files show he wrote a study in 2015 concluding that adding the Citizenship Question would allow republicans to draft even more extreme gerrymandered maps. This is what they are afraid of america knowing. This had nothing to do with the Supreme Court. Mr. Chairman i am baffled by the heated claims that the work of this committee is to influence the Supreme Court. Our colleagues know that every member of the committee on the majority side understand how the Supreme Court works. You bring controversy under article 3 before the Supreme Court. If you want to intervene in someone elses case you apply for it. Are they accusing us of unethical or unlawful conduct . It is ridiculous. The Supreme Court justices know exactly how they are supposed to proceed. We have an independent constitutional obligation under article 1 to conduct the census, that is our job. To see that the American People are counted. The very first sentence of the constitution is we the people. It is directly into article 1 of the constitution setting forth the powers and duties of the congress. One of them is to conduct the census in actual enumeration of the people. They may not like the fact that women werent counted, everyone is counted under our senses. That is what we fear the administration is trying to disrupt them the truth has come out about it. Mr. Chairman you have asked this with characteristic reason and this is long overdue, it is urgent and justified. I yield back. I have a unanimous consent request. He met mr. Chairman i would ask unanimous consent that we put in an article from june 2, 2019 from the Editorial Board and it is john robert which contradicts everything the gentleman from maryland that i ask unanimous consent for this to be included in the record. So ordered. In mckenna and i have an amendment. Someone has an amendment at the desk. If it can be distributed to all members. Hold up for a second while it is distributed. An amendment to the amendment from louisiana. You are recognized. My amendment states this hearing is reflective of the division that we witnessed unnecessarily within our nation partially because of the american citizenry observes the action of this congress and it is not reflected in their own communities and their own families and their own intent for the future of our country. We have clearly established constitutional parameters for the executive branch, the legislative branch and the Judicial Branch of our government. In the Supreme Court case before the United States a dissent regarding a case that they determined to hear raises a warning that specific individuals including the secretary be not subject to public inquiry. This was arranged by two Supreme Court justices. The problem here as witnessed by the American People is that this is certainly could we get more public . This is why the actions of this committee can influence a pending Supreme Court case. One moment, and then yes. For the president to have to executive exercise executive privilege is reflective of the kind of division being presented to this nation unnecessarily. We should let the Supreme Court move forward, make their decision and do our jobs very publicly with the media present and ideal to my dissing was friend. I think my friend and i have two questions about the statement you made and want to make sure i get it right. Is the implication that the American People have no First Amendment rights to discuss any matter that is in the Supreme Court, any cases in the Supreme Court . That is my first question. The second is i am sure you as i am believe in taking the language of the constitution seriously. Where does the language executive privilege appear in the constitution . In response to your first question i will reclaim my time. It is never my intent to restrain the constitutional obligations of the body for this committee. However, a warning issued in rent by a sitting Supreme Court justice should be something carefully considered and the two Supreme Court justices did indeed issue a writ warning against public interview while the Supreme Court case was pending. And this is why the actions of this committee could potentially influence that case. We would never want that done. Would you sure that warning with the committee . It has been shared before but i shall. Regarding our obligation to recognize executive privilege, that is reflective of the parameters of our own. Will the gentleman yield . Yes i yield. The gentleman is trying to get cute because he is a constitutional professor and i get that. But he knows very well in the jurisprudence of this particular, and i will be glad to go off line and we can have this debate and i will be glad to do that. But, the gentleman knows all too well that executive privilege has been recognized, does he not . Yes or no. Theres a huge debate about it. It is not written in the constitution. I reclaim my time. I would just like to say that this is the legislative branch of government. This committee did not succumb to the level of visceral division that we witnessed unnecessarily across our nation and i yield. And a gentleman yield . So is the gentleman from maryland, he strictly is going with the text of the constitution . This would be a new move by the gentleman from maryland. He said he didnt want anybody in the executive branch testifying. I think you said something to that effect. He said no more subpoenas, no more cooperation, no more do overs. So for two years we heard from the Republican Leadership of this committee that we wont do any investigation into the lawlessness and criminality of the alleged administration because we will allow the Mueller Report to do it. It came out and they will not pursue any validations there because it is a do over. We understand the Supreme Court said and repeatedly ruled that the legislative branch of government, congress has investigative powers which are essential and integral to the lawmaking function. And yet this administration has tried to pull a curtain down over the executive branch and say we are not cooperating with the census investigation and we are not cooperating with the request for the president s tax returns. The first in the last seven or eight to not produce tax returns. We will not cooperate on an investigation of corruption in the white house were 25 people were denied security clearance. And the professional staff was overruled by the president and his political appointees in this committee is trying to get to the bottom of that. They simply are not respecting the constitutional role of congress. And that is something i would hope every member of this committee regardless of which side would consider a grave threat to american democracy. My friends on the other side of the aisle got billions of documents in the benghazi investigation. And in the Hillary Clinton email investigation. They did a great job. We are still missing 30,000 emails, i can tell you that. I know you think you have the right to them and we would agree that congress has the right to obtain any information at once. This is not a frivolous partisan matter. This goes to the heart of whether or not we will have Constitutional Government and the rule of law in the United States of america. When Congress Asks for document, it receives the document. When Congress Asks someone to testify in the normal course of business, the person comes to testify. We are not playing games here. As chairman has been utterly solicitous and has bent over backwards for secretary of commerce to come before the committee. He wrote him a letter and i hope someone will show the letter. This is may 8. He said mr. Secretary i would like to meet with you in person to ensure that you are fully apprised of the absence of your staff to determine whether there is any way to resolve this impasse before initiating potential enforcement action. He closes by saying in order to try to resolve this matter i would like to meet with you directly before taking any further action. I would like to determine whether there is any way we can address our committees oversight interest without further investigative depth. I would encourage you to bring your counsel to this meeting so we can discuss various options in an efficient and effective manner. I am from maryland and i know congressman cummings. Chairman cummings is known as the gentleman of our state. He has done everything in his power to bring the secretary of commerce and and give him every opportunity. All we get from the administration is the middle finger. That is not appropriate for the chairman of this committee or the power of congress. We will vindicate article 1. The president has executive privilege to not cooperate with congress in any way, let him assert it. Why would we finger point . Is ridiculous. Maybe at some point the administration you know what we were viewed falsely conspiring with the russians to impact the election. Do we investigate the false accusations, or do we continue to look at something bob mueller months on and came back and said no collusion. After 10 months, and let the fbi look at it, no collusion. Will you yield . Of course. Will you show the special counsel report works is no collusion . On page 1 and two he said we do not address no collusion. Collusion there were more than 125 contacts. I noticed something that is happening here that is disturbing. I try to be flexible but you wont let me be flexible. When somebody has time, it is their time. I cannot have members talking at each other. It doesnt make sense. As a matter of fact it opens the door to problems. So, whoever is talking lets just go quickly by the rule. So, gentleman you have time. It is mr. Hices time yielded it to me and i think the gentleman to do that. Who has time now . Following the rules is important. All right, go ahead. Following the rules is important. That is why the first issue raised was the fact that we didnt follow the rules on the notice requirement raised by the gentleman from carolina. Following the rules is important. Thank you. I am thinking. Theres only things i want to respond to im trying to prioritize. The bottom line is of course. For two years we used the term conspiracy interchangeably. Did the special counsel concludes there was can hear or see between the Trump Campaign and russia . After 22 months the fbi was looking at the same darn thing. 32 month of investigation by the democrats, they dont want to ask the question why do we investigate why the false accusation started in the first place . They dont want to do that. They want to say we are going to keep investigating something that the special counsel spent 22 months on and the fbi spent 10 months on. We will keep looking at that. Okay, okay, if thats where we are going to be that fine. But to say the administration hasnt complied, i yield back to the gentleman. I yield back. All right. Is there no further discussion . I have an amendment. Mac no, we are trying to get through this one first. The question now is on the amendment offered by mr. Higgins. All in favor signify by saying aye. Those opposed, no. We will record the vote around 4 pm. You have unanimous consent vote. I have unanimous consent that be entered into the record and responsive my distinguished friends request, doctrine from the Supreme Court of the United States dated october 22, 2018 which was by Justice Thomas that the next logical step regarding the state of public interview is to simply say all records of discovery pending our review and theres another factor here weighing in favor of a more complete stay and the need to protect, we invite and they specifically cite secretary ross here. I asked that this document be entered into the record. So ordered. Ms. Martin. Thank you mr. Chairman for holding this important business meeting. Each person took an oath of office to protect and defend the constitution of the united. We repeat that oath of office each time we are elected to serve in this amazing body of congress. However, this amendment does not seem to understand the concept of separate but equal branches of government as outlined by the same constitution that we as members of congress and then as executive Branch Officials defend before taking this office. I am losing sleep because of this administrations refusal to abide by the constitution. We have a constitutional obligation to conduct the oversight of the executive branch. Yes, this includes claims each time we request information critical to fulfilling our investigative responsibilities. Today we vote to hold secretary ross in contempt of congress for their complete disregard for the constitution and refusal to provide this committee with relevant documents related to the committees investigation into the 2020 census. This is no small matter. And in accurate census can cause damaging consequences and it will have an impact not only on democratic districts but all of our districts. Comply with these investigations, this administration and i will say on the record it seems my colleagues on the other ill are more interested in protecting the president instead of the people of this country. Look no further than the president and his own words who not long ago stated we are going to fight every subpoena. Checks and balances. The statement that he continues to make, the democrats are trying to win 2020. Mr. President , congress has the responsibility to conduct oversight on issues that are critical to this country and i intend to fulfill that role. Two months ago this committee voted to subpoena barr and ross for documents related to the census and we keep hearing just wait, just wait, why are you rushing . Two months. My colleagues on the other side are saying wait. I am telling my constituents and they are asking why are you doing your job, get to work. Stop sitting around watching this happen. Didnt we put you in office to do your job . I urge my colleagues to support this resolution not just for administration sake but we must maintain a separate but equal branch of government. I yield. Just a quick question. If you have nothing to hide, if you were proud of the process do you think you would abide a simple request for the documents to request it . Presumably you are proud of that edition. Mac i have served in local government. I have been the mayor of the city. I have always been ready and available and transparent in any policy i bring forward and i welcome the debate because i knew it was my obligation to be in the public transparent process and share why we are doing what we do. At the end of the day i dont work for donald trump, i dont work for an administration, i work for the people. This is a place where the people can get the answers. I yield back. Chairman i have an amendment. I noticed your portrait is on the wall mr. Chairman. I notice your portrait is on the wall, mr. Chairman. Let me be clear. When i became chairman, i want to the portraits to go up, just out of respect. We went toe to toe quite a bit, but when all the dust settled, i had a lot of respect for him. He taught me a lot. I am sure i showed him a few things, too. Will determine yield . We wished he hadnt thought you quite so well. It is good to see you back. You much you look much younger than the portrait. Mac they said to me the lord and finished with me yet. All right, where are we . Mr. Chairman while you are thinking about that i was going to say welcome back. It took a democrat to put the portraits back on the wall. And you know what mr. Chairman . Maybe we ought to follow isis procedures with respect to subpoenas. That might be a cleansing act or on the committee. Exactly. I knew that wasnt so popular anymore. Lets move forward. We needed a little break. It really has been. This question has been asked, and if you go back on the 1980 longform population survey, on this survey was in what state or foreign country was the person born . And if this person was born in a foreign country, this person, a naturalized citizen of the United States . Secondly, when did this person come to the United States to stay . I was not around in 1950, but i think the common sense approach that many people have mentioned and realize is that now, with the influx of people from other countries, now more than ever, we need this question. Question asked. That this is a meaningful way to do it. It is something that is long overdue and should be done. I oppose this amendment. The Citizenship Question has not been included in the centennial census in decades. The administration bypassed the procedures for adding the question and i oppose it. Mr. Chairman would you yield . Yes. I appreciate the points made by our friends. But lord almighty, almighty, 19. Lets see, harry truman was in the white house. I love lucy had not yet hit television. Your mother, ms. Deborah wau Wasserman Schultz, was 4. We were still fighting in korea. And, you know, the world was just a wonderfully different place. And for the ensuing 69 years, which kind of is conveniently glossed over in this motion, we didnt do it. If you would allow me to finish my thought. And i appreciate the sincerity of the author of this amendment, but its in a series of clearly dilatory motions by the other side. Im not quite sure why my friends on the other side are so anxious to protect the production of documents about a simple question, the answer to which could easily clarify our concerns or not. And its the or not part that i guess im getting really suspicious about the more i get these amendments. What is it youre trying to protect . What is it youre afraid of . And, oh, by the way, as ms. Lawrence indicated, we all take an oath. Im just curious and i ask it rhetorically at what point do you honor that oath as opposed to protecting whoever is in the white house . And im really looking forward to the day that happens. All of my friends are sincere. They all took the same oath, and im deeply troubled by the fact that they dont see incumbent upon them some responsibility to hold the executive Branch Accountable at some level. And so, yeah, you know, the Citizenship Question is indeed asked on the American Community survey, which is a limited subgroup. But this resolution begs the question of impact. Our concerns on this side are twofold. One is what is the motivation . What is the motivation for adding back this question after 69 years . And, secondly, what is the impact . And we have expert testimony and evidence that the impact will be to reduce compliance with the census. And what could wrong with that . Well, that affects the allocation of federal resources to localities, and it affects ultimately how people are represented in their state legislatures, their local boards and councils and here in the United States congress. And thats a legitimate concern for anyone who takes the oath we do as a member of congress to guard against. Will the gentleman yield for a second . Yes, i will. I support the gentlemans statement and point out that experts have said that adding the Citizenship Question will result in an undercount of 6. 5 million americans. Six different heads of the Census Bureau, republican and democrat, came out against it, saying it will produce an undercount. And id like to place in the record the memo from mr. Hofler, on the use of citizen voting, age, population and redistricting, and he says and i quote without objection, so ordered. He says, and i quote, a switch to the use of citizen voting age population as the redistricting population base for will the gentle lady yield . On your own time. Would be advantageous to republicans and nonhispanic whites. He points out that this will benefit dramatically the Republican Party in redistricting and says that it will also result in an extreme undercounting of minority populations in america. So i am opposed to the gentlemans amendment, and, mr. Chairman, id like to get back to the real purpose of this, which is the contempt, which id like to speak on. Time is expired. Mr. Chairman . Mr. Jordan. I dont get why youre opposed. The amendment states three facts. For 130 years the Citizenship Question was asked. It was on at long form census for 30 years, and its been on every American Community survey from 2005 to present. Three facts. Three facts that say we ask this question, weve been doing it since 1820, for 200 years in one form or another. Thats all the amendment says, and the democrats are opposed to putting facts, to putting truth in their resolution. I dont get that. It seems to me weve had all this wonderful talk about will the gentleman yield . Getting truth, getting answers. All this says, this amendment is as simple and basic as you can make it. Three factual statements. We have been asking this question for 200 years in one form or another, and for some reason the democrats weve had three of them, the chairman and two others have said, oh, cant put it in the resolution. Three statements that are absolutely true. One plus one is two. Cant put that in a resolution. Cant put facts and truth in the resolution. These are three factual statements. Thats all his amendment does. We think that makes sense to put it in the resolution. I support the gentlemans amendment. Will the gentleman yield . Be happy to yield. I think its important that we look at these amendments in really trying to set a record, and i say that with all sincerity. Im going to offer an amendment here shortly. I think, mr. Chairman, part of the consideration because this, i believe, could be a landmark vote. When youre holding an executive Branch Cabinet in contempt at a particular time, its part of history, and i think its important that we get it right. I think its important that we include all the facts because historians later will come back, and they will say what was the context of when that happened . So i think for us to just say were going to exclude something or not have it included, i think is troublesome for the record, and i yield back to the gentleman not one cabinet member. Two. This is historic. Two of them. All were asking is can you put in three factually three true statements . Nope, cant do that. Were in a hurry to hold two people in contempt about a question thats been asked for 200 stinkin years. I dont get it. Mr. Jordan, would you yield . Ill be happy to yield to the gentleman from south carolina. Thank you. Let me just add, my friend on the other side cited 69 years. Its not done but every ten years, so the years are kind of misleading. Secondly, as my good friend from louisiana mentioned, technology has replaced doortodoor census gathering. People used to go door to door, and they would ask the question, are you a u. S. Citizen . So thats kind of disingenuous to cite the years. I would just add that the American Community survey is not some random, small survey. Like mr. Jordan said, this is a very simple amendment that really ought to be unanimous from everybody on this committee. I yield. Ms. Wasserman schultz. Thank you. I want to move to strike the last word on this amendment, particularly because the author and the minority is arguing that this was language that was asked on the census for decades, that its something that, you know, we used to do and so should do again, and that there wasnt any issue with it before. However, that is not the case, and i would ask unanimous consent to enter this article from nbc news that quotes the Census Bureau at the time they discontinued asking the Citizenship Question for the 1960 census. Without objection, so ordered. Thank you, mr. Chairman. Where it says, any effort to agoag ascertain citizenship will inestly jeopardize the overall accuracy of the population count. An argument the bureau has consistently upheld over the years. So there are decisions made to both include and exclude questions. It has been repeatedly excluded and consistently excluded since the last time this question appeared on the census directly because it results in an undercount. It results in fewer people being counted, which is directly contrary to the intent of having a census in the first place and, quite frankly, is the intent of the republicans desire to put the question back on the census as evidenced and revealed by the documents that have been that have come to light, and which is why we need to make sure that we get more information to expose the true reasoning behind the administrations desire to add citizenship to the census once again, which we have significant evidence thus far that the reason is so that theres an undercount. Will the gentle lady yield . Id be happy to yield to the gentleman from maryland the gentleman from maryland behind me, but i dont have much time. Thank you very much. Your point is an excellent one, and all of the information that we needed about american citizens, we were able to get through the very mechanisms that the gentlemans amendment contains within it. So the reason why three District Courts struck down putting the Citizenship Question on the form thats given to every american citizen is, one, its unnecessary. Two, it will, in fact, result in a severe undercount of millions of people. And, three, it was completely outside of the procedure and the rules, and it was the fact that the secretary of commerce apparently has tried to cover that up and suppress the fact of where it really came from that brings us here today. Mr. Chairman, we should proceed with the contempt motion. Mr. Chairman, do i have any remaining time . Yeah no, you dont. Okay. Then i yield back. All right. Mr. Chairman . Now, listen up weve got to vote, so i want to take a vote on this if you dont mind. But go ahead. I just want to ask for a recorded vote. Not yet. Yeah, not yet. I know were excited about the amendment. Lets slow it down a little bit. The question now occurs on the amendment offered by distinguished gentleman mr. Norman. All those in favor, signify by saying aye. Aye. Those opposed no. No. The noes have it and we will i have a unanimous consent request. Please do. Thank you, mr. Chairman. Ask unanimous consent and insert into the record the American Community survey dated 2019 where it asks the question on number 8. Okay. Without objection. So ordered. Very well. Let me tell members what were doing. We only have one vote, is that right . We only have one vote. We could keep going. Mr. Chairman, unanimous consent request. Yeah. I ask unanimous consent that the three courts that have actually ruled on this question and found it wanting be entered into the record, their opinions be entered into the record. Without objection, so ordered. I thank the chair. Are we coming back to this . We are coming back. Theres a vote, ladies and gentlemen. Theres only one vote, so we will come back to give people hold on give people a chance to get something to eat. Well come back at 1 00, all right . Cspans road to the white house coverage continues tonight with two events. Senator Donnelly Sanders talks about democratic socialism and why it would be good or america senator Bernie Sanders talks about democratic socialism and white would be good for america. Er, mary Pete Buttigieg later, mayor Pete Buttigieg at 8 50 p. M. Pres. Trump oh, do i look forward to running against him . Watch live at 8 00 p. M. Eastern on cspan two, online at cspan. Org, or listen live on the free cspan radio app. This weekend, American History tv has live, twoday coverage of the Gettysburg Civil War Institute summer conference. Starting saturday at 8 30 a. M. Eastern with a discussion on the unionist cause with Katie Shively of virginia commonwealth university. A look at that turners rebellion with Patrick Green of providence college, the combat experience of civil war soldiers with Gettysburg Colleges peter carr michael. Then a discussion of the civil West Virginia by university. On sunday, our live coverage continues in 8 30 a. M. Eastern with a discussion on preserving Gettysburg National military ofks with jennifer mariurray Oklahoma State university, violence in the civil war with aaron, then a look at civil war emancipation with the heart of america with ed ayers of the university of michigan, following with a discussion on throughthe conflict the eyes of historians. Watch the annual Gettysburg College Civil War Institute summer Conference Live this weekend on American History tv on cspan3. This weekend on book tv, sunday at 6 45 p. M. Eastern, we visit the home of husband and safer andrs Jeanne Richard burr kaiser. Jeanne this is what matters in life, and it is called the chemotherapy test. When you rely on the hospital bed, getting chemotherapy in your veins, you do not ask the Party Affiliation of the person who is standing next to you, getting you through it. At 8 00 p. M. , author mark levin talks about his book on freedom of the press. Mark the difference between moderate media today and the Patriot Media that founded this country, the Patriot Media, thirtysomething newspapers, that was it, they were trying to fundamentally transform the government. They wanted representative government. Is trying toess fundamentally transform us. And then on 00 p. M. Eastern on after words, cnn chief White House Correspondent jim custer offers generajim acosta discusses his new book the enemy of the people. He is interviewed by jay rosen. Jay folks, after this taping, we are 90 plus days since our last official briefing in the White House Briefing room, and we just do not have access to white house officials the way that we used to, even during the Trump Administration, where we had them on the record in that briefing room, where everyone is micd, and you have a variety of reporters, not Just Networks who were vying to get a question in, but also for a newsletter list, newspapers, that has been lost. What to the all weekend on cspan2. Watchable tv all weekend on cspan2. Next, former Obama Administration secretary of russiailliam burns on relations, the syrian conflict, and the recent attack on oil tankers in the gulf of oman. Mr. Burns has also served as ambassador to russia and jordan. The Truman Center for National Policy posted as 50minute interview, part of todays forum on u. S. Global leadership. [applause] mary good morning, everybody. Welcome, ambassadorn