tv U.S. House of Representatives U.S. House of Representatives CSPAN July 16, 2019 11:59am-2:00pm EDT
least one democratic member wants to go further than a resolution of condemnation. tennessee democratic congressman steve cohen, wants to censure the president. what's happening with that effort? what do you think is likely to happen to that in the house? >> steve cohen also introduced a resolution last night to censure president trump for these comments. right now when he introduced it last night it only had nine co-sponsors. he told me this morning that he -- several more members have approached him about and co-sponsoring the resolution as well. but house democratic leaders believe that a resolution that condemns trump rather than censuring him is more likely to get some bipartisan support. so we are not expecting cohen's resolution to go anywhere. it still shows there are some democrats who would like to go even farther in formally condemocraticing the president on the house floor. >> christina, a short time there with you, we appreciate it. we'll follow you on
the speaker pro tempore: the house will be in order. the prayer will be offered by the guest chaplain, bishop elias of lady of hy lebanon of los angeles, st. louis, missouri. the chaplain: let us pray. almighty and loving god, we lift our hearts and minds in a prayer of thanksgiving, for so many blessings you bestow upon us. we thank you for the gift of life, from the womb to the tomb. we thank you for the gift of our beloved country of the united states of america. land of opportunity and beacon of hope. as often of today's meeting, we ask you to bless the members of congress, inspire them to seek your guidance, to walk in the way of love, to look for the
well-being of every citizen, may they become instruments of peace and ministers of love. in a world tormented by hatred and divisions, so that they collaborate together instead of competing against each other. we make this prayer in your name , for yours is the kingdom, the power and the glory, forever and ever. amen. the speaker pro tempore: the speaker pro tempore: thank you, bishop. the chair has examined the journal of the last day's proceedings and announces to he house his approval thereof. pursuant to clause 1 of rule 1, the journal stands approved. the pledge of allegiance will be led by the gentleman from florida, mr. dunn. mr. dunn: i pledge allegiance to the flag of the united states of america and to the republic for which it stands,
one nation under god, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman from illinois, mr. lahood, is recognized for one minute. mr. lahood: thank you, mr. speaker. rise today to honor bishop zaidan of the marion night catholic faste and the lebanon community in the united states. born in lebanon he's the youngest bishop to lead the ep arcy of our lady of lebanon of los angeles. as a lebanese american myself, i am honored to have him come to washington to open the house floor for prayer this morning. in 1984, bishop zaidan professed his perpetual vows as a member of the congregation of the lebanese marion night missionaries and ordained a priest two years late. since then he's committed his life to serving others and recognized for that service with his appointment by pope
francis as the third bishop of the ep arcy. i would like to commend bishop zaidan for his continued service in the community and champion for the protection of children and missionary to those of all faiths. i am grateful for his work in the lebanese american community and i would like to sincerely thank him for coming this morning to bless the house in prayer. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the chair will entertain 15 further requests for one-minute speeches on each side of the aisle. for what purpose does the the gentlewoman from arizona seek recognition? >> request unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentlewoman is recognized for one min. mrs. kirkpatrick: mr. speaker, i have a responsibility as a congresswoman, former prosecutor, and american citizen to stand up for the rule of law. after countless conversations with my constituents, after speaking with legal scholars and experts, reviewing the
mueller report, and after seeing administration officials defy congressional subpoenas, i have come to the conclusion that the house of representatives must open an impeach. inquiry impeachment inquiry on president trump. following mueller's alarming report it is our job as a congress to conduct oversight and deliver answers to the american people. unfortunately, the president has called his administration to break the law and ignore our congressional subpoenas. now we have no choice but to open an impeachment inquiry. this should not be a partisan fight or a debate about election strategy. it's about the rule of law. i know impeachment is risky, but allowing this president to defy the law is even more risky. if we don't act now, our democracy may be threatened for years to come. mr. speaker, i yield back.
the speaker pro tempore: members are reminded to refrain from engaging in personalities toward the president. for what purpose does the gentleman from florida seek recognition? >> i request unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman from florida is recognized for one minute. >> thank you very much, mr. speaker. i rise today to honor the life of the late harry k. weaver of live oak, florida. from a very yuck age, he had an unwavering desire to serve others and make the world a better place. mr. weaver was born in 1929 in bristol, florida, shortly after earning his degree at florida state university he enlisted in the united states army. the following years of service to our country he returned to florida where he would dedicate more than 33 years of his life first as the administrator, then the president of the florida sheriff's youth ranches. a program that's served over 150,000 children. mr. dunn: he was also founding member of the national association of homes for
children where he served as its first president. his legacy will live on and the impact he's made on the youth has left a lasting impression. mr. speaker, please join me in recognizing the life and legacy of mr. harry weemp-r weaver. -- weaver. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentlewoman from new york seek recognition? without objection, the gentlewoman from new york is recognized for one minute. >> mr. speaker, this week the house will raise the wages of 40 million americans. mrs. maloney: it's been 10 years, 10 years since the federal minimum wage has been increased. since n stuck at $7.25 july 24, 2009. during that time, the cost of living has raised -- been
raised 18%. today a full-time worker earning the minimum wage working year-round without even a week's vacation, they earn only $1,250 per month, or $15,000 a year. it's far below the monthly expenses for the average family of 3,000, which is what the monthly expenses is. a new report from the joint economic committee on which i serve as vice chair shows that today's minimum wage doesn't even cover the cost of housing for the typical american family. the minimum wage is far from a living wage. i urge my colleagues to raise the wage act and support it and increase it to $15 by 2024. thank you. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from mississippi seek recognition? >> unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore:
without objection, the gentleman from mississippi is recognized for one minute. >> mr. speaker, i rise today to celebrate the life of ms. emily katherine goss of seen czar, mississippi, whose life was unfortunately cut short on july 12 at the age of 17. emily was a captain of the cheer team in hancock high school where she would have been a senior this upcoming fall semester. she was a hardworking honor student who stayed active in various clubs. when she wasn't at school, emily worked at the countryside diner and was also a babysitter. emily is remembered for being a loving, kind hearted young woman who was always smiling and loved life. she was a faithful member of her youth group at union baptist church. she is survived by her parents, as well as her sister. who she shared an inseparable bond with. my thoughts and prayers are with her loved ones as they breemb the loss of emily. mr. speaker, at this time i ask the house to join me in a
moment of silence to honor the life of miss emily katherine oss. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from california seek recognition? without objection, the gentleman from california is recognized for one minute. >> mr. speaker, earlier this month we learned of two facebook groups in which c.b.p. agents made hateful comments about the women, children, and asylum seekers under their custody and therefore their responsibility. this racism, xenophobia, is unacceptable. c.b.p. must be held accountable to end these shameful comments anti-cruel, inhumane treatment of children in their custody. we can't simply fund supplies and expect a behavior change.
that's why i'm grateful to homeland security committee chairman thompson to chairman nadler and chair lofgren of the judiciary committee for holding a markup of my bill, the humanitarian standards for individuals in c.b.p. custody act to ensure our treatment of children, women, and families is consistent with the principles of basic human dignity. mr. ruiz: my bill sets the basic standards we need to create a comprehensive public health approach to the humanitarian challenges at our border. together we are moving this bill forward to prevent children from dying and restore humanity to our treatment of children under the custody and responsibility of the federal government. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from indiana seek recognition? >> i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman from indiana is recognized for one minute. >> mr. speaker, i rise today to honor the incredible life of eva moses core, eva was a
friend, holocaust survivor, and inspiration to us all. as a young girl, eva and her family were held at the auschwitz concentration camp. while at auschwitz, eva and her twin sister, miriam, were subjected to inhumane medical exspirmentse by the nazi dr. joseph men ga la. until their liberation in 1945. eva and her sister were the only members of their family to survive the horrors of auschwitz. despite this dark atrocity, eva used her life to spread the message of forgiveness. eva married michael kor in 1960 and later that year moved to terre haute, indiana, in my district, where they raised two children, eva also spent tax teaching hoosiers the importance of finding peace, healing, and hope. in 1995, eva opened the candles holocaust museum in tara haut creating a permanent home to remind us of the power of
forgiveness and compassion. mr. but shoon: she passed away peacefully at the age of 84 during her annual trip to poland. eva kor was an incredible overwhelm woman of integrity, spirit, and forgiveness and her story will be shared for generations to come. may her memory be a blessing. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman rom new york seek recognition? without objection, the gentleman from new york is recognized for one minute. >> mr. speaker, this week for the first time in a decade the house will vote to increase the federal minimum wage to $15 an hour. mr. higgins: this legislation is long overdue. most economists believe our country is suffering from a crisis of income inequality. it is virtually impossible for working family to get by let alone get ahead working a or several minimum wage jobs.
instead of actually increasing wages, this president and our republican colleagues have showered the wealthiest with trillions in tax cuts that will never have a meaningful impact on economic growth and opportunity. this congress needs to promote the dignity of work and that starts with increasing the value of that work in paying americans a fair wage. in the economic security that a fair wage will provide gives families with the -- provides families with the opportunity to participate in the economy and not struggle in its shadows. so as a matter of basic fairness and dignity, i urge my colleagues to support, raise the wage act. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from south carolina seek recognition? mr. wilson: i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman from south carolina is recognized for one minute. mr. wilson: mr. speaker, it has been three legislative days since house democrats
undermined the military surviving spouses equity act by shifting the bipartisan bill into a partisan ndaa. there is still time to correct the widows tax on spouses of service members whose lives were lost during active duty or through a service connected cause. members of congress know this legislation is critical with over 365 co-sponsors being 86% of the members of congress. . congress needs to act for respect of members of the military and their families. according to the report, quote, thousands of surviving military spouses feel their same government has abandoned them, end of quote. this is unconscionable. as edith smith, a surviving spouse, said, quote, those who died earned this benefit. it's not a gratuitous benefit. they earned it. end of quote. in conclusion, god bless our troops and we will never forget september 11 and the global war on terrorism.
the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from illinois seek recognition? >> i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute, to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman from illinois is recognized for one minute. >> mr. speaker, this weekend the president used racist, xenophobic tropes to divide the country and evoke fear and anger. these words were deplorable, bigoted attacks that betrays the principles of our great nation and demeans the memories of all those who sacrificed so much in our ongoing pursuit of a more perfect union. whether you were born here, arrived as an immigrant, or came as a refugee, every citizen, naturalized or otherwise, is american every bit as much as our founders. our country is stronger because of our history as a people, of diverse backgrounds with diverse experiences. mr. speaker, i stand here today, it's grandson and great-grandson of immigrants who fled the persecution of jews in russia a century ago to build a better life in america for themselves and their future generations.
we have seen from history what happens when good people stay silent. to quote the late elie weasel, we must always take sides. neutrality always helps the oppressor, never the victim. mr. schneider: silence torments the tormenter, not the tormented. speak out and defend the values we all share as americans. with that, i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: members are reminded to refrain from engaging in personalities toward the president. for what purpose does the gentleman from north carolina seek recognition? >> i ask to address the house for one minute, revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman from north carolina is recognized for one minute. >> thank you, mr. speaker. i rise today to recognize two exceptional students from north carolina. recently, rising senior at west roanne high school and a community college student completed or competed in the skills u.s.a. championships, a national competition for career and technical education
students. grant and ashton each won first place in secondary and postsecondary masonry, respectively, and we couldn't be more proud of them. none of this would have been possible without rodney harington, the masonry teacher at the high school and mentor to these students. bud bud mr. speaker, these -- mr. budd: mr. speaker, these skills are imperative in helping build and grow our economy. and so i think it's worth mentioning, h.r. 2353rks the strengthening career and -- in technical education act. this monumental bill that became law last year has given states like mine more flexibility to meet the unique needs of their students, educators and employers. with that, mr. speaker, i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from new york seek recognition? >> i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute and to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman from new york is recognized for one minute. >> thank you, mr. speaker. i often reflect on the wise words of margaret mead. never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed
citizens can change the world. indeed, it's the only thing that ever has. never has this proven more true than when women of all ages and circumstances gathered in seneca falls in upstate new york 161 years ago this week and changed forever the course of history. these thoughtful, dedicated, passionate women stood up and declared to the world that all men and women are created equal. the convention sparked a fire in women across the country. mr. morelle: formally birthing the women's rights movement and paving the way for women's suffrage. we hear the echoes their voices today as we continue the fight they began so long ago. let this anniversary reinvigorate us as we carry on its legacy, fearlessly committed to getting equal right, equal pay and the fundamental right of every woman to choose what happens to her body. thank you, mr. speaker. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentlewoman from puerto rico eek recognition?
without objection, the gentlewoman from puerto rico is recognized for one minute. miss gonzalez-colon: thank you, mr. speaker. today i rise in full support of the territory's health care act -- territories health care act, which is scheduled to be considered in full committee markup tomorrow. this bill addresses the multiple disparities of the medicaid program in all u.s. territories, including puerto rico. medicaid on the island has a company and a limitation of 55% of the federal match percentage. impacting the island's ability to furnish health care costs and services for close to 1.4 million people in puerto rico. this bill will address these issues, increasing the cap and adjusting the cap for four years. if we do not address this issue, we're challenging medical access and services to approximately 1.4 million of my people. current social and political problems should not eliminate our understanding of what the people need and are responsible -- and our responsibility toward them. i urge my colleagues to continue
their support and advocacy for health care parity for territories' residents. with that, i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentlewoman from new jersey seek recognition? without objection, the gentlewoman from new jersey is recognized for one minute. mrs. watson coleman: watson -- ms. watson: watts thank you, mr. speaker. i rise -- mrs. watson coleman: watson thank you, mr. speaker. i rise today to call out the president's blaisent tweets. the phrase, go back where you came from is a racist trope that has been used by segregationists, neonazis, white nationalists and the cue clucksesmen to -- cue clucks clansmen to create -- describing nonwhite countries as broken and crime infested echoes the racist trope the president has used before, that such countries are dysfunctional, dirty and violent bace their populations are black. his comments are indefensible
and so is the silence from my colleagues across the aisle. i wouldn't bother seeking an apology if him, but i do hope republicans here will join us in fully and roundly condemning his words and i'd remind them that history won't look kindly on those who refuse to stand up for what is right. it is not lost on me, however, and i hope not my colleagues either that this is simply a distraction from the president's friendship with a documented pedophile and news reports that he lied to the supreme court about his census question. with that, i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: members are reminded to refrain from engaging in personalities toward the president president. for what purpose does the gentlewoman from illinois seek recognition? >> mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute and to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentlewoman from illinois is recognized for one minute. >> thank you, mr. speaker. in my district in northern illinois, many farmers are struggling with the challenges that come from a delayed planting season and an uncertain
market. ms. underwood: recently kaley invited me to her family farm to share a story about yet another challenge. health care costs. kaley and her husband, kevin, own a pumpkin farm and kaley dreams of being able to work on the farm to grow their bills. unfortunately that's not an option because health insurance is too expensive for them to purchase on their own. easily over $20,000 per year in my district. so kaley works as an outside employee in order to afford health insurance for her growing family. having to make the choice between entrepreneurship and health care is unacceptable. and that's why i introduced the health care affordability act, h.r. 1868, to reduce insurance premiums. my bill would reduce premiums by hundreds or thousands of dollars for approximately 20 million americans, 39,000 of whom reside in my district. a typical illinois family like kaley's would see their premiums cut in half, saving over $750 per month, and that's real money. americans shouldn't have to wait for lower health care costs. we need to pass the health care
affordability act now. mr. speaker, i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentlewoman from connecticut eek recognition? without objection, the gentlewoman from connecticut is recognized for one minute. ms. delauro: thank you, mr. speaker. i rise to honor alissa nayer, the connecticut-born u.s. women's national soccer team goal keeper. the united states' team once again proved that they are the best in the world. and throughout the world cup, alissa, who grew up in stratford, connecticut in my district, and played -- connecticut, in my district, and played at christian heritage school in trummable, provided crucial play after crucial play. none was more important or heart-stopping than her save against england. by stopping a penalty kick with time winding down, she single-handedly saved the united states' championship hopes. and alissa is more than just a
champion. she's a role model. the issue chanted for equal pay, for them and millions of families nationwood -- nationwide, clearly the time is now for the united states senate to pass h.r. 7, the paycheck fairness act, which has said men and women in the same job deserve the same pay. what better tribute, my friends, to the talent, to the determination and the commitment of these outstanding young women. so, again, congratulations, alissa, connecticut could not be more proud. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman rom maryland seek recognition? mr. raskin: mr. speaker, by direction of the committee on rules, i call up house he is -- house resolution 491 and ask for its immediate consideration. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the resolution. the clerk:s who calendar number 36. ouse resolution 491.
resolved, that at any time after adoption of this resolution the speaker may, pursuant to clause 2-b of rule 28, declare the house resolved into the committee of the whole house on the state of the union for consideration of the bill, h.r. 3494, to authorize appropriations for fiscal year 2020 for intelligence and intelligence-related activities of the united states government, the community management account, and the central intelligence agency retirement and disability system, and for other purposes. the first reading of the bill shall be dispensed with. all points of order against consideration of the bill are waived. general debate shall be confined to the bill and amendments specified in this section and shall not exceed one hour equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the permanent select committee on intelligence. after general debate the bill shall be considered for amendment under the five-minute rule. in lieu of the amendment in the nature of a substitute recommended by the permanent select committee on intelligence now printed in the bill, an
amendment in the nature of a substitute consisting of the text of rules committee print 116-22, modified by the amendment printed in part a of the report of the committee on rules accompanying this resolution, shall be considered as adopted in the house and in the committee of the whole. the bill, as amended, shall be considered as the original bill for the purpose of further amendment under the five-minute rule and shall be considered as read. all points of order against provisions in the bill, as amended, are waived. no further amendment to the bill, as amended, shall be in order except those printed in part b of the report of the committee on rules. each such further amendment may be offered only in the order printed in the report, may be offered only by a member designated in the report, shall be considered as read, shall be debatable for the time specified in the report equally divided and controlled by the proponent and an opponent, shall not be subject to amendment, and shall not be subject to a demand for division of the question in the house or in the committee of the
whole. all points of order against such further amendments are waived. at the conclusion of consideration of the bill for amendment the committee shall rise and report the bill, as amended, to the house with such further amendments as may have been adopted. the previous question shall be considered as ordered on the bill, as amended, and on any further amendment thereto to final passage without intervening motion except one motion to recommit with or without instructions. section 2, if house report 116-125 is called up by direction of the committee on oversight and reform, a, all points of order against the report are waived and the report shall be considered as read, and b-1, an accompanying resolution offered by direction of the committee on oversight and reform shall be considered as read and shall not be subject to a point of order; and, two, the -- a point of order. and, two, the previous question shall be considered as ordered on such resolution to adoption without intervening motion or demand for
division of the question except one hour of debate equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the committee on versight and reform. section 3, a, a joint resolution described in section 4 shall be privileged if called up by the chair of the committee on foreign affairs or a designee on the day after the calendar day on which the majority leader or a designee announces an intention that the house consider the joint resolution. the joint resolution shall be considered as read. all points of order against the joint resolution and against its consideration are waived. the previous question shall be considered as ordered on the joint resolution to its passage without intervening motion except, one, 20 minutes of debate equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the committee on foreign affairs or their respective designees, and, two, one motion to recommit, or commit, as the case may be. a motion to reconsider the vote on passage of the joint
resolution shall not be in order. b, on demand of the chair of the committee on foreign affairs or a designee, debate pursuant to subsection a-1 shall be one hour equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the committee on foreign affairs or their respective designees. section 4, a joint resolution referred to in section 3 is a senate joint resolution, or a house joint resolution reported by the committee on foreign affairs, prohibiting any of the ollowing under section 36 of the arms export control act, 22 u.s.c. 2776, one, a proposed sale pursuant to subsection b, two, a proposed export pursuant to subsection c, or three, an approval pursuant to subsection d. . section 5, sections 36-b-3, 36-c-3-b, and 36-d-5-b of the arms export control act shall not apply in the house during the remainder of the one
hundred sixteenth congress. section 6, upon adoption of this resolution it shall be in order without intervention of any point of order to consider in the house the resolution, h. res. 489, condemning president trumps racist comments directed at members of congress. the resolution shall be considered as read. the previous question shall be considered as ordered on the resolution and preamble to adoption without intervening motion or demand for division of the question except one hour of debate equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the ommittee on the judiciary. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from maryland is recognized for one hour. mr. raskin: thank you very much, mr. speaker. for the purposes of debate only, i yield the customary 30 minutes to my friend, the gentleman from georgia, pending which i yield myself such time as i may consume. during consideration of this resolution all time yielded is for the purposes of debate only.
i ask unanimous consent that all members may have five legislative days to revise and . tend their remarks the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. raskin: mr. speaker, on monday the rules committee met and reported a rule, h.r. 491, providing for consideration of h.r. 3494, authorizing intelligence community programs for fiscal years 2019 and 2020 and retroactively authorizing fiscal year 2018 appropriations under a struck tureled rule -- structured rule. the rule provides for one hour of debate equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the permanent select committee on intelligence. the rule self-executes an manager's amendment from chairman schiff that makes technical and conforming changes and makes additionalp language for the c.i.a. to expand death benefits for officers killed abroad. additionally the rule provides for consideration of h.r. 116-125 and its accompanying resolution recommending that the house find attorney general
barr and secretary ross in contempt of congress for refusing to comply comply with congressional subpoenas under a closed rule. the rule provides for one hour of debate equally divide and controlled by the chair and ranking member of the committee on oversight and reform. the rule also provides for consideration of h.r. 4 under a closed rule. the rule provides for one hour of debate equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking member of the committee on the judiciary. finally, included in this rule is a process for consideration of committee reported or senate passed joint resolutions disapproving of certain transactions under section 36 of the arms control export control act. this process allows for the chair of the foreign affairs committee to call up a joint resolution one day after it is netsed by the majority leader and provides 20 minutes or an hour of debate and a motion to ecommit.
into intelligence analysis and encourages collaboration with executive branch departments focused on climate policy. finally, this legislation takes care of our intelligence community workers by providing 12 weeks of paid parental leave for all employees in addition to the 12 weeks of unpaid leave federal employees are allowed to take under the family and medical leave act. on contempt. mr. speaker, as you know, the constitution of the united states requires us to conduct a ensus every 10 years, actual enumeration of the american people. everyone who is present in the country. secretary wilber ross engaged in a process in order to add a
citizenship question to the census. or the first time in 70 years. and this was struck down by multiple federal courts because of the blatant violation of essentially every principle of the administrative procedures act. it did not conduct notice and comment, they did not assemble substantial evidence and they did not provide a reasoned justification for why they wanted to do this completely outside of the process that had been set up under the census act, that had been running for several years. and on june 27, the supreme court found that the commerce department's argument for including the citizenship question in the 2020 census was con drived, according to chief justice john roberts, who wrote, several points taken together reveal a significant mismatch between the secretary's decision and the rationale he provided.
. now, democrats on the oversight committee have been raising questions about secretary ross' proffered justification for several years now. we started asking questions back in 2017. secretary ross had testified the department of justice letter that he received was the basis for changing the policy and imposing a citizenship question on the census. he said this was -- that this change was solely motivated by the department of justice's request. but in fact overwhelming evidence has surfaced completely contradicting this account. we know from multiple different sources now that this was a litical effort designed to
promote the electoral plans of the g.o.p. gerrymandering master mind of the republican party was the one who first raised this question several years ago. it was talked about during the trump campaign. it was talked about within days of the inauguration. and we have substantial evidence suggesting that wilbur ross as secretary of commerce was shopping around for justification for doing this when the motivations were nakedly political. the oversight committee began its investigation into the administration's decision to add this citizenship question on march 27, 2018. yet the majority of the committee has been stonewalled at every turn by the department of justice and commerce which
refused to turn over key documents requested by the oversight committee, even after the committee, its members and staff, have worked diligently to resolve the impasse by narrowing the scope of the request to a very small subset of documents. we know exactly the documents we need. yet still we get nothing but defiance, obstruction, and stonewalling from this administration. democrats requested documents from the department of commerce on april 4, 2018. none of the requested documents were submitted. january 8, 2019, chairman cummings renewed the request and the commerce department responded by providing thousands of pages of documents, most of which were already publicly available or completely irrelevant or nonresponsive or heavily redacted. february 12, 2019, chairman cummings renewed the request for documents again. this time identifying a specific memo and note from the department of commerce to
d.o.j. d.o.j. did not provide the requested documents but rather produced several other documents that were heavily redacted and off point. so on and so forth. mr. speaker, this is intolerable. the congress of the united states has a constitutional duty to conduct a fair census. six former census bureau directors wrote a letter denouncing the imposition of this citizenship question, and telling wilbur ross that this would lead to a far less accurate account. the chief scientist of the bureau of the census testified that this was going to overlook and undercount as many as six million hispanic americans. we know that potentially millions of other americans, too, would not be counted. the purpose of adding this citizenship question was not to get a more accurate count, it was to get a far more inaccurate account.
and all of the census experts agree with that. so, we have an act the census act which was violated and ignored. we have the administrative procedures act which was violated and ignored. now we have issued a series of subpoena requests to the departments of commerce and justice in order to get the information about what really took place and, again, we are ing defied, ignored, and essentially belittled by the executive branch of government. i want to close by remarks on this with this point. the constitution begins with the beautiful phrase, we the people. in order to form a more perfect union, establish just t. ensure domestic tranquility, and so on. do create this constitution and this country. and the very next sentence says that all the legislative powers
are vested in us. in other words, the powers of the people flow right through the preamble of the constitution into article 1. and the supreme court has repeatedly said, along with other federal courts, that integral and essential to the lawmaking function is the fact-finding function of congress. james madison said, those who mean to be their own governors must arm themselves with the power that knowledge gives. the people armed us with that power. by creating the legislative function in congress. but we can't legislate and we can't govern with we can't get the information we need which is why the supreme court has repeatedly emphasized our power is broad an expansive. our friends across the aisle, they know that. they know that from their benghazi hearings that went on for years and spent tens of millions of dollars. they know that from the inquiry into hillary clinton's emails and so on.
congress has the power to get the information that it wants. the census is serious business, mr. speaker. it goes right to the heart of who we are as we the people. every 10 years the founders told us we have to go back and count everybody up in order to conduct the reapportionment process and decide how many members of congress are granted to each state. and then hundreds of millions of dollars follow in the wake of the census. so we have to make sure that every person is counted. what we had was this rear guard sneak ambush attack on the census. they got caught doing it. the courts blew the whistle. the supreme court blew the whistle. we want to know precisely what happened to make sure it doesn't happen again. to make sure that there's been no damage. and to make sure we can go forward with a real census. f you act with contempt of the congress, if you act with contempt for the congress, if you act with contempt for the
american people, we will find you in contempt of congress. and the american people we are given no choice. finally, mr. president, on the -- mr. speaker, on the resolution condemning the . esident's recent remarks mr. speaker, the president of the united states told four americans who are members of congress to go back to the countries they came from. three of them representative pressley, talib, and ocasio-cortez are native born americans. and one of them representative omar was born abroad. mr. speaker, this is an affront not just to four american citizens who are members of congress, it is an affront to 22 million naturalized american citizens who were born in
another country and made the journey to america and made the journey to becoming full-blown, equal and free american citizens. 22 million american citizens. if you think about it, it's an affront to the hundreds of millions of americans who understand and love how american democracy and citizenship work. we are not a nation defined by race and blood. . the neo-nazis and klahnsmen chanted in char lotsesville as they marched down the street. we are defined by our constitution, which belongs to all of us. and we are defined by the patriotism and by the service of our people. is there something wrong with being a naturalized citizen under our constitution, mr. speaker? no, there is not. this is something to be honored
and celebrated. all americans are equal in the eyes of the law. this is the meaning of the 14th amendment equal protection clause. we have no kings here. we have no queens here. we have no titles of nobility. we have no monarchy. we have no taints of blood. we have no her edtary offenses. we have no racial kraft system. we have no -- caste system. we have no slaves and we have no slave masters. it is true that there are those in our history who have wanted america to be defined as a white man's compact. and that is indeed precisely what the supreme court found it was in the infamous dred scott decision in 1857. president lincoln, a great and glorious republican president, rejected the dred scott decision from the beginning as the product of a racist ideology and a racist political conspiracy.
and it took a civil war, the blood and the sacrifice of hundreds of thousands of americans, to defend the union and to guarantee the passage of the 13th, 14th and 15th amendments to overthrow and destroy the dred scott decision and the poisonous idea that america is a white man's compact. it is not. all persons born in the united states are citizens of the united states, we said in the 14th amendment. which guaranteed equal protection of the law to all persons who are here. all of us are equal. whether you are a naturalized citizen who is born in ireland, as our colleague, congressman sean casten was, or in ecuador, y our colleague, deb mucarsel-powell, was, or france, as our good friend and colleague, mark meadows was, or thailand, as our colleague tammy
duckworth was, or guatemala, as our colleague, norma torres, was, or taiwan as ted lieu was, or canada as ted cruz was. or poland, as our colleague and author of this resolution, tom malinowski, was. if these americans and many more like them, we have 49 foreign-born members of congress . i'm sorry, we have 29 foreign-born members of congress. if these americans and many more like them don't belong in congress, tell it to the millions of people who elected them. and tell it to the founders of our country who specifically said that you can run for the house of representatives if you are a naturalized citizen, if you have been naturalized for seven years, or you can run for the senate of the united states if you're a naturalized citizen, if you have been naturalized for nine years. mr. speaker, to tell naturalized american citizens to go back to
the countries they came from is nativist and antithetical to everything that america stands for. it is the opposite of what we believe about the values of the country. to tell native-born american citizens who are people of color to go back to the country they came from is antithetical to everything we stand for and it will be up to the house of representatives today to determine whether or not that is a racist statement. i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from maryland reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from georgia is recognized. mr. woodall: thank you, mr. speaker. i yield myself such time as i may consume. i don't want to put any pressure on you, mr. speaker, but it comfort knows see you in the chair up there today. there are those days where you need particular leaders to be there at a particular time and i will tell you that -- i'm not telling anybody in this chamber anything they don't already
know, you've made an entire career in this institution, reaching out, building unlikely alliances, making it work for other -- where other folks said it could not work. when my friend from maryland, who i thank for yielding me the customary 30 minutes, talks about what it is our constituents expect, what it is our citizenry expects, i think they expect that, mr. speaker. and we have one of those bills before us today in the intelligence re-authorization act. there is more in this rule, mr. speaker, than i believe i have seen in any rule in my nine years in congress and years serving on staff here. we packed it all in there last night. and i don't want to miss the lead on this rule, which is an intelligence bill that's named after two congressional staffers who passed away last year. they spent their lives in service to this institution and
to the intelligence community and we're grateful for that service. if you've not looked at the intelligence committee recently, mr. speaker, you'll see devon nunes leading it on the republican side of the aisle, and adam schiff leading it on the democratic side of the aisle. i can picture those two faces because i usually see them on split screens on fox or msnbc and i can't think of many things they've had to say where they agreed with one another over the past four, five years. and yet we have a bill today in sharp contrast to the partisan nonsense that was the ndaa operation last week. we have a bill that has come out of the intelligence committee with two strident, passionate republican and democrat leaders there on the intelligence committee, that came out unanimously, that they presented unanimously in front of the rules committee last night, and we have a chance to pass here on the floor of the house. you also find in this rule, mr.
speaker, 31 amendments that have been made in order to that intelligence re-authorization bill, even though we found bipartisanship in the committee, even though we found unanimity in the committee, the rules committee in its wisdom last night decided to make 31 more ideas available to be considered here on the floor of the house. you see, in this rule, mr. speaker, the ability for the house to take up arms export control act measures, these are also measures you're going to find bipartisan support for. also measures that you'll find, as my friend from maryland referenced, the house doing what you would expect the house to do. what our bosses back home sent us here to do. i know, mr. speaker, that there are times when folks feel their deeply held beliefs cannot be compromised for the sake of bipartisanship. i find that trying to find a way to get to yes is better than
trying to find a way to get to no. there's always a reason to get to no. instead of looking for ways to oppose our political rivals, we have to act as the intelligence committee did in a manner where we can find issues on which we agree. the only way to move this process forward. mr. speaker, america's national security and that of our allies, which is what the intelligence community helps to protect and support every day, is about more than scoring political points. i mentioned those split screens on the tv where you do see folks lobbing accusations back and forth, sometimes it seems to be political sport instead of serious legislating. the measure we have before us today is not political sport. it is serious legislating and we're going to have a chance to come together as a house, not just to discuss it, not just to improve it, but to implement it.
mr. speaker, among the things , t you'll find in this bill the foreign influences around the globe, and we've talked about them in all of their various incarnations here on the floor of the house over the last two weeks, this bill requires a report on china's influence over taiwanese elections. chinese influence around the globe is at an unparalleled high. we are now rivaled by the chinese in every single aspect of international influence and policy. but they have outsized influence in taiwan, we require that report. we require a report not just on russian interference in our elections, mr. speaker, but in elections across the globe. it would be naive to suggest that the russians would limit their influence in elections to try to manipulate the greatest and freest country in the world. they are working across the globe to influence elections, wherever free peoples live.
combating chinese and russian aggression in elections, mr. speaker, is not something, as is so often told in the media, that divides us. it is something that unites us. we saw that in the intelligence committee and we're going to see that here on the floor of the house and i'm very proud of that. i wish we could have continued that effort, mr. speaker. i agree with every word my friend from maryland said about standing up for article i, of all of my frustrations of nine years in this institution, the deference of the united states conference to the executive -- congress to the executive branch has been my greatest frustration. and it exists for one reason and one reason only. and that's that men and women, colleagues like my friend from maryland and myself, have been unable to find a way to speak with one voice on issues that are article i versus article ii issues. go down the list.
in your time in congress, mr. speaker. whether it's the contempt resolution this institution passed for former attorney general eric holder, that contempt resolution that passed on party line votes in committee and party line votes here on the floor of the house and went down to the executive branch where absolutely no action was taken on it whatsoever. take production of papers, whether on fast and furious or whether on the census. production of papers, whether from the president's counsel or from the president's press secretary. we have these discussions and we found -- no, we have not a way to come together to speak with one voice. we have an opportunity, a model. you'll remember some number of weeks ago, now months ago, mr. speaker, where we were very concerned in this chamber about anti-semitic remarks that were broadcast in the public domain. we came together as an
institution to speak out against anti-semitism. didn't happen overnight. in fact, my friend from maryland authored that legislation, to his credit. but he didn't sit down with a pen and put some words on a page and bring it here to the floor from consideration. he had to work it. and i don't mean work it a little bit. i mean work it hard. it was coming, it was not coming, it was coming again. it was not coming. to find a pathway forward so that this house speaks with one voice instead of divided voices was an effort that was put in. now, granted at the end of the day it was a little more milk toast than the resolution i would have drafted. sometimes that's the trade you make, to be able to expand the acceptance of a resolution, mr. speaker. every single time in this chamber, as it comes to reining in article ii or reining in the
judicial branch, every single time we speak with a divided voice we weaken this institution. i've never seen a resolution that tried to hold two cabinet secretaries in contempt at the same time. maybe that's happened historically. i don't know that answer. i've not seen it in my time. but i heard last night from the chairman of the house oversight committee and the ranking member of that house oversight committee, and the running backing -- ranking member was unwavering in his commitment to article i and our preeminence in the constitutional model. but he was also unwavering in his commitment to, there is more that we could do to work with the administration as opposed to begin to poke that sharp stick. and so this resolution does not have his support. well, if we begin our effort to
do oversight over the administration, and we are already divided before that bill even leaves committee, i tell you, mr. speaker, we're not going to have the outcome that we want here on the floor of the house. and then of course this rule, this rule in those contempt efforts is targeting a united states citizenship question that .ould have gone on the census we talk about that as if that's an outrageous thing. i appreciate the kind words my friend from maryland had to say about president lincoln. i'm going to have to get the clerk to read them back to me because i'm going to use that over and over again. a wonderful republican president, but i want to use the words that mr. raskin used. but when president lincoln was presiding over this land, it was common practice to have a citizenship question. -- question on the united states
sent sulls. in fact, every single -- census. in fact, every single census had a citizenship question on it. it was noncontroversial. in 1950 we took it off of the short form, it moved to the long form. so from 1970 to 2000 that question was on the long form every single sent sulls. and then in -- census. and then in 2000 we took it off the long form and put it on to the american community survey, that half-decade measure that goes out to create the data that mr. raskin rightly noted is so important to all of our communities back home. . if, for the first time in american history, in the history of the census we decide that citizenship is somehow now a forbidden topic, that we can't find a way to discuss it, that's not important to who we are as a nation and how it is that we look at ourselves, fair
enough, fair enough. that's not what the supreme court case was about, mr. speaker. as you well know, the supreme court case simply said, you can put a question about citizenship on the census if you want to, you just need to do it the right way. we are going to ask you not do it that way. there are ways and means of getting that done. you just didn't do it the right way. i raise that, mr. speaker, not because i am a census guru. i am not. i don't serve on any of those relevant committees. in this era of outrage where folks have begun to confuse and ity with weakness -- that's a confusion i think is to all of our detriments -- the desire to have a question about citizenship on the census has nothing to do with this president, this administration, republicans, democrats.
t has been that way since 1820 . thoughtful men and women, concerned men and women, serious legislators have been interested in this information for over 100 years. if we want to have the conversation that somehow citizenship can't be discussed any more and we should ban it from all census documentation forever, i don't think that would succeed, but it's certainly a legitimate topic of debate. but what's not legitimate is to suggest that the only reason that anyone would ask about citizenship is to pursue some sort of nefarious xenophobic purpose. it's simply not true. i represent a majority of minority constituency, mr. speaker. 26% of my bosses are first generation americans. you want to find folks who love america, come down to where i live. find folks who waited in line, folks who paid their money,
folks who pinned all their hopes and dreams if and only if i can get there, my children and grandchildren will have a better life. that's what brought us all here, whether you came in 1650 or whether you came in 1950 or whether you came yesterday, those are the dreams that bring us here. there's a lot to be outraged about in today's culture, but i haven't seen any of it get fixed by being more outraged. i've seen it get fixed by men and women like yourself, mr. speaker, who value trust, who value candor, who value honesty, and who value real relationships. anything that's hard, i can't solve with someone i don't trust. if one side is good and one side is evil, where do you go from there? what does that negotiation look like? that's not a conversation. you have to destroy one another. that seems to be the path folks
too often opt for in politics today. there's more that unites us than divides us in this institution and in this country, mr. speaker. you might not know that by the parts of this rule that are oing to get the most attention today. adam schiff, devan nunes, they are not too members in this institution who feel more strongly and differently about the direction -- devin nunes, they are not too -- two members of this institution who feel more strongly and differently about the direction -- they came together not because it was easy but because it was precisely hard and necessary and brought us this bipartisan package we have today. i thank my friend from massachusetts, the chairman of the rules committee, for bringing that resolution to the floor, and i hope we will have ample time to celebrate those successes with that. with that i reserve the balance
of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from georgia reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from maryland is recognized. mr. raskin: mr. speaker, thank you. i want to thank the gentleman from georgia for his very thoughtful and moving remarks , ich are very appealing to me especially since i am a law professor first and politician thereafter. we have to deal with the political party system as it exists in the -- you know, in the america of today, but i'd like to think of the presidents who kept kind of duo mind about it. they know they needed to be part of it and think of the broader whole. jefferson in his first inaugural address in 1800 said we are all republicans, we are all federalists. he also said, if i could only go to heaven with a political party i'd prefer not to go. george washington said just, we
have to keep in mind the word party comes from the french word, part, and we need to keep in mind the whole. i thank you for at least the one sheer of potential three hip, hip hooray you may have given us on the intelligence authorization act, we think the contempt citation is necessary precisely for the reason you suggest, to uphold the institutional integrity of congress. and we have gotten together in the past across party lines to demand the executive branch give us the information we need. and we believe we are completely on that course. finally, as to the resolution about the remarks, telling u.s. citizens to go back to the country they came from, it's hard for me to imagine something that could be more unifying than that. that it is an essential value that i know every member of
this body holds, that we do not make a distinction in the legal or political rights or entitlements or responsibilities of natural born citizens and naturalized citizens and that it is utterly offensive to our system of government to tell people to go back where they came from just because you have a political disagreement with them. it's wrong. i now proudly yield five minutes to the chair of the rules committee, mr. mcgovern. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from massachusetts is recognized. mr. mcgovern: i want to thank the gentleman from maryland, mr. raskin, for yielding me time, and i want to thank him for his service on the rules committee. mr. speaker, i certainly support the rule, but i want to speak on one underlying bill in particular, h.res. 489. mr. speaker, what we saw this week used to be reserved for the darkest corners of the internet. some chatrooms somewhere where people would be too ashamed to
even use their real name when spewing vial rhetoric. but this isn't some online trol l. we are not talking about using some dog whistles or speaking in some ult-right word. this is using twitter attacking american citizens. these are american citizens being turned into a scary other, not because of their party, but because of their background, their race, and their opinions. this is the same type of attack the president has used against immigrants and refugees for years. i've seen this administration carry out some deeply troubling policies. i heard some deeply offensive things, and i know i am not alone in this because when the cameras are off and when the press isn't around, some of my colleagues on the other side have told me the same thing, that they are sickened by what's going on. well, these recent comments are in a completely different
category. this type of language isn't just offensive, it could lead to violence. it's could he roding our discourse -- croding our discourse. it undermines or values and it doesn't reflect us who we are as a country. and let me tell my republican colleagues on the other side of the aisle more sternly worded press releases and disappointed tweets aren't going to cut it. the only thing that matters here is votes. press statements are not enough. this house needs to speak with unity and vote to condemn the president's comments for what they are. i believe in the adage from maya angelou, when somebody shows you who they are, believe them. and the president told us who he was long before he rode that escalator down to announce his campaign. it is time for republicans -- it's time republicans told the american people with their votes what they whisper to one another in the cloakroom, what many of them have told me behind closed doors, because
this dark world view is what will be on the ballot. i implore my colleagues, think twice before you follow the president off a cliff. our credibility matters, and your credibility matters. a presidency lasts at most just four to eight years. some of us will get the chance to serve here long after this administration ends and will have to live with our conscience for a lifetime. but silence is an endorsement. equivocation is an endorsement. blaming both sides is an endorsement. there is no gray area here. there is a very clear right and wrong. so supporting this resolution isn't about standing with democrats. it's about standing up for decency. the president showed us who he is. now we have the chance to show the american people who we are. now, it's no secret that i have profound policy disagreements with this president. his economic policies favor the
rich and his foreign policy completely ignores human rights, but in all the time i have been alive, i have always respected the office of the president and the occupant. i feel differently now. i feel embarrassed. i feel ashamed. let me remind my colleagues, our children are watching us. so do the right thing. do the moral thing. condemn president trump's hateful and blatantly racist rhetoric, and i don't care if it's out of order but we need to be clear, we need to call it what it is and we need to condemn it and with that i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: members are reminded to refrain from engaging in personalities oward the president. the gentleman from maryland reserves. the gentleman from georgia is recognized. mr. woodall: mr. speaker, i yield myself such time as i may consume. i think i misunderstood my friend from massachusetts. i think what my friend said, he doesn't care whether or not his
words coarsen this institution. he doesn't care whether or not his positions diminish us as an institution. he does not care about the rules of this institution which prohibit the exact kind of words he knows prohibits and yet he uses anyway. i just want to ask my friend, if he believes that his calls of admonishing this president will be advantaged by -- i yield to my friend from massachusetts. mr. mcgovern: thank you. i believe what i am saying on the house floor supports the truth. i believe every word i said. i feel strongly about it. i would only wish my colleagues on the other side would feel equally strong. mr. woodall: reclaiming my time. reclaiming my time. if the president believes every word that he said, does that excuse his behavior? mr. mcgovern: the president can say whatever he wants. i think we have a moral obligation to call out racism wherever it exists. mr. woodall: reclaiming my time.
it's a perfectly legitimate assertion and attestation my friend from massachusetts makes. of course, we all share that. we all share that belief. mr. speaker, when i was down here for the rule last week with my friend from massachusetts, the other side was admonished not once but twice for violating the house rules for coarsening our debate, for diminishing our civility, for our rules. not a social contract about how we ought to treat each other, but rules where we've committed about how we will treat each other. today during one-minutes, mr. speaker, not once but twice the chair admonished the other side to say, you're breaking our rules of civility. you're violating our standards of decorum. our children are watching, and your behavior doesn't pass muster. and now my friend -- and he is my friend, and i admire his
work. he's passionate in his -- in the causes for which he advocates, and i believe it is his passion, not his contempt for this institution, that leads him to say those things that he says. i believe he loves this institution, but he is misguided when the chair admonishes him again today, now, and he has no apologies for his colleagues, no apologies for this institution. we do have serious issues. i'm not meaning serious, like russia and china, which those are serious. i don't mean serious, like the hate that is fomenting in this country, which is serious. i mean all of it that's serious, that nobody in this institution can solve unless we solve it together. and i want to find that pathway forward. this isn't it. would be happy to yield to my friend from massachusetts. mr. mcgovern: i appreciate the gentleman's comments. i ask him, where was he when president trump was spreading
lies about president obama's birth or where was he when representative joe wilson shuttered on the house floor, you lied to president obama in 2009? mr. woodall: reclaiming my time. reclaiming my time, mr. chairman. do you remember when joe wilson apologized? which is more than what my friend from massachusetts done when the house has condemned him from the chair today. i do remember when my friend, mr. wilson, lost his temper. i do remember it, and i remember his apologizing for it because he didn't want to bring shame on this institution. . and i would welcome any time, any time the chair admonishes either side of the aisle, either side of the aisle for violating our rules, doing those things that we all agree our children don't want to see on tv. i welcome folks to correct that behavior. i fear my comments are falling on deaf ears, mr. speaker, but i hope i'm mistaken.
i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from maryland is recognized. mr. raskin: before i go into my time, may i make a parliamentary inquiry? the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman will state his inquiry. mr. raskin: do we take it to be against the rules of the house to describe statements made by the president as racist as a violation of house rules? the speaker pro tempore: the chair is not going to issue an advisory opinion. mr. raskin: ok. then launching into my time then, i will grant three minutes to the gentlelady from texas, ms. jackson lee. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman from texas is recognized for three minutes. ms. jackson lee. ms. jackson lee: i thank the speaker and ask to revise and extend. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. ms. jackson lee: let me thank the gentleman from maryland for his scholarship and his passion.
the chairman of the rules committee, my good friend from georgia, and all those who have come to the floor today. let me say that this is a somber moment. it is not a moment that i cherish. my privilege in serving the greatest country in the world has allowed me to serve with three previous presidents. not one time from the three previous presidents have i ever heard the words that were uttered this weekend. now, i believe in harmony. i just came out of a helsinki commission meeting, an organization that deals with peace around the world. and we were talking about how we can impress upon the world to not use religion for hatred, religion is love. one of the answers i gave was to show the examples here in the united states, where religions from all different perspectives come together in the time of disaster and need. it is something that touches our
heart. so we vote for a president, we want that president to touch our hearts, to lift us up, and to make us better people. i ant -- i cannot argue with the fact that 49% of the american people believe that this president is a racist. it hurts my heart because i come in a skin color where i have een at the sad end of racist tactics and words. i am a product of busing. but it does not diminish my love for this nation. nd so it disturbs me when this wonderfully diverse group of new members who have come to the united states congress from all over the nation, including the lgbtq community, and among them 40 representatives that came were representatives from the seventh district of massachusetts, the first african-american woman, the
representative of the 13th district of michigan, the first palestinian--- palestinian american woman. a representative from the 14th district, the youngest woman. and a representative from the fifth district of minnesota, the first somali american elected to congress. and in the discharge of their duties, they went to the border, their passion, their youth, just as i had done, and saw the appalling conditions that children were held in. and they came back and they expressed themselves, protected by the first amendment. they used no violence. they only wanted to wake up the congress, as all of us did who went, who could not september pain. in fact, wherever i go at home, people are saying, what are you doing for the children at the border? so they didn't do anything extraordinary in terms of what members should do, have the responsibility of oversight. so then came in the last 72 hours these words. so interesting to see progressive democrat congresswomen who originally
came from countries whose governments are a complete and total catastrophe, the worst, more corrupt and inept anywhere in the world, if they even have a functioning government at all, now loudly and viciously telling the people of the united states, the greatest and most powerful -- can i get another minute? mr. raskin: i yield an additional 30 seconds to the gentlelady. ms. jackson lee: viciously telling the people of the united states, the greatest and most powerful nation on earth, how our government is to be run. why don't they go back and help fix the totally broken and crime-infested places from which they came? i'll be introducing a condemnation resolution that recounting the life and legacy of this president, why 4% of the american people believe he is rate -- 49% of the american people believe he is racist. i only ask that we come together to do the right thing. we are not enemies but friends. right after the civil war, we must not be enemies, though passion may have strained, it must not break our bonds of affection. the mystic chords of memory will swell when again touched as surely they will be by the
better angels of our nature. today if we condemn this language it will say to america that we can not -- we cannot accept this kind of behavior. that's what's bringing the country together. that we accept each other's diversity. with that, i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: members are again reminded to refrain from engaging in personalities toward the president. the gentleman from maryland reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from georgia is recognized. mr. woodall: thank you, mr. speaker. i yield myself such time as i may consume while my friend from texas is sometimes known for running over the gavel at the end of those comments, it's only because it comes from the heart. and when i think about members in this institution who are unhampered by lack of passion, i think of my friend from texas. but when i look for be a honest broker -- for an honest broker who will be true to her word and partner when partnership is required, my friend from texas embodies that as well. i appreciate both her words and her restraint here this morning.
be happy to yield to my friend. ms. jackson lee: there is no doubt my faith, my commitment to many people of different colors who respect the distinction or difference, but also the greatness of this country, my love of those who serve causes me to say, as many might have colleagues, my colleagues here are ready to say, let us sit down at the table of peace and reconciliation. i hope we will have some that will acknowledge that these actions, i'll try to be generic, and words, were certainly not becoming of the united states of america. and the american people must see us work together on that. i yield back to the gentleman. mr. woodall: i thank my friend from texas. i think that invitation is a welcome invitation. mr. speaker, thinking about the policies before us today, if we defeat the previous question, i will amend the rule to bring h.r. 3965 to the floor. and i ask unanimous consent to include the text of my amendment in the record immediately preceding the vote on the previous question. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. woodall: thank you, mr.
speaker. u've heard a lot about the controversial citizenship question in the census. whether or not it should be controversial is a different issue altogether and to talk about his bill, i'd now like to yield four minutes to the gentleman from kentucky, mr. kolmer. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. comer: thank you. today i introduce a bill that would require a citizenship question on the united states census. if we defeat the previous question, as the gentleman from georgia said, then we will be able to consider my bill. it's always been common sense to include a citizenship question on our nation's census. the purpose of the census bureau and all census surveys is to collect data used for apportionment and to better inform the public about the population, business and economics of the united states of america. the collection of citizenship information during a population
census is a common practice among countries. this is not new and it should not be controversial. a citizenship question is asked on the census in australia, canada, france, germany, ireland, mexico, and the united kingdom, to name a few. in fact, mr. speaker, the united nations recommends that countries gather citizenship information about their populations. the united nations. knowing how many legal and nonlegal individuals are within our borders is a perfectly appropriate question to ask on our census and i hope we can pass this measure to see that happens. i strongly urge all of my congressional colleagues to vote for this commonsense legislation to ensure we know exactly how many citizens reside in this country. mr. chairman, with that, i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from kentucky yields the balance of his time.
the gentleman from georgia reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from maryland is recognized. let's in: mr. speaker, see. i'll just reserve for my closing. we're ready to close. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from maryland reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from georgia is recognized. mr. woodall: can i ask how much time is remaining, mr. speaker? the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from georgia has 7 1/2 minutes. mr. woodall: i'd like -- the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from maryland has 2 1/2 minutes. mr. woodall: i would like to yield four of those minutes then to my good friend and the ranking member on the house oversight committee, the gentleman from ohio, mr. jordan. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from ohio is recognized. mr. jordan: i thank the chair and the gentleman for yielding. the commerce and justice department have given 31,000 pages of documents to the congress. the agency has provided witnesses, in fact we have another one coming in for tribed
interview later this month -- transscribed interview later this month, and secretary ross, secretary ross came and testified for over six hours. came in front of the committee, raised his hand, swore to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth so help him god. testified for six hours. secretary ross and attorney general barr are doing their jobs. what's their reward? democrats are going to hold them in contempt. hold them in contempt because they're so focused, so focused on this citizenship question. and as mr. comer, who introduced the legislation, said just a few minutes ago, the citizenship question is nothing but common sense. listen to what judge alito said two weeks ago. no one disputes that it's important to know how many inhabitants of a country are citizens.
and the easiest way to figure it out is ask a question on the census. that's about as common sense as it gets. it's so common sense we've only been doing it for 200 years. 200 years in one form or another, the long form, the short form, the 10-year form, the annual form. we've been doing it for 200 years. but somehow this year, nope, can't do it this year. can't do it this year. as mr. comer said, united nations says it's the best practice. lots of countries do it. but somehow the democrats don't want us to do it this year. so i support the legislation that the representative from kentucky's introduced, support the good work of our rules committee member from georgia, and certainly don't support the rule and the resolution that's going to hold secretary ross and attorney general barr in contempt. again, doing their job, and what
do they get, a contempt resolution from the democrats. ask yourself a question. well, better yet, go ask your constituents a question. i'd encourage democrats, go to your district, ask anyone in your district, do you think we should ask a question on the census if you're a citizen of this country, and my guess is just about every single person you talk to in your district will say, heck yeah. aren't we doing that already? and of course you'd have to respond, yes, we are, and we've been doing it for 200 years. this is common sense, this resolution is not appropriate. and i would urge defeat of the rule, defeat of the previous question, and if it gets to the floor, defeat the resolution. with that, i yield back to the fine gentleman. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from georgia reserves. the gentleman from maryland. mr. raskin: thank you, mr. speaker. on the question of holding the attorney general and secretary of commerce in contempt for refusing to turn over repeatedly
requested documents and witnesses, our good friends now confuse two legal questions with a policy question. the legal question is, did they violate the law in impotion the citizenship question on the census? yes, they did violate the law. they violated the census act, they violated the administrative procedures act they violated pretty much every administrative principle we've got in this country. and chief justice john roberts said it. someone who is beloved to my colleagues over there. but the other legal question is, can the executive branch decide willy-nilly that they're going to stop cooperating with congressional subpoenas and request for documents? no, they can't. i hope that that would be a unifying dictum for everybody in this body, that besand -- that we stand up for the right of the people's representatives to obtain the information that we need. now, my dear friend from georgia made the point that he wished that we could proceed in more bipartisan fashion. i've actually been very cheered by the number of our g.o.p.
colleagues who have denounced the president's remarks over the weekend and this week. for example, we get a statement from, let's see. i'm not making it up. i know that they're out there. oh, here we go. mr. upton, fred upton, frankly, i'm appalled by the president's tweets. there's no excuse. the president's tweets were flat-out wrong and uncalled for. pete olson, the tweet president trump posted over the weekend about fellow members of are -- members of congress are not reflective of the values of my district. i urge our president to immediately disavow the comments. senator murkowski, there's no excuse for the president's spiteful comments, they were absolutely unacceptable. and this needs to stop. john case itch, what real donald trump said about democratic women in congress is deplorable and beneath the dignity of the congress. we all, including republicans, need to speak out against these kind of comments that do nothing more than divide us and create deep animosity. .
the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from georgia is recognized. mr. woodall: mr. chairman -- mr. speaker, could you tell me what the balance of that time is? the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from georgia has 4 1/2. the gentleman from maryland has 30 seconds. mr. woodall: well, i will yield myself the balance of the time, mr. speaker. again, i regret there's so much that's packed in this rule. it's one of the reasons why i urge defeat of the rule today. everyone in this chamber wants to vote to have this debate on the national intelligence re-authorization bill. everybody wants to be a part of that. again, 31 amendments made in order, will improve that bill. bipartisan product coming out of a very contentious committee. the rest of the issues are more complex. i don't mean complex because we shouldn't discuss them. we should. i mean complex because we haven't discussed them. i would -- i think i'm prepared
to yield time if he needs it. i know my friend from maryland is not the author of the resolution condemning the president, but he mentioned my friend from texas, mr. olson, and mr. olson's comments on the republican side of the aisle. was mr. olson consulted to try to create the language that we see before us today? mr. raskin: sorry. do you mind repeating? mr. woodall: was the gentleman from texas, mr. olson, consulted as we tried to draft this language that's before us today? mr. raskin: i'm sure he was not, unfortunately, because of the press of time. mr. woodall: reclaiming my time. it was mr. upton who you referenced as having sympathetic words. was he consulted with the drafting of this resolution? mr. raskin: the vast majority on both sides were not consulted. mr. woodall: ms. murkowski not consulted. mr. speaker, i ask you this. if we're talking about a rious issue, a serious issue and we're going to craft a serious response and we want to
speak with one voice from this institution, might it be a good idea for there to be at least one conversation between democrats and republicans about how to proceed? might it be a good idea to have more than one conversation? might it be a good idea to put partisanship aside and actually do those things that i know my friend from maryland wants to do and i want to do arm in arm with him? we keep missing opportunities in this congress, mr. speaker, opportunities to make this institution stronger, opportunities to make this nation stronger. we're missing them. and we're creating scars along the way. what could be an operation in building trust has become an operation of building distrust. what could be an operation designed to heal i suspect is
going to be an operation that brings more needless pain. we have a good bill in the intelligence re-authorization, mr. speaker. we have a good series of bills in arms export control. we could be down here talking about those because of the bipartisan work that's gone into it already. not one conversation has been had between tweets over the weekend and a resolution condemning those on the floor of the house. not one effort made to speak with one voice in the united states house, and that tells you just about everything you need to know about why this resolution is on the floor with these two contempt resolutions in this place at this time. i urge defeat of the rule. i urge defeat of the previous question. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from georgia yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from maryland is recognized. mr. raskin: mr. speaker, i urge a yes vote on the rule and the
previous question and i just take a second to say to my friend, mr. have been hundreds of conversations taking place -- there have been hundreds of conversations taking place here. everybody is not consulted. the legislation he praised in the intelligence committee can, none of us outside intelligence committee were consulted about it. so i think we got a consensus here rejecting and repudiating the tenor and the meaning of the president's remarks, and i hope this process of dialogue, which has been so wonderful today with the gentleman from georgia, leads to an outcome where all of us will vote for the previous question. i move the previous question on the resolution and i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the question is on ordering the previous question on the resolution. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. the gentleman from georgia. mr. woodall: mr. speaker, on
that i ask for the yeas and nays. the speaker pro tempore: the yeas and nays are requested. those favoring a vote by the yeas and nays will rise. a sufficient number having arisen, the yeas and nays are ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. pursuant to clause 9 of rule 20, the chair will reduce to five minutes the minimum time for any electronic vote on the question of the adoption of the resolution. this is a 15-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]