Citizens Count Census Act of 2019

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 comforts me to see you as 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 am not telling anybody in this Chamber anything they don't already know: You have made an entire career in this institution reaching out, building unlikely alliances, making it work where other folks said it could not work. And when my friend from Maryland, whom 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 reauthorization act.

There is more in this rule, Mr. Speaker, than I believe I have seen in any rule in my 9 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 is 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 are grateful for that service.

If you have not looked at the intelligence community recently, Mr. Speaker, you will see Devin Nunes 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 have had to say where they agreed with one another over the past 4, 5 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 Democratic 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 reauthorization 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 are going to find bipartisan support for, also measures that you will find, again, 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 is 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. It is 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 are 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 that you will find in this bill, the foreign influences around the globe, and we have talked about them in all of their various incarnations here on the floor of the House over the last 2 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, and 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 trying to manipulate the greatest and freest country in the world. They are working across the globe to influence elections wherever free people 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 are going to see that here on the floor of the House, and I am 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 9 years in this institution, the deference of the United States Congress to the executive branch has been my greatest frustration. It exists for one reason and one reason only, and that is that men and women, colleagues like my friend from Maryland and I, 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 is 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 cannot--no, we have not found a way to come together to speak with one voice.

We have an opportunity, a model. You will 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.

It didn't happen overnight. In fact, my friend from Maryland authored that resolution, 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 for 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 milquetoast than the resolution that I would have drafted, but sometimes that is 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 have never seen a resolution that tried to hold two Cabinet Secretaries in contempt at the same time. Maybe that has happened historically; I don't know that answer. I have not seen it in my time.

I heard last night from the chairman of the House Oversight Committee and the ranking member of the House Oversight Committee, and the 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 are not going to have the outcome that we want here on the floor of the House.

And then, of course, this rule in those contempt efforts is targeting a United States citizenship question that would have gone on the Census. We talk about that as if that is an outrageous thing.

I appreciate the kind words my friend from Maryland had to say about President Lincoln. I am going to have to get the Clerk to read them back to me because I am going to use that over and over again about 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 on the United States Census.

In fact, every single Census from 1820 to 1950 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. And so from 1970 to 2000, that question was on the long form every single Census. And then in 2000, we took it off the long form and we put it onto 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 it is not important to who we are as a Nation and how it is that we look at ourselves, fair enough.

That is not what the Supreme Court case was about, Mr. Speaker. As we well know, the Supreme Court case simply said: You can put a question about citizenship on the Census if you want to. You just didn't do it the right way, and so we are going to ask you not to do it that way. There are those 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. But in this era of outrage, where folks have begun to confuse civility with weakness--and that is a confusion that 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. It 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 anymore and we should ban it

from all Census documentation forever, I don't think that would succeed, but it is certainly a legitimate topic of debate. But what is 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 is simply not true.

I represent a majority minority constituency, Mr. Speaker. Twenty-six percent of my bosses are first-generation Americans. You want to find folks who love America, come down to where I live, find folks who have waited in line, folks who have paid their money, folks who pinned all their hopes and dreams to, ``If and only if I can get there, my children and my grandchildren will have a better life.''

That is what brought us all here at one generation or another. 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 is 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 have 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 is 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 is not a conversation; that is you have got to now destroy one another. That seems to be the path that folks too often opt for in politics today.

There is more that unites us than divides us in this constitution and in this country, Mr. Speaker. You might not know that by the parts of this rule that are going to get the most attention today.

Adam Schiff, Devin Nunes, there are not two Members in this institution who feel more strongly and differently about the direction of public policy than those two men, and they came together, not to advance themselves, but to advance the Nation. They came together, not because it was easy, but precisely because it was hard and necessary, and brought us this bipartisan package we have today.

Mr. Speaker, 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.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I might consume.

Mr. Speaker, I think I misunderstood my friend from Massachusetts. I think what my friend said is he does not care whether his words coarsen this institution, he does not care whether or not his positions diminish us as an institution, he does not care about the rules of this institution, which prohibit exactly the kind of words that he knows they prohibit and yet he uses anyway.

Mr. Speaker, I just want to ask my friend if he believes that his cause of admonishing this President is going to be advantaged by diminishing this institution?

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern).

Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time. If the President believes every word that he said, does that excuse his behavior, in the gentleman's mind? Does it excuse his behavior to believe it?

Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time. It is a perfectly legitimate assertion and attestation my friend from Massachusetts makes, and of course 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 violating our rules; not a social contract about how we ought to treat each other, but rules where we have committed about how we will treat each other.

Today during 1 minute speeches, Mr. Speaker, not once, but twice the Chair admonished the other side to say: You are breaking our rules of civility. You are 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 is passionate in the causes for which he advocates, and I believe that 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 am 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 is 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.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to my friend, the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern).

Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time.

Mr. Speaker, does the gentleman remember when Joe Wilson apologized, which is more than what my friend from Massachusetts has done when the House has condemned him from the Chair today?

I remember when my friend Mr. Wilson lost his temper. I do remember it. And I remember him apologizing for it because he didn't want to bring shame on this institution.

I would welcome any time the Chair admonishes either side of the aisle for violating our rules, coarsening our debate, doing those things that we all agree we don't want our children to see on TV, I welcome folks to correct that behavior.

Mr. Speaker, I fear my comments are falling on deaf ears, but I hope I am mistaken.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Parliamentary Inquiry

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 her comments, it is only because it comes from the heart. When I think about Members in this institution who are unhampered by a lack of passion, I think of my friend from Texas. But when I look 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.

I yield to the gentlewoman from Texas.

Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, I thank my friend from Texas. I think that 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.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of my amendment in the Record immediately preceding the vote on the previous question.

Mr. Speaker, you have heard a lot about the controversial citizenship question in the Census. Whether or not it should be controversial is a different issue altogether.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Comer).

Mr. Speaker, may I ask how much time is remaining.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Jordan), my good friend and the ranking member on the House Oversight and Reform Committee.

Mr. Speaker, how much time is remaining?

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, again, I regret that there is so much that is packed into this rule. It is one of the reasons I urged defeat of the rule today.

Everyone in this Chamber wants to vote to have this debate on the national intelligence reauthorization bill. Everybody wants to be a part of that. Again, 31 amendments made in order will improve that bill, a bipartisan product coming out of a very contentious committee.

The rest of these issues are more complex. And I don't mean complex because we shouldn't discuss them. We should. I mean complex because we haven't discussed them.

I think I am prepared to yield time if the gentleman needs it. I know my friend from Maryland is not the author of the resolution condemning the President, but the gentleman mentioned my friend from Texas (Mr. Olson) and Mr. Olson's comments on the Republican side of the aisle.

I ask the gentleman, was Mr. Olson consulted to try to create the language that we see before us today?

I yield to the gentleman from Maryland.

Was the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Olson) consulted as we tried to draft this language that is before us today?

I yield to the gentleman.

Reclaiming my time, was Mr. Upton, who the gentleman referenced as having sympathetic words to say, was the gentleman consulted about the drafting of this resolution?

I yield to the gentleman.

Reclaiming my time, so Mr. Kasich was also not consulted and Ms. Murkowski also not consulted.

Mr. Speaker, if we are talking about a serious issue and we are 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 are missing them, and we are creating scars along the way.

What could be an operation in building trust has become an operation in 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 reauthorization, 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 has gone into it already.

Not one conversation has been had between tweets over a 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. That tells you just about everything someone needs to know about why this resolution is on the floor with these two contempt resolutions in this place at this time.

Mr. Speaker, I urge defeat of the rule. I urge defeat of the previous question.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. Speaker, I 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.

Mr. Speaker, 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.

I believe in harmony. I just came out of a Helsinki Commission meeting, an organization that deals with peace around the world. 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 a time of disaster and need. It is something that touches our heart.

When we vote for a President, we want that President to touch our hearts, to lift us up, and to make us better people.

I cannot argue with the fact that 49 percent 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 been 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.

So it disturbs me for 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 the 40 Representatives who came was the Representative from the Seventh Congressional District of Massachusetts, the State's first African American woman; the Representative of the 13th Congressional District of Michigan, the first Palestinian woman; the Representative from the 14th Congressional District of New York, the youngest woman; and the Representative from the Fifth Congressional District of Minnesota, the first Somali American elected to Congress.

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. They came back and expressed themselves, protected by the First Amendment.

They used no violence. They only wanted to wake up the Congress, as all of us who went and could not accept the pain did. In fact, wherever I go at home, people are asking: What are you doing for the children at the border?

So, they didn't do anything extraordinary, in terms of what Members should do, having the responsibility of oversight.

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, most 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 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 will be introducing a condemnation resolution that recounts the life and legacy of this President while 49 percent of the people believe that he is racist.

I only ask that we come together today to do the right thing, to do what the 16th President said right after the Civil War: ``We are not enemies, but friends. 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 cannot accept this kind of behavior. That is what is bringing the country together, that we accept each other's diversity.

Mr. Speaker, as a senior member of the Committees on the Judiciary and Homeland Security, I rise in support of the rule governing debate on H. Res. 489, a resolution condemning President Trump's racist comments directed at Members of Congress.

Mr. Speaker, on November 6, 2018, in an election widely regarded as a referendum on the performance and disapproval of the Administration of President Donald J. Trump, the American people voted to vest control of the U.S. House of Representatives in the Democratic Party to restore the system of checks and balances designed by the Framers in 1787 in Philadelphia.

The Representatives elected to the 116th Congress comprise the most diverse class in American history with respect to its racial, ethnic, and religious composition, and also includes the largest contingent of female Representatives and the most members ever of the LGBTQ community.

Among the cohort of the 40 Representatives first elected to the Congress in the November 2018 election are several whose membership is historic, including the Representative for the Seventh District of Massachusetts, the first African American woman elected from the Commonwealth of Massachusetts; the Representative from the Thirteenth District of Michigan, the first Palestinian-American woman elected to Congress; the Representative from the Fourteenth District of New York, the youngest woman ever elected to Congress; and the Representative from the Fifth District of Minnesota, the first Somali-American elected to Congress.

In the discharge of their official duties as Members of Congress, these talented and dedicated Members of Congress traveled to the southern border of the United States to observe the living conditions and treatment received by migrants and refugees seeking asylum in the United States who are currently being held in detention facilities operated under control or supervision of the U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP), some consisting of nothing more than tent villages cordoned off under highways.

Upon their return to the Capitol, these Members of Congress reported their shock and horror regarding the appalling and inhumane conditions to which detainees were being subjected by CPB at a public hearing of a House Committee on Oversight and Reform.

On July 14, 2019, the President of the United States reacted to the criticism of his Administration's treatment of detainees by these Members of Congress in a series of unhinged tweets that questioned their loyalty to the United States and implied that due to the circumstances of their birth they had no right to exercise the responsibilities and privileges of duly elected Members of Congress.

Specifically, the President tweeted that it was:

So interesting to see ``Progressive'' Democrat

Congresswomen, who originally came from countries whose

governments are a complete and total catastrophe, the worst,

most 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 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.

The President's statements are false in that three of Members of Congress he impugned are in fact natural born citizens and the fourth is a naturalized citizen.

Although the recent statements of the President are inaccurate and offensive, they are consistent with prior statements he has made to stoke to division, discord, and disharmony among the American people.

Let us not forget that the current President of the United States burnished his political reputation by claiming falsely for more than 5 years that his predecessor was born in Kenya and not in the United States and thus was an illegitimate President.

The current President of the United States launched his 2016 campaign for the Presidency by saying of persons from Mexico seeking to immigrate to the United States: ``They're bringing drugs. They're bringing crime. They're rapists.''

The current President of the United States claimed that a Hispanic federal jurist could not preside over a court proceeding to which then presidential candidate Donald J. Trump and the Trump Organization were defendants accused of civil fraud because ``He's a Mexican!''

In January 2018 the current President of the United States is reported to have inquired of his advisors: ``Why are we having all these people from (expletive deleted) countries come here?'', referring to persons from countries in Africa, the Caribbean, and Central and South America.

And most contemptible of all, on August 15, 2017 the current President of the United States said he regarded as some ``very fine people,'' the neo-Nazis, white supremacists, and Ku Klux Klansmen who descended on the peaceful community of Charlottesville, Virginia to advocate racism and who were met by peaceful counterprotestors in a clash that the white supremacists turned violent and resulted in the death of Heather Heyer and left injured many other innocent persons who were gathered to affirm the principles of the Declaration of Independence and the U.S. Constitution, and to honor the sacrifice of unsung American heroes who devoted their lives to the ongoing quest to continue perfecting our union.

Mr. Speaker, the recent and past statements and actions of the current President of the United States demean the office he holds and falls short of the standard set by the 16th President, whose administration was devoted to unity, healing, and ending racial division.

In his famous March 4, 1861, Inaugural Address, President Abraham Lincoln foretold the reasons why the efforts of the current President of the United States to rend our union are destined to fail:

We are not enemies, but friends. 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.

Before closing, Mr. Speaker, I think it appropriate to share my perspective on immigration and significant and positive impact it has in the development of this, the greatest nation in human history.

Like the Framers did in the summer of 1776, it is fitting that we gather in the nation's capital on a sweltering July day to reflect upon America's long and continuing struggle for justice, equality, and opportunity.

After all, all that any of us wants is an honored place in the American family.

I am often reminded that as I speak there is a family somewhere about to begin a dangerous but hopeful quest.

Somewhere south of the border, maybe across the Rio Grande from El Paso, Laredo, Corpus Christi, or Brownsville or maybe just south of Tucson or San Diego or Douglass, Arizona.

Somewhere there is a family in the Old Country anxiously about to embark on their own journey to the New World of America.

They come for the same reason so many millions came before them, in this century and last, from this continent and from every other.

They come for the same reason families have always come to America: to be free of fear and hunger, to better their condition, to begin their world anew, to give their children a chance for a better life.

Like previous waves of immigrants, they too will wage all and risk all to reach the sidewalks of Houston or Los Angeles or Phoenix or Chicago or Atlanta or Denver or Detroit.

They will risk death in the desert; they will brave the elements, they will risk capture and crime, they will endure separation from loved ones.

And if they make it to the Promised Land of America, no job will be beneath them.

They will cook our food, clean our houses, cut our grass, and care for our kids.

They will be cheated by some and exploited by others.

They work in sunlight but live in twilight, between the shadows; not fully welcome as new Americans but wanted as low-wage workers.

Somewhere near the borders tonight, a family will cross over into the New World, willed by the enduring power of the American Dream.

I urge all Members to join me in supporting H. Res. 489.

All American should take pride in and celebrate the ethnic, racial, and religious diversity

that has made the United States the leader of the community of nations and the beacon of hope and inspiration to oppressed persons everywhere.

And in addition to the love and pride Americans justifiably have for their country, all persons in the United States should cherish and exercise the rights, privileges, and responsibilities guaranteed by the Constitution of the United States.

Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Speaker, there is no doubt that 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 of my colleagues here are ready to say: Let us sit down at the table of peace and reconciliation.

I hope we will have some who will acknowledge that these actions--I will try to be generic--and words were certainly not becoming of the United States of America. The American people must see us work together on that.

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 491 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Woodall), pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only.

General Leave

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members be given 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks.

Mr. Speaker, on Monday, the Rules Committee met and reported a rule, House Resolution 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 structured rule.

The rule provides for 1 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 a manager's amendment from Chairman Schiff that makes technical and conforming changes and adds additional language that authorizes the CIA to expand death benefits to cover officers killed abroad. The rule makes in order 31 amendments and provides one motion to recommit.

Additionally, the rule provides for consideration of House Report 116-125 and its accompanying resolution recommending that the House find Attorney General Barr and Secretary Wilbur Ross in contempt of Congress for refusing to comply with congressional subpoenas under a closed rule.

The rule provides for 1 hour of debate equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking member of the Committee on Oversight and Reform.

The rule also provides for consideration of H.R. 489 under a closed rule.

The rule provides for 1 hour of debate equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority 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 Export Control Act. This process allows for the chair of the Foreign Affairs Committee to call up such a joint resolution 1 day after it is noticed by the majority leader and provides 20 minutes or an hour of debate and a motion to recommit.

Mr. Speaker, the Intelligence Authorization Act, H.R. 3494, authorizes programs at 16 intelligence community agencies and offices, including the Director of National Intelligence, the CIA, the Department of Defense, the DIA, the National Security Agency, and the

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I might consume.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Woodall) for his very thoughtful and moving remarks, which are very appealing to me, especially since I am a law professor first and only a politician thereafter.

And, you know, we all have to deal with the political party system as it exists in the America of today, but I like to think of the Presidents who kept a kind of dual mind about it. They knew that they had to be part of it in order to operate, as all of us do, but also to try to think about the broader whole.

You know, Jefferson in his first inaugural address in 1800 said that we are all Republicans, we are all Federalists. And he also said:

If I could only go to heaven with a political party, I

would prefer not to go.

George Washington said to us:

We have to keep in mind that the word party comes from the

French word partie, a part, and when we govern, we should try

to keep in mind the whole.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for at least the one cheer of a potential three hip hip hoorays you might have given us on the Intelligence Authorization Act.

We do think that the contempt citation is necessary precisely for the reason you suggest: to uphold the institutional integrity of Congress.

We have gotten together in the past across party lines to demand that the executive branch gives us the information we need, and we believe that 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 is hard for me not to see 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 to where they came from just because you have a political disagreement with them. It is wrong.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern), the chair of the Rules Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, before I go into my time, may I make a parliamentary inquiry?

Mr. Speaker, 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?

Mr. Speaker, launching into my time, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee).

(Ms. JACKSON LEE asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 30 seconds to the gentlewoman from Texas.

Mr. Speaker, I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

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 imposing the citizenship question on the Census? Yes, they did violate the law. They violated the Census Act. They violated the Administrative Procedure Act. They violated pretty much every administrative principle we have in this country. 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 are going to stop cooperating with congressional subpoenas and requests for documents? No, they can't, and I hope that that would be a unifying dictum for everybody in this body 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 a more bipartisan fashion. I have actually been very cheered by the number of our GOP colleagues who have denounced the President's remarks over the weekend and this week.

For example, we get a statement from--I am not making it up. I know that they are out there. Here we go. Mr. 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 Congress are not reflective of the values'' of my district. ``I urge our President immediately disavow his comments.''

Senator Murkowski: ``There's no excuse for the President's spiteful comments--they were absolutely unacceptable and this needs to stop.''

John Kasich: ``What @realDonaldTrump said about Democrat women in Congress is deplorable and beneath the dignity of the office. We all, including Republicans, need to speak out against these kind of comments that do nothing more than divide us and create deep animosity. . . .''

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I am sorry. Does the gentleman mind repeating?

Mr. Speaker, I am sure the gentleman was not, unfortunately, just because of the press of time.

The vast majority of Members on both sides were not consulted in the manner----

Mr. Speaker, I urge a ``yes'' vote on the rule and the previous question.

I will just take a second to say to my friend that there have been hundreds of conversations that have been taking place here, but, of course, the gentleman knows that the committee system works in such a way that legislation is put in and not everybody is consulted. The legislation he has praised so effusively today in the Intelligence Committee, none of us outside of the Intelligence Committee were consulted about it.

So I think we have got a consensus here rejecting and repudiating the tenor and the meaning of the President's remarks, and I hope that 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

The text of the material previously referred to by Mr. Woodall is as follows:

Amendment to House Resolution 491

At the end of the resolution, add the following:

Sec. 7. That immediately upon adoption of this resolution,

the House shall resolve into the Committee of the Whole House

on the state of the Union for consideration of the bill (H.R.

3765) to amend title 13, United States Code, to require that

any questionnaire used for a decennial census of population

contains a question regarding citizenship, 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

shall not exceed one hour equally divided and controlled by

the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on

Oversight and Reform. After general debate the bill shall be

considered for amendment under the five minute rule. All

points of order against provisions in the bill are waived.

When the committee rises and reports the bill back to the

House with a recommendation that the bill do pass, the

previous question shall be considered as ordered on the bill

and amendments thereto to final passage without intervening

motion except one motion to recommit with or without

instructions. If the Committee of the Whole rises and reports

that it has come to no resolution on the bill, then on the

next legislative day the House shall, immediately after the

third daily order of business under clause 1 of rule XIV,

resolve into the Committee of the Whole for further

consideration of the bill.

Sec. 8. Clause 1(c) of rule XIX shall not apply to the

consideration of H.R. 3765.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution.

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Raskin) for yielding me the 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 chat room somewhere where people would be too ashamed to even use their real name when spewing vile rhetoric.

But this isn't some online troll. We are not talking about using dog whistles or speaking in some kind of secret alt-right code, Mr. Speaker.

This is proudly using Twitter as a megaphone to attack fellow Americans.

These are American citizens being turned into some kind of 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 have seen this administration carry out some deeply troubling policies. I have heard some deeply offensive things. And I know I am not alone in this, because when the cameras are off and 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 is 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 is corroding our discourse. It undermines our values, and it doesn't reflect who we are as a country.

Mr. Speaker, 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.

Now, I believe in the adage from Maya Angelou: ``When someone shows you who they are, believe them.''

The President told us who he was long before he rode that escalator down to announce his campaign.

It is 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.

Mr. Speaker, I implore my colleagues to think twice before they follow the President off a cliff. Our credibility matters and their credibility matters.

A Presidency lasts, at most, just 4 to 8 years. Some of us will get the chance to serve here long after this administration ends, and we 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 is 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 is 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.

Mr. Speaker, 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 is out of order, but we need to be clear, we need to call

it what it is, and we need to condemn it.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, I believe that what I am saying on the House floor supports the truth. I believe every word I said, and I feel strongly about it. I would only wish my colleagues on the other side would feel equally strong about condemning these horrific remarks.

Mr. Speaker, the President can say whatever he wants. I think we have a moral obligation to call out racism wherever it exists.

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman's comments, but I would ask him: Where was he when President Trump was spreading lies about President Obama's birth? Where was he when Representative Joe Wilson shouted, on the House floor, ``You lie,'' to President Obama in 2009?

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, the Department of Commerce and the Department of Justice have given 31,000 pages of documents to the Congress. They provided witnesses. In fact, we have another one coming in for a transcribed interview later this month.

Secretary Ross came and testified for over 6 hours. He came in front of the committee, raised his hand, swore to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help him God. He testified for 6 hours.

Secretary Ross and Attorney General Barr are doing their jobs. What is their reward? The Democrats are going to hold them in contempt, hold them in contempt because they are so focused on this citizenship question.

As Mr. Comer, who has introduced legislation, said just a few minutes ago, the citizenship question is nothing but common sense.

Listen to what Justice Alito said 2 weeks ago, ``No one disputes that it is important to know how many inhabitants of this country are citizens.'' And the easiest way to figure it out is to ask a question on the Census.

That is about as common sense as it gets. It is so common sense, we have only been doing it for 200 years, in one form or another. The long form, the short form, the 10-year form, the annual form, we have been doing it for 200 years.

But somehow, this year: No, you can't do it this year. You can't do it this year.

As Mr. Comer said, the United Nations says it is a best practice. Lots of countries do it. But somehow, the Democrats don't want us to do it this year.

I support the legislation that the Representative from Kentucky has introduced. I support the good work of our Rules Committee member from Georgia. Certainly, I don't support the rule and the resolution that is 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 or, better yet, go ask your constituents a question. I would encourage Democrats to go to their districts and ask anyone in their districts: Do you think we should ask a question on the Census about whether you are a citizen of this country? My guess is just about every single person you talk to in your district will say: Heck, yeah, aren't we doing that already? Of course, my colleagues would have to respond: Yes, we are, and we have been doing it for 200 years.

This is common sense. This resolution is not appropriate.

Mr. Speaker, I urge defeat of the rule, defeat of the previous question, and if it gets to the floor, defeat of the resolution.