Jim Jordan

Mr. JORDAN

Mr. JORDAN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding. Mr. Speaker, in 1 week, the Democrats have shown us exactly what they want to do. In 1 week's time, May 8, 1 week ago, seven Democrats on the House Select Committee on the Coronavirus Crisis sent a letter to Universal Stainless & Alloy Products in western Pennsylvania and they said: Give back your PPP money. Right here is the letter: ``You have not returned these funds.'' Three days later, May 11, four of our colleagues, two Democrats, two Republicans, sent a letter to those seven Democrats and said: Hey, wait a minute. Universal Stainless followed the rules. They are entitled to their money. If they have to give it back, they will have to lay off steelworkers. And today, this bill does what? This bill does what? It gives tax dollars to illegal immigrants. In 1 week's time, they took money from steelworkers to give it to illegal immigrants. That is the Democrats' vision for their country. If for no other reason, that is why we should vote against this bill.

Mr. JORDAN

Mr. JORDAN. Madam Speaker, three weeks ago, the Attorney General of the United States said this: ``The Constitution is not suspended during a crisis.'' Amen to that. And guess who agreed with him, or at least used to agree with him? Last month, April 9, the Speaker of the House said: ``There is a constitutional requirement that we vote in person.'' But, oh, how that has changed. Today we are, in fact, suspending the Constitution. We are allowing proxies to establish a quorum and do the business of the American people. The Supreme Court has been very clear on this. In the Ballin decision, the Court said Members have to be present by stating: ``All that the Constitution requires is the presence of a majority, and when that majority are present the power of the House arises.'' You have got to be there. Actually, you have got to be here. You have got to be here to do the business of the people. You can't phone it in. You can't mail it in. This bill would allow one Member to have 10 proxies in their back pocket. Think about that. 22 Members with 10 proxies in their back pocket could do the business of 330 million people in this great country. We all take an oath to the Constitution. Article I, Section 4 of the Constitution mandates that Congress must ``assemble at least once in every year.'' That is when we start the session. Article I, Section 5 requires Congress to physically congregate and vote to change where it is going to sit; frankly, what is happening today. Section 5 also requires a recorded vote on any question at the desire of one-fifth present. Article I, Section 6 mandates and protects Members from arrest during travel to and from their attendance at a session of their respective House. You would think if you could mail in your vote, the Constitution wouldn't protect you on traveling to the vote. All of these provisions envision Members physically traveling and being present at the seat of the Federal Government. As Mrs. Lesko said earlier, farmers are planting crops, truckers are moving goods, grocers are stocking shelves, frontline healthcare workers haven't missed a day. They can't phone it in. They can't mail it in. They can't proxy their work in. They have to be there and do it, and we should do the same. The example this sends, the precedent this sets, is so darn wrong. And I encourage a ``no'' vote on H. Res. 965.

Mr. JORDAN

Mr. JORDAN. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding. Madam Speaker, eight different oversight processes are in place as we speak: We have got the Oversight Committee itself, which has the broadest jurisdiction of any committee in Congress to do oversight. We have the committees of jurisdiction, which each have a subcommittee that does oversight: Ways and Means, Energy and Commerce, Small Business, and, of course, Financial Services. We have the CARES Act itself, which created the Oversight Commission in the bill itself. We have the CARES Act, which also created the Pandemic Response Accountability Committee in the bill itself. That is the fourth one. The fifth one, we have the IGs, the inspectors general from each of the respective agencies: Health and Human Services, Treasury. Sixth, we have a special inspector general created in the CARES Act. Seventh, we have $20 million in funding appropriated in the CARES Act, which created a process for auditors and experts at GAO to do further oversight. And finally, eighth, we have the FTC and DOJ, the agencies doing oversight and holding people accountable for the fraud that may be committed. Eight different entities doing oversight, but the Democrats want a ninth. Why? Eight different committees doing the work making sure that the hard-earned tax dollars of the American people have the proper oversight. But we need a ninth for what reason? The ninth is political. Eight committees looking out for the taxpayer, the ninth looking out for Joe Biden; the ninth to go after President Trump. This is just a continuation of the attack that the Democrats have had on the President for the past 4 years. It started before he was President when they opened the Trump Russia investigation, spied on two American citizens associated with the Trump campaign. It continued with the Mueller investigation. And then, of course, we had the ridiculous impeachment process based on a phone call between the President of Ukraine and President Trump. And now this. Now this, a select committee in the summer of an election year to attack the President when we already have eight different entities doing the oversight we are all supposed to do to look out for the taxpayer interests. The Democrats want a ninth because the ninth is political, and the ninth will be chaired by our colleague, the biggest supporter of the Democrats' nominee for President. Madam Speaker, I urge a ``no'' vote.

Mr. JORDAN

Mr. JORDAN. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from North Dakota (Mr. Armstrong).

Mr. JORDAN. Madam Speaker, may I inquire of the Chair how much time the minority has remaining.

Mr. JORDAN. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I will just real quickly say that the gentlewoman is exactly right. People should be prosecuted. It was so bad in the Carter Page application. Here is what the former chief judge of the FISA court said: The frequency with which representations made by FBI personnel turned out to be unsupported or contradicted by information in their possession and with which they withheld information detrimental to their case calls into question whether information contained in other FBI applications is reliable. Put in plain English: You lied so much, how can we trust any other representation you have made to the court? That is what this legislation is designed to begin to address and protect American citizens who will be in front of this court. Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner), who has been a strong advocate in this area and former chairman of the Judiciary Committee.

Mr. JORDAN. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Biggs).

Mr. JORDAN. Madam Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time to close. Madam Speaker, as the gentleman from North Dakota just articulated, the bill is better than where we are currently--no call detail records, amicus kicks in if there is a First Amendment concern of any American citizen who is in front of the court. The penalties are real: You lie to the court, you omit information from the court, or you go leak information about the application you submitted to the court, there are enhanced penalties. There is the transcript provision. There is now a transcript that will be given to the intelligence community. That is a good step, knowing that somebody is going to be looking at what you are doing and is going to see it in a real timeframe is important. The annual assessment from the IG, the same IG who just told us 3 months ago that the FBI went to the court in the Carter Page application and lied 17 times, that individual, Mr. Horowitz, will be doing an annual assessment; compliance office within the Department of Justice so that there are more people looking at the application on the front end, hopefully, we don't have as many problems; and finally, as the chairman indicated, no cell site GPS location indication without a warrant--those are victories for the American citizen. It is not as much as we would like, but it is a darn good first step. Madam Speaker, I urge people to support the legislation, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. JORDAN. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I might consume. I rise in support of the reform legislation. This bill is not perfect, as the chairman said. It does not contain every reform that I would like to see or the reforms that I advocated for and many others advocated for, but it is a start. Most importantly, this bill is an improvement over what currently exists, over the status quo. The legislation begins to address the problems that we saw with the FBI's illegal surveillance of Trump campaign associate Carter Page. On December 9, 2019, the nonpartisan Justice Department inspector general released a 400-page report detailing the FBI's misconduct and the failures in its warrantless surveillance of Mr. Page. Congressman Meadows and I urged our Democratic chairman to hold hearings on this report, but they were not interested. Still, I hope all of my colleagues had a chance to read the inspector general's report because it should concern every single American. Remember, if our law enforcement agencies can do this to a President, imagine what they can do to you and me. The Justice Department inspector general found 17 significant errors or omissions in the FISA warrant applications for Mr. Page. Said more plainly, they lied to the court 17 times. They didn't tell the court important information, like the guy who wrote the dossier was being paid for by the opposition party's campaign. They didn't tell the court the guy who wrote the document, the dossier, that they used to get the warrant was ``desperate'' to stop Trump and had communicated that to the Justice Department. The inspector general also found 51 factual assertions made to the FISA court that were wrong or unsupported. It detailed how the FBI was too eager to rely on phony political opposition research conducted by Christopher Steele and, as I said, funded by the Democrats. According to the inspector general: ``The FISA request form drew almost entirely from Steele's reporting in describing the factual basis to establish probable cause to believe that Page was an agent of a foreign power,'' which was not true. The inspector general determined that the FBI did not have corroborating information to support the specific allegations made against Mr. Page. In fact, Steele was feeding the FBI gossip and innuendo as proof of wrongdoing. Then, the FBI used that information, as I said, to spy on an American citizen, without corroborating the information. This is a great misuse of immense power that our Federal Government agencies have, and it is a severe abuse of trust. Now, there has been a lot of talk about accountability for this misconduct, and I absolutely agree. There needs to be accountability at all levels. The inspector general found that an FBI attorney actually doctored a piece of evidence. An FBI attorney did this. He doctored a piece of evidence that he used to obtain the warrant to spy on Mr. Page. The attorney took an email that would have cut against the surveillance order on Mr. Page and changed its meaning. He changed its meaning 180 degrees so that it would support the surveillance. This is totally unacceptable. The same FBI lawyer who the inspector general found to have shared anti-Trump text messages with his colleagues, writing all kinds of things--``the crazies won finally,'' ``viva la resistance''--this attorney went on to serve on Special Counsel Robert Mueller's team investigating the debunked allegations about Russian collusion. The FBI's misconduct on FISA is not limited to junior staffers, as some of my colleagues have asserted. Such rampant and flagrant abuse can occur only because of senior leadership failures: Director Comey, Deputy Director McCabe, and General Counsel Jim Baker. In fact, the inspector general said as much in his report. Here are his words: ``In our view, this was a failure of not only the operational team, but also of the managers and supervisors, including senior officials, in the chain of command.'' It is no coincidence that the two most senior FBI officials involved, Director Comey and Deputy Director McCabe, were both referred for criminal prosecution by the inspector general for wrongdoing related to the investigations. We cannot forget this background because that is why this reform legislation--again, while not everything we hoped for--is a necessary first step. This bill would add several requirements to ensure a FISA application is complete and accurate. It requires the Attorney General to sign off on a FISA investigation of an elected official or candidate for Federal office. It forces the Justice Department to fire anyone who knowingly hides information from the FISA court. And the bill enhances congressional oversight of the FISA process. It also allows the FISA court to appoint an amicus in cases involving political activities of a U.S. person. Because the FISA process is ex parte--meaning, of course, the U.S. person is not represented--I hope the appointment of the amicus will help the FISA court to protect the civil liberties of U.S. persons. Like I said, I think we can and should do more, and I look forward to working with the chairman toward that end. But right now, this bill would improve the civil liberty protections of U.S. citizens. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. JORDAN. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Davidson).

Mr. JORDAN

Mr. JORDAN. Madam Speaker, impeachment didn't start with Ukraine. It started before he was elected. It started on July 31, 2016, when the FBI opened an investigation and spied on four American citizens associated with the President's campaign. That is when it started. It continued after he was elected before inauguration when they go up to Trump Tower and they brief the President on the dossier. The dossier that they already knew was false, the dossier that Michael Horowitz said when they took it to the FISA court they lied to the court 17 times. It continued after inauguration with the Mueller investigation and those 2 years that we went through. Why are the Democrats so focused on getting to the President? Why are they so focused about going after the President? Because they don't like what this guy is getting done. They don't like the fact that he is shaking up this town. They don't like the fact that he is doing what he said he would do. They don't like the fact that he is draining the swamp, and when you drain the swamp, the swamp fights back. And that is exactly what we are seeing from the Democrats in this entire impeachment escapade we have lived through now for 4 months that has needlessly divided our country. Here is the good news: the American people get it. They understand it. They know the four key facts. They have got the call transcript, there was no quid pro quo. The two individuals on the call, President Trump and President Zelensky have repeatedly said: There was no pushing, no pressure, and no linkage of an investigation to any type of security assistance money. We know the Ukrainians knew at the time of the call that aid wasn't even on hold at the time of the call. Most importantly, they took no action to get the money released. The American people get the facts. They know the facts are on the President's side, and that is why this whole thing is wrong. They get the facts, and they understand.

Mr. JORDAN

Mr. JORDAN. Madam Speaker, the Democrats forgot two key things. They forgot about the facts, and they forgot about fairness. Four facts will never change: We have the call transcript, no quid pro quo; we have the two guys on the call who have repeatedly said there was no pressure and there was no pushing; we have the fact Ukraine didn't know aid was held up at the time of the phone call; and, most importantly, Ukraine took no action and no announcement of investigation to get the aid released. But Democrats don't care. They don't care about the facts, and they sure don't care about the process. There was no subpoena power for Republicans and no Republican witnesses. During the depositions Republicans were prevented from getting all their questions answered, but Democrats got every one of their questions, the witnesses responded to every one of theirs, but not Republicans'. The chairman wouldn't let them. Of course, there was the whistleblower, the anonymous whistleblower, with no firsthand knowledge, who was biased against the President, who worked for Joe Biden, and who was never compelled to testify--the guy who started it all. This is really about that the President has been driving these guys crazy because he is getting things done. He is doing what he said he was going to do. He is having results. Taxes have been cut, regulations have been reduced, unemployment is at its lowest level in 50 years, the economy is growing, Gorsuch and Kavanaugh are on the Court, we are out of the Iran deal, the embassy is in Jerusalem, hostages are home from North Korea, and a new NAFTA agreement coming tomorrow. But guess what, Madam Speaker? When you drain the swamp, the swamp fights back. And they started attacking the President before the election even. On July 31, 2016, they opened the Russian investigation. The FBI spied on four American citizens associated with the Trump campaign. The FBI took the dossier to the FISA court. The dossier they already knew was false, they took to the court and lied to the court 17 times. Guess what, Madam Speaker? Three days ago on national television, even James Comey had to admit the FBI was wrong. Yesterday--1 day ago--the FISA court sends the FBI a letter and says: Straighten up and get your act together when it comes to the FISA application process. Think about this: the attacks started then, and they have continued right up until today. But, Madam Speaker, I want you to think about something: the individual who said that the FISA process was fine, the dossier was fine, and the Russian investigation was fine, that same individual ran the impeachment process. That same individual's staff met with the whistleblower, that same individual is the only guy in Congress who knows who the whistleblower is for sure, and that same individual released the phone records of the President's personal attorney, released the phone records of a member of the press, and released the phone records of a Republican Member of the United States Congress. This process has been unfair, it has been dangerous, and it has been harmful to our country. Democrats have never accepted the will of the American people. Nancy Pelosi made that clear 4 weeks ago when she called the President of the United States an imposter. The will of we the people, the 63 million folks who voted for this guy and made him President in an electoral college landslide, they never accepted that fact. We are less than 11 months away from the election. Let the American people decide who should be President. Let the American people decide.

Mr. JORDAN

Mr. JORDAN. Madam Speaker, the Ohio Veterans Hall of Fame will hold a ceremony in Dublin on November 7 to mark the induction of its 2019 class. I am honored to commend to the House one of these inductees: James I. Moorman of Sidney. Mr. Moorman's life and career are a model for all who would commit themselves to public service. After his time in the Air Force, he joined the Shelby County Sheriff's Office, where as Jail Administrator he spearheaded the planning and design of a new 172-bed facility. He was recognized by the Law Enforcement Association of Shelby County as the 1978 Law Enforcement Officer of the Year. Mr. Moorman is a life member of the American Legion, AMVETS, Disabled American Veterans, Catholic War Veterans, and Vietnam Veterans of America. For six years, he was a member of the Shelby County Veterans Service Commission. He played a key role in helping neighboring Logan County establish its own Vets to DC Program, coordinating veterans' trips to Washington to visit their memorials on the National Mall at no cost to them. Madam Speaker, selection for the Hall of Fame is a high honor accorded to no more than twenty Ohioans each year. To be considered, individuals must not only serve our nation honorably in the military but also reflect the high value of service to others in their post- military careers. I am pleased to join in the accolades for James Moorman and his outstanding record of service as he is inducted into the Ohio Veterans Hall of Fame.

Mr. JORDAN

Mr. JORDAN. Madam Speaker, trying to put a ribbon on a sham process doesn't make it any less of a sham. Never forget how this whole thing started. Democrats are trying to impeach the President of the United States 13 months before an election based on an anonymous whistleblower with no firsthand knowledge, who has a bias against the President and who worked with Vice President Biden. The day after the now famous phone call between President Trump and President Zelensky, the so-called whistleblower gets a readout from somebody on that call, writes a memo. In the memo, he uses terms like ``this call was scary,'' ``frightening.'' But what does he do? He waits 18 days before he files a complaint. And who is the first person he goes to see, the first people he goes to see in that 18-day timeframe? Chairman Schiff's staff. Chairman Schiff's staff. Madam Speaker, 435 Members of Congress and only one individual, one Member of this body, knows who this person is who started this whole darn crazy process: Chairman Schiff. And what does this resolution do? It gives him even more power to run this secret proceeding in a bunker in the basement of the Capitol. This resolution continues the unfair and partisan process. Just 2 days ago, 2 days ago, we were prevented from having the witness answer our questions in one of these depositions. And this resolution is going to give more power to the person who made that decision in the bunker in the basement of the Capitol. We have less than 13 months before the next election. Americans understand that this is unfair. Americans get fairness. They instinctively know this is an unfair and partisan process. They will see how unfair and partisan it is today when the vote happens on the floor of this House. We can do a lot better than this. We can do a lot better than this, and the American people see through it. I urge a ``no'' vote on this resolution, and I thank the gentleman on the Rules Committee for his work and his leadership.

Mr. JORDAN

Mr. JORDAN. Madam Speaker, what are the Democrats hiding? What are they hiding? Trying to impeach the President of the United States 13 months before an election based on an anonymous whistleblower with no first-hand knowledge, who has a bias against the President, who worked with Joe Biden, who wrote a memo the day after the call. And he described the call as ``frightening, scary,'' but then he waits 18 days before he files the complaint. And who does he run off and see during that 18-day timeframe? Adam Schiff, the guy who is running the secret process in a bunker in the basement of the Capitol. What are they hiding from the American people? Americans get fairness. They understand it. And they instinctively know that this secretive process is not fair. 435 Members of the House representing over 300 million people in this country, and only one of them, Adam Schiff, knows who the guy is who started this whole darn charade. Adam Schiff is the only one who knows. Why don't the rest of us? Why don't, more importantly, the 300 million people who we all get the privilege of representing, why don't they know who the people are who started this whole darn process that the American people see through? Americans get fairness, and they know this is instinctively unfair.

Mr. JORDAN

Mr. JORDAN. Mr. Speaker, this is just one more example of the Democrats attacking the President instead of trying to solve the problem. We all know how serious the problem was. We have known it for months and months and months. For months, we said there was a crisis on the southern border, and the Democrats said: No, no, no, not really a crisis. It is manufactured. It is not real. Even though there were 144 apprehensions in the month of May alone, they said: Oh, no, no--manufactured. Finally, the real crisis got so extreme, even the Democrats had to say: You know what? That money the President is asking for, we are going to have to give him a little money. We are going to have to do something here. They put all kinds of strings on it, but they finally admitted there was a real crisis on the border. But they limited what the President could do. In the broader context, never forget what they have said. They said: Abolish ICE. Members of the United States Congress: Abolish ICE. We had a Member from the majority say to abolish the whole Department. We had the Speaker of the House, even though she has a wall in her own State, say walls are immoral. The majority says they are okay with noncitizens voting. This is the perspective they offer, and now they bring this bill? Of course we should vote against this thing. Of course we should vote against this thing.

Mr. JORDAN

Mr. JORDAN. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. JORDAN. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. JORDAN. Mr. Chairman, the amendment addresses a glaring flaw in the legislation. The bill strips nonunion employees of any and all benefits they might gain by contracts they have signed to arbitrate their disputes. It says that contracts which force arbitration for employment disputes-- thereby, contracts which open a faster, cheaper path of justice for employees--are no longer permitted even though research has shown that employees obtain more favorable judgments in arbitration than in court. In court, of course, the average employee stands to be seriously outgunned by an employer who has far more resources to hire costly courtroom counsel. While the bill takes those benefits out of the hands of nonunion employees, it doesn't do that for union employees. Predispute, mandatory binding arbitration contracts negotiated by unions with employers or with other unions are left untouched by the bill. This bill is titled the Forced Arbitration Injustice Repeal Act, but it should be titled the forced injustice guarantee act because the bill enacts injustice between union and nonunion employees. Nonunion employees get handed over to the high-cost plaintiffs' trial lawyers and may never be able to afford their day in court. Union employees get all the benefits of forcing arbitration with their employers and don't have to make a sacrifice at all like the nonunion employees do. Mr. Chairman, the amendment fixes the hypocritical treatment in the legislation. I urge my colleagues to support the amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. JORDAN. Mr. Chair, I have seen elected officials change their positions. I have never seen it happen in 5 minutes. Mr. Chair, 5 minutes ago, the chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary stood up at the end, closing out the debate on the overall legislation before we got to the amendment debate, and he said this, ``a bedrock principle in this country is you get your day in court.'' The next word he used was important. He said, ``all'' Americans deserve their day in court. Now, he just told us that is not the case. I guess by ``all,'' he meant only if you are nonunion do you get your day in court. Union people don't. They have to abide by these arbitration contracts. This is really simple. This is about fairness. If it is good for the goose, it is good for the gander. That is all we are saying here. If the chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary believes what he just said 5 minutes ago, then he should be in support of this amendment. Or maybe he didn't mean ``all'' when he said ``all'' Americans deserve their day in court. Maybe he didn't mean ``bedrock principle'' when he said bedrock principle. Maybe he only meant, Oh, it is a principle just for some people, which means, by definition, it is not a principle at all. So I want to know which position the chairman has; the one he said 5 minutes ago, or the one he said 2 minutes ago. Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. JORDAN

Mr. JORDAN. Mr. Speaker, in July of 1969, Neil Armstrong, Buzz Aldrin, and Michael Collins achieved something once thought impossible: successfully landing on the Moon and returning safely to the Earth. They succeeded despite the many dangers they faced and the countless things that could have gone wrong during their pioneering 240,000-mile journey. As we mark the 50th anniversary of Apollo 11, I take special pride in representing Neil Armstrong's birthplace, Wapakoneta, Ohio, home of the Neil Armstrong Air and Space Museum. The museum has on display many artifacts from the mission and other items from Mr. Armstrong's life and career. The museum's yearlong celebration of the Apollo 11 anniversary culminates this weekend in a series of events, ranging from meet-and-greets with active and retired astronauts to the Run to the Moon 5k and 10k races, special exhibits at the museum, and the grand finale concert. Mr. Speaker, Neil Armstrong died in 2012 at the age of 82, but the impact of his journey is still felt today in rural Auglaize County, Ohio, and throughout the world. I am pleased to join the people of Wapakoneta in celebrating the man who took a small step but left a giant legacy.

Mr. JORDAN

Mr. JORDAN. Madam Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Comer) for yielding and for his great work on the committee. Secretary Ross and Attorney General Barr are doing their jobs. So what is their reward? Democrats are going to hold them in contempt. Both agencies, the Commerce Department and the Justice Department, have submitted 31,000 documents to the committee. They have made available all kinds of witnesses for depositions and transcribed interviews. In fact, we have got another one happening later this month. And the Secretary himself sat for over 6 hours in a hearing answering every single question the committee had. He raised his hand, said he swore to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help him God, and answered all the questions. And what does he get for it? Democrats are going to hold him in contempt. And why are they doing this? All because they don't want a simple question on the Census: Are you a citizen of the United States of America? That one sentence is driving it all. Are you a citizen of the greatest nation in history is driving it all. They are going to hold two people doing their jobs in contempt, all because we don't want to do what has been done for 200 years in this country. Since 1820, in one form or another, we have been asking the citizenship question on the Census. They are going to hold them in contempt. All because they don't want to do what the U.N. says is the best practice, they are going to hold them in contempt. All because they don't want to do what is just plain old common sense. Listen to what Justice Alito said in his opinion a couple weeks ago: ``No one disputes that it is important to know how many inhabitants of this country are citizens, and the most direct way to gather that information is to ask it in a Census.'' Shazam. Imagine that. The best way to figure it out is to ask people in the country that you are surveying. Holy cow. And here is the kicker; here is the final thing: You go anywhere--go anywhere--in this country, any State you want to go to, some small town, some big city, walk up the street and ask someone on the street: Do you think when we do the Census to figure out how many people are in this country, it is appropriate to ask if you are a citizen? Every person you talk to, every single one of them will say: Well, heck yeah. And, oh, by the way, aren't we doing that already. You would have to say: Yes. We have been doing it for 200 years. This resolution is ridiculous, and we should vote it down.

Mr. JORDAN

Mr. JORDAN. 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.

Mr. JORDAN

Mr. JORDAN. Madam Speaker, I am honored to commend to the House the outstanding work of the Sisters of Saint Francis of Tiffin, Ohio, who are marking 150 years of selfless service to others. The Tiffin Franciscans were founded by Father Joseph L. Bihn and Mrs. Elizabeth Schaefer (Sister Mary Francis) in the wake of the Civil War to care for the needs of orphans and the elderly. The work of the sisters continues to be rooted in the words of Matthew's Gospel: ``Whatever you did to one of the least of these My brethren, you did to Me.'' Throughout the years, the sisters have devoted themselves to the Franciscan values of caring for the poor and for all of God's creation. Dedicated to spreading the message of the Gospel, they have served countless people through their evangelization, education, child care, foster care, and other vital ministries designed to meet the needs of the Tiffin community and far beyond. Madam Speaker, the Sisters of Saint Francis are marking their sesquicentennial with events and commemorations throughout the year. On behalf of the people of Ohio's Fourth Congressional District, I am pleased to join in the accolades to them as they celebrate this milestone. They have my best wishes and my thanks for their tireless service to others.

Mr. JORDAN

Mr. JORDAN. Madam Chairwoman, I thank the gentleman for yielding. I want to thank the gentleman from Michigan and the gentlewoman from California for sponsoring this amendment. This is needed. I just want to remind this body of a couple statements. One was made by Attorney Emmet Flood talking about what took place with the President of the United States, and he said this: We would all do well to remember, if it can happen--talking about the FISA issue--if it can happen to a President, imagine what they can do to you and I. Imagine what they can do to you and I. We need reform in this program. Second, Chuck Schumer. When the leader in this Congress, leader in the Senate was on the Rachel Maddow Show on January 3 talking about what took place with the President----