Jamie Raskin

Mr. RASKIN

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

Mr. RASKIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentlewoman from Alabama (Ms. Sewell), who has been such a magnificent leader on this legislation.

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

Mr. RASKIN. Madam Speaker, all I will observe is that the gentleman from New York oddly begins by attacking a resolution for being a recycled version of language we have already adopted on a massive bipartisan basis in the House. Then he closes by attacking us for this resolution being partisan and divisive in some way. Obviously, those two things don't match up. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Doggett).

Mr. RASKIN. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time to close.

Mr. RASKIN. Madam Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. I want to thank my friend from Arizona, who rightfully invites us to focus on legislation that will bring us together. The gentlewoman from Indiana, who I have not had the good fortune of meeting yet, accuses me of wasting not just time, but something called ``clock time,'' which sounds like a really low blow. In any event, I think our legislation actually will bring us together and should bring us together. The rule is for two pieces of legislation that I thought ought to have and would have complete bipartisan support. The first is simply to update the preclearance coverage formula, section 4(b) in the Voting Rights Act, as we were instructed to do by the Supreme Court in the Shelby County v. Holder decision. The Voting Rights Act is the product of a massive political and social struggle in the country to make America move forward, but it had been supported by huge bipartisan majorities in 1965, in 1982, and in 2006. Yet, today, our friends across the aisle now attack it as a Federal takeover of State elections, which is absolutely flabbergasting that the Republican Party, the party of Lincoln, is now attacking the Voting Rights Act and the preclearance requirement for being some kind of assault on Federalism when it vindicates the right of all Americans to vote, as we are not only authorized to do under the 14th and 15th Amendments, but we are obligated to do under the republican Guarantee Clause to make sure that all Americans are in a representative relationship with their government. So I invite them to come on back over to this side of the Voting Rights Act. Obviously, we are all for a two-state solution, as American Presidents of both parties have been for, for the last several decades, so I invite them to come back over for that, too. This resolution cannot be both a tired rehash of everything we have done in the past, as was claimed, but also some kind of partisan departure. The partisan departure is on their side. Madam Speaker, I urge a ``yes'' vote on the rule and a ``yes'' vote on the previous question.

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

Mr. RASKIN

Mr. RASKIN. Madam Speaker, I rise today to join my colleagues in calling for the immediate release of award-winning journalist and veteran Austin Tice. I thank the gentlelady from the District of Columbia, Eleanor Holmes Norton, and the gentleman from Texas, Al Green, for their moving words and their unflagging efforts to secure Austin Tice's release. Austin has been held captive in Syria for over seven years. He traveled to Syria as a freelance journalist to cover the war in May 2012. Few journalists were working in Syria at this time, and his vital reporting and images appeared in major news sources, including the Washington Post, Agence France Presse, and McClatchy Newspapers. Three months later, he was detained at a check point south of Damascus on his way to Lebanon. Austin has been missing ever since. Five weeks after he was taken captive, a 43-second video titled ``Austin Tice is Alive'' emerged, showing a group of unidentified armed men holding Austin. This was the last information received from the captors. Although Austin Tice has spent far too many days, months, and years in captivity, crucially the United States government believes Austin is alive. The FBI is offering a one-million-dollar reward for information leading directly to his safe location and return. His parents, Debra and Marc Tice, have been consistent beacons of hope throughout Austin's captivity, working passionately for his release, and never losing hope for their son's safe return. Their love for their son has had the power to mobilize a large, bipartisan, bicameral group of Members of Congress from all over the country. I was proud to join my colleagues this September in a letter to President Trump calling for him to use the full weight of his national security team to bring Austin home, and I renew that call now. Austin Tice has been separated from his family, friends, and loved ones for far too long. He has spent too many birthdays in captivity. I join my colleagues in calling upon those who are keeping him in Syria to let Austin Tice go. Let him return safely to his family and his country.

Mr. RASKIN

Mr. RASKIN. Madam Speaker, I rise today in recognition of Pulmonary Hypertension Awareness Month and the outstanding work the Pulmonary Hypertension Association (PHA) in the fight against the rare and debilitating disease, pulmonary hypertension (PH). Pulmonary Hypertension (PH) is high blood pressure that occurs in the arteries of the lungs. It reflects the pressure the heart must apply to pump blood from the heart through the arteries of the lungs. As with a tangled hose, pressure builds up and backs up forcing the heart to work harder and less oxygen to reach the body. PH symptoms generally include fatigue, dizziness and shortness of breath with the severity of the disease correlating with its progression. If left undiagnosed or untreated it can lead to heart failure and death. I am proud to represent the Pulmonary Hypertension Association (PHA) headquartered in Silver Spring. PHA is dedicated to extending and improving the life of those affected by PH. PHA was the first organization in the world dedicated to providing comprehensive PH patient and caregiver support; medical education; specialty care services that improve patients' quality of life; and research funding. As a result of PHA's advocacy for continued investment in medical research and sustained scientific progress, there are 14 Food and Drug Administration-approved targeted treatment options for two forms of PH. When individuals are diagnosed with PH quickly and begin appropriate therapy, their prognosis and life-expectancy improve dramatically. However, it currently takes an average of 2.5 years to receive a diagnosis and three quarters of patients have severe PH when they are finally diagnosed. Without treatment, historical studies have shown a mean survival time of 2.8 years after diagnosis for pulmonary arterial hypertension (PAH). Patients with advanced PH cannot benefit as greatly from available therapies and often face dramatic and costly medical interventions, including 24-hour IV infused medication, increased risk for hospitalization and in some cases heart-lung transplantation. I am proud to work with PHA in their efforts to increase awareness of PH and create new programs that promote early and accurate diagnosis and quality care for PH patients. Madam Speaker, I encourage my colleagues to join me in recognizing November as Pulmonary Hypertension Awareness Month and to continue supporting federal activities that improve the lives of patients impacted by PH including research programs at the National Institutes of Health and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

Mr. RASKIN

Mr. RASKIN. Mr. Speaker, it is an outrage that President Trump has honored President Erdogan today with a meeting at the White House. During his infamous May 2017 visit to the White House, Erdogan dispatched his thugs to beat up peaceful protesters at Sheridan Circle here in the Capital of the United States of America, demonstrating before the world his contempt not only for human rights but for the rule of law in our country. He should have been banned from America until he makes all of his victims whole. This time, his visit coincides with Turkey's savage military campaign in northern Syria, an invasion that has killed hundreds of civilians, displaced and driven from their homes over 160,000 people, threatened our national security, and produced a massive humanitarian crisis. Just weeks ago, the U.S. House passed H.J. Res. 77 and H.R. 4695, the Protect Against Conflict by Turkey Act, which denounced Turkey's military actions against the Kurdish people in northern Syria. We also cannot overlook Erdogan's continuing oppressive actions against the Turkish people. He has executed a campaign of repression against anyone who dares disagree with his barbaric policies. This meeting should not be taking place.

Mr. RASKIN

Mr. RASKIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I want to thank the distinguished and always eloquent gentleman from Georgia for his comments on a number of interesting things. One is the question of bipartisanship and us working together, and I think the gentleman correctly invites us to study the record of legislative success and achievements in our body. It is true that the best legislation, like the Voting Rights Act, for example, is legislation that came through a bipartisan process where we had both parties working together. All of our great Presidents have been people who themselves were involved in partisan politics, and often in a bare-knuckled way, but also, once they were in office, called the country to try to speak across party lines. Jefferson said, ``We are all republicans. We are all federalists'' in his inaugural address in 1800. And Lincoln, of course, said: We are friends; we must not be enemies. We must be friends, and we must not be enemies. And President Obama said: We are not the red States of America; we are not the blue States of America. We are the United States of America. And so we have to try to aspire to that even though we work in a party system. And the reason we have a party system is because we are not a one-party dictatorship. One way to get rid of partisanship is you get rid of political parties and you have a one-party state. But we don't believe in that. We have got political freedom in America. But, at the same time, once we get in, the same way that we render constituent service to all of our constituents without regard to whether they are Democrats or Republicans or Independents, we should try to render legislative service to the whole country at the same time. Let me just make one other point to my friend about the Seat of Government Clause. Now, as the gentleman knows, the distinguished gentlewoman from the District of Columbia represents 700,000 people who have no voting representation in Congress, and the basis for that, what I think is a historical accident, has been the existence of the District Clause that Congress exercises exclusive legislation over the land that is ceded to Congress for the purposes of a seat of government. Well, I suppose to the extent that there is an attempt to justify us being the only country on Earth where the people of the Capital City are not represented, it has to do with the fact that this is where the Federal Government is located. Now, the District of Columbia is involved in a statehood struggle, which I support. Like every other American, they want to be part of a State. But as long as they are in the so-called seat of government, it seems to me that the gentlewoman makes a good point, which is that truly Federal functions should not be stripped away from Washington, D.C., and relocated around the country. Now, most Federal employees don't live in the National Capital area; 80 to 85 percent of them live across America at Army bases or post offices, Departments of Justice around the country. They work in all of those Federal functions around the country. But there are certain things that do belong here. The Federal departments clearly belong within the seat of government, and I think that the gentlewoman was just identifying that there has been an effort to strip away essential Federal functions and to relocate them to other parts of the country, leaving her constituents with the worst of both worlds, which is no representation the way that our constituents are represented, but, at the same time, a gradual stripping away of the Federal offices and departments. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. RASKIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I am proud to have served as the lead Democratic cosponsor of this bill introduced by my friend from Ohio (Mr. Chabot), H.R. 1663, the Foundation of the Federal Bar Association Charter Amendments Act of 2019. The Federal Bar Association serves as the primary voluntary bar association for attorneys, both in the private and public sectors, practicing in Federal courts. This bill will permit the FBA Foundation to better fulfill its role as the only institution in America chartered by Congress to promote the Federal administration of justice, the advancement of Federal jurisprudence, and the practice of law in the Federal courts by providing it with the organizational flexibility that it needs to fully meet its contemporary mission. The original 1954 charter created a framework that has served FBA for the last six decades. During these years, the foundation has indeed strengthened Federal jurisprudence, advanced legal education, and promoted effective legal practice. The organization's initiatives have also directly improved the lives of our people. For example, one community outreach program, the Wills for Veterans Initiative, is a pro bono project where FBA chapters provide the drafting of wills and signing services for veterans in their communities. I know a number of my constituents who participate have found great fulfillment working on this project, just as many veterans have benefited from it. Another initiative establishes a mentorship program for law students to work alongside experienced attorneys. The current charter must be amended to allow the organization greater flexibility of operation and growth. For example, the existing charter codifies strict membership and governance requirements that constrain member development and nimble governance of the organization. This rigidity presents serious challenges as the organization seeks to expand its critical charitable and educational initiatives. H.R. 1663 makes technical fixes to the charter that will give the FBA the needed flexibility in the new century. In the place of legislatively fixed membership criteria, it permits the FBA to proactively establish and update membership criteria through the bylaws process. Similar provisions authorize enhanced flexibility in the composition and duties of the members of the board. In general, this measure would enable the FBA to swiftly meet its needs and improve the administration of Federal justice. A similar version of the bill was introduced last year, which was passed by this body on a voice vote, but it did not pass in the Senate for various reasons. One was that the language in the bill's proposed nondiscrimination provision did not explicitly prohibit discrimination on the basis of gender identity, as most of the new antidiscrimination legislation does. To that end, I am very pleased that the Federal Bar Association took it upon itself to amend its own bylaws on April 18 of this year to include the following language: ``The terms of membership may not discriminate on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, disability, age, sexual orientation, gender identity, or national origin.'' As a cosponsor of the Equality Act, introduced by the gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. Cicilline), my good friend, I fully support equal rights for all. The proactive amendment of the FBA bylaws, I believe, makes clear the intent of the Federal Bar Association that everyone must be protected against invidious discrimination. In light of this development, I believe that H.R. 1663 will help the FBA to flourish for many decades to come. I strongly support the bill, and I look forward to the FBA's continued positive involvement in our Nation's Federal legal system, and I urge all of my colleagues to support the bill. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. RASKIN. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and to include extraneous material on the bill under consideration.

Mr. RASKIN. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 1663) to amend title 36, United States Code, to revise the Federal charter for the Foundation of the Federal Bar Association.

Mr. RASKIN. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank Mr. Chabot for his excellent work on this legislation, and I want to thank Mr. Collins for his thoughtful intervention. Mr. Speaker, this bill was advanced to allow the Foundation of the Federal Bar Association the flexibility it needs to successfully manage its own affairs, as Mr. Chabot pointed out. I urge its passage, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. RASKIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I thank the gentlewoman, who is a great champion for the people of Washington, D.C., and I could not agree more with her sentiments about efforts being made in the Senate to relocate agencies central to the operation of the national government away from the national capital region. I stand firmly with her in opposition to that disturbing trend. As the gentlewoman noted, the Foundation of the Federal Bar Association operates independently of the Federal Government and is currently headquartered in Arlington. I have received assurances from the FBA that they have no plans to relocate their principal offices as a result of the passage of this bill. FBA's mission and institutional interests, advancing the quality of justice in the Federal judiciary, necessitate location close to Washington, D.C. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman from Ohio is prepared to close, I am as well. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. RASKIN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for his comments. I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from the District of Columbia (Ms. Norton).

Mr. RASKIN

Mr. RASKIN. Madam Speaker, the House impeachment inquiry has discovered a substantial body of evidence that the President of the United States has violated the Constitution by placing his political interests above the interests of the country, thereby putting both our democracy and the Nation's security in jeopardy. In light of this evidence, the House of Representatives must fully investigate. We have sworn a sacred oath to uphold and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic. We will honor our oath by countering all high crimes and misdemeanors committed against the American people and our Constitution. Today's resolution sets the table for the next phase of the inquiry. This phase includes open hearings, led by the Intelligence Committee, to allow the American people to hear from witnesses who have personal knowledge of the President's actions. Relevant materials will then be transferred to the Judiciary Committee so we may fulfill our solemn and time-honored duty to determine whether to recommend Articles of Impeachment. The majority has conducted hearings up to this point in a scrupulously bipartisan way, giving professional staff counsel for both the majority and the minority precisely equal time to question witnesses and equal opportunities for members of the majority and the minority to question them, too.

Mr. RASKIN. We will afford the President all the due process protections that were afforded to his predecessors in a similar situation. That includes the ability to attend hearings, question witnesses, and submit evidence. As recently as Friday, the Federal courts have reaffirmed that the House is the sole judge of impeachment, and we set the rules here. These rules are fair and strong and will make sure that we can and we will defend the Constitution of the United States.

Mr. RASKIN

Mr. RASKIN. Mr. Chair, I thank Madam Chair for her exceptional work on the SHIELD Act, which is long overdue. For 2 years, our colleagues across the aisle had control over the Judiciary Committee, the Rules Committee, and the House Administration Committee. They had no hearings about the sweeping and systematic campaign by the Russians to subvert and undermine our election. The Democrats have brought forth the SHIELD Act. There is not a single partisan word in this act. We hear our colleagues declaring it is partisan. Name me one provision in this act that is partisan. There is nothing partisan about it, except that their response to it is partisan. Now, some of our colleagues said that this is unconstitutional. A takeover, a Federal takeover, I think we just heard the words uttered by our distinguished colleague from Georgia. Do you know who engineered the Federal takeover of the American elections? The Founders of America did, the Framers of our Constitution. In Article IV, they were the ones who said that Congress may make or alter regulations governing the time, place, and manner of elections for the House of Representatives and the U.S. Senate. It was the Framers of the Constitution who put in Article IV that Congress must guarantee to the people of every State a republican form of government. So, this is in the Constitution. We are doing our job to protect our elections, the sovereignty of our country, and the integrity of the democracy against foreign attack. We should all be together on it, and I deplore the partisan response to this excellent legislation.

Mr. RASKIN

Mr. RASKIN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the floor leader for her leadership on this. Our colleague from Arizona chides us because we campaigned on healthcare. We campaigned on healthcare, proudly, and we are defending preexisting conditions coverage against every effort by the Republicans to destroy it by repealing the Affordable Care Act in this body. And we have defended it and we continue to defend it in court as they are trying to destroy preexisting conditions coverage in Texas right now. We hope that they will work with us on lowering prescription drug prices. So I believe that my colleague should take up her own invitation to get to work for the American people. We have no problem advancing the public policy interests of the American people while we defend the Constitution and the rule of law against the conduct of this President. Now, we had a resolution last night saying, obey the law, telling the administration there is a very simple whistleblower statute which gives people the opportunity to come forward to say that there is a violation of the National Security Act in a way that flags a serious or flagrant problem, abuse, or violation of law, and then that goes to the inspector general of the Department. It went to the inspector general, and that is an inspector general appointed by President Trump himself. And the inspector general found that the whistleblower's complaint was credible and it was urgent. It went to a serious problem. At that point, it goes to the Director of National Intelligence, and that Director has 7 days to turn it over to the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence. The 7 days came and went. This is the first time in American history when the Director of National Intelligence did not turn over such a complaint to the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence. So the U.S. Senate, in a bipartisan fashion, all the Democrats and all of the Republicans, got together and said to the administration, to the Director of National Intelligence: Turn that complaint over immediately to Congress. We had the exact same resolution last night, and our colleagues said: Well, we don't like your resolution. It is too profuse. There is too much language, as the gentlewoman said. We think that it may disparage the conduct of the President. So what we did is we took them at their word. We purged all of that language and we made it an exact replica of the Senate resolution that they were praising last night. They loved it last night. They said: That is exactly what this should be. So we have conformed it precisely to what they are asking for, and they still oppose it. What we need is an emphatic, unanimous, bipartisan statement that the Federal laws of the United States must be respected by this administration. The lawlessness must stop. A whistleblower is someone acting in the highest, most noble traditions of the country. He is not a traitor, as some have implied. A whistleblower is not someone who has gone over to the other side of the country. A whistleblower is someone working for the American people. Both parties used to understand that, not just Democrats, but Republicans used to understand that. Apparently, the Senate Republicans do understand it, and yet, now, we have a situation where we are saying: We have got a resolution, an exact replica of the Senate resolution where we are asking the administration just to comply with the law. Come forward and give us the complaint as you are required to do by law. The statute uses the phrase, ``shall turn over to Congress.'' ``Shall,'' that means must--not may, not maybe do it. You must do it. Every other President, every other administration, every other Director of National Intelligence has understood that. We asked our colleagues to stand by what they told us in committee last night, which was they liked the Senate version, and they urged us to use the Senate version. We are using the Senate version, and we hope that we will have an emphatic, bipartisan statement to the executive branch of government they must turn over this material according to law.

Mr. RASKIN

Mr. RASKIN. Mr. Speaker, have our colleagues across the aisle forgotten that the right to a jury trial was as essential a cause of the American Revolution as was representative democracy and the denial of voting rights itself? John Adams said: ``Representative government and trial by jury are the heart and the lungs of liberty. Without them, we have no other fortification against being ridden like horses, fleeced like sheep, worked like cattle, and fed and clothed like swine and hounds.' The massive suppression of trial by jury rights by British authorities was a critical cause of our Revolution. One of the charges that Thomas Jefferson leveled against the British in the Declaration of Independence was ``depriving us in many cases of the benefits of trial by jury.'' Now, today, we have not a foreign king and government trying to impose a closed Star Chamber on the American people but certain large corporations chartered by the States that seek to divest consumers and employees of their sacred trial by jury and due process rights by conditioning their employment or their market agreements on relegating them to closed-door binding arbitration sessions where all of their rights are vanquished and the whole process, from start to finish, is skewed in favor of the corporations that control and design the proceedings. This legislation, the FAIR Act, vindicates the most essential rights of the American people. Amazingly, the GOP floor leader admits that forcing victims of sexual harassment into compulsory arbitration proceedings is unfair and agrees with us that they should not be forced into compulsory arbitration. She would like us to strip everything else out of the bill and boil it down to that. If it is not fair for victims of sexual harassment to be forced into forced arbitration, why is it fair for victims of racial harassment, consumer fraud, wrongful termination, or any of the other causes of action that she would exclude from the legislation? I am glad that the gentlewoman agrees with us on the importance of not subjecting victims of sexual harassment to closed-door Star Chamber proceedings, but this concession from the minority gives away the whole game. If it is unfair to coerce them, it is unfair to coerce everyone else, too. The key to understanding this legislation is that any consumer or employee who wants to enter into binding arbitration with a corporation can do so and is perfectly free to do so after a conflict has arisen, but it should not be compelled as a condition of employment, purchase, or rental, essentially elevating the power of corporations that have been chartered by the government over the essential constitutional rights of the people.

Mr. RASKIN

Mr. RASKIN. Madam Speaker, I rise today to recognize a distinguished and enormously popular constituent, Judy Schneider, who is well-known and beloved to the Members of this body. After nearly 43 years of devoted service to the American people, she is retiring her post as a Specialist on the Congress at the Congressional Research Service (CRS). Ms. Schneider began her career as a Congressional Staffer on the Temporary Select Committee to Study the Senate Committee System, the House Commission on Administrative Review, and the Senate Ethics Committee. Shortly thereafter she joined CRS as a Congressional Procedures Analyst and then became Specialist on the Congress. An admired and respected senior-level expert on the history, procedures, rules and culture of Congress, she employed her sharp intellect, prodigious curiosity and seasoned experience to the benefit of us all. Over the course of her career, Ms. Schneider dedicated herself to the always urgent mission of congressional reform. She contributed to the Joint Committee on the Organization of Congress in 1991, navigated the creation of the Department of Homeland Security after 9/11, and provided logistical support to Members and staff during five separate changes of party control in the House. Never content keeping her vast procedural knowledge to herself, Ms. Schneider developed new orientation programs for incoming Senate Chairs, co-authored the Congressional Deskbook guide to Congress, and advised Members through hearings, markups, and committee assignment bids. She also co-founded a program to train thousands of congressional staffers and conducted professional trainings at the Brookings Institution. Her mentorship and scholarship have informed a generation of congressional employees and I feel reassured knowing that her institutional influence will continue long past the date of her retirement. Unsurprisingly given the scope and depth of her achievements, Ms. Schneider has been decorated with many recognitions. She received a Meritorious Service Award and a Congressional Staff Leadership Award from the Stennis Center, as well as several awards from the Congressional Management Foundation and the Women in Government Relations (WGR) society. WGR even created a fellowship in her name to honor her service to ``the thousands of women she has mentored, developed, and trained.'' After spending her career shaping Congress into a more effective, procedurally efficient place, Ms. Schneider now heads to Sea Isle City, New Jersey, for an extremely well-deserved retirement. I thank her for her career and service, and I have been immensely proud to call her my friend and constituent and will always consider her so. She has our best wishes.

Mr. RASKIN

Mr. RASKIN. If the minority wants to talk about the policy, we can, but we don't need to. They have already lost repeatedly on that, and they seem not to want to acknowledge that basic fact of this discussion. This is about congressional power, Madam Speaker, and that is something that should unify every Member of this body and institution. We must stand together. The Supreme Court and the Federal courts have said repeatedly that our factfinding power is inextricable, essential, and indispensable to our legislative power. We have the power of the people. The sovereign political power of the people has been given to us to legislate. We can't legislate if we can't get the information that we need. Sometimes we disagree, when they are in the majority, with the stuff that they want. I wasn't here then, but I would have disagreed maybe with some of the Fast and Furious stuff or the millions of documents that they got in the Benghazi investigation. It makes no difference. The majority has a right to get what it wants. We have a right to get what we want. If you act with contempt for the Congress of the United States of America and the people of the United States, we will hold you in contempt of the Congress and United States of America. I support these contempt resolutions.

Mr. RASKIN. Madam Speaker, like the chairman, I am charmed and tickled by the argument offered by our friend Mr. Meadows, who quotes our beloved chairman in resisting a rush to a contempt vote against Attorney General Holder. Of course, two sides can play this game because the gentleman from North Carolina, of course, voted for and championed a contempt citation against the Attorney General in that case. Why would he support a contempt finding as appropriate against one Attorney General who is acting in a recalcitrant way but not against another? Madam Speaker, this is not a policy battle about the citizenship question, although my friends seem to think that it is. They have already lost that battle. They lost it in the Federal district courts three times. They lost it in the United States Supreme Court. They lost it with Chief Justice John Roberts. They lost it with the majority of the Supreme Court, a Supreme Court that was gerrymandered by Senator McConnell for precisely occasions like this, so they could get the outcome they wanted, but even that Court rejected the contrived rationale that was offered by the Commerce Department. It has been rejected by six former Census Directors. It was rejected by their own chief scientist in the Commerce Department and the Census Bureau. They lost the case under the Census Act. They lost the case under the Administrative Procedure Act. Even President Trump acknowledges that they lost. At least, I think he acknowledges it today, although he does waver back and forth. And I hope nothing that we say today will prompt him to start over again. They lost because their justification was contrived, according to Chief Justice Roberts. It was made up, completely pretextual, according to the Federal district courts, arbitrary, capricious, irrational, silly. We get the citizenship information we need right now, and we have for the last 70 years, under what was called the long form. Now it is called the American Community Survey. It has been rejected, but six former Census Bureau Directors said that if we did what they wanted to do, we would get a far more inaccurate counting. We would get a far less accurate portrait of America.