[House Hearing, 116 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
HEARING WITH SECRETARY OF COMMERCE WILBUR L. ROSS, JR.
=======================================================================
HEARING
BEFORE THE
COMMITTEE ON
OVERSIGHT AND REFORM
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED SIXTEENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
March 14, 2019
__________
Serial No. 116-11
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Oversight and Reform
[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Available on: http://www.govinfo.gov
http://www.oversight.house.gov
http://www.docs.house.gov
__________
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
22-966 PDF WASHINGTON : 2019
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Publishing Office,
http://bookstore.gpo.gov. For more information, contact the GPO Customer Contact Center,
U.S. Government Publishing Office. Phone 202-512-1800, or 866-512-1800 (toll-free).
E-mail, [email protected].
COMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT AND REFORM
ELIJAH E. CUMMINGS, Maryland, Chairman
Carolyn B. Maloney, New York Jim Jordan, Ohio, Ranking Minority
Eleanor Holmes Norton, District of Member
Columbia Justin Amash, Michigan
Wm. Lacy Clay, Missouri Paul A. Gosar, Arizona
Stephen F. Lynch, Massachusetts Virginia Foxx, North Carolina
Jim Cooper, Tennessee Thomas Massie, Kentucky
Gerald E. Connolly, Virginia Mark Meadows, North Carolina
Raja Krishnamoorthi, Illinois Jody B. Hice, Georgia
Jamie Raskin, Maryland Glenn Grothman, Wisconsin
Harley Rouda, California James Comer, Kentucky
Katie Hill, California Michael Cloud, Texas
Debbie Wasserman Schultz, Florida Bob Gibbs, Ohio
John P. Sarbanes, Maryland Ralph Norman, South Carolina
Peter Welch, Vermont Clay Higgins, Louisiana
Jackie Speier, California Chip Roy, Texas
Robin L. Kelly, Illinois Carol D. Miller, West Virginia
Mark DeSaulnier, California Mark E. Green, Tennessee
Brenda L. Lawrence, Michigan Kelly Armstrong, North Dakota
Stacey E. Plaskett, Virgin Islands W. Gregory Steube, Florida
Ro Khanna, California
Jimmy Gomez, California
Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, New York
Ayanna Pressley, Massachusetts
Rashida Tlaib, Michigan
David Rapallo, Staff Director
Russell Anello, Chief Investigative Counsel
Tori Anderson, Counsel
Elisa LaNier, Chief Clerk and Director of Operations
Christopher Hixon, Minority Chief of Staff
Contact Number: 202-225-5051
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
Hearing held on March 14, 2019................................... 1
Witness
Wilbur L. Ross, Jr., Secretary, U.S. Department of Commerce
Oral Statement............................................... 9
Written testimony of Wilbur Ross, Jr., Secretary, Commerce is
available at the U.S. House of Representatives Repository:
https://docs.house.gov.
INDEX OF DOCUMENTS
----------
The documents entered into the record during this hearing are
listed below, and are available at: https://docs.house.gov.
* Resolution offered by Rep. Jordan regarding Michael Cohen's
testimony; submitted by Mr. Jordan.
* Letters from Mr. Cummings to various officials and Chairman
regarding the Census question - dated 3/27/18, 4/4/18, 4/24/18,
5/21/18, 6/28/18, 8/2/18 and 9/24/18; submitted by Ms. Hill.
* Op-ed dated 3-13-19, written by Reps. Jordan and Meadows;
submitted by Mr. Jordan.
* Opinion by Supreme Court Justices Gorsuch and Thomas dated
10-22-18; submitted by Mr. Higgins.
* Excerpts from the transcript of the 3-17-16 hearing on Flint,
MI drinking water; submitted by Mr. Connolly.
* Letter to the Assistant Secretary of the Army for Civil Works
dated 7-24-15; submitted by Mr. Connolly.
* Letter to the Assistant Secretary of the Army for Civil Works
dated 10-28-15; submitted by Mr. Connolly.
* Article by NPR dated 3-14-19, "Commerce Secretary To Face
Lawmakers In Hearing On Census Citizenship Question;" submitted
by Mr. Meadows.
* Article in the Orange County Register dated 8-23-18, "A
citizenship question on the 2020 census could cost your city
some federal money;" submitted by Mr. Rouda.
* Memo from CRS dated 3-7-18; submitted by Ms. Maloney.
* Memo from CRS dated 3-8-19; submitted by Mr. Meadows.
* Article by NPR dated 3-27-18, "Fact Check: Has Citizenship
Been a Standard Census Question?;" submitted by Ms. Hill.
* Long form Census 2000; submitted by Ms. Wasserman Schultz and
Mr. Meadows.
* New York v. U.S. Department of Commerce-Furman Decision;
submitted by Ms. Speier.
* Letter from the Asst. Attorney General, DOJ, dated 1-27-00;
submitted by Mr. Meadows.
* Section 141 of Title 13 of the U.S. Code - Population and
Other Census Information; submitted by Ms. Ocasio-Cortez.
* 1950 Census form with citizenship question; submitted by Ms.
Ocasio-Cortez.
* Questions planned for the 2020 Census and ACS Citizenship
form; submitted by Ms. Ocasio-Cortez.
* GAO High Risk Series Report; submitted by Mr. Meadows.
* Heritage Foundation Report on voter ID laws; submitted by Mr.
Jordan.
* Questions for the Record submitted by Mr. Cummings and Mr.
Lynch.
HEARING WITH SECRETARY OF COMMERCE WILBUR L. ROSS, JR.
----------
Thursday, March 14, 2019
House of Representatives
Committee on Oversight and Reform
Washington, D.C.
The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:01 a.m., in
room 2154, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Elijah Cummings
(chairman of the committee) presiding.
Present: Representatives Cummings, Maloney, Norton, Clay,
Lynch, Cooper, Connolly, Krishnamoorthi, Raskin, Rouda, Hill,
Wasserman Schultz, Sarbanes, Welch, Speier, Kelly, DeSaulnier,
Lawrence, Plaskett, Khanna, Gomez, Ocasio-Cortez, Pressley,
Tlaib, Jordan, Amash, Gosar, Foxx, Massie, Meadows, Hice,
Grothman, Comer, Cloud, Gibbs, Higgins, Norman, Roy, Miller,
Green, Armstrong, and Steube.
Chairman Cummings. The committee will come to order.
Without objection, the chair is authorized to declare a recess
of the committee at any time.
This hearing will receive the testimony of the Honorable
Wilbur Ross, Secretary of Commerce, regarding the 2020
Decennial Census.
I now recognize the ranking member.
Mr. Jordan. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I would like to start with a resolution that we have, Mr.
Chairman, a resolution I'd like to introduce for the
committee's immediate consideration. The resolution deals with
the fact that, two weeks ago, we had a witness come here and,
at our count, lied at least seven times on the witness stand,
two obvious lies when he said he did not seek a position at the
White House, did not want a position at the White House when,
in fact, we all know that he did. And then, of course, his
statements that he never, and I stress the word never, sought a
pardon.
We think that it is important. We sent you a letter
yesterday, Mr. Chairman. And we'd love for you to join us in
calling for the Justice Department to examine this issue.
So we have a resolution. I would be happy to read it, if
the chairman wants, but a resolution that we'd like for
immediate consideration for the committee saying that Mr. Cohen
committed perjury and he should be investigated by the
Department of Justice.
Chairman Cummings. As the gentleman, I am sure is well
aware, the resolution is out of order. However, we would
welcome you to submit the resolution as a document for the
record.
Mr. Jordan. I ask unanimous consent that the resolution
that we prepared be entered into the record saying that Michael
Cohen willfully and knowingly provided false information, false
testimony under oath before the committee on February 27, 2019.
Chairman Cummings. Without objection, so ordered. It is a
part of the record, part of the record only.
Chairman Cummings. All right. I recognize the gentleman for
his opening statement.
Mr. Jordan. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Before I begin, I want to thank Secretary Ross for
appearing today. Also, I want to take note that, under your
leadership, your team, led by Karen Dunn Kelley, managed to
turn around the 2020 Census.
Under the Obama Administration, the 2020 Census was in
disarray. Nobody knew how much was being spent on the census.
The IT development was a mess. Simply, there was no leadership.
I applaud you and your team for your excellent leadership.
I am more confident now than I was two years ago when you last
testified before the committee that we will have a successful
2020 Census.
Now I want to turn to the reason we are here today. It is
the most talked about issue on the 2020 Census, the citizenship
question. I mean, for the life of me, I do not know why the
Democrats don't want to know how many citizens are in the
United States of America. But for some reason, they are focused
on this question. Maybe it is politics. It seems clear to me
we're having this hearing today for that reason. The majority
insists on politicizing the 2020 Census.
Before we get too far into this sideshow, I want it on the
record what the citizenship question actually asks. It says
this: Is this person a citizen of the United States? The
answers you can choose from are the following: Yes, born in the
United States. Yes, born in Puerto Rico, Guam, the U.S. Virgin
Islands. Yes, born abroad of a U.S. citizen parent or parents.
Yes, a U.S. citizen by naturalization, or, no, not a U.S.
citizen. That is it.
The question doesn't even ask the next logical question. If
you're not a citizen, are you in this country legally?
While I strongly support asking if a person is in this
country legally, I am satisfied the public policy goal of
enforcing the Voting Rights Act can be accomplished with just
the citizenship question.
I would like to remind my colleagues the citizenship
question is not new. It has appeared on previous decennial
census questionnaires and is asked on the American Community
Survey every single year. The majority apparently does not
object to the American Community Survey asking a citizenship
question, so I don't understand the majority's objection to the
question now. It is the exact same question on both forms.
My colleagues complain the question hasn't been tested
because it was added at the last minute. This argument is
simply false. The question has already gone through rigorous
testing, over more than a dozen years, as it has appeared on
the American Community Survey. In fact, the American Community
Survey required more rigorous testing for this question than
the question would have received in the 2018 Census test.
The American Community Survey is sent to 3 million
households annually, while the 2018 Census test in Providence,
Rhode Island, was only tested on 600,000 people one time. If
you're doing the math, in the past 10 years, the citizenship
question has already been answered by 30 million households.
But wait, there's more. In an effort to address some of my
colleagues' objections, the Census Bureau agreed to conduct a
2019 Census test specifically on the citizenship question. So
it is just not true that this question is untested.
We all know one of the biggest threats to the census is
lack of trust in government. Today people don't trust
government and don't want to voluntarily provide private
information. Therefore, people are less likely to fill out the
2020 Census than they were 10 years ago for the 2010 Census.
The majority's drumbeat against a legitimate question on a
person's citizenship status only compounds the problem. If
self-response for the 2020 Census declines, it will be due to
the majority's spreading of misinformation.
Instead of scaring people out of completing their census
form, let's work together to collect the data the Department of
Justice says is needed to enforce the Voting Rights Act. The
purpose of the data collected by the citizenship question is
after all to ensure everyone's vote is counted fairly and no
one suffers discrimination at the ballot box. Surely the
majority does not object to a robust enforcement of the Voting
Rights Act. Till last year, I would have assumed any data
collected to assist in this would have been welcomed by my
colleagues. I guess I was of wrong. I guess I was wrong.
What concerns me the most, though, about the majority's
obsession with the citizenship question is it distracts from
this committee's work, from conducting oversight on other parts
of the 2020 Census. This committee should be holding hearings
about the 2020 Census' use of its IT systems and cybersecurity
preparations. After all, this will be the first time households
can respond to the census questionnaire online.
We should bring in the Government Publishing Office to
explain their epic contradicting disaster with the 2020 Census
print contract, which will cost taxpayers another 30 million if
there are no cost overruns.
As Members of Congress, we have a duty to encourage people
to complete their census form honestly and accurately. Article
I Section 2 of the Constitution requires the government to
enumerate the population of the United States. If it were up to
me, I would ask only one question: How many people are in your
household? This is all that's required by the Constitution.
However, Congress and Presidents for decades have determined it
is an interest of public policy to ask Americans more questions
about the composition of their family. If we are already asking
people their age, their race, their relationship status,
certainly, certainly, it is in the public interest to ask if
they are citizens of the greatest country in history.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
Chairman Cummings. We now recognize Mr. Meadows.
Mr. Meadows. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Secretary Ross, thank you and your entire team for being
here. As you are well aware, this is not the first hearing on
the census. In fact, when the Republicans were in the majority,
we had not one, not two, but multiple hearings and briefings as
it relates to the census. And I see some of your staff behind
you shaking their head yes. They will know that I have not
always been the most positive when it comes to where we are in
our census progress.
I do want to state for the record today that your team has
been extremely responsive to the point where we had critical
missions. In fact, some critical missions that still exist
today that we should be using this hearing for when we talk
about end-to-end testing, when we talk about the security, the
cybersecurity of what we're going to actually implement in this
new process of gathering information, Mr. Secretary.
And so I want to say thank you for listening to the calls,
in a bipartisan way, of really looking to make sure the census
is reliable and one that actually counts the citizens of this
great country and every person that is here.
Now, with that being said, that is not what this hearing is
about, sadly. And we can see by the crowds and the cameras that
this has nothing to do with making sure that the census is
accurately implemented and cybersecurity is dealt with. In
fact, it has just the opposite. This comes down, as the
gentleman from Ohio, the ranking member, indicated to one
question and why we are asking that one question.
Now, Mr. Secretary, I am sure we will hear from your
testimony today that this is not the first time that we have
asked the citizenship question on the census. In fact, when
President Bill Clinton was in office, we actually asked one in
six people if they were a citizen of the United States of
America on the census. But it wasn't just then. Every 10 years,
predominantly we have asked this question, whether it's been
one in six or one in five, or even dating back to the 1950's
and 1940's when we asked everyone this question. All of a
sudden, the census has taken on a new height of political
spectrum that I fail to realize why would we not want to know
if someone was a citizen of this great country or not.
Now, when we look at this, to go even further, Mr.
Secretary, here is my concern. The Supreme Court has weighed in
on this. In fact, Justice Gorsuch and Justice Thomas both
raised concerns that when we start to ask questions, that it
would be used to influence the courts. In fact, they ruled on
it and said we shouldn't be doing that, but yet here we are
today asking questions to try to influence the highest court in
the land.
Now, I say that. These are not just my words. It is
actually the words of a member from this particular committee.
A member from this committee actually said, and I quote, that
he hopes that the testimony today, quote, that the courts can
use it, close quote.
Now, if we're setting up a hearing today to try to bypass
what the Supreme Court has already ruled on, and yet we are
thinking that we are going to do this in the name of being
great supporters of the Constitution, that is not accurate, Mr.
Secretary. And I am troubled by that, because it is very clear
what the Supreme Court has asked. It is very clear what our
role should and should not be. And yet we look at this
particular question. Are we saying that asking a citizenship
question is unconstitutional? I hope not, because we ask that
on a variety of other things.
We ask it many times for a driver's license. We actually
ask whether you're a citizen or not in order to get a firearm
in the state of California. Should we take the citizenship
question off and make it easier for people to get firearms
regardless of whether they're a citizen or not? I don't know
that we would get the same response from my friends and
colleagues opposite.
Mr. Secretary, we are here today, and we are hoping for
very clear and transparent testimony from you. I expect that we
will get that. But yet, just be clear, many of the questions
that you will receive today have nothing to do with accurately
counting the number of people that are here in the United
States of America. It has everything to do with politics and
everything to do with trying to make sure that one particular
message comes across.
And, Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
Chairman Cummings. Thank you very much.
I am about to declare a recess because we have a vote to
the members. We have alerted the floor that we are running a
little late. We are going to go and vote, and we will come back
at 20 of the hour, 20 of the hour.
Secretary Ross, I'm sorry, but we have got to vote.
And so I now declare us in recess until 20 of the hour.
[Recess.]
Chairman Cummings. I now call the----
Ms. Hill. Mr. Chairman? Mr. Chairman, I have a number of
motions I would like to make at this time.
Chairman Cummings. Well, let me come out of recess first.
Ms. Hill. Sorry. I'm really excited about my motions.
Chairman Cummings. No problem.
Mr. Higgins. Mr. Chairman, point of order.
Chairman Cummings. Yes.
Mr. Higgins. I ask to be recognized.
Mr. Chairman, pursuant to House rule XVI, clause 4, alpha
one, I have a privileged motion. Taking into consideration the
statements made before the committee today could potentially be
used to influence a pending Supreme Court case, I respectfully
make a motion to adjourn.
Chairman Cummings. The gentleman is not recognized.
Mr. Higgins. Mr. Chairman, I believe you did recognize me,
and this is a privileged motion.
Chairman Cummings. I was recognizing the gentlelady. She
already had the floor. I'll come back at you, Okay? But she had
the floor.
Mr. Jordan. Mr. Chairman, he cited the rule.
Mr. Higgins. Mr. Chairman, my understanding is that I was
recognized, and this is--a privileged motion has been presented
before the committee.
Chairman Cummings. The motion is not debatable.
Those in favor, signify by saying aye.
Those opposed, no.
Mr. Jordan. Ask for a roll call.
Chairman Cummings. Roll call.
Mr. Higgins. Mr. Chairman, I ask for a recorded vote.
Chairman Cummings. That's what we're doing.
Mr. Higgins. Thank you, sir.
Chairman Cummings. The clerk will call the role.
The Clerk. Mr. Cummings?
Chairman Cummings. No.
The Clerk. Mr. Cummings votes no.
Ms. Maloney?
[No response.]
The Clerk. Ms. Norton?
Ms. Norton. No.
The Clerk. Ms. Norton votes no.
Mr. Clay?
Mr. Clay. No.
The Clerk. Mr. Clay votes no.
Mr. Lynch?
Mr. Lynch. No.
The Clerk. Mr. Lynch votes no.
Mr. Cooper?
Mr. Cooper. No.
The Clerk. Mr. Cooper votes no.
Mr. Connolly?
Mr. Connolly. Nay.
The Clerk. Mr. Connolly votes no.
Mr. Krishnamoorthi?
Mr. Krishnamoorthi. No.
The Clerk. Mr. Krishnamoorthi votes no.
Mr. Raskin?
Mr. Raskin. No.
The Clerk. Mr. Raskin votes no.
Mr. Rouda?
Mr. Rouda. No.
The Clerk. Mr. Rouda votes no.
Ms. Hill?
Ms. Hill. No.
The Clerk. Ms. Hill votes no.
Ms. Wasserman Schultz?
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. No.
The Clerk. Ms. Wasserman Schultz votes no.
Mr. Sarbanes?
Mr. Sarbanes. No.
The Clerk. Mr. Sarbanes votes no.
Mr. Welch?
[No response.]
The Clerk. Ms. Speier?
Ms. Speier. No.
The Clerk. Ms. Speier votes no.
Ms. Kelly?
[No response.]
The Clerk. Mr. DeSaulnier?
[No response.]
The Clerk. Ms. Lawrence?
Mrs. Lawrence. No.
The Clerk. Ms. Lawrence votes no.
Ms. Plaskett?
Ms. Plaskett. No.
The Clerk. Ms. Plaskett votes no.
Mr. Khanna?
Mr. Khanna. No.
The Clerk. Mr. Khanna votes no.
Mr. Gomez?
Mr. Gomez. NO.
The Clerk. Mr. Gomez votes no.
Ms. Ocasio-Cortez?
Ms. Ocasio-Cortez. No.
The Clerk. Ms. Ocasio-Cortez votes no.
Ms. Pressley?
Ms. Pressley. No.
The Clerk. Ms. Pressley votes no.
Ms. Tlaib?
Ms. Tlaib. Nope.
The Clerk. Ms. Tlaib votes no.
Mr. Jordan?
Mr. Jordan. Yes.
The Clerk. Mr. Jordan votes yes.
Mr. Amash?
[No response.]
The Clerk. Mr. Gosar?
Mr. Gosar. Yes.
The Clerk. Mr. Gosar votes yes.
Ms. Foxx?
Ms. Foxx. Aye.
The Clerk. Ms. Foxx votes yes.
Mr. Massie?
Mr. Massie. Yes.
The Clerk. Mr. Massie votes yes.
Mr. Meadows?
Mr. Meadows. Aye.
The Clerk. Mr. Meadows votes yes.
Mr. Hice?
Mr. Hice. Yes.
The Clerk. Mr. Hice votes yes.
Mr. Grothman?
Mr. Grothman. Yes.
The Clerk. Mr. Grothman votes yes.
Mr. Comer?
Mr. Comer. Yes.
The Clerk. Mr. Comer votes yes.
Mr. Cloud?
Mr. Cloud. Yes.
The Clerk. Mr. Cloud votes yes.
Mr. Gibbs?
Mr. Gibbs. Yes.
The Clerk. Mr. Gibbs votes yes.
Mr. Higgins?
Mr. Higgins. Yes.
The Clerk. Mr. Higgins votes yes.
Mr. Norman?
Mr. Norman. Yes.
The Clerk. Mr. Norman votes yes.
Mr. Roy?
Mr. Roy. Yes.
The Clerk. Mr. Roy votes yes.
Ms. Miller?
Mrs. Miller. Aye.
The Clerk. Ms. Miller votes yes.
Mr. Green?
Mr. Green. Yes.
The Clerk. Mr. Green votes yes.
Mr. Armstrong?
Mr. Armstrong. Yes.
The Clerk. Mr. Armstrong votes yes.
Mr. Steube.
Mr. Steube. Yes.
The Clerk. Mr. Steube votes yes.
The Clerk. On this vote we have--on this vote we have 17
yeas and 20 noes.
Chairman Cummings. Thank you very much.
I now recognize Ms. Hill.
Ms. Hill. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Point of clarification, I know that I'm new, which is why I
got a little overeager earlier, but prior to us getting here,
how many times did we as Democrats try to shut down a hearing
like this while the Republicans were in the majority?
Chairman Cummings. In my 22, 23 years on this committee,
never.
Ms. Hill. Thank you. Mr. Chairman, I have a number of
motions I would like to make at this time.
Chairman Cummings. The gentlelady is recognized.
Ms. Hill. As the gentleman from Louisiana suggested,
following Mr. Jordan's and Mr. Meadows' publishing an op-ed
yesterday asserting that today's hearing is, and I quote,
designed to interfere with the ongoing Supreme Court case, that
statement is false.
I ask unanimous consent to enter into the record the
invitation letter that Chairman Cummings sent to Secretary Ross
on January 8, 2019.
Mr. Meadows. I object.
Chairman Cummings. The gentleman objects.
Mr. Connolly. Mr. Chairman, would my colleague yield for a
second?
Ms. Hill. Yes.
Mr. Connolly. I would plead with my friend from North
Carolina, if we're going to go down the road of objecting to
unanimous consent inclusions of material for the record, it
will be a sad day for this committee, and two can play that
game. And so I would strongly urge my friend from North
Carolina to withdraw his objection to a unanimous consent.
Mr. Meadows. I appreciate the tone and tenor of where my
good friend from Virginia would certainly articulate his
concerns, and I have some of the same concerns. We don't want
to go down this.
I would ask the gentlewoman to consider changing one of the
phrases that she put in there, where she says this is false. I
mean, you can say I have a resolution that contradicts, we have
a number of things, but to suggest that it is false when we
have a quote from a Democrat member of this committee stating
what I said in my opening statement, that would certainly be
evidence to support my opening statement. So if she wants to
put in a resolution that offers a counterpart, I would be glad
to withdraw my objection.
Ms. Hill. I will change my phrasing and say that we have
a--several things that I would like to enter into the record
that contradict what the statement that was put in place in
your op-ed and by the gentleman from----
Mr. Meadows. Then I certainly withdraw my objection.
Mr. Connolly. And I thank both of my colleagues.
Chairman Cummings. Without objection, so ordered.
Next document.
Ms. Hill. Thank you. I ask unanimous consent to enter into
the record the invitation letter that Chairman Cummings sent to
Secretary Ross. That's the one we did. That letter was sent
over a month before the Supreme Court agreed to hear the case.
For the record, the chairman sent his invitation letter to
Secretary Ross before either the district court in New York or
the district court in California ruled in their cases.
I would also like to ask unanimous consent to insert----
Chairman Cummings. Without objection, so ordered on that--
that was a second document, right?
Ms. Hill. No, it is the same one. I was just elaborating.
Chairman Cummings. Okay. Go ahead.
Ms. Hill. I would also like to ask unanimous consent to
insert into the record the following letters from Chairman
Cummings dating all the way back to March of last year on this
exact same topic. It is a March 27, 2018, letter to Chairman
Gowdy requesting this very hearing with Secretary Ross. He
declined.
There is an April 4, 2018, letter requesting documents from
the Commerce Department. They refused.
There is an April 24, 2018, letter asking Chairman Gowdy to
issue a subpoena. He declined.
There's a May 21, 2018, letter asking Chairman Gowdy to
allow a vote on subpoenas. He declined.
There is a June 28, 2018, letter from Chairman Cummings,
Rep. Maloney, and 50 other Democrat members asking Secretary
Ross to answer questions. He never did.
There is an August 2, 2018, letter asking Chairman Gowdy,
again, to hold a hearing with Secretary Ross. He refused.
There's a September 24, 2018, letter from Representative
Cummings and Representative Connolly asking Chairman Gowdy to
subpoena Secretary Ross to testify about his misleading
statements to Congress. He declined to do so.
As all of these letters show, the Republican claim that we
are trying to interfere with the Supreme Court case is
completely contradicted.
Chairman Cummings. Without objection, the documents
referred to by the gentlelady, Ms. Hill, are ordered into the
record.
Ms. Hill. Thank you. We are an independent branch of
government, and it is time we start acting like it.
Thank you.
Chairman Cummings. Thank you very much.
Mr. Jordan. Mr. Chairman, can I get one quick unanimous
consent?
Chairman Cummings. Yes, please.
Mr. Jordan. That the op-ed that was published yesterday, we
would like to enter that into the record, from Mr. Meadows and
myself.
Chairman Cummings. Just tell me a little bit more. He says
it's an op-ed.
Mr. Jordan. The Democrats--the op-ed that was on FOX News
that----
Chairman Cummings. Without objection, so ordered.
Mr. Jordan. Thank you.
Mr. Higgins. Mr. Chairman?
Chairman Cummings. Yes.
Mr. Higgins. I would like to submit a letter penned by
Supreme Court Justice Gorsuch and Supreme Court Justice Thomas
warning against further record-seeking endeavors in a legal
setting because, to quote them, after weighing, among other
things, the likelihood of review and the injury that could
occur without a stay, this letter written by two Supreme Court
Justices, not by a member of a committee in Congress, warning
against further legal proceedings, to which this certainly is,
which could injure the integrity of the case pending before the
Supreme Court. I ask that it be entered into the record.
Chairman Cummings. Without objection, so ordered.
Mr. Connolly. Mr. Chairman?
Chairman Cummings. Yes.
Mr. Connolly. I also have a unanimous consent request.
There's been some speculation by some members of this committee
that we can't possibly have this hearing or even request
documents when there's pending civil litigation, and we have a
long history on this committee of actually doing just that.
I ask unanimous consent to enter into the record excerpts
from the Flint Water Committee hearing transcript of March 17,
St. Patrick's Day, 2016. That hearing was the third hearing as
part of the bipartisan investigation, which was then led by
Chairman Chaffetz, as well as yourself, Mr. Cummings. The
committee conducted these hearings despite pending litigation
filed by environmental and civil rights groups against several
individuals, including the Michigan Governor at that time, Rick
Snyder, in January 2016. I would ask unanimous consent to enter
that into the record.
Chairman Cummings. Without objection, so ordered.
Mr. Connolly. And I would also like to ask unanimous
consent to insert into the record two letters dated July 24,
2015, and October 28, 2015, from Chairman Chaffetz, Chairman
Jordan, and Chairwoman Lummis to the Assistant Secretary of the
Army at that time. These letters were part of the committee's
investigation into the decisionmaking process for the Waters of
the United States Rule. That investigation was conducted,
nonetheless, at the same time as litigation filed in June 2015
by 22 states challenging the rule. Subsequently, the committee
demanded and obtained documents in response to their request
during the pending litigation. I ask that those letters be
entered into the record.
Chairman Cummings. Without objection, so ordered.
Mr. Connolly. I thank the chair.
Mr. Meadows. Mr. Chairman, I have got one last unanimous
consent request. I ask unanimous consent that the article
published in NPR on March the 14, where it has a quote from a
member of this committee suggesting that this hearing would be
used as evidence before the Supreme Court be entered into the
record.
Chairman Cummings. Without objection, so ordered.
Mr. Meadows. Thank you.
Chairman Cummings. I now recognize myself.
Let me say this. At the beginning of the hearing, I
provided the other side with an extra opening statement. Rather
than take additional time for my side, at this time I will
reserve for our side so we can start the hearing and proceed to
member questions.
Good morning, everyone. Today the committee will hear
testimony from Secretary of Commerce, the Honorable Wilbur
Ross, about preparations for the 2020 Census.
The Constitution requires our government to conduct a
census every 10 years. The Constitution also requires us to
count every person. The latest census begins next year, and
significant challenges have been raised by the Government
Accountability Office and others about whether we will be
ready.
Today's hearing will be our first of several this year, and
we will look to our very able Subcommittee on Civil Rights and
Civil Liberties, headed up by the Honorable Jamie Raskin, to
followup with additional hearings. We want to make sure that
we're tracking progress, highlighting small problems before
they become large problems, and ensuring that outstanding
recommendations are being implemented effectively and
efficiently.
Today, we will also examine Secretary Ross's decision to
add a new citizenship question after experts--listen up--at the
Census Bureau warned, and I quote, that it harms the quality of
the census challenge. Let that sink in. That's what the experts
told Secretary Ross.
We have very serious questions about whether Secretary Ross
was truthful when he appeared before Congress last year and
testified on three occasions that he added the citizenship
question only because the Department of Justice requested it.
Ladies and gentlemen, on March 20, 2018, Secretary Ross
testified, and I quote, we are responding solely to the
Department of Justice's request, end of quote. He repeated the
same claim on March 22, and then he did it again on May 10.
After Secretary Ross testified, new documents showed that
he was engaged in a secret campaign to add the citizenship
question from the very first days after he arrived at the
Department of Commerce. These documents showed that he was not
merely responding to a request from another agency. To the
contrary, he was choreographing these efforts behind the
scenes. He became impatient when his demands were not being
met, and he was working directly with officials at the highest
levels of the Trump administration to force this issue through,
including Steve Bannon and Jeff Sessions.
These are the facts. They are not in dispute. Two judges,
two judges have already struck down the citizenship question,
and they issued stinging decisions finding that Secretary Ross
violated--I didn't say it, Federal judges said it--violated
Federal law and the United States Constitution. They found that
his claim of merely responding to a request from the Department
of Justice was a pretext and a false one. Again, I didn't say
that; the judges said that.
Let me address that pretext directly. Secretary Ross and
others in the Trump administration have claimed that adding the
citizenship question was necessary to obtain better data to
enforce the Voting Rights Act. First of all, I do not know
anyone who truly believes that the Trump administration is
interested in enhancing the Voting Rights Act. This
administration has done everything in its power to suppress the
vote, not to help people exercise their right to vote.
Second, I have championed voting rights all of my adult
life, and the Voting Rights Act is an essential tool. It is
what underpins our democracy. But in the more than 50 years
since it was signed into law, voting rights, the Voting Rights
Act enforcement has never used citizenship data from every U.S.
household. Not once.
Third, the judges who examined this evidence held that the
Voting Rights Act claim was a fake justification for the
citizenship question. I didn't say it; they said it. One judge
ruled that Secretary Ross, and I quote--listen to this, this is
what they said about Secretary Ross, a judge. He says, quote,
concealed its true basis, rather than explaining it, end of
quote.
So the key question we will ask Secretary Ross today is
what was he hiding from the Congress. What's the real reason
that the Trump administration wanted to add this
unconstitutional citizenship question? Every piece of evidence
we discover brings us closer to the truth.
Just this past week, the committee conducted a transcribed
interview with a key witness from the Department of Justice,
John Gore, who was involved with drafting the request for
citizenship question. Mr. Gore admitted that a former
transition team official provided him an initial draft of a
letter from the Department of Justice asking for the
citizenship question to be added. We have summarized this and
other information from Mr. Gore's interview in a supplemental
memo that I am providing to members this morning.
Unfortunately, throughout this entire process, the Trump
administration has obstructed and delayed our investigation.
Both the Department of Commerce and the Department of Justice
have withheld key documents and refused to answer legitimate
questions.
Now, Secretary Ross and I exchanged several letters last
week. We accommodated some of his concerns, and thankfully, he
accommodated some of ours. And I appreciate that, Mr.
Secretary. Based on these agreements, I expect Secretary Ross
to fully answer all of our questions about the census and not
avoid our questions based on the meritless claim that there is
a separate--there's separate litigation going on. So I
appreciate that and I look forward to his answers.
Chairman Cummings. And with that, I am very, very pleased
to have the Secretary stand, please.
Secretary Ross. Good morning, Chairman Cummings.
Chairman Cummings. I want to swear you in first.
Secretary Ross. Oh, sorry.
Chairman Cummings. I'm sorry. I apologize. Thank you very
much.
Mr. Secretary, do you swear or affirm that the testimony
you're about to give is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing
but the truth, so help you God?
Secretary Ross. I do, sir.
Chairman Cummings. Thank you very much.
Let the record show that the witness answered in the
affirmative. And you may be seated and you may proceed.
STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE WILBUR L. ROSS, JR., SECRETARY, U.S.
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
Secretary Ross. Good morning, Chairman Cummings.
Chairman Cummings. Good morning.
Secretary Ross. Ranking Member Jordan and members of the
committee, thank you for inviting me to testify. I also thank
the chairman for limiting this hearing's scope so that my staff
can produce documents beyond the approximately 8,700 already
provided. And I appreciate your agreement that I can submit
written answers to questions about my personal finances after
the hearing for the record.
Many of you have questions about the 2020 Decennial Census,
and I welcome the opportunity to discuss that topic today. Let
me be clear at the outset. The Department of Commerce is fully
committed to administering as complete and accurately a
decennial census as we can. We intend to try to count every
person and are taking all necessary actions to do so.
When I assumed office in 2017, I immediately began a deep
dive into oversight of the decennial census. There was
significant work to do preparing for the hiring and training of
more than 450,000 part-time, temporary census workers. Working
with outside experts, we concluded that the prior
administration underestimated the budget by $3.2 billion, about
25 percent. OMB and Congress accepted our finding.
We were also making far greater use of administrative
records than ever before, especially for one of the most
severely undercounted segments, children. We have a half
billion dollar advertising campaign specially designed to reach
hard to count communities, and on the 2020 Decennial Census,
people will now be able to respond in 12 non-English languages,
five more than in 2010.
We started our community partnership program a year earlier
relative to the census than last time. There already are more
than 1,500 state, tribal, and local governments helping us,
double what the census had in 2010. And we will do our best to
collect more complete data.
On March 26, 2018, I decided to reinstitute a citizenship
question on the 2020 Decennial Census, pursuant to the
statutory authority given to me by Congress. My reasoning is
explained in my March 26, 2018, decision memo. It is available
on the Department of Commerce website.
Questions about citizenship or country of birth or both
were asked as part on all but one U.S. Decennial Census for 180
years, from 1820 to the year 2000. Indeed, the citizenship
question continues to be asked every year by the Census Bureau
on the American Communities Survey, or ACS for short. It is a
sample survey distributed annually to about 2.64 percent of the
American population.
Prior to my March 26 decision, we understood that the
Department of Justice might want a citizenship question
reinstated on the decennial census. There is no formal process
for adding questions to the decennial census. However, other
Federal agencies had previously submitted written requests for
questions to be added to the ACS, and such requests triggered
an internal Census Bureau review prior to a final decision.
I instructed staff to followup with DOJ for a written
statement confirming whether or not DOJ was going to ask for
reinstatement of the question. I wanted to make sure that we
had enough time to adequately consider any formal request that
DOJ might make.
Ultimately, on December 12, 2017, DOJ made a formal written
request that the Census Bureau reinstate the citizenship
question on the decennial census. DOJ sought census block-level
citizenship data for use in Voting Rights Act enforcement. In
response, the Census Bureau initiated a legal policy and
programatic review process to consider ultimate means of
meeting DOJ's request.
We had discussions with numerous external stakeholders and
elected officials, including Speaker Pelosi and including
Chairman Cummings, both of whom opposed the idea. We evaluated
thousands of pages of analysis, including written submissions
by other members of this committee. We submitted our list of
decennial census questions to Congress by the March 31, 2018,
statutory deadline.
Following receipt of DOJ's letter and during our review,
Census Bureau officials recognized that current ACS data did
not meet DOJ's request for census block-level data. The Census
Bureau analysis also showed that when noncitizens respond to
the ACS question on citizenship, they respond incorrectly
approximately 30 percent of the time. In my March 26 decision
memo, I describe more details of the decisionmaking process and
the alternatives we considered to reinstating the citizenship
question.
As you know, certain aspects of this issue are in
litigation before the Supreme Court and before other courts.
However, I look forward to answering as many of your questions
as I can.
Again, I want to be clear that we intend to count as many
people as possible. I will be happy to discuss the actions we
are taking to try to do so. Thank you for your indulgence.
Chairman Cummings. Thank you very much.
I now recognize myself for some questions.
Secretary Ross, you have claimed repeatedly that you added
the citizenship question only because the Justice Department
asked you to. You testified under oath on three occasions. Each
time, you said you were responding solely to the Department of
Justice's request. But now we have obtained documents showing
that you were working to add the citizenship question from your
very first days at the Commerce Department.
Secretary Ross, our interest is getting to the truth, and
then once we get to it, we are going to defend it. And my
approach is to give a witness a chance to come clean, to tell
the truth, and to clarify their previous testimony, if
necessary. That is what I did with Michael Cohen, and that is
what I want to afford you the opportunity to do today.
So, Mr. Secretary, let me ask you here today, in light of
all of these documents that have come to light, do you wish to
withdraw your previous testimony to Congress that your decision
to add the citizenship question was based, and I underline,
solely, solely on requests from the Department of Justice?
Secretary Ross. May I answer, sir?
Chairman Cummings. Yes, of course.
Secretary Ross. My reasons for adding the citizenship
question are described in detail in the March 26, 2018,
decision memo. After we received the Department of Justice
letter on December 12, 2017, we, namely Commerce Department,
myself, and the Census Bureau, initiated a very detailed, very
thorough process to consider that request. That's what we were
responding to.
I had been told--that's what I would say at this stage. If
you have detailed questions about the testimony, we can get
into them later on.
Chairman Cummings. Well, I just want to make sure we're
clear, because a lot has been said in this committee about the
truth. And I'm not trying to trip you up; I'm just trying to
make sure that the committee is clear, because I think it is
very, very important. So I'm just going to ask you one more
time, then I'm going to leave that alone.
So are you saying, again, in light of all of these
documents that we have come--that have come to light, you do
not wish to withdraw your previous testimony? Is that what
you're saying?
Secretary Ross. I testified truthfully to the best of my
ability in response to what my understanding of the questions
were.
Chairman Cummings. Okay. And you understand that there are
documents that, on their face, seem to contradict what you're
saying. Do you understand that?
Secretary Ross. I welcome the opportunity to get into the
individual documents whenever you wish, sir.
Chairman Cummings. All right. Mr. Secretary, on March 10,
2017, just--just 10 days after you took office, your staffers
sent you an email about, quote, your question on the census,
end of quote. His email explained that undocumented immigrants
are counted for apportionment purposes and not included in the
census.
Mr. Secretary, this was nine months before you got any
letter from the Justice Department. Isn't that right?
Secretary Ross. That is correct as to the timing. I was
early on in the administration, and I wanted to understand lots
of questions' answers. One of the questions was that one, and I
received an answer to it.
Chairman Cummings. And it is your testimony today, sir,
that your interest in the citizenship question had nothing to
do with counting undocumented immigrants for apportionment
purposes?
Secretary Ross. No, sir, it did not. That was simply
seeking information. If you look at my emails during that
period, you will find lots and lots of other questions, and if
you look at the records of my conversations with members of the
Department, you'll find I have lots of questions to this day
seeking further information, seeking clarification, seeking
details of things that I was unsure of.
Chairman Cummings. All right. Speaking of seeking details,
in early April 2017, you got a call from Steve Bannon about the
citizenship question. That was also a month before the
Department of Justice sent its letter. Is that correct?
Secretary Ross. Yes, sir.
Chairman Cummings. Is it your testimony that your call with
Mr. Bannon had nothing to do with efforts to pursue the
citizenship question?
Secretary Ross. Steve Bannon called with the simple
request, namely asking if I would take a call from Kris Kobach,
and I agreed to that request as a courtesy since he was a White
House staffer. And shortly thereafter, possibly the next day, I
did have a conversation with Kris Kobach.
Chairman Cummings. And so at Mr. Bannon's direct--you spoke
to Mr. Kobach on July 14, 2017. Is that correct?
Secretary Ross. Yes. I don't remember the date, but
sometime around----
Chairman Cummings. That was the date.
Secretary Ross [continuing]. that point in time there was a
followup from Kris Kobach to me.
Chairman Cummings. And so Mr. Kobach, you spoke to him on
July the 14, 2017, and Mr. Kobach emailed you and asked you to
add the citizenship question. He wrote that it was needed to
address the--and I want you to listen to me carefully, this is
what Mr. Kobach wrote to you. He said he wanted it added
because, and then it says, quote, problem that aliens who do
not actually reside in the United States are still counted for
congressional apportionment purposes, end of quote.
That was also several months before any letter from the
Justice Department came to you. Is that correct?
Secretary Ross. It is correct that that was before the
census letter. It is also correct that I rejected the question
that Kris Kobach wanted asked.
Chairman Cummings. Is it your testimony that nothing in
your emails or phone calls with Mr. Kobach had anything to do
with your efforts to push the citizenship question?
Secretary Ross. Well, I have no control over what Kris
Kobach or anyone else puts in an email sent to me.
Chairman Cummings. Mr. Secretary, as we evaluate the truth,
we often look to see whether testimony is corroborated by
documents. And these documents, on their face, show that the
reason you have given to us for adding the citizenship question
is a pretext.
In fall of 2017, your staff hand-delivered a secret memo
and handwritten note about the citizenship question to John
Gore at the Department of Justice. Did the secret memo or note
describe the real reason you wanted to add the citizenship
question?
Secretary Ross. First of all, sir, I think I'd like to
correct the record.
Chairman Cummings. Please do.
Secretary Ross. I don't believe there's anything in
evidence that my staff delivered a message of that sort to
Gore.
Chairman Cummings. Well, that's why we need to see the
documents, so that we can get to the truth. We have been
trying--no, you go ahead.
Secretary Ross. I'm sorry, sir.
Chairman Cummings. Did you want to say something to me, Mr.
Secretary? Were you about to say something?
Secretary Ross. Yes. What I would like to ask, sir, is if
you feel you have a document of that sort, would you oblige me
to show it to me?
Chairman Cummings. I promise you I'll do that.
Mr. Secretary, we have been trying to get certain documents
for months, and we specifically requested it in advance of this
hearing. Why have you not provided documents to the committee?
Secretary Ross. I'm sorry. I didn't hear the question, sir.
Chairman Cummings. I said why have you not provided the
document to the committee?
Secretary Ross. We have provided 8,700 documents already.
Chairman Cummings. But not this document, this particular
document.
Secretary Ross. I can't talk to a specific individual
document, sir. I believe by agreement you said that we could
provide additional documents supplementary, and I will discuss
that with my staff after the hearing.
Chairman Cummings. Well, when you discuss it with your
staff, it's our understanding that Mr. Meyer presented it to
Mr. Gore. I mean, just for your information. Mr. Meyer.
Uthmeier, I'm sorry.
Secretary Ross. I'm sorry, who?
Chairman Cummings. Uthmeier. When we had a transcribed
interview with Mr. Gore, he said that Mr. Uthmeier presented it
to him. So I'm just--just for your information, so maybe you
can--and it will be helpful in you finding it, okay?
Secretary Ross. Thank you very much, sir.
Chairman Cummings. All right. We will now--my time has
expired.
Mr. Meadows.
Mr. Meadows. Mr. Secretary, over here. There seems to be
some indication that there were nefarious purposes for
including this particular question on the census. Do you
believe that President Bill Clinton had nefarious purposes in
mind when he included a citizenship question on the 2000
Census?
Secretary Ross. I have no ability to read President
Clinton's mind, but I have no reason to believe that he had
nefarious purposes in including the question.
Mr. Meadows. Do you have any knowledge of any other
Democrat President who had nefarious purposes in mind when they
included the census question on previous--I mean the
citizenship question on previous censuses?
Secretary Ross. Well, I'm sure there were, but I have not
approached this as a partisan matter, so I haven't tried to
differentiate whether there's a Democratic President or a
Republican President.
Mr. Meadows. So you're saying that you're approaching this
just from a census point of view to get an accurate count for
the United States of America. Is that your sworn testimony?
Secretary Ross. Yes, sir. As explained in the decision memo
of March 26, 2018, it is also to comply with the request by the
Department of Justice that we add the citizenship question so
that they could have block-level census data.
Mr. Meadows. So let me go a little bit further. If your
team, who--I would assume that this one question is not the
highest priority of making sure that we have an accurate
delivery of the system census. Is that correct?
Secretary Ross. Well, we have worked very hard to make sure
that this is the best census that we can possibly deliver. I
explained earlier in my prepared remarks that we have added
$3.2 billion to the budget, and we got the concurrence of the
OMB and ultimately the Congress to add that to the life-cycle
cost.
If I had a nefarious purpose, I surely wouldn't have added
$3.2 billion to the budget for the census. And specific things
that we have done to try to improve it, we are using far more
administrative records than has ever been the case before.
I mentioned briefly that we're adding many records from the
state and local levels about children. We now have access, for
the first time ever, to the WIC records, the SNAP records, and
the TANF records from many constituencies. And I made many
calls to the Governors to try to get them to agree to give us
those documents. We also have far more census complete count
committees with state and local governments than ever before.
Further, we are hiring far more partnership specialists
than had ever been the case before. Partnerships are important
because they are trusted local institutions from within the
community who will be cooperating with us and encouraging
people to understand why it's important to complete the census
and that their privacy will be maintained. Our advertising
program will emphasize both themes, and we will have
advertising available in multiple languages. We also will have
census documents available in 12 languages versus the five
other than English that were available before.
And we have done a couple more--many more things. A couple
of which that occur readily to mind, we have provided for those
who wish to do so the ability to respond to the census by
internet. They're not required to fill out forms, they're not
required to do anything of that sort. They still can fill out
forms if they want. They still can respond by telephone if they
want, but they're not required to do so.
Mr. Meadows. So let me----
Secretary Ross. So we are taking those and many other
steps. I'm sorry, sir.
Chairman Cummings. The gentleman's time has expired. The
gentleman's time has expired.
Mr. Meadows. Mr. Chairman, you had 10 minutes. I'm the
opening questioner.
Chairman Cummings. Whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa. Hold up.
Remember, I had an extra five minutes that I had reserved, and
I used it. So I used 10 minutes.
Mr. Jordan. You had a nine-minute opening statement and 10-
minute opening questioning round. All he's asking for is one
more question.
Chairman Cummings. One question.
Mr. Meadows. So, Mr. Secretary, to be clear, you have
taken--is it correct that you have taken extraordinary measures
to not only count the number of people accurately, but to
expand the way that we do that that is unparalleled in the
history of the census?
Secretary Ross. That is correct, sir. We have increased the
ways that they can respond. We have increased the advertising
budget for response. We have increased the community outreach.
We have increased the census complete count committees in
states. We have done all kinds of things that we could think of
to make sure that we have the best census possible.
Mr. Meadows. I appreciate the chairman's courtesy.
Chairman Cummings. Thank you very much.
Mr. DeSaulnier.
Mr. DeSaulnier. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Secretary, I want to really narrow in on specific
communication between your department--you and the Department
of Justice that the chairman was eluding to. So on August 11,
2017, Earl Comstock, a senior official at the Department of
Commerce, emailed you about a memo. And he said, according to
our information, this is quotes from you--or from him: Per your
request, here is a draft memo on the citizenship question that
James Uthmeier in the Office of General Counsel prepared and I
reviewed.
Mr. Secretary, why did you request a memo on the
citizenship question in August 2017?
Secretary Ross. If you have the memo, it would help me
refresh my recollection, sir.
Mr. DeSaulnier. All right. Well, if you will provide us,
because in our efforts to get this information, your counsel's
made it more difficult.
So you don't remember the request, you don't remember----
Secretary Ross. I don't remember the details of any memos,
sir. If you could show it to me----
Mr. DeSaulnier. Do you remember it at all?
Secretary Ross. If you could show it to me, I would be
happy to try to be refreshed.
Mr. DeSaulnier. So you don't remember it at all? Okay.
Secretary Ross. You posed a very broad question to me, sir.
Mr. DeSaulnier. No, it's very specific, Mr. Secretary, and
this is very important.
Secretary Ross. I'm sorry, I couldn't hear you.
Mr. DeSaulnier. This is very specific and very important as
to what you claim is your defense. So we would appreciate as
much information from you directly as possible.
Let me continue. Last week, committee staff interviewed
John Gore, the senior DOJ political appointee, who was in
charge of drafting DOJ's request letter. Mr. Gore said that in
September 2017, he received a call from your counsel, Mr.
Uthmeier, to discuss this citizenship question. After the call,
Mr. Uthmeier hand-delivered a memo and a handwritten note about
the citizenship question to Mr. Gore's office. He didn't email
it over; he had someone walk it over.
Mr. Uthmeier explained to Mr. Gore why he was walking over
the memo, but the Justice Department blocked Mr. Gore from
telling us, that's the committee, the reason why he walked it
over. And Mr. Gore said he did not show the memo to anyone else
at the Justice Department.
Mr. Secretary, do you know what Mr. Uthmeier's memo and
note said about the citizenship question?
Secretary Ross. I do not know, sir, as I sit here.
Chairman Cummings. Keep your voice up.
Secretary Ross. I do not know as I sit here what the
Uthmeier memo said.
Mr. DeSaulnier. Did you direct him to do it? He's your
counsel.
Secretary Ross. I'm sorry, sir?
Mr. DeSaulnier. Did you direct Mr. Uthmeier to do the memo
and to walk it over because you were concerned about email?
Secretary Ross. I do not have any recollection of that as I
sit here.
Mr. DeSaulnier. Mr. Secretary, so far, the committee has
been unable to get a copy of these documents, despite multiple
requests and interviews with your staff and with Department of
Justice staff. We need your commitment, your full commitment
with these specific communications, that we'll get cooperation
to get to the facts; otherwise, it's hard for us not to
conclude that you're, at the very least, obfuscating your role
and what you said in front of this committee. So will you
commit to giving it all to us and letting your counsel clear
the way to get direct answers to our questions?
Secretary Ross. I will certainly address the question to my
staff and to my counsel. To the degree that this is involved in
pending litigation, there may be problems.
Mr. DeSaulnier. Mr. Secretary, with all due respect, you're
a Cabinet member. The buck stops with you. Will you
specifically, individually, in front of this House committee,
under oath, promise to cooperate with us and get us the
information? You not your staff, you.
Secretary Ross. We already have----
Mr. DeSaulnier. Yes or no, Mr. Secretary, with all due
respect.
Secretary Ross. Sorry, I can't answer it yes or no. I need
to answer it the best I can.
Mr. DeSaulnier. Are you responsible, you?
Secretary Ross. I will discuss it with counsel and with my
staff, and we will give you a prompt response.
Mr. DeSaulnier. I will yield the balance of my time to the
chair.
Chairman Cummings. When can we expect that response?
Secretary Ross. I'm sorry, sir?
Chairman Cummings. You just said that you would give us a
response. You said you would consult with your staff and give
us a response with regard to the documents.
Secretary Ross. After the hearing, sir.
Chairman Cummings. All right. All right. Does that mean
today?
Secretary Ross. I'll discuss it with them. I don't know how
long it will take them to come up with their response.
Chairman Cummings. Well, we'd like to have an answer as
soon as possible, if you don't mind.
Secretary Ross. I understand the request, sir.
Chairman Cummings. We've been waiting for a while.
Secretary Ross. I will take it up with my staff.
Chairman Cummings. Very well.
Mr. Steube.
Mr. Steube. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I'm over here, Mr. Secretary, to your left. Thank you, Mr.
Secretary, for being here today. I just want to say kind of at
the outset, I just find this whole issue fascinating. We've
already heard in this committee time and time again that
historically in this country, even under Democratic Presidents,
the census has asked the question whether you're a citizen or
not, so why would we as the Government of the United States not
want that information? It's a very legitimate question to ask,
and I don't understand how that's necessarily a problem.
Procedurally, Mr. Secretary, isn't it true that this issue
and related issues, as you have previously testified, are
currently before the U.S. Supreme Court in the Department of
Commerce v. State of New York?
Secretary Ross. Yes. Yes, sir. The issue is before the
Supreme Court. It's also pending in a couple of lower courts at
this time.
Mr. Steube. And isn't it also true that on October 22,
2018, the Supreme Court issued a stay granting the
administration's request to halt your deposition as requested
by the plaintiffs?
Secretary Ross. That is correct, sir.
Mr. Steube. So the U.S. Supreme Court has stayed your
deposition, yet we are here today deposing you under oath where
the rules of evidence and the civil procedure do not apply. Is
that correct?
Secretary Ross. I am here voluntarily, and I am here under
oath today, yes, sir.
Mr. Steube. The very issue before the court is to your
intent on placing this question on the form, and all of Mr.
Cummings' questions and the previous members' questions were
directly trying to elicit answers to those very questions that
are before the court. Is that correct?
Secretary Ross. Yes, sir.
Mr. Steube. I'd like to continue to read in the concurring
opinion. So in their concurring opinion, Justice Gorsuch and
Justice Thomas abandoned lower court's ruling that Secretary
Ross had demonstrated bad faith in deciding to reinstate a
citizenship question to the census, stating: But there's
nothing unusual about a new Cabinet Secretary coming to office
inclined to favor a different policy direction, soliciting
support from other agencies to bolster his views, disagreeing
with staff, or cutting through red tape. Of course, some people
may disagree with the policy and process, but until now at
least this much has never been thought enough to justify a
claim of bad faith and launch an inquisition into an Cabinet
Secretary's motives.
And it goes on to say on page 3: It stays Secretary Ross'
deposition after weighing, among other things, the likelihood
of review and the injury that could occur without a stay.
Yet here we are questioning you under oath today.
It goes on to say: Respectfully, I would take the next
logical step and simply stay all extra record discovery pending
our review.
It goes on to state: But because today's order technically
leaves the plaintiffs able to pursue much of the extra record
discovery they seek, it's conceivable they might withdraw their
request to depose Secretary Ross, try to persuade the trial
court to proceed quickly to trial on the basis of the remaining
extra record evidence that they can assemble.
Extra record evidence.
Mr. Secretary, would it be your opinion that this exercise
today by Chairman Cummings and the Democrats is assisting the
plaintiffs in their extra record evidence by putting you under
oath under penalty of perjury and asking you the very questions
that I'm sure the plaintiffs in this case would like to ask you
in a deposition?
Secretary Ross. Thank you for that question. I can't judge
what might be Chairman Cummings' motivation. He has been very
courteous to me, and I'm trying to be very courteous to him in
return.
Mr. Steube. Well, did you specifically request to delay
your testimony today pending the Supreme Court case?
Secretary Ross. I'm sorry, could you repeat the question,
sir?
Mr. Steube. Didn't you specifically request to delay your
testimony today until the conclusion of the Supreme Court case
on this very issue?
Secretary Ross. We had requested a delay. Chairman Cummings
said that he was not prepared to give a delay, and, therefore,
I'm here voluntarily.
Mr. Steube. And I mean, do you have any opine as to why the
chair doesn't want to wait pending a Supreme Court decision and
wanted you to come and testify here today?
Secretary Ross. Well, again, sir, I can't guess what might
be in Chairman Cummings' mind, but I am here, I am here
voluntarily, and I'll do the best I can.
Mr. Steube. And I thank you for being here. I've got two
minutes, but I want to make a couple of statements.
By allowing Secretary Ross to testify before a
congressional committee where rules of evidence and civil
procedure do not apply, the Democrats are allowing a prolonged,
probative inquiry into a question that is at the very crux of
the Supreme Court case. In holding this hearing, the Democrats
have run afoul of the Supreme Court stay of Secretary Ross'
deposition and polluting the evidentiary record of a case that
the Justices have yet to even hearing oral arguments on.
And I would ask in my remaining question, I would direct a
question to the chair as to has there been any communication by
the plaintiffs' lawyers in this case to both the chairman or
your staff or any other members of this committee directing or
asking specific questions to be asked on the record?
Chairman Cummings. Would you repeat that, I'm sorry?
Mr. Steube. Has there been----
Chairman Cummings. I'll give you time to repeat it. Go
ahead. I was just--my staff was just reminding that we had
postponed this several times, and so I was just getting the
dates straight, and they were letting me know that Secretary
Ross picked this date. But go ahead.
Mr. Steube. Oh, that makes sense, because the October stay
was October--the stay was October 22.
But my question was, since we're here, and the Secretary is
under oath, has there been any communication--has there been
any communication between the plaintiffs' lawyers, or any of
the plaintiffs, as it relates to the chair or staff in asking
specific questions of the witness?
Chairman Cummings. No.
Ms. Norton. Mr. Chairman, point of information. The record
of this hearing cannot be used by the court in its decision
because this hearing and what happens in this hearing is not a
part of the record of the cases that are now before the Federal
courts.
Chairman Cummings. All right.
Mr. Meadows. Point of clarification. I'm not sure that the
gentlewoman's statement is correct.
Mr. Meadows. Point of clarification. I'm not sure that the
gentlewoman's statement is correct.
Chairman Cummings. First of all, let me recognize you.
Mr. Meadows. Okay. My apology, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Cummings. I recognize the gentleman.
Mr. Meadows. I thank the chairman.
I'm not sure that the context of the gentlewoman's
statement is accurate, because we are putting things in the
congressional Record, and certainly previous Supreme Courts
have been able to use documents----
Ms. Norton. Could I respond?
Chairman Cummings. I am going to let you respond, and then
we want to move on to questions.
Go ahead.
Ms. Norton. These cases are being appealed to the Supreme
Court. They are not in the record of the courts below. The
Supreme Court can only look at what is in the record that has
been brought in the courts below. That is why I have objected
to the member's objection.
Chairman Cummings. And now I recognize the gentlelady from
the District of Columbia for her questions.
Ms. Norton. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate this hearing. I have
introduced a bill to bar a citizenship question on the census.
But I am interested, Secretary Ross, in the apparent
increased costs. We have a budget before us with many
reductions because of the increase in the deficit, for example.
I am not going to speak about the deterrent effect on
residents. I am interested in the costs.
And I do want to be clear that the Constitution says ``all
persons,'' with Indians not counted. So for the strict
constitutionalists in the room and the committee, I note that
part of the Constitution.
Secretary Ross, I am going to quote from a memo announcing
your decision: ``A significantly lower response rate by non-
citizens would reduce the accuracy of the decennial census and
increase costs for non-response followup operations.'' That is
a quote from you, is that not correct, from your memo?
Secretary Ross. Is there a question, ma'am?
Ms. Norton. It is, sir.
Secretary Ross. What is the question?
Ms. Norton. I just quoted an announcement of your decision,
and the date is March 26, 2018. ``A significantly lower
response rate by non-citizens would reduce the accuracy of the
decennial census and increase costs for non-response followup
operations.'' That is a quote, sir. I just want to make sure we
are talking about the same thing.
Secretary Ross. Could you tell what page of the memo----
Ms. Norton. I can only tell you it is March 26, 2018.
Sir, I am not going to spend my time. I am assuming that
this quote is correct because it is a quote.
Now, on January 19 of last year, your own Census Bureau
chief scientist sent you a memo. It contained a technical
analysis regarding adding citizenship. And here I am giving you
what your own chief scientist, that is Mr. Abowd.
They calculated what they called a conservative estimate of
the increase, because you'd have to do nonresponse followup,
since many people would not answer the question door-to-door or
phone followup, for example. And he found--that is your own
chief scientist--found the cost is approximately $27.5 million.
By this time, I assume that you, Mr. Ross, or the Census
Bureau have calculated the addition the citizenship question
would add to taxpayers if it were included in this census. What
is that number, please, sir? What is your number for how much
it would be, how much in dollars and cents would be added?
Secretary Ross. The chief scientist, Dr. Abowd of the
Census department, testified under oath as follows.
May I please put up a chart so that people can see it,
Chairman?
Chairman Cummings. No problem.
Secretary Ross. It is demo two.
This is the chart that I'm referring to. I'd like to read
from it, if I may.
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Mr. Chairman?
Secretary Ross. ``Therefore, there is no credible
quantitative evidence that the addition of a citizenship
question will affect the accuracy of the count.''
That is a statement that was made under oath by Dr. Abowd,
the chief scientist of the Census Bureau.
Ms. Norton. The information we have is that that quote is
taken entirely out of context. The memo also says that adding
the citizenship question is very costly, harms the quality of
the census count, and would use substantially less accurate
citizenship status data than are available from administrative
records.
Chairman Cummings. The gentlelady's time has expired.
You may respond, though.
Secretary Ross. I have nothing to say, sir.
Chairman Cummings. Very well.
Ms. Foxx.
Ms. Foxx. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Secretary Ross, thank you very much for being here today.
We appreciate it.
I think we have heard it here enough, but I will say it
again. The question is not new. It has been asked before. And
it is completely appropriate for the Secretary to add this
question to the decennial census.
Mr. Secretary, I have been interested in this issue since
the last decennial census in 2010. In fact, in 2009 I
introduced a bill to require citizenship be asked on the 2010
Census and every census thereafter. If Congress had enacted my
bill, you wouldn't have been put in the position to reinstate
the citizenship question. It would already be part of the
census.
We are in the midst of a national debate on immigration.
There are millions of people living in this country illegally
who are counted the same, the same as U.S. citizens and people
who followed our laws and entered our country legally.
The Department of Homeland Security has great data on legal
immigration and the number of naturalized U.S. citizens. We
have this accurate data because these folks followed the rules
and entered our country the right legal way.
The fact is we don't have reliable data on illegal
immigration in this country. Estimates by DHS seem out of date
the moment they are released. The most recent estimates by DHS
are from 2015. Even DHS relies heavily on census data.
Mr. Secretary, my point is we must ask this citizenship
question so we can get the data we need to have a full and
honest debate about immigration in this country. If we don't
ask the citizenship question, we are all debating without
knowing the facts.
Mr. Secretary, in your opinion, how can the citizenship
question better inform the debate over immigration?
Secretary Ross. The census question will not ask about
legal status of the respondent. It simply asks about the
factual status, citizen or not, and some questions about where
they came from. There is nothing in the census data that can be
used by enforcement authorities for immigration or for any
other purpose.
Under Title 13, everyone at the census who has access to
the data has taken a lifetime oath not to reveal that
information to anyone outside, the detailed private
information. Consequently--and anyone who violates that is
subject to years in prison and large fines.
So it is a very serious, very important factor of the
census that no one's individual data will be used for any other
purpose other than the aggregations that we provide externally.
So this is not a tool as such for immigration. Our job is
simply to count the people, whether citizen or not. And it is
not our job to become involved with any other function of
government.
I am sorry that it takes so long to answer, but it's a very
important question, and it's very important that people in the
country be aware that this is a sacred oath, their privacy will
not be violated by the Census Bureau, and there would be
extreme punishments if people did not do so.
So I hope that answers the question, ma'am.
Ms. Foxx. No apology necessary, Mr. Secretary. We need to
get the facts on the table.
Mr. Chairman, I yield the remainder of my time to my
colleague from North Carolina, Mr. Meadows.
Mr. Meadows. I thank the gentlewoman for yielding.
Mr. Secretary, I want to followup on something that my
colleague from North Carolina was talking about, because you
made an important distinction. Asking the citizenship question
on the census will not provide any data to whether they are
here illegally or not. Is that correct?
Secretary Ross. That is correct, sir. We are not asking
legal status of people, whether citizens or not.
Mr. Meadows. In fact, a large percentage of those people
who may check that they are not citizens will be here legally,
because they have either got a green card or some other legal
means of being here in the United States. Is that correct?
Secretary Ross. That's correct. They could be here on a
visa. They could be here on any variety of things.
The purpose of the census is not as a tool for enforcement
of the immigration laws. The purpose of the census is simply to
provide aggregated data.
Mr. Meadows. I yield back.
I thank the gentlewoman for yielding.
Chairman Cummings. Thank you.
Mr. Clay.
Mr. Clay. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Secretary, on March the 20th, 2018, you testified in
front of a subcommittee of the House Appropriations Committee,
and here's what you said.
[Audio recording played.]
Mr. Clay. Two days later you testified before the House
Ways and Means Committee, and here's what you said.
[Audio recording played.]
Mr. Clay. On May 10, you testified in front of the Senate
Appropriations Committee, and here's what you said then.
[Audio recording played.]
Mr. Clay. Now, I would like to talk about what you did not
tell Congress. You wrote the following email to your staff on
May the 2, 2017. You wrote, and I quote: ``I am mystified why
nothing has been done in response to my month's old request
that we include the citizenship question. Why not?'' end of
quote.
So you requested the addition of the citizenship question
prior to May 2017, correct?
Secretary Ross. No, sir. What I was referring to was that I
was frustrated that I had not gotten an answer to the question,
would the Department of Justice formally request the question
to be reinstituted or would they not? That's what I had in my
mind, sir.
Mr. Clay. Well, now, wait a minute now. This was more than
seven months before DOJ sent its letter in December 2017,
though, correct?
Secretary Ross. That was part of my frustration. I had been
seeking to get clarification of what was the interest, if any,
of the Department of Justice in the question, because the
census has to be done on a specific day, starting on a specific
day in a specific year, and there are also congressional
reporting----
Mr. Clay. I am well aware of that, because I----
Secretary Ross. Let me finish my question.
Mr. Clay. Wait a minute. No. I have the time.
I am well aware of that, because in 2010 I oversaw that
census. But when you testified last year you failed to mention
any of this. Is that correct?
Secretary Ross. What was contained in the decision memo of
March 26, 2018, was the basis for the decision.
Mr. Clay. Well, Mr. Secretary, you wrote to the committee a
few months ago that the reason you did not mention all your
efforts to add a citizenship question before DOJ's letter was
because these efforts were merely, and I quote, ``informal and
hypothetical discussions.''
With all due respect, that explanation does not pass the
laugh test.
Secretary Ross. Well, that is the fact, sir. I am sorry
that you are dissatisfied with it.
Mr. Clay. Well, you testified three times, and each time
you withheld critical information that Congress needed to
oversee preparations for the 2020 Census.
Mr. Secretary, will you take responsibility today for
misleading Congress, whether intentionally or not, about the
process you follow to add the citizenship question to the 2020
Census?
Secretary Ross. I have never intentionally misled Congress
or intentionally said anything incorrect under oath. I have
never intentionally done that.
Mr. Clay. Mr. Secretary, you've lied to Congress, you've
misled the American people, and you are complicit in the Trump
administration's intent to suppress the growing political power
of the non-White population. You have already done great harm
to the Census 2020, and you have zero credibility, and you
should, in my opinion, resign.
I yield back.
Secretary Ross. Is there a question in that, sir?
Mr. Jordan. I'm next.
Chairman Cummings. Mr. Armstrong.
Mr. Jordan. No, I'm going to go next.
Secretary Ross. Mr. Chairman, we have been at this now for
somewhat more than an hour.
Would the committee indulge me in taking a break?
Chairman Cummings. Yes. Of course. We will recess for 10
minutes.
Secretary Ross. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Cummings. Thank you very much.
[Recess.]
Chairman Cummings. We will now resume the hearing.
Mr. Armstrong.
Mr. Armstrong. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I would just like to start by saying I think that
accusations of Secretary Ross being a liar seem to be a little
bit hypocritical considering two weeks ago Michael Cohen was
sitting in that chair.
Then, with that I would like to get back to just something
that was said earlier about the record and the Supreme Court
and trial court cases. As far as I know, there is at least one
pending lower court case going on, and, obviously, which I will
get into in little more detail, an oral argument in front of
the Supreme Court.
To say that this deposition, which is what it is, or this
under-oath testimony isn't part of the record, is absolutely
true for the Supreme Court case. However, everything here can
continue to be used in any pending lower court case.
Not to mention and probably more importantly, I've spent a
little bit of time in trial court. I've spent a little time in
front of appellate court judges. And to think that this isn't
going to come up in oral arguments is absolutely folly.
I am assuming all the lawyers on both sides of this case
have actually taken appellate advocacy. And anything that is
being done here today under oath is going to be more than free
game in front of oral arguments.
We have Justice Department drafting essentially that says--
going back as far as 2000, is what I found, that we always have
to satisfy legitimate legislative interests while protecting
certain confidentiality interests and disclosures which may
compromise open civil litigation. And that is one of the
reasons they do that.
I emphasize the word ``may,'' because I will be the first
one to admit that if we can never call an agency in front of
here that had any pending litigation going on in any way,
shape, or form, we probably wouldn't have many executive branch
agencies here at all.
But we don't have to go to any kind of hypothetical. We
have it specifically written. And just to back up a little bit,
the first case I believe was filed on March 26 of 2018. And
since that date, whenever a pending case exists, there is a
competing interest between what is going to be discoverable in
a Federal courtroom and what is being requested in front of a
congressional hearing.
The reason I bring that up is because those two things are
absolutely not mutually exclusive. Anything provided to a
congressional inquiry at that point in time is going to end up
into the Federal case. That is just the way it is going to
happen. So whenever lawsuits are filed, there is a competing
interest between legislative's oversight role and what is
pending in the criminal case.
In the Supreme Court stay, they specifically stated that
they stayed Secretary Ross' deposition. And I tend to agree
with the concurrence where they also said they should stay all
extra record discovery considering that there is not a lot of
distinction between Secretary Ross and the agency as a whole.
And much of what went on many that case in the lower court
decisions talk about what is in the hearts and mind regarding
adding the citizenship question. And I don't know what is in
the hearts and minds of my friends in this room on both sides
of the aisle, but what I can tell you is the effective result
of this is an absolute end run around the stay on a deposition.
This information is here, it is under oath, and to think it is
not going to be used in the pending litigation is just not
true.
Again, we don't have to go to hypotheticals regarding this.
It was specifically stated in the concurring opinion. And the
concurring opinion from Justice Thomas and Justice Gorsuch was
very specific. And one of things they said is protecting the
very review which the Supreme Court is inviting at this time.
So I have one question, and then I just want to end with a
little bit.
Secretary Ross, do you believe that anything that is going
on here today will be used in either the lower court opinion or
oral arguments at the Supreme Court?
Secretary Ross. That would require a legal opinion, sir. I
am not qualified to give a legal opinion. I am a civilian.
Mr. Armstrong. And I would also just like to point out, a
lot of the protections that are available in a deposition are
not available in a hearing under oath in front of Congress.
I will end with this. If the Supreme Court rules in favor
of the plaintiffs in this case, oversight from this committee
is absolutely appropriate. If the Supreme Court rules in favor
of Commerce or DOJ, oversight from this committee is absolutely
appropriate.
What is not appropriate is weaponizing this congressional
hearing to effectively create an end run around a Supreme Court
order staying the deposition of Secretary Ross.
With that, I yield back.
Chairman Cummings. Mr. Raskin.
Mr. Raskin. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Do I have the opportunity to respond at this point to the
legal argument that was just made by the gentleman from North
Dakota?
Chairman Cummings. This is your time.
Mr. Raskin. Oh, am I being recognized for my time?
Okay. Well, let me start with this then.
Secretary Ross, you asked for a memo on the citizenship
question from your Office of General Counsel, and you got it
back from James Uthmeier on August 11, 2017.
What did that memo say?
Secretary Ross. We've produced some 8,700 documents here,
and I gather there are some more that the committee may wish
to----
Mr. Raskin. Okay, so you are willing to produce that memo
then, too?
Secretary Ross. I am sorry. I didn't hear the question,
sir.
Mr. Raskin. Are you willing to produce that memo that was
written to you by James Uthmeier about precisely what we are
investigating here today, the citizenship question?
Secretary Ross. I will take it up with staff and with
counsel following this hearing, and we will----
Mr. Raskin. Well, you know, I have seen from the record
that you are quite effective at getting your staff to do
things, for example, moving on the citizenship question. Will
you tell them to turn this memo, which deals precisely with
what we are investigating, over to the Congress of the United
States?
Secretary Ross. I will be delighted to take it up with my
staff after the hearing, and we will consult with counsel, and
they will give you a response.
Mr. Raskin. Okay. Well, I understood your testimony before
to be that you would refuse to turn it over on the grounds that
there is ongoing litigation. And we just heard that argument
echoed by the gentleman from North Dakota.
And I must say, Mr. Chairman, I am quite astounded by this
line of argumentation today by our colleagues. To begin with,
the Supreme Court has been perfectly clear in a series of
cases, including Hutcheson v. United States in 1962 and
Sinclair v. United States in 1929, that the fact of ongoing
litigation is not a valid grounds for withholding documents
from Congress.
Are you aware of that, Secretary Ross?
Secretary Ross. That requires a legal opinion, sir. I will
have to refer that to counsel.
Mr. Raskin. Okay. Well, that principle goes back at least
90 years. And we can give you countless examples of
investigations by both Republican and Democratic chairmen of
this committee, as well as dozens of other committees in
Congress, that have conducted investigations and received
documents while there was ongoing litigation.
For example, Chairman Chaffetz had a hearing on the Waters
of the United States EPA rule when it was still being litigated
and got documents there. He did the same thing in the Keystone
XL pipeline hearings when there was ongoing litigation. And
Chairman Chaffetz did the exact same thing with the Equifax
data breach.
So you are not a lawyer, you may not be aware of Congress'
power to obtain documents, including the so-called secret memo
which is being withheld now. But our colleagues certainly
should be perfectly aware of that fact.
And the representative from the District of Columbia is
perfectly right, of course, the Supreme Court is limited to
review of those facts that are on the record of the case. All
the more so in an appeal from an Administrative Procedure Act
decision, right, where everything is in the administrative law
record.
That record also was very clear about what you had done.
That record said that your decision to add the citizenship
question was arbitrary and capricious, that you violated the
law, that you violated the public trust, that your stated
rationale to promote Voting Rights Act enforcement was
pretextual, a veritable smorgasbord of classic, clear-cut APA
violations.
But you are aware that when the Supreme Court treats this
matter, it is going to treat it as a matter of fact on the four
corners of the administrative law record, are you not?
Secretary Ross. That is a very lengthy question, sir. I
think it calls more for a legal opinion than my opinion. I'll
be happy to----
Mr. Raskin. Okay. Well, your decision was also struck down
on the basis of the Enumerations Clause, so it was
constitutional as well. Is there anything that you would tell
us that would somehow alter the Supreme Court's interpretation
of whether or not your judgment to add the citizenship question
is constitutional?
Secretary Ross. I don't quite understand the question, sir.
Could you repeat it?
Mr. Raskin. Okay. Let me ask you this. The California
district court said what ensued was a cynical search to find
some reason, any reason, or an agency request to justify a
preordained result.
So let's just put it in very simple terms. I'm not going to
ask you about the law. Obviously, you don't want to talk about
the law, and that is fair enough.
But did you not have a search--they describe it as cynical,
but whether or not it was cynical--did you not have a search to
get to a preordained result? Wasn't the whole purpose to get
the citizenship question added regardless of what was found in
the administrative law process?
Chairman Cummings. The gentleman's time has expired.
You may answer that question.
Secretary Ross. The rationale for my decision is
encompassed in the March 26, 2018, decision memo. That is the
basis on which the decision was made, sir.
Chairman Cummings. Thank you very much.
Mr. Gosar.
Mr. Gosar. Thank you, Mr. Secretary.
Mr. Secretary, we know that decennial census data is used
to apportion congressional seats. Each state gets one seat. The
remaining 385 seats are divided amongst the 50 states based on
total population.
For over 150 years, the standard has been to count every
person residing in the United States, every person regardless
of legal statute in the United States.
This whole time we have been counting legal and illegal
immigrants to apportion congressional districts. Yet only
citizens can vote.
So we count illegal immigrants, but we don't want to ask
questions about citizenship? We don't even ask legal status.
Mr. Secretary, this seems like a huge problem. And I, for
one, am very supportive of your decision to add a citizenship
question to the 2020 Census, and so is my delegation.
This is the reason the citizenship question is such a
threat. The Democratic majority believes if we only count
citizens, they are going to lose their majority in Congress.
This whole hearing is so transparently political it is beyond
legitimate overstate.
So my questions to you, Secretary Ross. Would you agree
that the main purpose of a census is to get accurate data about
the U.S. demographics?
Secretary Ross. The constitutional mandate, sir, for the
census is to try to count every person residing in the U.S. at
their place of residence on the dates when the census is
conducted. It is not to be used for immigration enforcement. It
is not to be used for any other kind of enforcement or, for
that matter, for any other purpose.
Everybody with access to the data takes a lifetime oath not
to disclose individuals' private data. And the punishment for
doing so under Title 13, as I understand it, is it could be a
combination of a prison sentence and a substantial fine.
Mr. Gosar. So the basis of this is to better govern. Would
that not be the case?
Secretary Ross. I'm sorry, I couldn't hear the question.
Mr. Gosar. So the basis of the census we could actually
look at is to better apply governing to the people.
Secretary Ross. We are obliged, sir, to count every person
who is here regardless of citizenship status and regardless of
anything else. We are required.
Mr. Gosar. Right. And that is my point, is that the
resources are better distributed to govern the people.
Secretary Ross. I believe that was the congressional
intent. But I wasn't there at the time, so I really can't
judge, sir.
Mr. Gosar. Yes. Do other nations query their populations
for census demographics about citizenship?
Secretary Ross. Would you repeat the question?
Mr. Gosar. Do other countries query their populations for
citizenship?
Secretary Ross. Oh, yes. The U.N. encourages all countries
to ask the citizenship question, and quite a few do. A few of
those that I can recall offhand include Australia, Canada,
France, Germany, Ireland, Mexico, and the United Kingdom. I'm
sure there are others, but those are the ones that occur to me
offhand.
Mr. Gosar. So I want to make sure I heard that right. The
United Nations pushes that initiative, right?
Secretary Ross. The United Nations recommends that
countries ask the citizenship question, yes, sir.
Mr. Gosar. Wow.
Now, did Thomas Jefferson have the Federal Government ask
about citizenship as far back as 1800?
Secretary Ross. Yes. The question has been asked, I
believe, at least since 1820 in one form or another, in one
venue or another.
Mr. Gosar. So this administration should be given credit
for following Thomas Jefferson's footsteps, should it not?
Secretary Ross. Well, I am a great admirer of Thomas
Jefferson. But is there a question in that, sir?
Mr. Gosar. Well, I mean, this administration is following
in the footsteps of Thomas Jefferson by asking this question.
Secretary Ross. I believe that we are doing it for the
reasons that were outlined in my March 26, 2018, decision memo.
Those are the reasons why I did it, sir.
Mr. Gosar. And my last question. Is it true that states
often have to bear the cost of noncitizens, including providing
healthcare, schools, law enforcement, food stamps, and housing?
Secretary Ross. I believe that all people are counted for
those purposes, sir.
Mr. Gosar. Thank you very much, Mr. Secretary.
Chairman Cummings. Thank you very much.
Before we go to Ms. Plaskett, I want to thank all the
members. Many of you have changed your schedules just to be
here, and I really do appreciate that. And I think it is very
important. I am talking to both sides. Thank you very much.
Ms. Plaskett.
Ms. Plaskett. Thank you very much.
Before I go on to my questioning, Mr. Ross, you are aware
also that Thomas Jefferson believed that slaves should be
counted as three-fifths of a person for population basis. So I
am not sure if Thomas Jefferson should be the litmus test for
what we should be doing for counting census.
I wanted to ask you about the citizenship piece that you
have here in the questions. I note that you have different
delineations of categories for individuals.
Where would individuals that were born in the District of
Columbia fall under?
Secretary Ross. I'm sorry, I didn't understand the
question.
Ms. Plaskett. Where would individuals who were born in the
District of Columbia fall under your census question, your
citizenship question?
They are not born in a state, nor are they listed as Puerto
Rico, Guam, the U.S. Virgin Islands, Northern Marianas, or were
they born abroad. Where would they check off?
Secretary Ross. I think that would require a legal
decision. I'm not sure I'm qualified.
Ms. Plaskett. But that is the question as how you have it
outlined here, the different buckets that individuals could put
down.
Secretary Ross. Oh, yes. The reason that we had for using
those particular buckets is those are the ones that were asked
repeatedly on the American Community Survey.
Ms. Plaskett. So where would someone from the District of
Columbia check?
Secretary Ross. I'm sorry, ma'am. I wasn't able to finish
my answer.
Ms. Plaskett. But I just need an answer to that. Where
would they check?
Secretary Ross. I'm trying to answer your first question,
if I could be permitted to----
Ms. Plaskett. Where would they check on your list?
Secretary Ross. The reason that we use the exact same
question----
Ms. Plaskett. I don't--I'm not interested in why you use
the question. I just want to know if someone born in the
District of Columbia, where would they check off on the listing
that you have here?
Secretary Ross. I think the list speaks for itself, ma'am.
Ms. Plaskett. It doesn't speak for itself, because you have
born in the United States. Are you saying that people who are
from Puerto Rico, Guam, the U.S. Virgin Islands, or Northern
Marianas not born in the United States--that is a separate one.
But so where would an individual from the District of Columbia?
I think you are just showing that, even from this alone,
you don't think of individuals born in the territories as being
part of the United States. And I'm just wondering where someone
from the District of Columbia, if you were to make the argument
that it is States----
Mr. Jordan. Would the gentlelady yield?
Ms. Plaskett [continuing]. that is not a state.
Mr. Jordan. Would the gentlelady yield?
Ms. Plaskett. So my question--no, I will into the yield. I
don't have a lot of time.
So I wanted to ask you about the Census Bureau chief
scientist report that you discussed. You said Mr. Abowd wrote
to you about the effect of the cost and accuracy of the census.
He estimated that the addition of a citizenship question would
lower response rates by approximately 5.1 percent and would,
quote, also reduce the quality of the resulting data, lower
self-response rates, degrade data quality, because data
obtained from NRFU, non-response followup, have greater
erroneous enumeration and whole-person imputation rates.
Mr. Secretary, is that what the memorandum stated?
Secretary Ross. Chief Scientist Abowd also testified under
oath. With your permission, Mr. Chairman, I will put up----
Ms. Plaskett. No. I saw that. I just wanted to know, is
that correct that he stated what I just quoted to you?
Secretary Ross. Can you refer me to the section of the memo
that says that, ma'am?
Ms. Plaskett. I think the memo is already listed in the
record. And in that memo, he states the lower response rate to
be approximately 5.1 percent.
Secretary Ross, I understand that you are a businessman,
and as such, you understand the cost and accuracy and the need
for cost-effectiveness. Why would you be in favor of something
that was more costly and diminishing the accuracy of your
census by putting in the citizenship question?
Secretary Ross. The reasons for including the citizenship
question are the ones that are outlined in my March 26, 2018,
decision memo. Those are the bases on which I concluded that it
was appropriate to ask the citizenship question----
Ms. Plaskett. Your chief scientist----
Secretary Ross. I'm sorry, ma'am. May I finish my answer?
Ms. Plaskett. No, you may not, because I have--you're
taking quite a while to answer the question, and most of my
questions do not require that much of a response. So I need to
get to other questions in here.
But the reason I'm asking that is because you testified
before this committee in October that most of the census budget
is spent on encouraging the last few million households to
respond, whereas it says in the scientific report of Dr. Abowd
that it will cost you 27 million additional funding to take up
the inaccuracy of that.
And in the court's opinion, which is the court's opinion of
the State of New York v. the Department of Commerce and New
York Immigration v. the United States, the Department of
Commerce, that it is unlikely to remedy the reduction of self-
response rates, which means that hundreds of thousands, if not
millions of people will go uncounted in the census if the
citizenship question is included.
Why would you want to increase the cost for that question?
Chairman Cummings. The gentlelady's time has expired, but
you may answer the question.
Secretary Ross. I have nothing to say, sir.
Chairman Cummings. Very well.
Mr. Hice.
Mr. Hice. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I will just say, the last time I checked, the District of
Columbia is in the United States, so I think the questions do
speak for themselves.
I'd like to build a little bit----
Ms. Plaskett. And so is the U.S. Virgin Islands.
Mr. Hice. This is my time.
I would like to build a little bit on Mr. Steube's line of
questioning a little bit earlier, Mr. Secretary. And thank you
again for being here.
We all know in this room that there is ongoing civil
litigation about the citizenship question on the 2020 Census
right now before the Supreme Court. Do you have any idea when
the Supreme Court is scheduled to hear oral arguments?
Secretary Ross. I believe it is somewhere around the 21st
of April.
Mr. Hice. That's right. Somewhere in the 23rd--six weeks
from now, more or less.
Secretary Ross. More or less six weeks.
Mr. Hice. So six weeks from now.
Mr. Secretary, when the lower courts were considering the
citizenship question, were you required to testify or were you
deposed?
Secretary Ross. I was not testified. I was not deposed. The
Supreme Court had issued what I believe is called a temporary
stay that stayed any deposition or testimony by me.
Mr. Hice. That is the whole point of this. In fact, the
fact that you were not required to testify in the lower court,
that in itself became a matter of contention and drew its own
separate civil litigation.
And as you just referenced, the Supreme Court stepped in
because that issue was so important, literally they plucked it
out of the lower courts. And they themselves said that they
wanted to weigh in on that. And as you just mentioned, the
Supreme Court placed a stay on you.
This is what is so amazing to me about this whole hearing
today. The Supreme Court, the highest court in the land, has
said Mr. Ross should not be deposed or give testimony on this
matter until after they are able to decide on this matter. And
it is alarming to me the willingness of this committee to
disregard the wishes of the Supreme Court.
And for all practical purposes, you are sworn in today. For
all practical purposes, this is a deposition.
Do you think it is reasonable to suspect that some
plaintiffs involved in this case are possibly watching this
today?
Secretary Ross. I have no idea who is watching it today,
sir.
Mr. Hice. We don't know who is watching. But I think it's
kind of reasonable to assume that those who are involved in
this case are probably watching, which would make this, in
essence, part of the discovery process. And so here we are
virtually in a deposition going against the wishes of the U.S.
Supreme Court.
And, you know, I just look at the direction of this
committee. Two weeks ago we have Michael Cohen here, an
individual convicted of lying to Congress, coming back to give
more testimony to Congress, and appears in every way that he
lied again while he was here. And now we are having a hearing,
in essence a deposition, going against the wishes of the
Supreme Court. It just seems like this committee is--this whole
hearing is inappropriate and out of order.
And I would like to yield the remainder of my time to the
gentleman from North Carolina, Mr. Meadows.
Mr. Meadows. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Mr. Secretary, I want to come to you.
Over the past 100 years, prior to 2010, when President
Obama decided not to include a citizenship question on the
census, the prior 100 years, was there not a citizenship
question on each of those censuses that were taken between 1910
and 2000?
Secretary Ross. Yes, sir, I believe that is the case, that
it was routinely asked in one form or another.
Mr. Meadows. Are you aware that there were five Democrat
Presidents that controlled what was going on the census and
five Republican Presidents that controlled what was going on
the census during that same time period so it was not partisan?
Secretary Ross. I haven't tried to make this a partisan
event, sir, so I haven't kept track of which Presidents did
what.
Mr. Meadows. Well, that speaks well to the way that you are
looking at this.
One last question that I have for you. On the American
Community Survey, there is a citizenship question that we
currently ask each and every year to about one percent of the
population. Is it correct that the most unanswered question on
there is not about citizenship, but about their income?
Secretary Ross. If memory serves, on some of those surveys,
the largest nonresponse rate, certainly a larger one than the
question of citizenship, did relate to weekly wages.
Mr. Meadows. All right. I yield back. I thank the chairman.
Chairman Cummings. Mr. Krishnamoorthi.
Mr. Krishnamoorthi. Good afternoon, Secretary Ross. Over
here. Over here.
Secretary Ross. Oh, I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm not familiar
with the seating, so thank you for pointing it out.
Mr. Krishnamoorthi. That's Okay.
In your written testimony today, Secretary Ross, you said,
quote, ``on December 12, 2017, DOJ made a formal written
request for reinstatement of a citizenship question on the
decennial census so that the Census Bureau could provide census
block-level citizenship data to assist DOJ in the enforcement
of the Voting Rights Act,'' correct?
Secretary Ross. That is my understanding of the request.
That was made by the Department of Justice----
Mr. Krishnamoorthi. Correct.
Secretary Ross [continuing]. in a formal letter to us on
December 12, 2017, sir.
Mr. Krishnamoorthi. Got it. And so you included the
citizenship question to enforce the Voting Rights Act, correct?
Secretary Ross. That is what my recollection says, that the
letter from the Department of Justice----
Mr. Krishnamoorthi. Correct.
Secretary Ross [continuing]. said was the reason, yes, sir.
Mr. Krishnamoorthi. Now, as you have pointed out, block-
level data, citizenship block-level data are not currently
available because the citizenship question is not included in
the decennial census, right?
Secretary Ross. Is that a question, sir?
Mr. Krishnamoorthi. Correct.
Secretary Ross. The Census Bureau reported that the block-
level data--as I described in the decisionmaking memo--block-
level data is not available from the ACS, which is sent out
annually. And I believe that is an uncontested fact, sir.
Mr. Krishnamoorthi. Correct. And as you know, the
citizenship question has not been part of the decennial census
given to every household since 1950, right?
Secretary Ross. There were times when it was distributed to
households in the form of a different form from the other
census. And then----
Mr. Krishnamoorthi. But not the short form, not the short
form survey given to every household, right?
Secretary Ross. Sir, I would like to finish my answer to
your first question, if you would indulge me.
Mr. Krishnamoorthi. Go ahead
Secretary Ross. There were different forms that were used
at different times. And the form that asked that question I
believe was only sent to a fraction, a portion, of the
population. And the same is true of the citizenship question
that was asked routinely on the ACS survey.
Mr. Krishnamoorthi. Correct.
Secretary Ross. That, too, is only sent to a small fraction
of the total population----
Mr. Krishnamoorthi. Right.
Secretary Ross [continuing]. as opposed to the census
itself, which goes to the----
Mr. Krishnamoorthi. I understand. My time is limited, sir.
I understand your answer. And you have basically said that it
has only been elicited from a fraction of households, not every
household in the United States, and that has been true since
1950.
As you know, for the entirety of the existence of the
Voting Rights Act of 1965, the DOJ has litigated voting rights
acts numerous times, voting rights cases numerous times,
without citizenship data from every household in the United
States, right?
Secretary Ross. The Department of Justice used the
information that was then available to them, as I understand
the situation that had prevailed prior to the present time.
Mr. Krishnamoorthi. Correct.
John Gore, the acting assistant attorney general for civil
rights at the DOJ, authored the letter, the December 2017
request to you.
And he was recently deposed. And in his deposition, he was
asked: Mr. Gore, the data collected through the census
questionnaire is not necessary for Department of Justice's
Voting Rights Act efforts, enforcement efforts.
Mr. Gore responded: I do agree with that, yes.
Sir, in light of this new information elicited from Mr.
Gore at the deposition, I would assume that you would go back
and reconsider including the citizenship question in the
survey?
Secretary Ross. I am not familiar with the deposition to
which you are referring. Do you have a copy of it, sir, that I
could refer to?
Mr. Krishnamoorthi. Yes, sir, we can provide that right
after the questioning.
Sir, when was the last time that you discussed the
citizenship question with President Trump?
Secretary Ross. I published a list in one of the
litigations of the parties with whom I had had discussions
about the citizenship question prior to the receipt of the
December 12, 2017, memo. President Trump was not listed as one
of the parties with whom I had discussions prior to the
December 12 letter.
Mr. Krishnamoorthi. And when you were interviewed for the
position of Commerce Secretary, at that time, before you joined
the Trump administration, did you talk with anybody at the
White House about the citizenship question?
Secretary Ross. Not that I can recall, sir.
Chairman Cummings. The gentleman's time has expired.
Mrs. Miller.
Mrs. Miller. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
And, Mr. Secretary, thank you so much for being here today.
As we have discussed the decennial census in this
committee, I want to make this point perfectly clear: It is not
controversial to count who is in the United States. In fact, it
is important for us to know how many people are living within
our Nation's borders and within our individual states so that
we can properly and fairly distribute Federal funds. Without
these raw numbers, there is no way for us to ensure our
citizens have sufficient funds to access critical programs like
Medicaid, SNAP, Pell grants, and other important programs.
We need to know how many people within the United States
are school age and accessing public schools. This number is
critical for correctly appropriating Federal funds to our
states for their school systems.
Even further, census data is used to calculate funding for
the National School Lunch Program. Without proper data, it is
impossible to ensure each state has adequate funding to provide
lunches for impoverished students.
Mr. Secretary, are you aware that there are 132 programs
that used Census Bureau data to distribute more than $650
billion in Federal funds just in Fiscal Year 2015?
Secretary Ross. I am well aware that the census data are
used as part of the appropriation process. I am not conversant
with the exact numbers you cited, but it is certainly big
numbers.
Mrs. Miller. Mr. Secretary, did you know the top five
programs which use Census Bureau data to distribute funds are
Medicaid, SNAP, Medicare part B, highway construction funds
through the Department of Transportation, and Pell grants
through the Department of Education?
Secretary Ross. That wouldn't surprise me at all.
Mrs. Miller. Mr. Secretary, did you know decennial census
data is used to determine a rural community, a suburban
community, and an urban community?
Secretary Ross. I believe that is the case, yes, ma'am.
Mrs. Miller. Census data is necessary to determine what is
rural and what is not. This data is used to determine who is in
my district that is eligible for rural grants and aid.
There are 22 programs at the Department of Agriculture and
33 programs at the Department of Health and Human Services that
use this data to distribute Federal funds. Even further, there
are 16 programs at the Department of Education, 13 at the
Department of Housing and Urban Development, and even 7 in the
Department of Justice.
Without this critical data, so many of our constituents
would not receive sufficient access to these programs. That is
why I am even more surprised that my colleagues don't want to
fully count the number of people within our borders.
For the first time, using census data, Congress could get
an accurate picture of how many citizens use these important
Federal programs and, also, how many noncitizens are using
Federal programs.
I think my constituents would want to know about where
their tax dollars are going to support Federal benefits for
noncitizens.
Mr. Secretary, would you agree that this is an important
public policy goal?
Secretary Ross. I am well aware that the census data is
importantly relied on for a whole wide variety of public policy
objectives, and I am very proud of the fact that that is the
case.
Mrs. Miller. Thank you very much.
I yield the rest of my time to Mr. Meadows from North
Carolina.
Mr. Meadows. I thank the gentlewoman for yielding.
Mr. Secretary, let me come back, because a lot's been made
of documents that have been requested, that haven't been
requested. I know that you have sworn that you've given over
8,700 documents to this committee.
And is it my understanding that you are going to get with
counsel and do the very best you can to give documents to this
committee that are responsive as long as they don't interfere
with the pending litigation that is before the Supreme Court.
Is that correct?
Secretary Ross. I am perfectly willing to put forward
anything that counsel do not object to. I have to be guided by
counsel in that regard.
Mr. Meadows. So, Mr. Secretary, let me go a little bit
further, then. And I appreciate your response.
One of the areas that has come up is that the previous
administration under President Barack Obama really was the
first time that we didn't ask a citizenship-type question. I'm
sure in your archives, and we want to make a priority on being
responsive to this request first, but are you willing to work
with this committee to provide other responsive documents in
terms of the decisionmaking on why, for the first time in a
century, a citizenship question was not included in 2010? Would
you be willing to do that?
Secretary Ross. I really have no idea who was involved in
the process or why. I will confer with staff and see whether
there is something we could reasonably do that would be
responsive.
Mr. Meadows. I yield back.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Cummings. Mr. Secretary, do me a favor. I'm going
to be frank with you. I can barely hear what you're saying. So
can you keep--when you talk, can you get a little closer to the
mic? A number of members have been complaining that they can't
hear you.
Secretary Ross. Oh, I'm sorry, sir. I will try my best. I
have a bit of a cold. I think I might have caught the cold you
had last week.
Chairman Cummings. Alrighty. I'm blamed for a lot of
things, but okay. I'll take that one.
All right now. You got me that time, Mr. Secretary.
We will now hear from Mr. Rouda.
Mr. Rouda. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Good afternoon, Mr. Secretary.
While I am extremely concerned about yours and other Trump
administration officials' purported longstanding conflicts of
interest with Russian oligarchs and ties to Vladimir Putin, we
are focusing on the 2020 Census in today's hearing.
Nevertheless, I will be submitting my questions on those
matters for the record, and I look forward to seeing your
responses to those questions.
Mr. Secretary, many Federal agencies use census data to
distribute Federal funds. In fact, the Census Bureau found 132
programs used census data to distribute $675 billion in funds
in 2015. Census data is used to distribute programs like
Medicaid, SNAP, Medicare, Pell grants, temporary lunch
programs, Temporary Assistance to Needy Families, and Section 8
Housing Choice Vouchers. Federal agencies rely on this data
when determining how to properly distribute their funds.
Mr. Secretary, do you agree that it is important for Census
Bureau data to be accurate?
Secretary Ross. I'm well aware of the multitude of public
policy uses and appropriation uses to which the census data are
used, and that is why I was so insistent to make sure that the
census was properly funded. It was at my initiation that the
Office of Management Budget----
Mr. Rouda. Excuse me, Secretary. This is kind of a softball
question. I just wanted to ask you, do you agree that it is
important for Census Bureau data to be accurate?
Secretary Ross. We are pledged to provide the best----
Mr. Rouda. Yes or no, Census Bureau data should be
accurate?
Secretary Ross. I'm trying to answer, sir, as best I can.
We are dedicated to the concept of providing the most
accurate and best data that we possibly can. And that is why we
have committed so many resources and so much effort, as I have
described before.
Mr. Rouda. So that would be a long-winded yes?
Secretary Ross. I think the answer speaks for itself.
Mr. Rouda. Inaccurate census data could affect the proper
allocation of Federal funding as well, correct? So if it's
inaccurate, to the degree it's inaccurate, it will impact how
Federal funds are distributed, correct?
Secretary Ross. I believe that the census data should be as
accurate as it can be for that whole variety of reasons, sir.
Mr. Rouda. If the census data is inaccurate, to whatever
degree it may be, that would hurt people's access to critical
programs, since those programs I cited are funded in part based
on the census data.
Secretary Ross. That is a kind of hypothetical question. I
have very great difficulty answering it, sir.
Mr. Rouda. I'm sorry, could you repeat your answer.
Secretary Ross. I said that's a hypothetical question that
I have great difficulty answering, sir.
Mr. Rouda. So you are saying that if we had inaccurate data
you don't know whether that would impact Federal funding in
these programs and how it is disseminated by a state?
Secretary Ross. I don't think that was the question. I
think the question was, would inaccuracies in the census data
reduce the amount of funding that went to a given state?
The reason that that is hypothetical is that involves the
assumption that the only errors would be undercounting.
Mr. Rouda. Businesses and industries also rely on this data
to develop strategies and support their businesses. Would you
agree that inaccurate census data could hurt businesses that
rely on the data?
Secretary Ross. We are pledged to trying to provide the
most accurate and most complete data that we can under the
circumstances for those reasons and for the host of other
reasons that already have been cited here earlier in some of
the remarks and in my testimony itself.
We will continue to be pledged to do so. And that is why I
have worked so hard to get the complete count committees, to
get the partnerships developed, to do massive advertising, and
to hire more partnership specialists by far than ever were
hired before, sir.
Mr. Rouda. Thank you, Mr. Secretary.
I am concerned----
Secretary Ross. We are doing more----
Mr. Rouda. If I could reclaim my time.
I am concerned that your decision to add a citizenship
question to the 2020 Census, which has drawn strong criticism
from Democratic and Republican former Directors of the Census
Bureau, could adversely impact communities across the country,
since this census will determine the allocation of Federal
funding to vital programs throughout the year 2030. I have
heard from numerous communities across southern California that
they are worried about the undercount of the census taking
place.
Those concerns were highlighted in this article published
in the Orange County Register on August 23, 2018. And I'd like
to ask unanimous consent to have this article placed in the
record.
Chairman Cummings. Without objection, so ordered.
Mr. Rouda. Thank you. I yield back.
Chairman Cummings. Mr. Gibbs.
Mr. Gibbs. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Thank you, Mr. Secretary, for being here today on a
voluntary basis. There's been a lot of discussion on the census
and this, and it's quite clear in the Constitution it says,
``We the people of the United States,'' referring to the
sovereignty of the citizens body who constitute the Nation, and
uses the word ``citizen'' 27 times. The Declaration of
Independence also recognizes that ``governments are instituted
among men to secure their rights.''
Citizenship and sovereignty of our Nation are fundamentally
linked, and I think it's important to get an accurate count of
the American body for the politics and especially in light of
what's going on in the immigration debate.
As was an earlier question, but I just want to reemphasize
it, the United Nations emphasizes that countries should ask the
citizenship question, and you named the countries Canada,
Indonesia, Germany, Australia, and others. My first question
is, when a census form comes back and one of the questions is
left blank, is there any action taken, or how does the Census
Bureau handle that if there's one question that's not answered?
Secretary Ross. Thank you for that question, sir. The
Census Bureau career professionals have a process for
estimating the answer to the question. We this time will be
using more extensive administrative records than have ever been
used before, and we hope that that will be a very useful guide,
both to getting to all the people, as many as we can, and to
providing correct answers.
Mr. Gibbs. Okay. Also, does the Census Bureau or your
department have--for example, on the American Communities
Survey, which we ask the citizenship question, is there data
that says that non-Hispanics or Hispanics have a different
ratio of answering the question? Is that on there?
Secretary Ross. Yes. That is one of the statistical results
of that American Communities Survey. I believe we referred to
that in my decision memo of March 26, 2018, and that provides
quite a bit of detail on the differences in response rates.
Mr. Gibbs. I understand that, but did you see an ethnic
group like the Hispanics more likely not to answer the question
than non-Hispanics, for example, because that question is on
there?
Secretary Ross. If memory serves, non--White--White non-
Hispanics had the highest response rate, the lowest nonresponse
rate. I believe that Black non-Hispanics had the highest
nonresponse rate, and I believe that Hispanics had the second
highest, but that's just by memory. I would really refer you to
my March 26, 2018, decision memo because that will have the
specific numbers in it.
Mr. Gibbs. Also, there was a bill sponsored in the last
Congress by one of my colleagues, 4906, and it specifically
would not ask a naturalization question, an immigration
question, or a citizenship question, but it did allow for--to
ask those questions on the American Communities service--
Survey.
Secretary Ross. The American Communities Survey has asked
the exact same question routinely for quite a lot of years, and
that's the exact set of questions that we've proposed to use
would--has been exposed to over 30 million Americans over a
period of time. That's a much more extensive set of tests than
ever would have been done in a little sample test directly to
prepare for an individual census.
Mr. Gibbs. Yes, but I guess my point, it's for my
colleagues on the other side of the aisle there, you know, so
advocating for not having the citizenship question on the
regular census, but they don't have a problem having it on the
community survey, American Communities Survey. So I don't quite
understand the thought process on that one.
But I do believe that it's important that we do this. We
ask a lot of questions on the census as, you know, race,
nationality, income, and a lot of personal detailed questions.
Obviously, can't--only used for statistical purposes in the
aggregate, and it makes perfect sense we ought to know how many
citizens are in this country as opposed--because you could
still be in this country and not be a citizen, you can be a
legal resident. We're not asking if you're illegal, and so we--
I guess what I'm trying to say, legal and illegal, so, you
know, it doesn't make any sense, but citizens.
So I see I'm out of time, but I appreciate you being here
and moving forward in this. Thank you.
Chairman Cummings. Thank you.
Mrs. Lawrence.
Secretary Ross. The census does not ask about legal status.
The census only asks the exact same question.
Chairman Cummings. Mr. Secretary, Mr. Secretary, I want you
to be a little louder. I swear to God, I can't hear you.
Secretary Ross. Oh, I'm sorry, sir. I'm doing the best I
can.
Chairman Cummings. You have better ears than I do.
He wasn't finished.
Secretary Ross. I'll repeat the answer.
Chairman Cummings. Thank you.
Secretary Ross. We do not ask about legal status in the
ACS, nor do we ask about it, or do we propose to ask about it
in the census question itself. We are asking the exact same
question that the ACS asked to over 30 million Americans over a
long period of years. So it is a very well tested question, and
we are not deviating one word from it.
Mr. Gibbs. Thank you, Mr. Secretary.
Secretary Ross. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Cummings. Mrs. Lawrence.
Mrs. Lawrence. Secretary Ross, you are an accomplished man,
Yale and Harvard educated, and my question is about the funding
of the census, because I'm--based on your personal wealth, you
know how to do a budget.
So the census funding per household has increased every
decade. In the late 2017, the Census Bureau estimated that the
cost of the 2020 Census would be more than $100 per household.
In its 2019 high risk report, the GAO found that the Census
Bureau's ability to conduct a cost-effective census, quote, is
at risk. Last year, the GAO found before the agency's cost
estimates were, quote, not reliable.
I am concerned, Mr. Ross, and I would hope that you will be
able to answer this question based on your personal knowledge,
education, and ability to do budgets, that the President has
and the Commerce Department has underestimated how much the
2020 Census will cost. You know, there's a saying, if you want
to know what someone believes in and what they really care
about, follow the money. The budget that has been presented
does not reflect a budget that will give an accurate reading,
as you have said you're committed to counting other people.
Is it or isn't it true that one reason costs are increasing
is because the Nation's population is increasingly hard to
count?
Secretary Ross. A whole lot of questions in that,
Representative. I will try to answer them as best I can. The
way we came to the estimate of the funding that would be
required was by using professional cost estimators brought in
from outside and from within government. We had one group do a
top down estimate, the other group do a bottoms up. We compared
them. We spent huge amount of hours trying to get to the right
answer.
We also introduced, at my insistence----
Mrs. Lawrence. Well, do you believe that the proposed
budget for 2020----
Secretary Ross. I'm sorry, I'm trying to answer your
question.
Mrs. Lawrence [continuing]. will provide the $7.2 billion
for the Census Bureau, do you believe that the proposed budget
is significant? Do you feel that as the Secretary, sir, that
$7.2 billion for the Bureau and based now that we're behind
schedule, that that number is sufficient to achieve what you
said your goal and your commitment to this country in counting
every person in America?
Secretary Ross. Well, first of all, you had referred in the
earlier question that I was trying to answer to the findings of
the GAO. I'm happy to report that just last week, the GAO put
out a new report that gave us credit for having improved the
situation on all five of the categories with which they took
exception in their earlier report, the one to which you
referred, back in 2017.
As you know, back in the early part of 2017, it was
essentially the process that had been used by the former group,
not by me. As of now, GAO has said we've made improvements in
all five categories.
Mrs. Lawrence. So, Mr. Ross, I'm not being rude, but for
questions I only get five minutes.
The $7.2 billion is less than what the prior administration
requested and what Congress approved in 2010, the last time the
Census Bureau needed to ramp up for a decennial census, and
this is where the numbers don't add up. In fact, in late 2017,
the Commerce Department estimated that the census cost for
Fiscal Year 2020 will be about 7.4. Why is the President's
budget, sir, below this request and this estimate?
Secretary Ross. Well, I have no idea why the President's
budget is below the request.
Mrs. Lawrence. Did you have any input in it?
Secretary Ross. I did not.
Mrs. Lawrence. So you as the Secretary of Commerce had no
input on what the numbers were presented for the census for the
record?
Secretary Ross. The President's budget is the President's
budget. I'm not at liberty----
Mrs. Lawrence. So what is your budget, sir?
Secretary Ross. I'm sorry. I believe that the total budget
that we requested and that had been approved by the Congress is
adequate to deal with the needs of the census. The President's
budget request, I haven't really had a chance to review because
I've been trying to get ready for this very hearing, but I will
be testifying before both Appropriations Committees in about a
week.
I would also point out to you that what we did was we
forward-funded, with the permission of the Appropriations
Committees, we pulled money into the recent past that would not
have been spent until the future. I requested that because the
more--the farther along we get, the quicker, the less risk
there is of a big overrun. So I think in aggregate from start
to finish, the life-cycle costs will be adequate to deal with
the needs of the census this time.
Mrs. Lawrence. Mr. Ross, if we don't fund, we will not be
able to count. I'm on Appropriations and I will be listening
and watching.
Chairman Cummings. Mr. Massie.
Mr. Massie. Mr. Secretary, I thank you for coming here
today voluntarily and answering our questions on the census. I
am convinced that just about everything's been asked, but not
everybody has asked it yet. And I'm also convinced that you're
going to do a great job on this census. We'll have probably the
best understanding of the population in this United States I
think we've ever had.
But the census is not the only constitutional function that
we as Congress has entrusted to your department. You're
entrusted also with administering patents. And I've been here
six years, we've never had a Commerce Secretary come here, and
we've never had any oversight in the patent aspect of your job.
So if you'll indulge me, I would like to ask a few questions
about patents.
Secretary Ross. Surely, sir.
Mr. Massie. So Article I Section 8 Clause 8 authorizes
Congress, and this is what we've given to you to administer, to
promote the progress of science and useful arts by securing for
limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to
their respective writings and discoveries. And I think this is
an undervalued function of the Department of Commerce.
Occasionally, you see people running for President and they
say we should get rid of the Department of Commerce. And I
think they forget that, No. 1, you're charged with doing the
census, which is constitutional; and, No. 2, you're charged
with administering patents.
Can you give us an update on sort of the status and your
approach and strategy and where we are in terms of implementing
the patent clause of the Constitution within your department?
Secretary Ross. Yes, sir. I'm a great proponent of strong
patents and strong enforcement of the patents, both in terms of
within the U.S. and externally. I recently had the great
pleasure to sign with the director of the patent office and
with the President the 10 millionth patent issued by the United
States of America. No other country has ever issued anything
like 10 million patents. And interestingly, about half of those
were within the last 20 years, because the rate of innovation
in this country is growing at a very rapid pace, and it is a
very good thing because that's a lot of what our future will
depend upon.
So one of the important topics in the current discussions
with the Chinese is enforcement of intellectual property
rights. And when I came into office, I came to the conclusion
that we needed a director of the patent office who was as
committed as I am to strong enforcement of patent rights, and I
believe that with Andrei Iancu we have achieved that and we
will do very, very well in patent enforcement going forward.
I'm very proud of the work that the patent office has done,
and I'm also very pleased that I had the opportunity to speak
at the recent event where we renamed the patent auditorium for
Clara Barton. She was the first woman to be working in an
important capacity in the census department way back in 1841,
and she later became much better known for being a wonderful
nurse during the Civil War. But we were commemorating her
overall, and especially we were commemorating her work in the
patent office.
And so I am a very keen supporter of the patent office, and
I'm happy informally or however to discuss with you whatever
you would like regarding patents.
Mr. Massie. I'm glad to hear that the director that you've
chosen supports strong patents, because patents have been the
economic engine for this country since its formation, and the
Founders recognized that, and that's why they put that in the
Constitution. And I believe actually that that's a more
important function of your department, and I hope we don't lose
focus on that aspect of what the Department of Commerce does.
I do, in the remaining 30 seconds, want to ask if you could
remind us how the patent office is funded, what the primary
source of funding for the patent office is.
Secretary Ross. The patent office is actually the Patent
and Trademark Office, and it is funded by the fees paid by
users. The funding requires appropriation by the Congress, but
as I understand it, there's no Federal funding of the
operations of either the trademark part or the patent part of
the office. It is totally funded by civilians paying user fees.
Mr. Massie. What is not to like about the patent office?
Chairman Cummings. The gentleman's time has expired.
Secretary Ross. Mr. Chairman, we've been at this for over
an hour. Would you indulge me in a brief break?
Chairman Cummings. Okay. What do you consider brief? I just
want to--the last one was--I just want to know how much time do
you need, that's all.
Secretary Ross. I'm sorry, I couldn't hear you, sir.
Chairman Cummings. I said I just need to know how much time
do you need?
Secretary Ross. Oh, 10 minutes will be plenty.
Chairman Cummings. We'll give you 15. All right.
Secretary Ross. Oh, thank you, sir, for being generous.
Chairman Cummings. Okay. Thank you very much, sir.
Secretary Ross. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
[Recess.]
Chairman Cummings. I call the hearing back to order.
Mr. Connolly.
Mr. Connolly?
Mr. Connolly. Yes, sir.
Chairman Cummings. I'm sorry, I'm calling on you.
Mr. Connolly. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Welcome, Secretary Ross. Secretary Ross, on March 15 of
2018, you and I had a conference call with one of your aides to
talk about the citizenship question. Might you recall that
conversation at all?
I'm sorry, sir, I cannot hear you.
Secretary Ross. I don't specifically recall.
Mr. Connolly. Okay. Well, you and I had--actually had
scheduled a call, and we had it, in which I conveyed my deep
concern about the citizenship question and the consequences
that could flow from it in terms of compliance with the census,
extra enumerated costs, accuracy.
Had you already made up your mind by that date, by March
15, 2018, that you were going to have the citizenship question
anyhow?
Secretary Ross. On what date, sir?
Mr. Connolly. This was March 15. You announced 11 days
later that you were going to have the question. And I'm trying
to understand whether you made a legitimate effort at getting
feedback and tried to evaluate it or were you going through the
motions of checking the box to be able to say, well, I talked
to Members of Congress, I heard them out.
Secretary Ross. No, sir. The process was as outlined in my
March 26, 2018, memo. It was as complete and thorough a process
as I know how to make it.
Mr. Connolly. So when you and I talked on March 15, you had
not yet finalized a decision. You were still factoring in
outside opinions like mine?
Secretary Ross. I did not finalize the decision until right
around the 26th of March, yes, sir.
Mr. Connolly. Well, that's good to know.
Mr. Secretary, section 141(f)(1) of the Census Act requires
you to submit a report to Congress at least three years before
the census that contains, and I quote, subjects proposed to be
included and the types of information to be compiled in the
census.
Did you resubmit a report under that section in March 2017?
Secretary Ross. In March 2017, sir, if I recall correctly,
the report was due at the very end of the month, and as of the
end of the month, we had not, by a long shot, decided anything
about the census.
Mr. Connolly. But did you submit a report?
Secretary Ross. Yes, we did. I did submit a report of the
topics. That report was not required to state the individual
questions. That report, as I understand it, was to report on
the topics that were then under consideration for the 2020
Decennial Census.
Mr. Connolly. So you're anticipating my question, and I'll
accept that answer, that from your point of view, that
reporting requirement did not require you, from your point of
view, to give a heads-up about the fact that you were thinking
about adding the citizenship question. That's your answer.
Secretary Ross. My answer, sir, is I believe that that
requirement was to discuss the topics that were to appear on
the 2020 Census. As of that date, there was no decision to put
anything like citizenship on.
Mr. Connolly. All right. That's a report required by law,
but there's another report required by law. Section 141(f)(3)
of the Census Act allows the Secretary to modify the subjects
of questions after the initial deadline for notifying Congress
if the Secretary identifies, quote, new circumstances that
require the modification.
Did you ever submit that statutory report to Congress under
141(f)(3)?
Secretary Ross. Well, I can't cite the individual chapters,
sir, because I'm not lawyer, but I have been advised by counsel
that my reports fully complied with the statutory requirements.
Mr. Connolly. Well, you might want to check with those
lawyers because we have no record of your department or you
submitting a report as required by law. That report says if
there are new circumstances, and that's the only condition on
which you make modifications, you've got to tell us about those
new circumstances.
When you added the citizenship question, that should have
triggered Section 141(f)(3), and yet I think to this day, we
still don't have a report from you or the Commerce Department
justifying a rather extreme modification in terms of its
implications.
Secretary Ross. I don't think, sir, that it's an extreme
modification. This was restoring a question that had been asked
many times----
Mr. Connolly. Restoring a question, sir, that had not been
in the census since 1950.
Secretary Ross. The question, sir, had been asked in one
form or another quite regularly, and we used the same language
in the--proposed same language in 2020.
Mr. Connolly. And I'll end with this. Apparently, nobody
advised you, because you're downplaying this, this simple
modification, been asked before. So nobody told you well, gee,
Mr. Secretary, this could have real implications in terms of
the cost and the accuracy of the census, and you might want to
think about that?
Chairman Cummings. The gentleman's time has expired.
Did you want to answer that?
Secretary Ross. I didn't really hear the question, but
let's move on.
Mr. Connolly. I'm not surprised he doesn't want to answer,
Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Cummings.
Mr. Grothman.
Mr. Comer.
Mr. Comer. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Secretary, over here. Mr. Secretary, I want to
emphasize once again the citizenship question is not new. In
fact, a citizenship question appeared on the census from 1820
to 1950. The citizenship question has been on the long form
census or American Communities Survey, ACS, since 1970. It is
ironic my Democrat colleagues don't object to the citizenship
question being asked on the ACS.
A couple of other members on the other side have mentioned
the ACS, and I just want to focus on this for a moment. In
fact, last Congress, my colleague, Ms. Holmes Norton,
introduced a bill to prohibit the citizenship question, but in
the same bill, she actually exempted the American Communities
Survey so the citizenship question could still be asked on the
ACS. You all can look it up. It's H.R. 4906, the Ensuring Full
Participation in the Census Act, from last Congress.
So if I'm understanding the position of my colleagues, it's
okay to ask about the citizenship question on the ACS, but it's
not okay to ask about citizenship on the decennial census. I
think that's really interesting that my colleague, Mr. Clay,
would mention and suggest that the citizenship question
deterred participation in the census but not in the ACS. Are
there no concerns from my colleagues about suppressing
participation in the ACS?
So, Mr. Secretary, I have a question. Do Hispanics respond
to the citizenship question on the ACS at the same rate as non-
Hispanics?
Secretary Ross. I believe, sir, that I had already answered
that question. I refer to my March 26, 2018, decisionmaking
memo, and that lists the relative participation rates. I
believe that non-Hispanic blacks have the highest nonresponse
rate. Hispanics have the next highest, and white non-Hispanics
have the least deterioration in response rate.
Mr. Comer. So, Mr. Secretary, do you believe participation
in the ACS has been reduced because the ACS asked about
citizenship?
Secretary Ross. I think the statistics speak for
themselves, but the ACS is really not too comparable in many
ways to the decennial census in that it is a survey of
something like 2.64 percent of the population, whereas the
decennial is to 100 percent.
Second, the ACS is strictly by mail. There's no internet
response. There's no marketing movement toward encouraging
people to participate, nor is there any NDFU, namely,
nonresponse followup. So it's really, in many ways, not quite
comparable to the environment within which the 2020 Decennial
Census will be administered.
Mr. Comer. All right. The most troubling part about all
this, the very startup by my colleagues on the other side of
the aisle on the citizenship question actually has the
consequences of suppressing participation. All people hear
about is the citizenship question and they immediately think
they should not throw their--well, they immediately think they
should throw their census in the trash. This is the exact
opposite message my colleagues should be sending to Americans.
In fact, my colleagues are creating a self-fulfilling
prophecy with their rhetoric. Let's focus on the real oversight
needs of the census: information technology----
Mrs. Maloney. Will the gentleman yield? Point of
information.
Mr. Comer [continuing]. cybersecurity--no, I will not. I
would like to reserve my time. I'm asking the Secretary a
question.
Let's focus on the real oversight needs of the census,
information technology and cybersecurity, and stop this
partisan attack on the census. The census is very important to
determine the makeup of Congress, to determine Federal funding,
and we need to have the participation of all Americans, and we
need to have data that's been asked since the beginning of the
formation of this country and get a head count of every
American.
Thank you.
Chairman Cummings. Thank you very much.
Mr. Lynch.
Mr. Lynch. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for holding this
hearing.
Let's take the gentleman up. Let's take him up on that. I
was going to ask him questions about the census, but, Mr.
Secretary, I do want to talk to you about the importance of
compliance with congressional documents.
So this committee and several outside groups are doing an
investigation regarding the transfer of sensitive technology to
Saudi Arabia, sensitive nuclear technology to Saudi Arabia.
Your office oversees the export of sensitive technology to
foreign countries.
Now, we have information from several--from multiple
whistleblowers that this program called Middle East Marshall
Plan, which was originally initiated by Michael Flynn, the
former National Security Advisor who pleaded guilty, and Jared
Kushner, who is the special adviser to the President, also his
son-in-law, and Thomas Barrack, who ran the inauguration
committee for the President. As the--now, they have an
obligation under the Atomic Energy Act to discuss this with you
and with us.
May I ask you, have you had any conversations with Mr.
Kushner or Mr. Barrack or former National Security Advisor
Michael Flynn about the transfer of sensitive nuclear
technology to Saudi Arabia?
Secretary Ross. I believe, sir, that the conversations
between myself and other administration officials, particularly
White House officials, is confidential, and I'm not authorized
to disclose it. Beyond which, I believe by agreement with
Chairman Cummings, we were not going to talk about technology
transfers to Saudi Arabia in today's hearing.
Mr. Lynch. I was just encouraged by my colleagues on the
other side of the aisle to get into this information. I was
invited by my colleague to talk about some other issues
regarding national security and other matters. So I'm just
following up on an invitation and trying to see if you'll be
any more responsive to those issues.
Secretary Ross. I don't know that----
Mr. Lynch. So I'm not interested in--I understand the
confidentiality aspect of that, but I'm just asking you if
those conversations happened, if you have had meetings with
those individuals regarding the transfer of sensitive
technology to Saudi Arabia, that's all.
Secretary Ross. Could you repeat the question, sir?
Mr. Lynch. Sure. Have you had any conversations or your
staff had any conversations with either Michael Flynn, Jared
Kushner, or Tom Barrack, who are involved in trying to transfer
nuclear technology to Saudi Arabia? Have you had those
conversations with any of them?
Mr. Jordan. Mr. Chairman?
Chairman Cummings. The gentleman has the floor.
Mr. Jordan. But, Mr. Chairman, this goes explicitly against
what you sent in the letter to Mr. Ross. The scope of the
committee's March 14 hearing will not include questions
relating to the transfer of nuclear technology to Saudi Arabia.
Again, you said this several times earlier, not my words, your
words.
Mr. Lynch. We were just invited by your side to ask him
this question.
Mr. Jordan. I'm just telling you--that's not what our side
was talking about, obviously, and that's not what the chairman
told the Secretary that the scope of the hearing was going to
be focused on.
Chairman Cummings. Mr. Lynch, the Secretary is right. We
had an agreement. And you do not have to answer the question,
but if you wanted to, it's fine, okay?
Now, Mr. Lynch, we will go back to you.
Mr. Lynch. Would the Secretary like to answer that
question?
Secretary Ross. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
My conversations with White House officials are
confidential. I'm not authorized to disclose their content, nor
to disclose the fact of any such conversation.
Mr. Lynch. Okay. So let's talk about the requests for
documents, then, just to the Commerce Department. I'm not
asking any particulars; I'm just asking about the process here.
So ourselves, this committee, as well as several public
interest groups, have been asking for documents related to that
subject, and we have received zero documents from the Commerce
Department, your office. And do you understand the obligation
to submit that information?
Secretary Ross. As I understand it, sir, we have submitted
some 8,700 documents, and with permission of the chairman, we
will be--we are entitled to make some subsequent submissions.
As to the details of what gets submitted, I will rely on advice
of counsel.
Mr. Lynch. So you're saying here under oath that you sent
8,000 pages, excuse me, in response to our request?
Secretary Ross. I'm told by my staff----
Mr. Lynch. Because on our end, we haven't received a single
page, so maybe they were misdelivered. I'm just trying to
figure that out.
Secretary Ross. I'm told by my staff that we have submitted
some 8,700 pages. I am also told by my staff that they are
continuing to study the further document requests, and that we
are permitted to submit additional documents post this hearing.
And I am sure that they will responsibly deal with those
requests.
Mr. Lynch. Very good. Thank you.
Mr. Chairman, my time has expired.
Mr. Meadows. Mr. Chairman? Mr. Chairman, a point of
clarification.
Chairman Cummings. Yes.
Mr. Meadows. I think, and I don't want to speak for the
gentleman where he was going with his questions and where the
answer, I think there was a different answer to a different
question, and I think he was talking about----
Mr. Lynch. If we can straighten that out right now, that
would be helpful.
Mr. Meadows. Well, because we're going to have to come back
and straighten that out. I think he was talking about they've
responded with 8,700 documents to the initial request. Your
request I think was with regards to the nuclear Saudi Arabia,
and I don't think his question was--I think you all were
talking over each other.
Mr. Lynch. For the record, I just want establish that we
haven't received any documents with respect to the transfer of
nuclear technology to Saudi Arabia. Just put that on the
record, and I can understand if the gentleman was confused.
Thank you.
Chairman Cummings. All right. Thank you.
Mr. Grothman.
Mr. Grothman. Thank you.
First of all, I'd like to apologize for you having to be
here today. It kind of amazes me that anybody would think--over
here--amazes me to think that anybody would think it's
controversial to put this question on the annual survey.
I'll just make one other opinion. I notice on your plan
survey you break down citizens between people born in the
United States, people born abroad of U.S. citizens. You break
things up, and you break up no, not a citizen into only one
group, just not a citizen. And of course, there are many
reasons why you might be in this country and not a citizen. You
could be here on a work visa, could be here on a student visa,
could be here illegally. And I guess I wish you would consider
breaking the list down, because as a Congressman, I'd like to
know the different reasons why you would be here and not be a
citizen. But now I'll go on to the questions I had planned for
you.
I've looked at a few examples of state driver's license
applications, including some driver's license applications from
states that would normally be considered Democrat states. I
think I've given you some handouts of some of those, correct?
And I want to show you an example. I think they have it here to
put up, an example from my home State of Wisconsin. It's right
behind me. Good, good, good, good, good. I hope you can see
that.
We have an example here from the District of Columbia.
Okay. We have another form, an I9 form, which employees must
complete as a condition of employment. Here we have there.
United States condition of employment.
You can see, would you agree that in today's society asking
someone if they're a citizen on a form is commonplace?
Secretary Ross. I'm sorry, I didn't hear the question, sir.
Mr. Grothman. Would you agree looking at these forms that
it is commonplace in our society to ask people whether they are
a citizen of our government?
Secretary Ross. It seems so, sir. They're so far away, and
my eyes are not so good enough, so I can't read all the
questions, but it sounds like that's the case.
Mr. Grothman. We're not making it up. All those forms have
questions on there.
Secretary Ross. Yes, sir. I would like to clarify for the
record, in my response to Congressman Lynch, I was referring to
the documents produced regarding census. I'm sorry if I might
have misunderstood your question, sir.
Mr. Grothman. Okay. I'll ask you--I'm not a big fan of the
United Nations, but the United Nations itself has recommended,
you know, finding out about citizenship of its occupants. Is
that true? Are you aware of that?
Secretary Ross. Yes. The United Nations has recommended
that countries ask the citizenship question or some form of it,
and many countries do. I believe I mentioned a few. Australia,
Canada, France, Germany, Ireland, Mexico, and the United
Kingdom are a few that occurred to me offhand.
Mr. Grothman. So I would assume that even citizens who come
up here from Mexico, they maybe would be expecting to see a
question like that on the form, right, or from Canada?
Secretary Ross. Well, my understanding is that Mexico asks
the citizenship question in some format or another.
Mr. Grothman. Correct. I think we have some more slides of
these, and I maybe won't even put them up. But I'm looking
around, we even have a slide up here from Mongolia. Even
Mongolia would ask a question like that. It would really have
to be, I think, some really--a country which has a very tenuous
relationship with its citizens that you wouldn't ask a question
like this. Correct?
Secretary Ross. All I know, sir, is that it had been
routinely asked in the United States in one form or another for
most of the last 120 years, and it is asked in other countries,
some of which I described in my testimony before. And it is
also recommended by the United Nations to be asked.
Mr. Grothman. Okay. Thank you very much, and I'll just hope
that when you leave here----
Mrs. Maloney. Will the gentleman yield, my good friend from
Wisconsin?
Mr. Grothman. Since I'm such a good friend, yes, only for
you.
Mr. Meadows. You shouldn't have been that good of a friend.
Mrs. Maloney. Listen, there's been so much discussion about
the history of the census. I ask unanimous consent to put this
memo from the congressional Research Service on the history of
the citizenship question, which clearly details that a question
on citizenship has not been asked to the entire American
population since 1950. And they do an outline and a detail of
every--of every time that this question has been asked, in what
form, on the long form and other areas.
Chairman Cummings. Without objection, so ordered.
Mrs. Maloney. Thank you.
Mr. Meadows. Mr. Chairman, I've got a unanimous consent
request then with a CRS report as well that's germane.
Mrs. Maloney. This is a CRS report.
Mr. Meadows. Well, I've got one that's dated actually--
well, the chairman hasn't recognized me.
Chairman Cummings. Thank you.
Mr. Meadows. I'm learning. It's hard, but I'm learning, Mr.
Chairman.
Chairman Cummings. You know, my mother used to say you
teach people how to treat you.
Mr. Meadows.
Mr. Meadows. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I ask unanimous consent that we enter into the record the
congressional Research report of March 8 that actually does
outline everything. It says that all but the earliest census
have included questions reflecting some national interest in
citizenship, immigration, foreign birth, and foreign
percentage. And I ask unanimous consent that it be entered into
the record.
Chairman Cummings. Without objection, so ordered.
Chairman Cummings. Ms. Hill.
Ms. Hill. I'm going to ask unanimous consent as well. We
earlier--I believe it was Mr. Meadows asked to enter an NPR
article into the record, so I think we have a joint belief that
NPR is a credible news source and not fake news. So this
article is--it contradicts what my colleagues in the minority
and what Mr. Ross have been saying all afternoon that
citizenship has been a standard census question. NPR clarifies
that this claim is inaccurate, incomplete, and misleading, and
that a quick history of the decennial survey makes that clear.
So I would like to enter that into the record.
Chairman Cummings. Without objection, so ordered.
Ms. Hill. Okay. And two more points of quick clarification.
The ACS only represents--or only surveys three percent of the
population, so it's a very different comparison to when we're
asking the entire population to fill out a survey, and that
it's only in combination with the deportation policies and
anti-immigrant rhetoric of this administration that we are so
concerned about it suppressing participation.
Moving on. Secretary Ross, on March 20, 2018, you testified
in front of the House Appropriations Subcommittee on Commerce,
Justice, and Science. Can we please roll the clip?
[Video played.]
Ms. Hill. Mr. Ross, since your testimony, however, new
evidence has come to light showing that a senior White House
official did contact you about the citizenship question. In
fact, you since admitted this in a letter to our committee on
December 21, 2018, writing, quote, Steven Bannon called in
spring of 2017 to request that I speak with Kris Kobach about
the latter's ideas about including a citizenship question on
the 2020 Decennial Census.
In spring of 2017, Mr. Bannon worked at the White House as
chief strategist and senior counselor to President Trump. Is
that correct?
Secretary Ross. I'd like to refer back to the slide that
you put up because I don't think----
Ms. Hill. Well, just please answer if he worked as the
White House--at the White House as the chief strategist and
senior counselor to President Trump.
Secretary Ross. I'm sorry, would you repeat the question?
Ms. Hill. Did Mr. Bannon work at the White House as the
chief strategist and senior counselor, was that the time you
spoke with him?
Secretary Ross. I believe that is correct.
Ms. Hill. What did you discuss with Mr. Bannon about the
citizenship question?
Secretary Ross. The extent of the discussion was he
requested that I consider taking a phone call from an
individual called Kris Kobach.
Ms. Hill. What did he say that--what did Mr. Bannon say he
wanted you to speak about with Mr. Kobach?
Secretary Ross. He said that Kobach had a question that he
thought should be asked on the census.
Ms. Hill. Did Mr. Bannon support the addition of a
citizenship question?
Secretary Ross. That's the extent of the conversation as I
remember it, is what I already testified to.
Ms. Hill. So he just hung up after that?
Secretary Ross. The phone call was very brief, and its
purpose, as far as I could tell, was simply to ask me if I
would take a call from Kris Kobach, and I agreed to do so.
Ms. Hill. Did you have any other conversations with Mr.
Bannon or anyone else at the White House about the citizenship
question at any time?
Secretary Ross. My conversations with others at the White
House are confidential. I'm not authorized to disclose them,
but I did provide in a supplemental memorandum a list of
parties with whom I had conversations prior to the December 12,
2017, formal request from Department of Justice that we add the
question, and the names that are on that are complete.
Ms. Hill. Did Mr. Bannon or Mr. Kobach or anyone else tell
you the President's view on the citizenship question?
Secretary Ross. I'm sorry, could you repeat the question?
Someone was coughing.
Ms. Hill. Did Mr. Bannon or anyone else tell you the
President's view on the citizenship question, including in your
subsequent conversation with Mr. Kobach?
Secretary Ross. Other than what I've already testified to
in connection with the phone call from Mr. Bannon, any other
communications I have had with people in the White House are
confidential. I'm not authorized to disclose them, and that's
been the longstanding policy of both Democratic and Republican
administrations.
Ms. Hill. Well, okay. Then when you testified to Congress
before Congress last year, you swore to tell the whole truth.
So I'm just a little bit confused when you said you're not
aware of any such conversations--any such conversations, but
then you say that you were--it was confidential. How did these
two work together?
Secretary Ross. Mr. Chairman, may we please put up demo
one?
These are excerpts from the videotape of that testimony
that I gave. You can see in the upper left is the point in time
when the Representative Meng put out the question--the document
that had apparently been issued the day before without my
knowledge or consent or anything else by the Republican
National Committee.
You notice the two red stripes on it. The one on the lower
left is approximately a few seconds later. I can't see that far
away, but it looks like it's only a couple of seconds after she
put it up. I'm reading it as I'm answering the question.
And as you look at the third slide, which was another
couple of seconds later, that is when I was completing my
testimony, and you can see from the red stripes, I was
referring to the very same document. That is the document to
which I was responding.
Chairman Cummings. Were you finished?
Secretary Ross. I'm finished, Chairman. Thank you for your
indulgence in letting me put up the demo.
Chairman Cummings. Thank you very much.
Mr. Cloud.
Mr. Cloud. Thank you.
Mr. Secretary, I am to your left. Way left. Over here.
Hello, sir. Thank you for being here.
Secretary Ross. I'm sorry, I'm unfamiliar with the way
seating works at these hearings.
Mr. Cloud. Not a problem. Welcome to your fourth hour of
testimony. The chairman has said that this was a new census
question. It's been repeated a number of times that this isn't
a new question. This question's been used before. As a matter
of fact, the proposed question in the census is virtually
identical to the one the Clinton Administration used in the
2000 long form census.
Now, that census is personally of note because that was the
first census that my family had to fill out, and for me and my
new bride, the citizen question was a notable one in that I was
born here and am a citizen, and at the time she was not. Yet we
didn't find that question offensive nor invasive. As a matter
of fact, a number of the other questions on that census, the
phone number, does this person speak a language other than
English at home, how does this person know English--or how well
does this person know English, what's the mental and emotional
health, does this person have difficulty bathing or dressing,
where did you work last week, how did you get to work, what
time did you leave your house, how long was your commute? One
filling out this census could feel like they're the subject of
a song by Sting.
So the point is that this citizenship question is not
really that invasive and was expected by my new immigrant wife
coming into this country.
Back to the basics for a moment. We have a census because
it's constitutionally mandated, right?
Secretary Ross. I'm sorry, I couldn't hear the question.
Mr. Cloud. We have a census because it's constitutionally
mandated. That's correct?
Secretary Ross. Yes. The Constitution mandates that once
every 10 years we do a count of the population.
Mr. Cloud. Does the Constitution require us to ask about
age?
Secretary Ross. No, sir.
Mr. Cloud. Sex?
Secretary Ross. About----
Mr. Cloud. Sex?
Secretary Ross. No, sir.
Mr. Cloud. Relationship status?
Secretary Ross. No, sir.
Mr. Cloud. Race?
Secretary Ross. No, sir.
Mr. Cloud. Phone number?
Secretary Ross. I don't believe they had phone numbers back
in the Constitution time.
Mr. Cloud. I think you're correct. Alexander Graham Bell
was soon to be working on it.
But what is required to be asked?
Secretary Ross. I believe the constitutional requirement is
simply to count all people who are residents here as of the
date of the census in the place where they reside.
Mr. Cloud. Correct, for the purposes of apportionment.
If my colleagues are concerned that asking personal
questions lead to an undercount and add cost, should the Bureau
consider a census with only the one question required?
Secretary Ross. It has been the longstanding practice to
ask more than the one question. That is nothing new. The fact
is the census asks fewer questions than the ACS. If I remember
correctly, the ACS asks something like 45 questions, and the
census, prior to this, had asked about 10 questions. So it's
far more condensed than is the ACS.
Mr. Cloud. And the information that's gathered is very
helpful to policymaking. Is that why we ask those questions?
Secretary Ross. I believe so. I don't know the exact
history of how each of the questions came to be asked, but I do
know that there are widespread use of all sorts of data that
come from the census, both by the public sector and by private
sector, individuals and businesses.
Mr. Cloud. Okay. And there's been an argument that this
question is unconstitutional, yet we've used it several times.
Is that correct?
Secretary Ross. What has been used several times?
Mr. Cloud. There's been an argument that this question is
unconstitutional, yet we've used it several times over the last
100 years and it's not been brought into question before. Is
that correct?
Secretary Ross. Oh, it's been used multiple times over the
last 120 years, and the exact wording of this is what's been
used each year on the ACS. That's one of the many reasons why
in my March 26, 2018, memo I cited the fact that the Census
Bureau professionals regarded this question as adequately
tested because it had already been exposed with exactly those
same words to more than 30 million Americans over a long period
of years.
Mr. Cloud. Well, thank you. Thank you, Mr. Secretary.
I yield my 10 seconds back.
Chairman Cummings. Ms. Wasserman Schultz.
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Before my time begins, I'd like to ask unanimous consent. I
have three documents that I'd like to enter into the record,
and I'd like to note that Secretary Ross, during this hearing,
acknowledged that the American Communities Survey is not too
comparable to the decennial census.
I have here the 2000 Census, Decennial Census form, which
does not include a citizenship question.
Chairman Cummings. Without objection, so ordered.
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Thank you. I have here the American
Communities Survey from 2000, which went to approximately 3-1/2
million people and was used in only four test counties in the
entire country.
Chairman Cummings. Without objection, so ordered.
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. That did have a citizenship question
on it, but was not the decennial census. And I have here the
long form question from 2000, which went to one in six people,
which is also not the full decennial census, and that does
include a citizenship question.
Chairman Cummings. Without objection, so ordered.
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Thank you. The point being that
there was not a citizenship question on the 2000 Census as has
been referred to here multiple times. I appreciate that, Mr.
Chairman.
Secretary Ross, I want to ask you about your conversations
with Attorney General Jeff Sessions before DOJ requested a
citizenship question in December 2017. On August 8, 2017, you
wrote to Earl Comstock, a senior official at the Department of
Commerce, and I'm quoting you here, you emailed: Were you on
the call this morning about census? They seem dug in about--not
sling, I assume you mean asking, the citizenship question, and
that raises the question of where is the DOJ in their analysis.
If they still have not come to a conclusion, please let me know
your contact person, and I will call the AG.
Mr. Secretary, your note mentioned, the one that I just
read aloud, mentioned a call that took place the morning of
August 8. Do you recall who you were on a call with who seemed
dug in from the census or outside the census about not asking
the citizenship question?
Secretary Ross. I don't have the document in front of me.
Could you provide me with a copy of the document, please?
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. It'd be my pleasure. This is an
email from you where you said: Were you on the call this
morning about census? They seemed dug in about not asking the
citizenship question, and that raises the question of where is
the DOJ in their analysis? If they still have not come to a
conclusion, please let me know your contact person, and I will
call the AG.
Is that a conversation you recall, and who is it that was
dug in with whom you were on the phone with, and were they
inside the census or outside the Census Bureau?
Secretary Ross. I still haven't seen the document. Could
you please have your staff provide me with a copy?
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Okay. Is it possible for staff to
provide the emails that we're talking about? Okay.
Well, my time is clicking here, and I--you don't have a
recollection of this conversation, Mr. Secretary?
Secretary Ross. I'm trying to recall it, but it would help
me a great deal if you could give me a copy.
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Okay. Well, I'd like my time not to
expire while this transaction is occurring.
Secretary Ross. If you would lend me your copy, I promise
to give it right back.
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Oh, sure, I'm happy to do that. Can
someone provide the Secretary? And if I can ask the chairman's
indulgence of a few additional seconds so that I can account
for the need to remind the Secretary of his own email and
meeting.
Secretary Ross. Thank you. As you can see from this
document, it's filled with typographical errors----
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Well, it's an email from you, Mr.
Secretary.
Secretary Ross. I beg your pardon?
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. It's an email from you.
Secretary Ross. Yes. My email is filled with typographical
errors. It says they seem dig in, clearly a typographical
error.
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Right. I assume it's dug.
Secretary Ross. About not sling the census----
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Asking? I'm assuming that you were
saying, and you can confirm this for me, they seem dug in about
not asking the citizenship question.
Secretary Ross. Well, my point is it is quite obvious from
the typos that this was a very hastily written email.
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Okay. I don't want to----
Secretary Ross. I'm sorry, ma'am.
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Mr. Secretary, it was your email and
your phone call. Who were you referring to that was dug in that
morning on that call from the--and were they inside or outside
the census, about not asking the citizenship question? That is
clearly what you were asking, typos or not.
Secretary Ross. I do not know the answer to your question
as I sit here, ma'am.
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. You are just continuing to
stonewall. You don't know the answer? Is that because you don't
remember the conversation on the phone? You don't remember
sending your own email that is before your very eyes?
Secretary Ross. This does not say that I had a phone
conversation----
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Okay. It said: Were you on the call
this morning about the census?
Secretary Ross. No. I was asking----
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Anyway, I'm going to move on, but I
would like you to answer that question for the record, please.
Secretary Ross. Well, I was asking the question----
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Yes.
Secretary Ross [continuing]. whether that other person was
on the call.
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. And did you get an answer?
Secretary Ross. Would you please let me answer the
question?
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. If you would actually answer it,
yes.
Secretary Ross. I was asking the question whether the
recipient of this email had been on the call.
If I was on the call I would have known who was on it. So
pretty clearly, whatever call this is referring to, it does not
appear I was even on it.
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Okay. Mr. Secretary, I'm going to
move on, but I'd like the answer to that question about what
you were referring--who you were referring to and what you were
referring to for the record, please.
The note that I mentioned that I just read aloud took place
the morning of August 8. Do you recall who you were on a call
with who seemed dug in about not asking the citizenship
question?
Secretary Ross. I'm sorry, but I have to correct----
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. You were on the phone. You were on
the phone with an individual. Do you recall who you were on a
call with or who your staff was on a call with that you were
referring to who seemed dug in about not asking the citizenship
question?
Secretary Ross. This questions asks Earl Comstock, who was
the recipient, whether he was on the call. It doesn't say that
I was on it.
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Do you recall his--okay. Do you
recall his answer?
Secretary Ross. I don't recall being on any call.
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Did you call the Attorney General
following that email in or around August 2017? And if so, would
did you ask him to do?
Chairman Cummings. The gentlelady's time has expired, but
you may answer.
Secretary Ross. I will answer. My conversations with the
Attorney General are confidential and----
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. I'm sorry. Are you claiming
executive privilege, Mr. Secretary? Because your conversations
with the Attorney General are not confidential. You are fully
able to answer this question.
Chairman Cummings. You may answer.
Secretary Ross. That is not a question, so I have nothing
more----
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. It is a question. I am asking if you
are claiming----
Chairman Cummings. Mr. Jordan.
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Mr. Chairman, can you direct the
Secretary to answer whether he is claiming executive privilege
and refusing to answer my question as a result? Because he is
fully able, as far as I understand the law, to answer that
question.
Chairman Cummings. Are you claiming executive privilege?
Secretary Ross. I am not claiming executive privilege, sir,
on this topic. But I am claiming, and I believe is a fact, I
don't say that I was on the call with anyone.
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. But, Mr. Chairman----
Secretary Ross. That's what the original question was. I
was asking someone else----
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Mr. Chairman, my question that I am
referring to is, did you call the Attorney General following
that email in or around August 2017? And if, so what did you
ask him to do?
And the Secretary said his conversations with the Attorney
General are confidential. But now he says he is not claiming
executive privilege.
So if he is not claiming executive privilege, then he needs
to answer that question, because that's what the purpose of
this hearing is for.
Secretary Ross. I have been told by counsel that I am not--
appropriate for me to answer that question, and that answer is
consistent----
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Mr. Chairman, can I ask you a
question? Is not appropriate part of the rules here in terms of
what the witness is required to answer when we are asking him a
question? Unless he is claiming executive privilege, then I
believe he has to answer the question.
Secretary Ross. I believe the questioner's time is up, sir.
Chairman Cummings. Were you finished? Were you finished?
Secretary Ross. I believe the questioner's time is up. I
have answered the question as best I can.
Chairman Cummings. Very well.
Mr. Jordan.
Mr. Jordan. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Here is the fundamental question. Why don't they want to
know? Why don't the Democrats want to know how many citizens
are in the United States of America? That is a fundamental
question.
You go anywhere in this country, anywhere in this country,
you go to Columbus, Ohio, Boston, Massachusetts, you go
anywhere in this country, you walk up to someone on the street,
and you say, ``You know what, the Constitution requires us to
do a census. Do you think we should find out how many citizens
are in the country?'' You know what that person is going to
say? ``Well, heck, yes. Aren't you doing that already?''
And you know what the answer to that question is? Yes. We
have been doing it for 100 and some years, until now. The
Democrats don't want to ask that fundamental question.
So the real question for the hearing today is, why don't
they want to know? Everyone else in the country assumes it's
already being done. It is already being done. You are going to
do it the exact same way it's always been done. And they're
asking about conversations.
Mr. Secretary, it's probably appropriate for a Cabinet
secretary to talk to other important people in the government
when you are making important decisions, right?
Secretary Ross. Yes, sir.
Mr. Jordan. Yes. It happens all the time.
Secretary Ross. Yes, sir.
Mr. Jordan. It's called governing.
Secretary Ross. Yes, sir.
Mr. Jordan. That's how this great system we live in works.
Now, the chairman said to ask this question is
unconstitutional. It's been said 100 times. But just once again
for the record, how many years have we asked the citizenship
question on some form of the census?
Secretary Ross. I believe it's been asked quite routinely
for over 100----
Mr. Jordan. Over 100 years. And again, every single--it's
common sense. You talk to any American across this country.
They say, ``Of course. Of course you need to ask that question.
Aren't you doing it already?'' Yes. Over 100 years we've been
doing it.
But you did the added thing. You said, you know what? I'm
going to check with folks. I'm going to make sure we are doing
it right, right?
Secretary Ross. Yes, sir.
Mr. Jordan. And you were explicitly told by not just any
old agency, you were explicitly told by who? The Justice
Department, right?
Secretary Ross. Yes, sir.
Mr. Jordan. They sent you a letter. What is the date on
this?
Secretary Ross. December 12, 2017.
Mr. Jordan. December 12, 2017, they send a letter to Dr.
Ron Jarmin--who works for you, right, Mr. Secretary?
Secretary Ross. Yes, sir.
Mr. Jordan. Mr. Jarmin works for you. And this letter is
from the Justice Department, Arthur Gary, General Counsel,
Justice Management Division of the Justice Department. Is that
right?
Secretary Ross. That is correct, sir.
Mr. Jordan. Let me just read from this letter sent by the
Justice Department to the guy who runs the U.S. Census Bureau,
who works for you, certified return receipt
70142120000080644964, the official letter. And here's what they
said: The Department formally requests that the Census Bureau
reinstate into the 2020 Census a question regarding
citizenship. Is that right, Mr. Secretary?
Secretary Ross. Yes, it is, sir, yes, sir.
Mr. Jordan. And so that's why you put it on the census.
Secretary Ross. That's what triggered our investigation
into it. Yes, sir.
Mr. Jordan. And, of course, you had conversations. You're
getting ready for the--Mr. Meadows has had hearings after
hearings, along with Mr. Connolly, how the Commerce Department
is getting ready for the census, in the previous
administration, in your administration. There are all kinds of
conversations that take place. But you still wanted a formal
request from the Justice Department before you proceeded, and
that is exactly what they gave you.
Secretary Ross. Yes, sir.
Mr. Jordan. And there is nothing un constitutional about
that whatsoever.
Secretary Ross. Not to the best of my knowledge, sir.
Mr. Jordan. No. This is common sense. It's common sense to
ask the question. It's common sense to follow the procedures
and process that you followed. And here we are having a
question. And guess what? The Democrats don't want to ask it.
So I am back to where I started. Why? Why? Why don't we
want to know. That's the question we need answered, and not
from you. Frankly, from them. Because you can go talk to anyone
across this country and everyone would say, ``Ask that
question.'' The only people opposing it are Democrats in
Washington, DC.
Democrats, Republicans, independents, libertarians, Green
Party people, anyone across the country, You know what? They
are saying, ``Well, you ought to ask the question. I thought we
did it all along.'' And the answer to that is we have been
doing it all along. But now they want to change.
And that's the part that troubles me. And, frankly, when
the American people see this, that's the part, I think,
troubles them. That's the part that troubles them.
And you're just doing as best you can. And you have a
formal directive from the Department of Justice saying, Put the
question on the census. Imagine that. You went above and beyond
what, frankly, I think you have to do. But that's how you did
it.
Secretary Ross. Yes, sir.
Mr. Jordan. I got 25 seconds. I was fired up.
But I will yield the last 25 to my good friend from North
Carolina.
Mr. Meadows. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
I would ask unanimous consent that this census form, which
says Census of the United States from 2000, which actually is
the long form from 2000 and declares and has a citizenship
question on it, is it not part of the census, the long form,
Mr. Secretary?
Secretary Ross. Yes, sir.
Mr. Meadows. I ask unanimous consent that it be entered
into the record.
Chairman Cummings. Without objection.
Secretary Ross. Mr. Chairman, we have been at this for
about an hour. Would you indulge me in a brief break?
Chairman Cummings. Yes, of course, sir.
Secretary Ross. Thank you.
Chairman Cummings. We'll recess.
Secretary Ross. How much time, sir?
Chairman Cummings. You tell me.
Secretary Ross. Five or 10 minutes, sir.
Chairman Cummings. I'll give you 15.
Secretary Ross. Thank you, sir.
Chairman Cummings. All right.
[Recess.]
Chairman Cummings. We will resume.
Ms. Speier.
Secretary Ross. Mr. Chairman, would you indulge me to make
a very brief statement?
Chairman Cummings. Sure.
Secretary Ross. As you know, sir, we had told your staff
that I had a hard stop at 3 o'clock. But I know you're anxious
to conclude this hearing, and I have postponed that meeting so
that we can complete the record today as best we can, sir.
Chairman Cummings. Thank you very much. Thank you.
Ms. Speier.
Ms. Speier. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thank you, Mr.
Ross, for accommodating us.
Let me start off by asking the question--is your general
counsel--I am right here, sir. Over here. Over here.
Secretary Ross. Oh, I'm sorry.
Ms. Speier. That's all right.
Is your general counsel here in the audience?
Secretary Ross. Is my general counsel----
Ms. Speier. Is your general counsel here in the audience?
Secretary Ross. My general counsel? I don't know if he's
here. But Peter Davidson is the general counsel of the
Department of Commerce. He is not here.
Ms. Speier. He is not here.
Do you have counsel represented here?
Secretary Ross. There is counsel here, but my general
counsel is not here, nor--excuse me, I'm not quite finished.
Ms. Speier. All right. So I was just hoping that what we
could do, in order to comply with the request made by Mr.
Raskin about the cases that he cited, we could ask the counsel
who's representing you here to review those cases so we could
determine today whether or not you are going to comply with the
request for information. But I will move on.
I would, Mr. Chairman, like to provide for the record the
document by Judge Furman, his decision in the Southern District
of New York.
Chairman Cummings. Without objection, so ordered.
Ms. Speier. Thank you.
Let me ask you this question. This particular decision
points to a deposition by your then deputy chief of staff Earl
Comstock. And Earl Comstock, in a deposition under oath, said
that he first heard about the notion of adding a question about
citizenship to this decennial census from the Secretary himself
shortly after the confirmation.
Do you recall that?
Secretary Ross. I don't recall his deposition. Do you have
a copy of it, ma'am?
Ms. Speier. Well, I have the decision by the court, by the
judge. Have you not read the decision by the judge when he
found that you violated the APA?
Secretary Ross. I believe you're referring to a document
that was submitted as, I think you said, a deposition by Mr.
Comstock.
Ms. Speier. But this is the decision by the judge in which
he referenced what Mr. Comstock said.
Do you recall that you said to Mr. Comstock, shortly after
your confirmation, that you wanted to add the question of
citizenship to the census?
Secretary Ross. I'd like to see----
Ms. Speier. All right. Let's move on.
Secretary Ross [continuing]. the deposition because I do
not recall----
Ms. Speier. You do not recall.
Secretary Ross. If you would let me finish my answer,
please.
I do not recall saying to Earl Comstock early in the
administration----
Ms. Speier. All right. Thank you for that answer. I now
would like to move on to your statement.
Secretary Ross. I'm sorry----
Ms. Speier. On March 22, 2018, before the Committee on Ways
and Means, you said the Department of Justice initiated the
request for inclusion of the citizenship question. That's what
you said then. And we now have Mr. Comstock's under-oath
statement that you came to him shortly after your confirmation.
And while we've had a lot of discussion today about the
census and whether or not to include the issue of immigration
status, my issue here is that you can't lie to Congress.
Michael Cohen lied to Congress, and he's going to prison.
You actually testified before the Ways and Means Committee,
you've testified before this committee. And you've said in all
of these circumstances it was the Department of Justice that
initiated the request. Your own deputy chief of staff says you
initiated it.
But let me go on. In your written statement before the
committee, you say the Department of Commerce asked the
Department of Justice whether it would have interest in
obtaining more granular citizenship data.
So which is it? How did this process initiate? Did the DOJ
initiate it, as you testified in Ways and Means, or was it the
written--or as in your written testimony, did Commerce initiate
it?
Secretary Ross. First of all, I believe, ma'am, that you
are mischaracterizing Earl Comstock's testimony. I am not aware
that he testified that I told him that I had decided to add
citizenship to the decennial census any time before the
December 12 memo letter requesting it by the Department of
Justice----
Ms. Speier. Except that in the same----
Secretary Ross [continuing]. as a formal request.
Ms. Speier [continuing]. in the same decision by the court,
he references an April 20 email from you in which you say, we
must get our issues resolved before this. And on May 2, you say
you're mystified why nothing has been done in response to your
month-old request that we include the citizenship question.
This is in the court's decision.
And with that, I yield back. My time is up.
Chairman Cummings. Thank you very much.
Mr. Higgins.
Did you answer----
Secretary Ross. I don't think there was a question there,
sir.
Chairman Cummings. All right.
Mr. Higgins.
Mr. Higgins. Mr. Chairman, I'd like to yield to Mr. Norman.
Chairman Cummings. Mr. Norman.
Mr. Norman. Thank you, Mr. Higgins.
Secretary Ross, thank you for coming today. You've been
great. You've been here going on, I guess, five hours. And I
want to publicly thank Chairman Cummings for allowing the
breaks that are well deserved for you to have.
And the other thing, Mr. Chairman, when you narrowed the
scope, as you agreed to do on the questioning, we appreciate
you doing that.
Secretary Ross, how many documents have you provided?
Secretary Ross. How many documents have we filed with the
committee?
Mr. Norman. Yes, sir.
Secretary Ross. My understanding is it's around 8,700
individual documents.
Mr. Norman. So you tried, to the best of your knowledge, to
give everything that this committee wanted. Were there
anything--any other documents requested that are outstanding?
Secretary Ross. There may well be. I would have to check
with counsel on that.
Mr. Norman. But you've gone overboard to try to get this
committee what they want so you can answer the questions to the
best of your recollection.
Secretary Ross. 8,700 documents. Quite a lot, sir.
Mr. Norman. Kind of a lot of trees that went down, isn't
it?
Secretary Ross. Yes, sir.
Mr. Norman. I guess as my good friend from Ohio,
Congressman Jordan, said, this is really basic; is people
looking in on this hearing, what's left, looking in, you know,
do we have a right to know how many citizens there are in this
country, is pretty basic. And as my legal colleagues were
asking, why are they doing this with the Supreme Court hearing
coming up, a Supreme Court case being considered. Why would
they be bringing this up? Everything we're saying today is
public knowledge.
Secretary Ross. Well, the Supreme Court is going to rule on
the fundamental question. As I believe I testified earlier,
somewhere around the 21st of April is when I believe the oral
arguments will be heard by the Supreme Court.
Mr. Norman. Do you agree the integrity of the census is
fundamental to the integrity of the structure of this body?
Secretary Ross. I'm sorry. I didn't hear it, sir.
Mr. Norman. Okay. Do you agree the integrity of an accurate
census is----
Secretary Ross. Yes, sir. I have worked very hard to try to
achieve that. I outlined earlier I got over a $3 billion
increase in the budget toward that end. We've got a half a
billion dollar marketing budget toward that end. I called a lot
of Governors and other officials to get more complete count
committees than they ever had. We have more partnership
specialists than we ever had. We will have many more
partnerships of trusted local institutions to encourage people
to comply with the census requirement. We're doing everything
we can to do the best job that we possibly can do.
Mr. Norman. And had you not taken the integrity of the
census seriously, you would--definitely would not have asked
for increased funding, would you?
Secretary Ross. Well, no. If I wanted to not count
everybody, the easiest thing would have been simply to accept
the budget that had been prepared under the Obama
Administration, and that would, in my view, have left the
census severely underfunded and probably would have guaranteed
a massive undercount.
Mr. Norman. And particularly, and where we sit in our seats
in the House and Senate, this data is used to apportion the
number of seats in this country, correct?
Secretary Ross. As I understand it, it's used for
apportionment of the House of Representative seats, yes, sir.
Mr. Norman. For over 150 years, this standard has been to
count every person residing in the United States. And it is
every person regardless of legal status, correct?
Secretary Ross. That's correct, sir.
Mr. Norman. Well, I just want to thank you. I had other
questions, but I don't want to beat a dead horse. I admire you
for staying here and extending your time to answer each and
every question.
And I yield the balance of my time to the Congressman from
North Carolina, Mr. Meadows.
Mr. Meadows. I thank the gentleman from South Carolina.
Mr. Chairman, I would like to submit for the record a
letter, actually, from the assistant attorney general under
Bill Clinton, from January 27 of 2000, where he makes the same
point that many of us have been making in his letter, actually,
to the Honorable John Linder, the chairman of the Subcommittee
on Rules and Organization of the House. But he said inquiries
of this type create the risk that public and the courts will
perceive undue political and congressional influence over the
law enforcement and litigation decisions.
I ask unanimous consent that that be entered into the
record.
Chairman Cummings. Without objection.
Mr. Meadows. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I yield back.
Chairman Cummings. Mr. Sarbanes.
Mr. Sarbanes. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Secretary Ross, thank you for being here. I think that you
and the Department are in a somewhat precarious position
increasingly so, partly because of the substance of the
decision with respect to the citizenship question, but even
more so because of the process by which it was reached, and
there's serious questions about that.
I want to get back to this idea that adding a citizenship
question to the census was important for enforcing the Voting
Rights Act, because I think that that was a rationale that was
concocted by your department and then foisted upon the DOJ and
others based on some other agenda that was underway.
And you've now been referred a couple of times to an
exchange that you had on May 2 with Earl Comstock, who you
certainly know, a senior official at Commerce, who emailed you
in response to your request on the citizenship question,
basically where you were saying, you know, what's going on with
this? Why is time lagging?
And he wrote back to you, quote, we need to work with
Justice to get them--I want to repeat that, we need to work
with Justice to get them to request that citizenship be added
back as a census question, and we have the court cases to
illustrate that DOJ has a legitimate need for the question to
be included, end quote.
Was Mr. Comstock saying that the Department of Commerce had
done its own legal research to find court cases to justify
DOJ's need for a citizenship question?
Secretary Ross. I don't know the answer to that. That's Mr.
Comstock's email. It's not my email.
Mr. Sarbanes. It's not your email, you're right. It's a
response to an email that you sent to him. But it certainly
sounds, from the way he's phrasing it, we've got to get them to
request that citizenship be added back.
So you're saying you can't get into his head. It's fairly
clear from this what he was intending.
If DOJ really needed this data that he's talking about,
wouldn't they have already done their own legal analysis and
determined their own need independently?
Secretary Ross. I'm not aware that they didn't make the
determination nor that they didn't do it independently. What I
do know is that on December 12, 2017, DOJ sent an official
request that we include the citizenship question on the 2020
Decennial Census.
Mr. Sarbanes. They did indeed do that, you're right. You've
testified to that all day long. We're trying to get to how that
came about.
Mr. Comstock testified at a deposition, again, this has
been referred to, that in the spring of 2017, he came up with
the decision on his own that the government needed detailed
citizenship data from the decennial census.
Is it true that Mr. Comstock came up with the rationale
that was being offered?
Secretary Ross. I have no idea what you're talking about. I
only know that in December 12, 2017, Department of Justice
submitted a formal request saying that we should include the
citizenship question in order to assist them with the more
granular citizenship----
Mr. Sarbanes. And we can all stipulate to the fact that
they did do that. What we're trying to understand is what
happened before that that led up to their submitting the
request. And it appears from all of the documentary evidence
that what led to that was a leaning on the Department of
Justice or a making suggestions to the Department of Justice or
directly inviting the Department of Justice to submit that
request based on an agenda and a set of rationales that had
been developed inside the Department of Commerce.
In the deposition, Mr. Comstock was asked: Who told you
that the government needed, in the spring of 2017, more
detailed information about citizenship than was contained in
the American Communities Survey?
And he said: Nobody.
And the next question was: You came to that decision on
your own. Is that right?
And he said: Correct.
So Mr. Comstock then also testified that he raised the idea
with the Department of Justice in May 2017. He said that he
spoke with James McHenry at the Department of Justice, and
asked whether DOJ would, quote, be inclined to send a letter
asking us to add the citizenship question.
I could go on, but the documents indicate that this idea of
using the VRA as a rationale for putting the citizenship
question originated inside, at the very least, the Department
of Commerce, if not from other parts of the administration. And
that's the process that we have serious, serious questions
about.
And I yield back my time.
Chairman Cummings. Very well.
Mr. Higgins.
Secretary Ross. Is there a question in that, sir?
Chairman Cummings. Did you want to say something,
Secretary?
Secretary Ross. Yes. I was simply going to say, anybody
who's followed recent events knows that Attorney General
Sessions was not someone I or anyone else could bully into any
decision. Jeff Sessions is very much his own person. And the
official document from the Department of Justice reflects their
view.
Chairman Cummings. And you're saying that--let me
understand. You're saying that Sessions was concerned about
voting rights?
Secretary Ross. I'm sorry, sir?
Chairman Cummings. Are you saying he was concerned about
voting rights?
Secretary Ross. Yes. The Department of Justice sent the
document saying that they wanted the citizenship question added
in order to help them enforce the Voting Rights Act.
Chairman Cummings. Thank you very much.
Mr. Higgins.
Secretary Ross. Any conversations I had with Attorney
General Sessions are confidential, as I've described before.
Chairman Cummings. Mr. Higgins.
Mr. Higgins. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Secretary Ross, thank you for being here today. You have
been strong and courageous, good sir. A testament to your
department and to your generation.
The word ``compliance'' has been used by my colleagues
across the aisle several times today. I will suggest that
perhaps my colleagues across the aisle should consider
compliance with the advice of the Supreme Court of the United
States, because despite clear instructions from the Supreme
Court that deposition and sworn testimony of you, Secretary
Ross, should be stayed because of the pending case before the
Supreme Court could be injured, here we sit in an open and
public hearing where you're presenting sworn testimony.
During his opening remarks, the chairman referred
extensively to specifics from the very case that is pending
before the Supreme Court. And I say again that by allowing
Secretary Ross to testify under oath before a congressional
committee where the rules of evidence and civil procedure do
not apply, the majority is allowing a prolonged and probative
inquiry into a question that is at the center of the Supreme
Court case, that being the citizenship question.
The citizenship question has remained on every U.S. Census
in one form or another since the very first census in these
United States. In 1950 was the last census conducted person-to-
person, household-to-household. This is why historically there
was a change since then.
I believe the real question should regard why was the
question removed. And we've used the word ``add.'' Add the
citizenship question to the census. The real word should be
``restore.'' We're restoring deeper accuracy to the census of
these United States.
I ask you, Mr. Secretary, was your understanding as you
communicated with various members, as has been pointed out by
Congressman Jordan, is quite normal for ranking members of the
executive to communicate freely and openly with each other to
share ideas. Was it your understanding as you sought
clarification from the Department of Justice regarding adding
this question, was your intent to have a clear, legal
clarification from the DOJ, despite the fact that the question
of citizenship may have been spoken of in various forms,
including in this body, prior to that ruling from the DOJ?
Secretary Ross. I was interested to know whether DOJ would
make a formal request or not. And that was the subject which I
was trying to get an answer to. My actual conversations with
members of the DOJ are confidential and are subject to the
constraints that I described before.
The reasons for adding the question are those that were
contained in the March 26, 2018 decision----
Mr. Higgins. Yes, sir, which I have reviewed and you have
supported with your testimony today.
This question has been referred to as unconstitutional. May
I say it was not unconstitutional under President Clinton, and
there's been no constitutional amendment since President
Clinton was in office. And I suggest to my colleagues that if
you intend to make this question unconstitutional, then by all
means, introduce an amendment to our Constitution and let us
follow that process, see what happens.
And let me refer finally that voting rights have been
referred to here. We all know, America watching knows, that
this is at the center. It is a right of an American citizen to
vote, not otherwise. But there's been talk of extending this
privilege, this right, earned by the blood of patriots past to
extend this privilege to others that live within our country. I
refer to the opening words of the 15th and 19th Amendment: The
right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be
denied nor abridged.
Are you familiar with those words, Mr. Secretary: The right
of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or
abridged?
I shall take that as a yes.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
Chairman Cummings. Mrs. Maloney.
Mrs. Maloney. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Secretary Ross, I'd like to ask you about your decision to
include the citizenship question.
On January 26, 2018, six former census directors, four
Democrats and two Republicans, wrote you saying, and I quote,
We believe that adding a citizenship question to the 2020
Census will considerably increase the risk to the 2020
enumeration, end quote.
Secretary Ross, did you read the letter from the six former
census directors before you decided to add the citizenship
question? Yes or no. And I request permission to place it in
the record.
Secretary Ross. I did read the letter. And my testimony----
Mrs. Maloney. So you did. Yes.
Okay. On January 19----
Secretary Ross. I'm sorry, Congresswoman, I'm not finished
with my answer.
Mrs. Maloney. I wanted a yes-or-no question.
On January 19, 2018, the Census Bureau's chief scientist,
Dr. Abowd, sent you a memo describing the Bureau's technical
review on the impact of a citizenship question, and he
recommended against adding the question saying it would be,
quote, very costly. Harms the quality of the census count, end
quote.
Did you read the analysis from Dr. Abowd, which I would
place in the record? Yes or no.
Secretary Ross. Dr. Abowd also----
Mrs. Maloney. Did you read it? Yes or no.
Did you read it? Yes or no.
Did you read it?
Secretary Ross. I'm sorry, Congresswoman, not all questions
can be answered yes or no.
Dr. Abowd also gave sworn testimony----
Mrs. Maloney. Okay. Listen, I wanted an answer to that. I
take it as a no.
Mr. Secretary, on March 1, Dr. Abowd sent you another memo
where he again recommended that you not add a citizenship
question saying, quote, it would result in poor quality
citizenship data than administrative records, end quote.
Did you read his second analysis from Dr. Abowd? Yes or no.
Secretary Ross. All the----
Mrs. Maloney. Well, you're not prepared. You have to say
yes or no.
Secretary Ross, is it fair to say that the Census Bureau's
technical experts, the scientists, the experts, the
professionals, did not agree with your proposal for adding the
citizenship question? Yes or no.
Secretary Ross. As Dr. Abowd said----
Mrs. Maloney. They have said uniformly that they thought it
was a very bad idea.
Mr. Meadows. Mr. Chairman?
Mrs. Maloney. Disagreed with your decision.
On August 20, which was after you decided to add the
question, Dr. Ron Jarmin----
Mr. Meadows. Mr. Chairman, the witness has been
cooperating. He's been--he's been----
Mrs. Maloney. Excuse me, Mr. Meadows, I asked for--okay.
Mr. Meadows. Yes, sir, you do.
Mr. Chairman, he's been interrupted over 33 times. I mean,
if we're going to ask questions, let him answer. And with all
due respect, you know, he's been cooperating.
I yield back. I thank the gentleman.
Chairman Cummings. Let me say this.
Thank you very much.
I try to not interfere with people's questioning, because I
just--I try not to. But if you need--and at the end, if there's
something that you need to answer, sir, I will allow you at the
end to do that. But I understand. Okay?
Mrs. Maloney. Thank you.
Secretary Ross. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, for your
courtesy.
Chairman Cummings. I don't want to be policing everybody's
questions, because that doesn't get us too far.
Secretary Ross. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I'm
doing the best I can.
Chairman Cummings. I will put one minute on your time.
Mrs. Maloney. Okay. Thank you.
Chairman Cummings. All right.
Mrs. Maloney. Okay. Secretary Ross, two Federal judges
ruled that you broke the Federal law and have ordered that the
question, the citizenship question, be removed. Judge Furman of
the Southern District of New York called your decision, quote,
arbitrary and capricious and a veritable smorgasbord of clear-
cut administrative procedure act violations, end quote.
Judge Seeborg agreed in calling for the question to be
removed.
So let's go over this. Six former census directors,
bipartisan, four Democrats and two Republicans, the Census
Bureau's chief scientist, and other professionals, the acting
director of the Census Bureau, and two Federal judges have all
said that the citizenship question will lead to an undercount
and an inaccurate census.
So do you mean to tell us that all these professionals are
wrong and you're right? Is that really what you're telling us?
Every professional at the Census Bureau, not political
appointees, professionals said this will lead to an undercount,
thereby undermining our representation and our democracy.
And I want to say very, very clearly that this decision of
Judge Furman everyone should read. He clearly points out with
facts that you entered the building with a clear political
agenda that would undermine our democracy by adding the
citizenship question. He points out that you talked to people
in the White House, Bannon, Sessions, and others. That you
shopped for different agencies to ask the question. That the
Department of Justice asked the question saying it was
dependent on voting rights. But he says it's not, that it
doesn't prove that. He says that a political appointee, AAA
Gore goes--he wrote the question and then had a career at
Justice sign it, and that it went forward.
And I just want to close by saying that the census is one
of the most important parts of our democracy, and that's why we
are so concerned about it. And we know that every professional
is saying that this will lead to an undercount. And if you
don't count everyone, then you're not represented, and the
distribution of over $650 billion will not be fair.
And under the Clinton Administration, my good friend on the
other side of the aisle was inaccurate when they said they
asked that question. They did not. The citizenship question has
not been asked since 1950. It is on the long form survey but
not on the short form that we are encouraging everyone to fill
out.
And so, again, if you care about democracy, I would suggest
that everyone read Judge Furman's decision where he clearly and
factually points out that this was contrary to all of the
advice of all the professionals, Republican and Democratic,
census directors, who all advised against adding this question.
Chairman Cummings. Mr. Roy.
Mr. Roy. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Secretary Ross, thanks for being here. Thanks for your
patience being here for a long time this afternoon. Really
appreciate it and appreciate your service to our Nation.
I'm interested by the phrase ``if you care about
democracy.'' In our country, I'm pretty sure that it's citizens
who vote. Is that not right, Mr. Secretary?
Secretary Ross. Yes, sir.
Mr. Roy. Why are we here? We're here because my colleagues
on the other side of the aisle simply do not want to know who
is a citizen and who is not. It is unfathomable. This is just
the basics. Here we are again in a long hearing, all afternoon,
questions over and over again. Seems to be a lot of focus on
history. I love history.
It's been asked since 1820 through 1950, the question about
citizenship on the census. On the ACS since 1970. There's
rocket science here.
But to be clear, even to the graduate of Mr. Jefferson's
university, I don't think the question should be asked because
the President, the former President, suggested in 1800 that it
be added, and then in 1820, a question asking about foreigners
not naturalized in the household was added 200 years ago.
Even if this question had never been asked, ever, I would
want it to be asked. Even if through all of the questions
there's some alleged nefarious purpose today, I want the
question to be asked. I just want to know. As a Member of
Congress, I'd like to know how many citizens we have in the
United States of America. And I'd like to know who's here who
is not a citizen.
Mrs. Maloney. Will the gentleman yield, please?
Mr. Roy. No, ma'am. I've got to finish my questioning.
Thank you, though.
Now, look, I admit it. You caught me. I do, I want to know.
Unlike my Democratic colleagues, I'd like to know, and I think
the people of Texas would like to know. My Democratic
colleagues, in a recent Budget Committee hearing, fell all over
themselves trying to find more debt and more of other people's
money to spend on another Federal program. We heard it. There
aren't enough billions of dollars to dole out. And to dole out
all that free money from the magic money trees, we at least
need to know how to dole it out and to whom we're going to dole
it.
My colleague from West Virginia very appropriately outlined
numerous reasons why we want to know this information.
Medicaid, SNAP, Medicare part D, Highway funding, Pell grants.
She detailed 132 programs and $650 billion worth of spending
tied to information based on census data.
Secretary Ross, this is true, right, that citizenship and
the census data is used by Federal agencies and Congress in
myriad ways? Is that right, Mr. Secretary?
Secretary Ross. Yes, sir.
Mr. Roy. In addition, states require citizenship
information to know where to place ballot boxes. I mean, surely
my colleagues on the other side of the aisle would not suggest
that noncitizens should vote.
Mr. Secretary, it is true, right, that states need to have
good citizenship information to make good decisions about
administering the basic right of citizenship to vote? Is that
right, Mr. Secretary?
Secretary Ross. Yes, sir.
Mr. Roy. This is the basic stuff of a sovereign Nation. It
really is. It's just basic. The American people are watching
dumbfounded. We're sitting under a sign, e pluribus unum; out
of many, one, right here in this room.
Many make this about immigration. But in understanding of
our history, we know it is about 13 colonies coming together.
One Nation, a Nation that builds around a Nation of shared
ideals. A Nation built around the notion of our commitment to
life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness; around the notion
of our commitment to inalienable rights. Not a Nation built on
race, color, national origin, or creed, but about being an
American.
I cannot understand at what universe our leaders would not
want to know who's a citizen and who's not.
In an article in CNN, a young man, Stephen Park, an
immigrant with a green card, he said: That wasn't enough for
me. He decided, I believe strongly in the Constitution of this
country, and just having the right to work here wasn't enough.
I wanted the right to vote. And I wanted the right to call
myself an American. No other country gives you the right to
pursue happiness, and that is the right that I have grabbed
firmly with both hands. A lot of people complain about this
country, but try living elsewhere without all the rights that
you take for granted. In some ways, we immigrants are the lucky
ones. We see more clearly the opportunities that this great
Nation affords all of its people. Amen.
In 1994, President Clinton appointed retired Representative
Barbara Jordan as the chairman of the Commission on Immigration
Reform. When I hop on a plane in a little bit--thank goodness
it's not a Max 8, this afternoon, I'll just say that. I'm
heading to Austin, Texas, and I'm going to go to the Barbara
Jordan terminal in Austin.
In the interim report of the U.S. immigration policy:
restoring credibility, the goal of immigration policy was
summarized in these words: The credibility of immigration
policy can be measured by a simple yardstick. People who should
get in do get in. People who should not get in are kept out.
And people who are judged deportable are required to leave.
She then went through and the Commission went through and
outlined a lot of policies, all of which would be seen like a
three-headed monster today by my colleagues on the other side
of the aisle.
We are here for one simple reason: The commonsense question
of asking citizenship on the census. The American people are
watching.
Thank you, Mr. Secretary.
Chairman Cummings. Let me say this, I've listened very
carefully. I've listened. And I want us to be very careful, all
of us. I think every single person in this House and on both
sides want an accurate count. If you don't want an accurate
count, raise your hands.
Everybody wants an accurate account. So we may differ on
how we look at things, but I don't want for one second, and I
will defend this side and your side about an accurate count. It
is to all of our advantage to have our folks counted because it
affects every single one of us.
Mr. Khanna.
Mr. Khanna. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Thank you Mr. Secretary, for being here and your service. I
was a deputy assistant secretary at Commerce far lower in the
totem pole, so I know how hard your job is.
At its core, it seems to me the American people have hired
you to increase our exports and reduce our imports. Last week,
your Commerce Department said that the United States posted an
$891 billion trade deficit for 2018, the largest in our 243-
year history.
Now, I don't want to score political points, and I hope
you'll answer this honestly. You had a very successful career
in the private sector. Harvard MBA, success with Rothschild and
Sons. I don't question your patriotism. I don't question that
you're working really hard and trying. But if you were to use
the same standard that you judge people in the private sector,
would you say that your record so far has been a success?
Secretary Ross. I believe I have done the best that I
possibly can do. I will continue to do the best that I possibly
can do to benefit the American people. I have never done
anything to advantage me at the expense of the American people,
and I don't intend to do so.
Mr. Khanna. I don't question your sincerity or your
patriotism, sir. I do question--you know Gary Cohn said, and I
don't agree with all of Gary Cohn's policies, but I have
respect for him. He was one of the loudest voices against anti-
Semitism. And he said one of the reasons things don't seem to
be working is the process. And without divulging any
confidential information, Gary Cohn says he respects you. But
he says that what was happening is the steel aluminum
executives were being taken into the Oval Office. The chief of
staff wasn't being consulted, the legal advisors weren't being
consulted, and tariffs were being announced.
Do you agree with his characterization? Don't tell me any
of the conversations, just about the process.
Secretary Ross. Well, I'm not familiar with his remarks.
But in any event, conversations that I had with him while he
was in the White House, conversations I've had with the
President, conversations with staff like that are confidential
and I'm not authorized to disclose.
Mr. Khanna. And I wouldn't ask you to disclose that. But do
you think that the process could have been better, that there
were cases of people being taken into the Oval Office for
industry CEOs, having calls with them, without any process and
without consultation of the appropriate people?
Secretary Ross. I believe that any meetings that I've
helped organize had proper consultation. I'm not familiar with
the theory that Mr. Cohn has, so----
Mr. Khanna. If I could just read it to you. He says--it was
just today, actually. They were going to use a direct
connection to the President to set up a meeting and call in
CEOs of aluminum companies and steel companies to announce
steel tariffs and aluminum tariffs without there being a
process and a procedure to set up the meeting, without the
chief of staff knowing there was a meeting, without the Office
of Legal Counsel having a written executive order or a memo or
anything to sign, and they created the meeting without anyone
knowing it.
Secretary Ross. I would suggest that if Mr. Cohn has those
views, he has those views. I'm not familiar with them. But
anybody who thinks he could have a secret meeting with the
whole steel industry, the whole aluminum industry in the White
House and nobody know about it is a little silly.
Mr. Khanna. The only reason I bring the process, because it
comes back to some of the census issues.
Are you familiar with Dr. Jarmin, the acting director of
the Census Bureau?
Secretary Ross. I'm sorry?
Mr. Khanna. Dr. Jarmin? He's the acting----
Secretary Ross. Oh, yes. Ron Jarmin.
Mr. Khanna. And apparently, he wanted to meet with people
at the Justice Department, career officials, and that meeting
never took place. John Gore told us the reason it didn't take
place is the Attorney General didn't want it to place. Is that
true?
Secretary Ross. That's what I have been told. I have no
direct knowledge that that is true.
Mr. Khanna. So putting aside the issue of whether they
should ask the question of citizenship--obviously, I think
that's ridiculous and they shouldn't. But putting that aside
and the deeply divisions we have on this committee, do you have
some regrets at least that the process wasn't properly followed
in how the decisions were made, that perhaps the career staff
should have been allowed to consult with career staff at
Justice? And are they--I mean, you're not admitting to any
crime here. You just have--in an introspective moment think
that maybe the process could have been better.
Secretary Ross. I did not raise any objection to the career
staff meeting with anyone. If Justice refused to do so, which I
gather from you they did, you ought to ask Justice what was
their reasoning, not me.
Mr. Khanna. Thank you for your testimony.
Chairman Cummings. Mr. Green.
Mr. Green. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Jordan.
Mr. Chairman, before I start my comments, I'd like to
propose a question to the ranking member or yourself. This
morning, Congressman Higgins made a motion to adjourn because
members of the Supreme Court have said that further testimony
on this issue could bias pending cases. That motion failed and
was followed by a question from a Democrat member asking if
Republican leadership--during the Republican leadership, their
party, your party, ever asked to adjourn to keep a witness from
testifying, to which, of course, the answer was no.
My question is to the ranking member. Did Republicans ever
call a witness whom the Supreme Court had asked that testimony
not be given because it would interfere with a pending case?
Chairman Cummings. Go ahead.
Mr. Jordan. No.
Mr. Green. No. Of course not.
Here we are spending this committee's time looking into the
question of whether or not citizenship should be added to the
census; something we have done many times before, something the
United Nations suggests. Something nearly all nations do, and
something that exists on multiple different U.S. forms and
state forms.
Meanwhile, real issues are left unaddressed. For example,
last year, the United States Army and the United States Marine
Corps saw a significant increase in the suicide rate of Active
Duty soldiers and Marines. Let that sink in. We could be
looking into why there's a significant increase in the suicide
rate of Active Duty Army and Marine forces. And instead, we're
looking into whether or not to include citizenship on the
census form.
This is an egregious waste of the committee's time. And
more importantly, we will never get this oversight time back.
They call that opportunity cost, I believe, in the business
world. And we wait to uncover the truth about Active Duty
soldier deaths to suicide.
There are numerous problems throughout our government. And
it certainly seems to me there are far more important questions
the Oversight and Reform Committee could be asking. And it begs
the question, if the committee is willing to focus on the
citizenship question on a census form, Mr. Chairman, would you
be willing to commit to holding a hearing on the alarming
increase in the suicide rate of our Active Duty soldiers?
Chairman Cummings. We are dealing with that in the
subcommittee.
Mr. Green. Wonderful. Thank you.
Chairman Cummings. And I'm going to give you some extra
time.
Let me be abundantly clear. We got a lot of issues. A lot.
Mr. Green. Yes, sir.
Chairman Cummings. And I don't waste time. You will--let me
finish.
Mr. Green. Yes, sir.
Chairman Cummings. I refuse to waste the time of you or
this committee. All right? I spent six months laying in a
hospital bed thinking about my death and my life. So I get it.
We have a limited amount of time on this Earth. I got that.
Okay? So I'm not going to waste your time. I promise you. You
don't have to go there with me. All right?
Mr. Green. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Cummings. By the way, as far as the census is
concerned, we will do all those other things you talked about,
making sure that the money is right, all that other stuff. But
right now, I'm just trying to make sure that a critical issue,
the citizenship question is addressed. That's all. All right?
Mr. Green. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I too had cancer and
have been where you were. And I appreciate you making that
statement.
I do want to mention too, though, that in previous
committees, we had Michael Cohen come here before. Mr.
Secretary, let me ask this question of you. Were you coached by
anybody on our side before you came to the committee today? Did
anybody coach you on how to answer anything?
Secretary Ross. What do you mean by our side, sir?
Mr. Green. The Republicans, sir.
Secretary Ross. Oh, Republicans on the committee? No.
Mr. Green. No. I wouldn't think so. But, of course, Michael
Cohen was coached for 10 hours by Democrats to prepare for his
Intelligence Committee hearing. But you didn't get that kind of
preparation.
Mr. Secretary, have you ever lied before Congress?
Secretary Ross. No, sir.
Mr. Green. You haven't. But apparently, Mr. Cohen has, and
he was made a priority here with our Oversight Committee time.
Let me ask some questions that I think are really important
to ask you, particularly as it relates to cybersecurity and the
census. I know we're doing some stuff online. And I'm
intrigued--I know the American people would love to know the
steps and measures that have been taken to ensure the
protectedness of that online system.
Secretary Ross. Yes, sir. First of all, the use of internet
as a response format is voluntary. Nobody has to respond by the
internet. We added the internet as a response mode as a
convenience to those people who find that an attractive way to
do it and also as a means of holding down the cost. Every
internet response we get is a less expensive response than one
on paper.
As to what we're doing, census department has visited and
consulted extensively with other parts of the government that
are expert in cybersecurity. They have also consulted with
private sector experts and, indeed, had a session with some
private sector experts, I think there might even have been a
public session, listening to their comments on what was being
done.
I'm not a cyber expert, but fundamentally, what they're
doing, the data received are encrypted from the moment they
come in, while they're in transit, and while they're at rest.
We believe it is the most thoroughgoing cybersecurity practice
that we have been informed about. We are trying very, very hard
to make this very, very difficult to break into.
We've gone to another step called differential privacy. And
what that consists of is the following: In today's world with
so much information on individual citizens being available
through the social media, through the various organizations, we
were worried that people might be able to reverse engineer the
data, the aggregated data that we provided. So they have
developed a system which they presented to I believe it was the
American Statistical Association explaining how they were going
to add what they call noise so that it would not contradict the
accuracy of the ultimate material but would make it essentially
impossible for people to reverse engineer and get at individual
data.
Those are some of the extents to which we have gone to try
to protect the data of each individual. Every census employee
who has access to the data has taken a lifetime oath not to
reveal individual data. And to do so would expose a person to a
jail sentence and a substantial fine.
So we are doing the very best that we can. And I'm very
proud of the extreme efforts that we have taken to try to make
the--not just the internet responses, but the phone responses,
the paper responses, and the nonresponse followup responses, we
are doing the very best we can to make those as confidential as
is humanly possible.
Mr. Green. Mr. Chairman, could I submit--I know my time is
up. Could I submit some written questions on the cybersecurity
issue and have them entered into the record later?
Chairman Cummings. Of course.
Mr. Green. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Cummings. Very well. And to Mr. Green, let me say
this, the issue of military suicides is something that I am
very sensitive to. Early on in my career, one of my first early
fellows' husband killed himself. I mean, he committed suicide.
He was in the military. She was in the military, too.
And, Mr. Lynch, we got a request from you and Mr. Hice I
think it is, and Mr. Lynch has assured me that this is
something that he's very interested in. I promise you, we'll
work with you. Because I agree with you, it is a very important
issue. And thank you for bringing it to our attention.
Mr. Gomez.
Secretary Ross. Mr. Chairman, before Mr. Gomez, may I
request a short break? We've been at this for another hour, and
I could really use----
Chairman Cummings. Yes, of course. And we'll take a break,
and then we're not going to be that long. We only have about
four more people, but go ahead. Of course.
Secretary Ross. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Thank
you.
[Recess.]
Chairman Cummings. We are back.
Ms. Tlaib.
Ms. Tlaib. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Secretary Ross, good afternoon. I wanted to ask you about
your conversation with Mark Neuman. He is a former Department
of Commerce employee who was a member of the Trump transition
team. You and your staff consulted with Mr. Neuman about the
addition of the citizenship question. Isn't that right?
Secretary Ross. We used Mark Neuman as a consultant.
Chairman Cummings. Keep your voice up, sir.
Secretary Ross. We used Mark Neuman as an outside
consultant to the Department on various matters relating to
census, because at an earlier point in his career, he was very
involved with census. I think at one point he actually worked
there and at another point I believe he was a member of one of
the advisory committees.
Ms. Tlaib. Thank you. When was the first time you met with
Mr. Neuman? And it sounds like you discussed the citizenship
question. Is that correct?
Secretary Ross. The first time I met with Mr. Neuman was
during the murder board presentations preparatory to my
confirmation hearing as Secretary.
Ms. Tlaib. Where did you meet him, and was it just the two
of you in the meeting?
Secretary Ross. I don't remember the exact details of it,
but, in general, at the murder board preparations there was a
whole lot of people.
Ms. Tlaib. So how did you connect with Mr. Neuman? Did
someone on the transition team recommend that you talk to him
or someone else?
Secretary Ross. I don't know how he came to be introduced
to me. He showed up at one of the prep sessions for the
confirmation hearing, and that's all I knew about him. I had
never met Mr. Neuman prior to the time of the confirmation
preparation process.
Ms. Tlaib. Did you discuss with Mr. Neuman the idea of
having the Department of Justice make a request for the
citizenship question?
Secretary Ross. Did I ask him to ask the Department of
Justice to ask the question?
Ms. Tlaib. Did you discuss with him the idea of having the
Department of Justice make a request to you for the citizenship
question?
Secretary Ross. I don't know that it happened in that
context. Everybody knew that I was interested in finding out
from Department of Justice whether or not they would send a
letter.
Ms. Tlaib. So last week, the committee staff interviewed
John Gore, the Department of Justice official responsible for
drafting the December 2017 letter requesting the citizenship
question. Mr. Gore told us that your staff asked him to talk to
Mr. Neuman about the citizenship question. He said he spoke to
Mr. Neuman in early October 2017, and according to Mr. Gore,
when they spoke, Mr. Neuman gave him, quote, a draft letter
that would request reinstatement of the citizenship question on
the census questionnaire. Two months later, the Department of
Justice issued the final letter requesting the citizenship
question. We don't know how much it was influenced by Mr.
Neuman's draft.
Were you aware that Mr. Neuman provided a draft letter to
Department of Justice? If so, can you provide that draft to
this committee?
Secretary Ross. First of all, I didn't even know that he
was going over to the Department of Justice, let alone that he
might have brought a letter. I believe from what I've been
told, that your characterization of Mr. Gore's testimony is not
exactly correct. I believe that what Mr. Gore testified was
that he wasn't sure who brought him a letter--a draft letter.
He thought it might have been Mark Neuman. But I'm also told
that--I'm sorry, I'm not finished with my answer.
Ms. Tlaib. Well, Secretary, I just want to make sure, you
didn't ask Mr. Neuman for the draft letter.
Secretary Ross. But I am told that in Mark Neuman's
deposition he denied any such event.
Ms. Tlaib. Okay. Well, there are a lot of lawyers at
Department of Justice, Secretary, with expertise on voting
rights, and lots of experts within the Commerce Department with
expertise on the census. There is no legitimate reason for this
former Trump transition team member to be drafting letters for
them, unless there is some kind of political scheme happening
behind closed doors, Mr. Secretary. You have tried to make it
look like this request came from the Department of Justice.
Why? But the involvement of Mr. Neuman is yet one more
indication that the Department of Justice was not in the
driver's seat; it was political operatives behind the scenes.
Do you agree?
Secretary Ross. Anyone who thinks that Mark Neuman or I or
anyone else could push Attorney General Sessions around hasn't
been paying very good attention to his career. I'm sorry, I'm
not quite finished.
Ms. Tlaib. That's okay. So I'm of Middle Eastern descent. I
am Arab American, and just really quick, I would like to submit
to the chairman a question for you to be able to respond later
in regards to the Middle Eastern Northern African, or MENA,
category where it helps MENA respondents to more accurately
report their MENA identities on the census. And according to
various information I have received from committee staff is
that, right now, the Bureau said it felt that more research and
testing is needed, although multiple, multiple times, I
believe, it has been agreed to move forward on that. But I
would like to request it be put in record for the Secretary to
respond on a later date.
Chairman Cummings. Did you understand that request?
Secretary Ross. I do understand the request. Thank you, Mr.
Chairman.
Chairman Cummings. Can you get us that information?
Secretary Ross. I will consult with my staff and we will
see what we can do about it.
Chairman Cummings. Okay. Can you let me know by, say,
Tuesday?
Secretary Ross. I'll let you know as soon as we can get
together, sir.
Chairman Cummings. Well, that could be next year, Mr.
Secretary.
Secretary Ross. I will do my best, sir.
Chairman Cummings. All right. Thank you very much.
Mr. Gomez.
Mr. Gomez. Mr. Secretary, I'm going to move quickly. I'm
going to ask for yes or no answers. Stay with me.
We know that you asked about regarding the issue of
apportionment and population because we have an email about
that. You asked about it. And we have an email from March 10,
2017. Earl Comstock, a senior Commerce Department official
wrote you an email entitled, quote, your question on the
census. Mr. Comstock included a link to the Census Bureau
website about apportionment where the Bureau answered the
question, and I quote, are undocumented resident aliens in the
50 states included in the apportionment population counts? He
also included an article from The Wall Street Journal about the
pitfalls of counting illegal immigrants, unquote.
Mr. Secretary, did you ever talk with anybody at the
Department of Commerce about how congressional apportionment is
affected by counting all persons in the census, yes or no?
Secretary Ross. Early on in my term as Commerce Secretary,
I had lots of questions about a lot of aspects of the
Department.
Mr. Gomez. Great. That's a yes. Next question. I don't have
that much time.
John Gore, who served as acting attorney general of the
Civil Rights Division at the Department of Justice, and he
wrote the letter requesting the citizenship question, was
deposed as part of the New York lawsuit. He testified under
oath. He said, quote, I believe I may have discussed the topic
about apportionment with the Attorney General at some point.
He then refused to answer more questions because that
discussion of apportionment was part of the discussions leading
up to his decisions on requesting the citizenship question.
Mr. Secretary, did you ever talk with Attorney General Jeff
Sessions about how congressional apportionment is affected by
counting all persons in the census, yes or no?
Secretary Ross. I listed Jeff Sessions on my supplemental
memo.
Mr. Gomez. So I'll take that--I'll take that as a yes.
Secretary Ross. I'm sorry, sir, I'd like to answer the
question. I listed----
Mr. Gomez. This is my time. I'm reclaiming my time. You're
not here to ask the questions. I'm here to ask and you respond.
It was a yes-or-no question.
On July 14, 2017, Kris Kobach, secretary of State of
Kansas, emailed you. He said, quote, as you may recall, as you
may recall, we talked about the fact that the U.S. Census does
not currently ask respondents their citizenship.
Mr. Kobach also said that not asking a citizenship
question, quote, leads to the problem that aliens who do not
actually reside in the United States are still counted for
congressional apportionment purposes.
Mr. Secretary, did you ever talk with Mr. Kobach about how
congressional apportionment is affected by counting all persons
in the census, yes or no?
Secretary Ross. My conversation with Kobach was
fundamentally about the question that he wanted asked.
Mr. Gomez. Correct. I reclaim my time. Reclaim my time.
I'll take that as--I'll reclaim my time. He's not going to save
you this time. I reclaim my time.
The citizenship question----
Secretary Ross. Mr. Chairman, he keeps interrupting my
answer.
Mr. Gomez. Mr. Secretary, did you ever talk with anybody at
the White House about how congressional apportionment is
affected by counting all persons in the census, yes or no?
Secretary Ross. Mr. Chairman, he keeps interrupting my
answer.
Mr. Gomez. Yes or no. Were you trained--were you trained by
your attorneys to dodge these questions?
Secretary Ross. I'm sorry, sir? What was that question?
Mr. Gomez. Were you trained by your attorneys on how to
answer questions?
Chairman Cummings. If you have an answer to the question, I
will let you answer them. Is that all right, sir?
Secretary Ross. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. He asked so many
questions, I don't even remember all of them, so I need to have
them repeated.
Mr. Gomez. I like how the Secretary has crisp yes-no
answers when the Republicans are asking, but when the Democrats
are asking, that's not the kind of answers he gives.
Hold on, that wasn't a question. Let's move on.
Mr. Meadows. I was going to say----
Mr. Gomez. Secretary Ross, you have portrayed your decision
to add the citizenship question as a response to DOJ's request
in December 2017. But the evidence shows that you and your
staff had been trying to, for months, to find an agency, any
agency willing to make this request.
On September 8, 2017, a senior official at the Department
of Commerce named Earl, again, Earl Comstock, wrote you a memo
in his efforts to find a Federal agency to request the
citizenship question. He wrote that he first reached out to DOJ
in early May, but after several conversations, he was told
Justice staff did not want to raise the question, given the
difficulties that Justice was encountering in the press at that
time.
So here's the problem. Here is the problem with everything
you said, because you're trying to say--tell us--you're trying
to tell us that it was a DOJ request, it was DOJ that initiated
the process, right? But then we find out that you were shopping
around the fact that you wanted somebody to ask that question
or at least propose it.
You went to the Department of Homeland Security. I don't
know what the Department of Homeland Security has to do with
the census, but you went there. But they also said no. So you
went back to the DOJ.
A few days later, September 13, you get an email that also
says Gore asked to speak about the DOJ doc issue with Teramoto.
He later connects her with the Justice Department official
Danielle Cutrona, who writes in an email: From what John told
me, it sounds like we can do whatever you all need us to do,
and the delay was due to miscommunication. The AG is eager to
assist.
Why is he assisting you? Is it like, why is he assisting
you and not the other way around, right? That is why this
whole, this whole charade, right, doesn't make sense. It
doesn't pass the smell test. It doesn't even make sense. You
know, if you're explaining this to a little kid, you know, you
really start thinking about it, it doesn't make sense.
Chairman Cummings. The gentleman's time has expired.
Mr. Gomez. And, no, that wasn't a question, right. So I
don't know if you were trained, but one of the things I want to
know--one of the things I know, that Mnuchin later testified
today in Ways and Means, and he said he was not there to answer
questions. So I think you're playing by the same playbook as
Mr. Mnuchin. So I know you're not here to answer questions;
you're just here to dodge and delay and to, you know, hide the
truth.
Chairman Cummings. Now, would you like to respond?
Secretary Ross. I don't think there's any need to respond,
sir.
Chairman Cummings. Very well.
Ms. Ocasio Cortez.
Ms. Ocasio Cortez. Thank you, Chairman.
Secretary Ross, thank you for coming in and offering your
testimony today. Kansas Secretary of State Kris Kobach,
mentioned by my colleague, was noted by The New York Times as
laboring long and hard in his career, notably in the areas of
voter suppression and nativism. He stated last year that he
encouraged President Trump to add a question about citizenship
to the census during the early weeks of Trump's Presidency.
Kobach said, quote, I raised the issue with the President
shortly after he was inaugurated and, quote, he was absolutely
interested in this. Shortly thereafter, in April 2017, Steve
Bannon asked you to speak to Mr. Kobach about his, quote, ideas
about including a citizenship question on the 2020 Decennial
Census.
Did you speak to Mr. Kobach about his ideas on the
citizenship question?
Secretary Ross. As I described earlier in my testimony,
Kris Kobach did have a conversation with me early on in my--I'm
sorry, I'm not finished. Kris Kobach did have a conversation
with me. He said he had a question he would like us to ask.
Ms. Ocasio Cortez. Thank you. And I saw here--I'm sorry, I
must reclaim my time. Mr. Kobach later sent an email to you on
July 14 writing that the lack of the citizenship question,
quote, leads to the problem that aliens who do not actually
reside in the United States are still counted for congressional
apportionment services. Of course, they do reside in the United
States, they reside in my district, they're my constituents.
But he then wrote, quote, it is essential that one simple
question be added to the upcoming 2020 Census.
It's all there in black and white. Kobach is clear about
his reason for adding the citizenship question in his
correspondence to you. And it has nothing to do with the DOJ.
It has nothing to do with the Voting Rights Act. It is about
congressional apportionment to immigrants.
But following that email and its concerning contents, did
you cutoff all contact with Mr. Kobach or did you speak with
him again?
Secretary Ross. I have no recollection of speaking with him
again after that.
Ms. Ocasio Cortez. Well, we do have--you know, the Southern
District of New York has identified a July 25 call between you
and Mr. Kobach after that email. Did you bring up Mr. Kobach or
his ideas about the citizenship question with anyone in the
Commerce Department after Kobach's email?
Secretary Ross. I ultimately rejected the question that
Kobach wanted to ask.
Ms. Ocasio Cortez. So it does say here, Judge Furman in the
Southern District of New York wrote that you, in fact,
mentioned Kobach again in a September 6 meeting--in a September
6--in a September 6, 2017, meeting on the citizenship question.
In fact, it was so concerning to your own staff that the
general counsel expressed, quote, concern about your contact
with Kobach and recommended talking to others first.
Do you recall anything about that meeting?
Secretary Ross. No, I don't. If you have a document--if you
have a document, I'll be glad to look at it.
Ms. Ocasio Cortez. I'd be happy to share that. And
additionally, do you think it would be helpful for us to speak
with Mr. Kobach about this matter?
Secretary Ross. I have no idea. The committee has to make
its own decisions.
Ms. Ocasio Cortez. All right. One other thing. It's been
stated multiple times in this hearing that the question is a
reinstatement of a previous question, but the last time a
citizenship question specifically around citizenship was
discussed on the census was in 1950. And I pulled up the old
question here, and I know it's tough to see from far away, but
I pulled up the old question that was originally on the census
in 1950, and I see here that the question that is being
proposed for 2020 is quite materially different. So it is not a
reinstatement. It is not to placing again or a restoration of
the original question. It is a materially different question.
Now, the U.S. Census Act of 1974 requires that if the
Secretary finds such a change necessary, they must send a
report to Congress on the proposed change when the question is
proposed, not when it is decided upon.
Was that legally required report to Congress submitted to
us?
Secretary Ross. I can't respond to your question about the
two documents you held up unless you show them to me. I don't
have them in front of me.
Ms. Ocasio Cortez. I did not ask a question about the
documents. I asked if the report that is required of you was
submitted to Congress.
Secretary Ross. We filed the required report on March 31,
2017. We filed another required report on March 31, 2018.
Ms. Ocasio Cortez. One last thing. So what we don't have is
the required report to Congress. And while there's all of this
debate about whether a citizenship question should be included
or not included, the question I have is why are we violating
the law to include any question whatsoever in the 2020 Census?
Chairman Cummings. The gentlelady's time has expired.
Secretary Ross. I believe she's out of time, Chairman.
Chairman Cummings. But you please do answer the question.
Secretary Ross. I don't have any need to respond, sir.
Chairman Cummings. You don't have a need to respond?
Secretary Ross. I have no need to respond.
Chairman Cummings. Okay. Well, I'm asking. Could you answer
that question, please?
Secretary Ross. Would you repeat the question, please?
Ms. Ocasio Cortez. We are now in violation of the U.S.
Census Act of 1974, which requires you to submit a specific
report to Congress ahead of any changes that you find
necessary. This question is not a reinstatement of the 1950
question. It's a change, which means that change requires you
to send a report to us while the question is proposed, not
before it is decided or settled.
So my question is, why are we violating the law to include
this question in the 2020 Census?
Mr. Meadows. Point of order. We need--at this particular
point, the gentlewoman is talking about a statute that's been
violated. There's been no enunciation of what that statute is.
I don't even know what she's talking about.
Ms. Ocasio Cortez. I'd be happy to provide it.
Chairman Cummings. Yes. I think she laid it out pretty
nicely. She said it twice. I'm serious. Give him----
Mr. Meadows. But in previous testimony, Mr. Chairman, he
said that they've submitted reports, and----
Ms. Ocasio Cortez. And there are three reports required.
They submitted the first one and the second one, but not the
third one that is required to Congress. And it is in--this is
here in U.S. Code--13 U.S. Code, section 141, population other
census information, subsection (f)(3), and I'd be happy to
provide that to you.
Chairman Cummings. Now, I notice that all your--I guess
those are attorneys back there squirming around telling you
stuff. Maybe they can help us with this answer. Did they tell
you what the answer is to that? You have a lot of people back
there.
Secretary Ross. I've been told by counsel that we have
complied with all the regulations. I will take up with counsel
the suggestions that have been made by the Congressperson, and
we will get back in due course on the record.
Chairman Cummings. As a followup on that question, can you
give me that in writing, the fact that you complied with the
law?
Ms. Ocasio Cortez. And, Mr. Chair, I'd also like to note
that, according to our committee staff, there is not compliance
with (f)(3).
Chairman Cummings. Well, he's going to give me--he said he
did. So he's going to give me a statement. He's still sworn.
He's going to give me a statement saying he did. So I'm looking
forward to that statement, counsel.
Ms. Ocasio Cortez. Thank you.
Chairman Cummings. All right? All right? All right.
Mr. Raskin. Mr. Chair?
Chairman Cummings. Yes. Yes.
Mr. Raskin. I've got a point of order. I've noted today
that several members have spoken of and the witness invoked
confidentiality, and I understand this is happening in some
other committees as well. And of course, we understand that
there's something called an executive privilege, like there's a
priest penitent privilege, there's a spousal privilege that
Congress may or may not recognize as a common-law privilege,
but when people invoke confidentiality, there's no
confidentiality privilege, unless some of the lawyers here
could cite a case. I don't really understand the new trend of
people----
Mr. Meadows. Mr. Chairman, that's not a point of order.
Mr. Raskin. But I want to know----
Mr. Meadows. What's the rule that's being violated? It's
not a point of order.
Mr. Raskin. But the point of order is how are we to respond
when----
Mr. Meadows. What rule is being violated?
Mr. Raskin. The rule that's being violated is that every
witness owes truthful testimony to Congress. So I want to
know----
Mr. Jordan. You want to talk about that?
Mr. Raskin [continuing]. when someone invokes
confidentiality, is that a rule?
Chairman Cummings. Let me--I can--whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa.
Hold up. Can you get--you've said here--you said, in response
to several questions, certain things were confidential. Is that
right?
Secretary Ross. Yes, and that I'm not authorized to
disclose.
Chairman Cummings. And you're not authorized. And if there
is some special privilege that we don't know about, I'd
appreciate it if your counsel would let us know what that is.
Secretary Ross. I'm not a lawyer, sir.
Chairman Cummings. That's why I'm saying. Are there any
lawyers back there, of all those people behind you? You've got
a whole baseball team back there.
Mr. Raskin. One of them, Mr. Chair, is a very fine former
student of mine.
Chairman Cummings. I'm not trying to be funny. No, no, no,
no, no, no. Wait a minute.
Ms. Ocasio Cortez. Mr. Chair, I'm sorry, before we move on,
could I seek unanimous consent to submit these documents?
Chairman Cummings. Tell me what they are. Tell me what they
are.
Ms. Ocasio Cortez. The first is the U.S. Code that I
referenced, and the other two documents are the two original
questions.
Chairman Cummings. Without objection, so ordered.
Ms. Ocasio Cortez. Thank you very much.
Chairman Cummings. Now, Mr. Raskin----
Mr. Raskin. So all I'm asking for is some clarification
from the chair or perhaps from some of the legal counsel
present as to how they transmit a private statement of
confidentiality from one private person or public person to
another into a privilege against testimony before the U.S.
Congress. Because I'm not aware of any case that stands for
that principle, and I'm afraid we're going to go down a very
dark road if anyone could say I would love to tell you, but I
said it would be confidential.
Chairman Cummings. Well, hopefully, the counsel will get
us--it's my understanding there's not a privilege, but maybe
you all have some new law that was just established in the last
three minutes. And I'd like to see it, all right?
So you got enough lawyers back there. How many of you all
are lawyers? Anybody? None of them are lawyers?
Secretary Ross. Thank you, sir. I will consult with my
counsel.
Chairman Cummings. Very well. Well, they're with you,
though, right?
Secretary Ross. I'm sorry?
Chairman Cummings. All those people behind you, the ones
that keep coming up and whispering in your ear.
Mr. Meadows. I hope they're with him.
Chairman Cummings. Anyway, finally but not least, the
distinguished lady from Massachusetts, Ms. Pressley.
Ms. Pressley. Thank you to our distinguished chairman, who
has given us each the challenge and the charge as members of
this committee to be efficient and effective in pursuit of the
truth. And so bearing that in mind, I'm going to try to do that
in my line of questioning and move quickly here.
Picking up on the line of questioning from several of my
colleagues earlier regarding your interaction with Attorney
General John Gore. We have an email documenting what appears to
be a second call that you had with the Attorney General in
September 2017. On September 17, 2017, your chief of staff
emailed two DOJ officials to arrange a call with the Attorney
General. One staffer wrote back on September 18, quote, from
what John Gore told me, it sounds like we can do whatever you
all need us to do, and the delay was due to a miscommunication.
The AG is eager to assist, unquote.
The email shows you then spoke to the Attorney General that
day on September 18. What did you discuss with the Attorney
General in September?
Secretary Ross. I listed the Attorney General as one of the
parties with whom I had conversations prior to the March 26
decision memo and prior to the December 12, 2017, letter. The
content of those conversations is confidential. I'm not
authorized to disclose them, and I cannot discuss it further.
Ms. Pressley. So I'm reclaiming my time. I do not believe
it is confidential.
On any of your calls with the Attorney General, did you ask
the Attorney General to send you a letter requesting the
addition of a citizenship question, yes or no?
Secretary Ross. As I have said before, the content of my
conversations with the Attorney General are confidential. I'm
not authorized to disclose them, and I have nothing further to
say on that question.
Ms. Pressley. All right. Well, in the pursuit of being
efficient and effective, I will move on.
We can all agree on both sides of the aisle that--and I'm
sure you agree as well--that it's critical that we have an
accurate census count. Do you agree, yes or no?
Secretary Ross. We are trying our best to get----
Ms. Pressley. Yes or no, reclaiming my time, do you agree
that it's critically important that we have an accurate census
count?
Secretary Ross. I have to answer the question as best I
can.
Ms. Pressley. Okay. Reclaiming my time, moving on. In order
for us to have an accurate census count, we need to have the
appropriate funding and staffing levels in order to administer
the census, yes or no?
Secretary Ross. I have increased the budget by 3.2 or so
billion dollars in order to make sure that we are not
underfunded in the context of the 2020 Census. That's roughly a
25 percent increase over the Obama Administration----
Ms. Pressley. I'm sorry. Reclaiming my time. Was it your
testimony earlier that Mr. Trump prepared a budget that did not
include your input for what would be required? Was that your
testimony earlier, that the budget was prepared without your
input and that you had also not read it? Was that your
statement on the record earlier?
Secretary Ross. I'm sorry, there's a whole lot of
questions. Which one would you like me to answer?
Ms. Pressley. Okay. I'm going to move on. Actually, just
going back on Attorney General Gore, it may be confidential,
but it's not privileged. So, again, one more time, could you
disclose what was the nature of your phone call with the
Attorney General if at any point you asked him to include the
immigration question in the census, the citizenship question?
Secretary Ross. My answer is the same as what I gave you
before.
Ms. Pressley. Okay. All right. Let me get back to staffing
levels. The GAO's high risk report says the Census Bureau
office responsible for managing the IT integration contract is
severely understaffed. The report states, quote, as of November
2018, 21 of 44 positions in this office were vacant. That means
practically half of these positions meant to oversee IT
government contractors were vacant as of a few months ago.
Does the Census Bureau have a plan to fill these vacancies?
Secretary Ross. Does the Census Bureau have a plan to what?
Ms. Pressley. To fill these vacancies. As you well know,
the census is moving online, and this IT integration is
critical to ensure that there is an accurate count. I already
have great concerns about a digital divide since roughly 3 in
10 adults with household incomes below $30,000 a year don't
even own a smartphone. So how does the Census Bureau have a
plan to fill these vacancies within the IT integration
contract?
Secretary Ross. Well, we just recently filled by finally
having the Senate confirm, after a very long wait, our new
permanent director of the Census Bureau.
Ms. Pressley. I'm sorry, reclaiming my time. 21 of 44
positions were still vacant. Is that still true? You just named
one, so----
Secretary Ross. I don't recall the exact number.
Ms. Pressley. Okay. Reclaiming my time. What are the
biggest risks to the census if this contract does not have
adequate oversight?
Secretary Ross. I believe you're out of time, ma'am.
Ms. Pressley. Well, that's at the discretion of the chair.
Chairman Cummings. You can answer the question.
Ms. Pressley. Yes. Secretary Ross, what are the biggest
risks to the census if these contracts do not have adequate
oversight?
Secretary Ross. I believe the contracts do have adequate
oversight. We have instituted weekly reporting on the status of
every single contract. I meet weekly with the deputy secretary.
I meet monthly with a larger group of the census. And as to the
matters you're referring to, they tell me we are on time and on
budget.
Chairman Cummings. Very well.
Ms. Pressley. Thank you.
Chairman Cummings. I want to thank you very much.
I will now recognize Mr. Meadows for unanimous consent
request.
Mr. Meadows. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I ask unanimous consent that the--from 2005 until the
current time, that the American Communities Survey be entered
into the record, where it shows that the exact citizenship
question on the vast majority of these is precisely the same
question that's being proposed here. I ask unanimous consent.
Chairman Cummings. Without objection.
Mr. Meadows. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I ask unanimous consent that the application for personal
firearms eligibility check application from California, which
actually has a citizenship question on it be entered into the
record as well.
Chairman Cummings. Without objection, so ordered.
Mr. Meadows. And last one, I ask unanimous consent that the
newest proposal--or the newest letter from the GAO showing the
substantial improvement of the Department of Commerce in terms
of the high risk nature of the census be entered into the
record.
Chairman Cummings. Without objection, so ordered.
Mr. Meadows. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back.
Chairman Cummings. I now recognize the ranking member, Mr.
Jordan, for a unanimous consent request and his closing
statement.
Mr. Jordan. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I ask unanimous consent, a study from the Heritage
Foundation, which finds that strict ID laws have no significant
negative effect on registration or voter turnout.
Chairman Cummings. Without objection, so ordered.
Mr. Jordan. I thank you.
Look, I'll be brief. I want to thank you, Secretary Ross.
Six hours and 20 minutes you've come here, answered all kinds
of questions. Appreciate your service to our country and your
leadership at the Commerce Department. But six hours and 20
minutes for basically one question, which is, why don't the
Democrats want to know. Why don't they want to know how many
people in this country are citizens of the United States? I
mean, I find that almost astounding. But thank you for doing
it. Thank you for your service.
And with that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
Chairman Cummings. Thank you very much.
First of all, I want to thank all of our members for
sticking around, the ones that have. I really appreciate it.
It's so very important to our democracy that we do this.
To you, Secretary Ross, I want to thank you. I know we had
to postpone this, and we worked with you as best we could, but
you got here and you've answered our questions.
I wrote you a letter last week, and I was very reasonable.
I accommodated your request to limit the scope of today's
hearing. But in return, I made it clear that we expected you to
answer all our questions.
I explicitly wrote in my letter that the Supreme Court does
not recognize or claim that you can withhold documents from
Congress based on the argument that there is separate ongoing
litigation. You wrote a letter back to me, and you agreed to
coming here and answer our questions.
But today when I heard your testimony, I felt like you were
trying to pull a fast one on me. I've got to be honest with
you, man. You went back to the old argument about ongoing
litigation. I was a little disappointed.
You refused to answer questions about conversations with
Attorney General Sessions and others about the citizenship
question. And I must tell you that I was not convinced. The
Jeff Sessions that I know, I don't recall him being that
concerned about voting rights. I'll be honest with you. And I'd
be lying to you if I said anything different.
And let me make this clear so that there would be
absolutely no doubt, Mr. Secretary. This committee does not
accept the argument that you can withhold documents or
testimony from us because you have other separate litigation.
That is not a valid basis to withhold information from the
Congress of the United States of America.
Representative Raskin provided you with the legal citations
today. He is a distinguished law professor and particularly in
the area of constitutional law. He also provided extensive
precedence from both Republican and Democratic chairmen of this
committee who conducted numerous investigations for decades
during ongoing outside litigation.
So here's what I'm going to do. I'm going to give you till
Tuesday, and that should give you enough time to consult with
your lawyers. Then I would like for you to produce all of the
priority documents this committee has requested.
You keep telling me you're going to meet with your staff,
and then I asked you when it's going to be, and basically you
are saying that could be forever. Well, guess what? I don't
have forever, nor do you, nor do the American people. So we
will not accept any argument that you are withholding documents
due to ongoing litigation.
Now, if you don't agree with this, you will basically be
forcing us to consider a subpoena. I don't want to do that.
I've been very careful with subpoenas. And I do not want to get
into that. I just want the committee to have the documents so
that we can do our job pursuant to the Constitution of the
United States.
But if you refuse, you will leave me with no choice. We may
have to start conducting transcribed interviews with staff from
the Department of Commerce and the Department of Justice who
are involved in adding the citizenship question.
And it does alarm me--and I've got to tell you, I've
listened to you very carefully. And for the life of me, you
know, I've been thinking about how are you going to get around
some of the issues that have been raised with regard to whether
your testimony was consistent and whether this came from DOJ or
this came--originated with you.
I've listened to you, Mr. Secretary, and I tell you, I'm
not totally convinced that this did not come directly from Mr.
Bannon, and it did not come from the very beginning--I mean,
you may have had it in mind from the very beginning. But you've
testified under oath. I accept that. And if we do not--by the
way, if we don't get the documents and the answers to our
questions, we may need to bring you back.
Now, a number of members have said a lot of things about
wanting to make sure that the census is done properly, wanting
to make sure that the funding's there, make sure the personnel
is there, IT, all that. We will continue to bring you back.
I will never forget, when I first became chairman, the
first thing that The New York Times asked me was, what is your
No. 1 priority. I told them the census, because it affects so
much. And so, again, I hope that we don't have to bring you
back, but we will.
Mr. Jordan. Mr. Chairman, could I ask a question?
Chairman Cummings. Yes.
Mr. Jordan. Yes. Just a question. You gave the Commerce
Secretary five days for certain documents that have been
brought up in the course of this hearing, and two weeks ago, we
had a witness who indicated he had all kinds of audio
recordings of his clients and folks that he had conversations
with. And you said, sitting right there, you want those
audiotapes. You said, we definitely want those audiotapes. So--
but you didn't give any timeframe. I want to know, do you have
those, and if not, are you going to set a deadline for Mr.
Cohen to turn over what you said you wanted two weeks ago in
that hearing?
Chairman Cummings. Let me be abundantly clear, I run this
committee.
Mr. Jordan. I know, and that's why I'm asking. That's why
I'm asking.
Chairman Cummings. Sir, I have the floor.
Mr. Jordan. I understand you do, and I asked a question.
You just gave the Commerce Secretary five days to comply.
Chairman Cummings. I have the floor.
Mr. Jordan. Okay. Will you answer the question?
Chairman Cummings. I will decide. I've, again--I want to
thank you very much for being here.
With regard to any tapes and things of that nature, believe
me, I'm on top of it. I am a man of my word. And you get----
Mr. Jordan. I'm just asking when----
Chairman Cummings. No. No, no, no, no. I will let you know.
Mr. Jordan. Well, I look forward to that.
Chairman Cummings. Yes, I will. I'm a man of my word, and I
will continue to be that.
Again, I want to thank members of this committee and this--
and again, Mr. Secretary, thank you so much. Thank you for
working with us. I really appreciate it.
Secretary Ross. Thank you for your courtesy, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Cummings. All right. The hearing is adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 4:32 p.m., the committee was adjourned.]
[all]