>> this is a continuation of a hearing that we began last week for reasons that still confound me, was not here last week would have been more convenient for me and more convenient for the members but i don't run the department so for what are reason, weren't here has week, here this week. with that i have to administer an oath because that is what we do for all witnesses so if you would please stand and raise your right hand. in [witness sworn] >> we are pleased to introduce are in john gore, the acting assistant attorney general. you're recognize for your five-minute opening statement. >> good motorhome, therapy

dowdy, ranking members and the other distinguished members. the department of justice recognizes this committee's important oversight role and on behalf of the department i thank you for allowing me to appear today. the committee originally invited me to appear last week on may 8th as part part of a panel with four other government wilts from the department of commerce and the census bureau. i accepted that invitation but the committee understand the department that the committee had added a nongovernment witness to the panel. it is long standing department of justice policy and practice to decline participation in committee hearing panels that claw nongovernment witness, particularly when the department is involved in litigation regarding the subject matter of the hearing. accordingly, before last week's hearing, the department reached out to the committee and offered several accommodations that would have allowed know provide testimony last week. they included moving the nongovernment witness to a separate panel, allowing he to submit written testimony and written responses to questions

for the record, or postponing the hearing. the commit key denied those accommodations. the assistant attorney general for legislative affairs in consultation with the department leadership then made the decision on behalf of the department i would not appear at last week's hearing. after further con cull addition with the committee this week the depth decided i would appear voluntarily today without any nongovernment witnesses and without the committee issuing a subpoena. the department of justice is resolutely committed to the full, robust and even-handed enforce them to civil rights laws and a free and fair elections on behalf of all americans. the department's mission is to ensure that all americans have a full and equal right to vote, regardless of race, color, language or military service. and we are fulfilling that mission all across the country. since january of 2017, the department of justice has participated as party in three cases under section 2 of the voting rite act and resolved

three other case under the national voter registration act. those reresolutions ensure that eligible people will be able to register to vote and remain registered. the department has participated in an amicus in three voting rights cases, including another sex 2 case and a case seeking protect the voting rights of a language minority group in one of america's large he cities. the department has continued our election monitoring program and our outreach and enforcement effort under section 203 of the voting rights act which appropriate thursday rights of language minorities. the department is protecting the voting rights of brave men and women in uniform and other overseas citizen in the absentee voting act. in 2017, and 2018, the department assisted several states in achieving compliance for the special elections and in february of this year the department filed and resolved a voting eights case involving the

state of arizona. the department is gearing up for the 2018 elections as well. we're working day in and day out to ensure those elects conducted in accordance with the federal law requirement. in furtherance of the department's ongoing commitment to the fair and full and even-hand enforce. to the nation's voting rights law, on december 12, 2017, the department sent a letter formally requesting that the census bureau rhein state on to the 2020 census questionnaire a question regarding citizenship. that question previously appeared on the short form of the census, and the long form of the census, and its currently appears on the census bureau's american community survey. the department's letter explained that aku citizenship data is crucial for the department enforce. the voting rights a.m. act and its important protections against racial discrimination in voting. to toe fully enforce the requirements the department needs reliable citizen voting age population localities and

sense sunday blockies voting rights -- since the department submitted the letter a few lawsuits have been filed challenging the decision to reinstate the citizenship question on to the census questionnaire. the justice department is defending those lawsuits. in deference to the court's charged with adjudicating litigation involving the united states the department's long-standing policy and practice is to decline to make statements regarding that litigation outside of court. the department accordingly is con strained in testimony today. as i stayed at the outset the department takes this committee's overright role sear seriously but in light of the pending litigation, the potential effect nye public statements might have on ongoing court indicate and the department's litigation constraints i'm unable to make the statements beyond those in the department's letter and other publicly available information. the department thanks the committee for its understanding of these constraints. thank you.

>> the gentleman from wisconsin is is recognized. i. >> we'll give you a few questions here. what data does the civil rights division receive from the census bureau? >> the data we see from the census bureau, congressman, there are two different forms of data we receive. we don't receive any individual responses to census questionnaires, whether that is the decennial or the acs questionnaire. we sever aggregation of statistical data that come bile the individual answers into statistics for geographic areas. >> give me an example how you would that data. >> sure. for example in our section 2 enforcement work, we need information at the census block level, the census block is the smallest unit of geography that the census collects data on. for example the bureau information says how many people live in the block and what their race is, and which is important

for section 2 of to the voting rights act and then the acs data provides estimates of citizenship rates but not as a census block level at either the block group or tract level. >> you have to know if anything was going on the amount of people who are legal and i will legal, correct? -- illegal, correct. >> for our purposes in the civil rights division what is orbit to know is racial dat and citizenship data at the census block level and we don't currently receive census citizenship data at the census block level that has to be extrapolated from acs estimates which ironly available for larger gee -- >> give me a hypothetical why that matters. geoff me an example. >> sure. so, the easiest way to think about it, a census block is the fundamental unit of a district. >> just how big is a census block? i'm sure varies greatly. >> it does very greatly. it's maybe a city block or a suburban block and the population of census blocks can vary. >> ten houses maybe.

>> could be. could be a single apartment building. what a redistricter has to do is collect a number of census blocks to form a district, and so the census block information getting aggregated up to the district level and that's how you know how many people in districts for one person, one vote. and so the citizenship data is crucial because in many voting right act cases you need to know citizenship rates to understand whether the district is performing for a particular minority group. >> i'm trying to -- let's pretend we have a block of ten houses and in those ten houses there are 23 adults and five of them are illegal, and -- i really don't like -- i hate the idea of labeling people by race because i think there oar wails to label people but that's what

we're obsessed with here and let's say of the 23 people, six people are minority of which two are the illegals illegals and fe citizens. what do i do with that's data? how does that come into play? >> sure. thank you, congressman. what we do with that database analyze the district to determine whether complies with section 2 of the voting rights act. section 2 requires -- its prohibits what is called vote dilution, it requires redistricts to redraw strict with a majority minority group that can elect the candidate of choice. once you put together the census blocks and aggregated the census block information on the district level you know whether you have a section 2 districts or a section 2 problem.

it may be that a map drawer has split the minority group into two different districts districs otherwise manipulated district lines to violate section -- >> just a second. you're know the one who draftedded the law. isn't there an assumption there, a little bit of an assumption that people when they go to the polls, rather than being -- i would argue intelligent people and voting on people's candidates, opinions on transportation or education or taxation or whatever, that people are expected to vote for people by race? >> i don't believe that is an assumption. one of the fun fundamental requires in a vote die luigs case is show that there are racially polarized voting and that doesn't exist everywhere but writ does exist, section 2 tech deraiseed and racially poorlyized voicing refers to members of a racial group that tend to voting to for the same candidate. >> i think that's a very

inappropriate assumption, maybe we should look at the law sometimes because i would hope there are lot of americans who just go to he polls and vote for someone other than the same racial background. thank you for -- >> they yields back. the gentleman from maryland is recognized. >> i read your written festival you seem to be saying that you will not answer congress' questions. let me certain -- certain questions. let me read what you said. i will be enable to knock any statements today beyond those in the department's letter for other publicly available information. you claim you cannot answer our questions because the government is being sued. mr. gore, the government gets sued all the time. would you agree? come on. >> i would agree. >> are you really suggesting that this committee's jurisdiction ceases to exist because you happen to be

involved in litigation with another party? >> congressman, what i'm here to say today -- thank you for your question, by the way. >> sure. >> the department does take sewers seriously the committee's overright role but it's a long standing practice not to comment on litigation outside of touter. >> the startover new york has suedes the government. the state of california has also suedes the government. you don't tell california it has to stand down because new york sued it. they're both independent entities. so are you. so are we. mr. gore can congress is an independent branch of government. an independent branch. we have job to do. we conduct parallel investigations all the time. we're not asking but your litigation. we're not asking about motions or attorneys might make or about work product they are developing in those court cases.

we are investigating the underlying facts. how and why did you, and and the platal eye pointees at the yates department, come to ask the census bureau to add a new untested citizensship question to the census? that is our job. under the constitution. that is i would we want you here. your job is to answer our questions. so, to let me ask you this. please tell us what your specific role was in the entire process. jibe how the decision was made at the department to send this letter with this pick specific request and tell us who else at the department of justice community indicate with through the process. >> congressman, i appreciate the question and as i said before,

the department recognizes and acknowledges this committee coms orbit oversight rowell. the department of justice is part of the independent sec executive branch of go and have an obligation to take care that they laws of the country are faith fly outed. the laws -- are executed in a fair manner am part of fulfilling the mandate the department of justice has a long standing policy of maintaining confidential in its deliberations and decisionmaking in order to facilitate robust, open, discussion of decision before they're made so that people can expression their views so that decisionmakers can make the best possible decision they can make. that's similar to process that congos through with members of the staff. you have asked me questions about a decisionmaking process, and internal deliberation advertise department of justice and i'm not in a position to answer the questions today.

>> major decision -- i only have a little time. mr. gore, a major decision like this one must have gone to the attorney general. did you or anyone else speak directly with the attorney general about this idea, and if so what was the substance of your discussions with them? >> congressman cummings this, department of justice has an important role to play, we have an important role -- >> asked you did you talk to your boss? >> congressman, i'm not going to discuss any internal -- >> you can't tell me whether you -- wait. you are going to tell me you can't answer a question as to whether you talked to your boss who we pay? >> what ill telling you i'm here today to talk but the department's letter and its public decision and the letter is sent to the department of commerce. i'm happy to discuss any public information regarding that. what i'm not in a position to

discuss today is anything that may or may not have -- >> i know you're going to rope-a-dope me. you must have consult with the head of the voting rights sex of justice. what was the substance of that discussion? >> congressman, again, we facilitate open and robust conversation in the department of justice -- >> did anyone -- you're going to say the same thing. right? we don't have time. you are going to say the saming? yes or no. >> the can you answer that? >> i'm sorry. what's the question. >> that's all right. did anyone at the department of justice ever raise concerns internally about going forward with the plan. >> congressman -- >> same anxious? is that the same answer. >> same answer. >> did you talk to anyone outside of government about this idea, for example, did you talk to chris cobarr or if so what was the substance of those discussions. >> congressman -- >> did you talk to him about this? >> to who? >> chris cobarr.

>> no. >> okay. mr. gore, there's a differs between investigating the facts of an incident and investigating how the justice department plans to litigate those facts in court. we are only asking about the first. will you or will you not answer these questions in full? >> congressman, i stand by my answers. >> one last thing, mr. chairman. with the indulgence. you say you cannot answer our questions because you are worried about inconsistent statements, is with what you're saying. >> part of the concern -- >> that's fine. just tell us the truth. that's all i want is the truth. you have that obligation every time you appear before any judge, you have that obligation right now, right here. and you're not going to answer. is that right? >> i'm answering truthfully, congressman. the department's long-standing policy and practice. >> thank you, mr. chairman. thank you for your indulgence. >> chairman deal yields back.

the gentleman from alabama is recognized. >> thank you. mr. chairman. one of my concerns about this whole issue of how we count the census and have a digs between counting people who's in an area versus those who are citizens, i think is very important in the context of apportionment. after the census we're anticipating a number of states are going to lose representatives. illinois will very likely lose multiple representatives. michigan, ohio, new york, pennsylvania, rhode island, alabama, possibly minnesota. in the context of what we're trying to do with the send surgeries obviously we have to count everybody. we need to know how many people live in the borders. but in the context of apportionment, seems to me it would be extremely important to

know how many of those who's are citizens. can you comment on that? >> thank you for your question. i think that is a very important question and a very important issue. it's not one that the department of justice has taken a position on. what our letter speaks to is our enforce. actives nurse section 2 of the voting rights act, not the second question how congressional seats or apportioned. >> with that in mind, though, i'm just trying to become thought this in the context of what we intended with the constitution and how our government functions. we are a nation of sovereign states, who elect representatives to come to washington to represent them. doesn't impact -- impacts the number of members that were will represent a state in the house of representatives and impacts federal fundingor state projects, and i just want to

know -- i'm not sure that you can answer this but i think it's important to kind our flesh this out in the context of all this. is that seems to me to be -- at its basest level unfair for one state or two or three states to have perhaps declare themselves sanctuary states which i would think tends to attract people who are not citizens, and then have those people counted and then an oportionment actually have more representatives than a state that has among its population almost all legal residents. just in a sense of fairness, it would seem that we need to know who is -- who are citizens and who aren't. >> i think you have raid several important issues in your question, congressman. i'm generally aware the congress has enacted statutes that take

citizenship in account for various federal programs, i don'ts a mr. to those programs, and i don't know the specifics and the department hasn't taken a position on those programs. we have complained why we think this data is necessary or would be preferable to have at the census block level nor voting rights act enforce. ment you have raised several good questions the congress should deliberate on and make an appropriate decision on its own. >> we take very seriously the voting right is. no one should be -- no one eligible to vote should be denied their trying vote. i think -- i don't think we take it seriously enough when people cheat in elections, when they -- when people who are not eligible to vote, when the dead vote, for instance. a lot of jokes about nat certain parts of the country, but i think we also get a look at it. i'm on keep pounding on this

because this is important and no diminishes people to have the opportunity to become citizens. and be legitimately counted for apportionment purposes but i think there's a fund onlial problem we need to address here with particularly with some stateses that are giving sanctuary to people who are here illegalfully violation of federal law, by the way, and then have those people counseled and have an impact on apportionment and then you have a number of states losing representation in congress for various reasons, alabama is not a state that's losing population. our population has increased but we very likely will lose a representative, and i just think, mr. chairman, that is a major problem that i think we need to address. thank you for being here, mr. gore, and respond fog my

questions. yield back. >> gentleman yields back. >> will the chairman accept an inquiry. >> pardon me. >> would the chairman entertain an inquiry. >> sure. >> it has been asserted that the department of justice has a long-standing policy not to cooperate with respect to delivering documents including deliberative process. is it an accurate recollection by this member that like when we conducts the fast and furious investigation we received many documents that reflected the deliberative process of the department of justice at the department of justice cooperated were the provision of some documents and there fliss fact precedent. >> the gentleman's point is well-taken. in fact the ranking member and i were just discussing yesterday the relativism that sometimes exists. and how we investigate matters and how we view privileges and how we handle ongoing

litigation, ongoing inspector general investigations. what i can tell my friend from virginia is while i am happy to make a department of justice witness appear, i cannot make that witness talk. you can get jack beau tower preside over the hearing and perhaps he could but i have no power to get people talk or present documents. >> the series it was long standing department of justice policy fliss fact not crequement we have an example, major example in this committee with the previous administration of the very opposite. of what has been asserted by the witness. >> any friend from virginia hat bus his finger on something that exists on both sides of the compile has exist node matter which administration happens to be in power. i'm not fan of relativism, no matter where it manifests itself. >> i thank the chair.

>> the gentle lady from new york is recognized. >> thank you, mr. chairman. and i'd like to follow up on the questions of ranking member college cummings. mr. gore you refusal not to anxious the question of ranking members cummings, i find and i believe my colleagues find unacceptable. we conduct parallel investigations all the time. every day we conduct them. if we had to shut down our investigations every time a federal agency got sued, we might as well out just resign and leave because investigations take place every single day, and we are sued every single day. you are supposed to be here last week, and with all due respect i do not understand why you refused to be here but you're here today, and at the very

least you should answer questions, and i'd like to begin by referencing what happened on may 16th, just two days ago. tom brunelly, president trump's first choice to be the census director gave an interview and in that interview he said the administration's decision to add this citizenship question was based on politics, not on science, not on best practices, but he said, based on politics, and i quote: they have made a political decision. and they have every right to do that. because they won the election. end quote. now, i find that appalling. he is basically admitting

politicizing the census and contradict this wording of our constitution that says every person should be counted. so, mr. gore, i want to know everyone who had a role with you in this deliberation and this decision, both inside the department of justice and outside of the department of justice. >> thank you for your question, congresswoman. let -- >> will you give us the name toys. >> let me rid rat what i said, i accepted the committee's invitation to appear last week and it was only after the committee added a nongovernment witness to the panel and denied the accommodation that the department of justice requested, that the department made the decision that i would not appear last week and i'm happy to be here today and answer your questions. let me speak to the issue out

mr. brunel, he is not a member of the department of justice, not a government official, down speak authorize depth after justice or the civil rights division and doesn't speak for me. don't know where he is drawing that conclusion from. i don't know what information he could possibly have as someone who is not involved in the decision, and is not at the department of justice. the department -- >> did you communicate with their blue nell on the issue. >> no. >> did you or anyone else at the department communicate with anyone, political organization, such as the rnc, the redistrict commissiony, he trump campaign, anyone else? who else did you consult on this decision? >> i can tell you, congresswoman, i done consult with any of those organizations. i can't speak for other people. they'll have to speak for themselves. and in terms of people i may or may not have consulted with, within the department of justice or went the executive branch, my-and-the same. those conversations and deliberations and decisionmaking

are things i'm not in a position to comment about today, both as matter of department practice and policy and because there's pending litigation -- >> are you, mr. gore, asserting a a constitutional privilege today. >> ire knock authorized to assert -- >> you asserting the fifth amendment or executive privilege. >> no basis to assert the fifth amendment. i've done nothing that would put me in criminal jeopardies, nothing awful or ill school and the implying indication i would is baseless. >> thank you very much. since you're not answering any questions, i'd like to thank the chairman for bringing him here today, bus i'd like to quote the chairman's statement that he can bring him here, but he can't get him to answer in any questions. so mr. chairman, i have motion and with all due respect, i should have done this last week, i plan to formally offary motion

under the rules, give my statement, and seek a vote and this motion is in order, and i would say that the key issue for the meeting today is the trump administration's sudden decision to add a new citizenship question to the census, untested, and at the last minute. this decision was made at the request of the justice department. they sent a letter in december claiming they needed this data enforce the voting rights act, but this data has never been needed since the act was passed in 1965. according to documents retrade the freedom of information act, this request made at the request of leadership, working with john gore, our witness today, and i would ask unanimous consent to place these documents into the record.

>> without objection on the placing of documents in the record. >> so mr. gore, is the act healed of the yates department's self rights -- justice department ahead of the self rights division of the trump administration. you are the acting head of the department of civil rights division, but i don't know of any record of yours in this area, but i do know of the record where you defend republican state redistricting plans including one dismissed for racial gerrymandering. he also defended a voter purging effort that violated the national voter registration act, and on may 8, chairman gowdy sent a letter inviting mr. gore testify but he failed to appear last week, and at that hearing i had a motion to subpoena are in gore. instead the chairman recessed he hearing, resumed it today, and brought mr. gore in to answer our questions.

the problem is, mr. gore is not answering our questions. right now, mr. gore is here voluntarily so he is not legally compelled to answer any of our questions. so i move that the committee broken mr. gore right now, like we should have last week. we have a process, mr. chairman, you may not want to issue the subpoena but our committee has a authority under the rules to vote on a subpoena to compel mr. gore answer our questions today, not tomorrow, not next week, but today. and mr. goal, then would be required either answer our questions or assert valid constitutional privilege. if mr. gore continues to refuse answer our questions or asserts a president that is not valid, this committee could hold them in contempt. so i want to make one thing clear. we are not asking you one word

about litigation. we are not asking you about any of your briefs or anything that your department is involved in, you're motions, your attorneys, or the work they are doing. we are asking about the underlying facts, and we have every right to ask about them. it's our responsibility to ask and we have an independent responsibility to investigate and that is what we need to do today. these underlying facts already exist. congress and the american public deserve to know them. and there is absolutely no legitimate reason for you to keep silent about them. congress handles parallel investigations all the time, and this is no different. this is a parallel investigation. our oversight responsibilities

to got a in cease to exist because somebody sues the government. the government is suedes multiple times every single day. for all of these rains hereby move to subpoena john m. gore, the acting assistant attorney general of the civil rights division at the department of justice. >> i second the motion. >> i make this motion pursuant to house rule 11, clause 2, k6. we have spoken to parliamentarian's offers and this motion is in order. spoke with. the myself. a written copy of my motion and the subpoena is at the clerk's offers, and i ask that the chairman dispose of this motion right now, so we can start getting answers to our questions. >> on the motion. >> reserving a point outfield order. for all purposes this gentleman from alabama seeking recognition. >> i move to table the motion and pends that, note the absence of a quorum. >> gentleman is correct, quorum

is not present. the motion are held in abeyance until sufficient quorum is present. out of respect for the witness, we should proceed with the hearing until that time. >> on a point of order, mr. chairman. >> gentleman state his point of order. >> the subpoena that is subject to the motion to table -- would that include a request for documents as well as a subpoena for the person? >> i don't believe so but since it's not my motion, i might defer -- >> i have copy here but it's blank. >> i think it is a subpoena for personal attendance as od to one for documents but given the fact it was not my motion, inning reluctant to speak to it at length. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i yield back. >> the gentleman yield to me? thank you, with all due respect,

mr. chairman, we have a number of members here. we are would like to have our questions answered and to delay there is to table it to postpone it, it makes absolutes flow sense. why are we asking questions when the witness has already told us he's not going to answer any of them. so, it seems like we should address the subpoena, it's ready to go. we talked about it last week. you said you'd get him in. it's in. it's not your fault but he is refusing to answer questions. so a it seems like it's very appropriate the should move forward with the subpoena do we can get answers to the questions. you to the this census is really the only real -- it's a requirement, it's written right in the constitution that the executive branch must conduct it every ten years. it's very serious issue. it is the basis of our democracy, our representation, it makes the decision on the

distribution of really over i'd say $700 million in federal funds every year. it's a verdict, very critical issue. and we deserve to have our answers today and i respectfully request that the chairman move forward with the subpoena request. >> i yield back. >> i will address the gentle lady i have allowed lower to exceed the five minuted of it's an important point but nonetheless aorism is not present. so until a quorum is present, continue to ask whatever questions he is able to answer. with that i would recognize -- i'll recognize my -- the gentleman from virginia, mr. connellly. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i would say say i respect to the

motion to table the motion for subpoena, you will significantly cloud the legacy of this committee in asserting the principle of accountability and the separate but coequal branch of government role. i sat here and watched the fifth amendment rights of lois lerner be tramped upon. warmed the same committee want to sensor the attorney general of the united states because of their perceived view of lack of cooperation. but apparently it's a whole different set of rules if it's a different administration that happens to to be of your party. i just think that's a very sad day for this committee. mr. gore, let's stipulate you have respect nor committee and

let's just talk theoretically but process. i won't ask you questions about your deliberatetive process or questions about the topic you refuse to turbot. you indicated that it was indicate what at exitment on the department of justice do see the law we passed were vigorously enforce. is that correct? >> yes, congressman. thank you for yourey -- >> no, note that's right all right. i'll stipulate you are grateful for our questions. would you concede, of course we have an equal interest in the vigorous enforce. of those laws. >> yes. >> yes. so, within reason we have a right as a coequal branch of government to inquire as to your efforts to vigorously enforce the law. is that not fair? >> yes.

>> and is it your position that the department of justice ewan unilaterally can debts -- decide when to cooperate with the coequal branch of the government in the oversaying responsibilities. >> i don't believe i said -- >> i'm trying to extend the logic of your assertion but what yaw will and will not testify. to. i'm probing that, where the hims on is? in this case you argue in a novel way that litigation is such a barrier, pending litigation on the matter precludes your ability to cooperate with us on our oversight of the vigorous enforce. of a particular law. it that not correct? isn't that your san diego. >> what i said is to i consistent with the department poll di -- >> we'll stipulate that your assertion of consistency. i'm trying to understand the principle behind it.

you're asserting the department of justice gets to make rules with respect to your cooperation on the -- our legitimate constitutional oversight role who one limitation is pending litigation. >> pending litigation is a limitation in these circumstances other, limitations include the need for the department of justice to facilitate open and robust discussion before decisions are made. for that reason, the department is not talk about deliberations or privileged conversations that might happen in an attorney-client context. >> are in gore, if we decide we don't agree with you, if the congress decided your assertion is an encroach. on our ability to functional'll any in our oversaying responsibility, what remedy do you understand we have to

dispute and to seek adjudication of that knives. >> congress, i'm november studied the issue and i cannot take a position on that on behalf of the department of justice. >> it is our ability to issue a subpoena, is it not? we could subpoena you. >> my understanding the committee has subpoena authority. >> what is your understanding of the penalties that flow from noncooperation with a subpoena issued by the united states congress. >> i've not studied the issue and so i don't have a view one way or the other what the penalties are that are either prodescribed buy law or appropriate and i can't edge gauge in a hypothetical. >> it's not hypothetical. it's a matter of law, mr. gore. >> certainly what penalty wood be appropriate in any particular case -- >> you could be held in contempt.

you could be held in contempt of congress, do you not. >> be personally. >> yes. >> i'm not currently nature subpoena. >> i understand -- >> aware -- >> mr. gore, let's not play games. i said, one of the remedies available to us is a bone. you agreed with that. >> i do. >> if you did not cooperation with that it subpoena -- i began by saying we'll have a hypothetical conversation because you don't want to talk but through specifics. so i hypothetically, congress could hold you in contempt if you did not comply with the subpoena. is that knock correct as matter of law. >> this -- >> i believe that's create as ameter of law and i'd be happy to talk but specifics of the department of's letter or other publicly available information and i've answered several questions -- >> you have barely answered any questions, mr. gore. >> i haven't answered very men questions but publicly available information -- >> because the congress can decide what level of injury and

layers of injury inquiry it decides and we can decide whether we can compel your cooperation and that's what wore about to debate, i hope. your lack of cooperation is very concerning because the census is actually stipulated in the constitution of the united states, and i -- at least hopefully you and i would agree on this. that the need full cooks with the census to get a full picture of the country and order to fairly adjudicate issues like representation in the congress, allocation of federal funding for program. s. a lot is at stake. >> i agree with that. >> we do have legitimate cause to be concerned on a bipartisan basis about how the census is conducted and whether any

additions additions additions or subtractions asked in the census could affect cooperation with a census, both in cost and in accuracy, is that not a fair concern. >> the gentleman's time is expired to the extent the question is asked you may answer it. >> does congress has an important oversight role. >> the gentleman -- >> gentleman from virginia yields back them gentleman from arizona is recognized. >> mr. gore, does the department of justice and civil rights division have a memorandum of understanding with the census bureau and at the department of norse receive this data? >> that is a good question. i don't know the answer to it. >> are we able to get those -- that outline at mou? >> again, congressman, i don't know whether an mou governors that relationship or some other provision of law.

i don't know. >> would you submit that to us once you fine out? >> i can't make that commitment today because i don't know what i is. >> in eye privacy oar restricts indicate hogue the dat may or may not be used. >> there are all kind restrictions on how the census data is used. and that is a message that's been consistent from the department of commerce and she census bureau throughout its decision do reinstate the question on the 2020 census. the congress has enacted laws to prohibits the disclosure of individual responses to the census so we would not see that information could not be used in immigration enforcement proceeding by the department of justice or nye department. the only data made available to us ising a degree gait statistical data covering census blocks. individual responses are not provide to us. they're kept confidential by the census bureau and every employee

who sees them agree's to a nondisclosure agreement and can't disclose the responses for the rest or their lives. >> that's an important point. so i'll ask that question again so you can repeat that so everybody can hear that. any questions in regards to citizenship that is answered in regards to the census could it be used by any law enforcement eight or judicial proceedingie the government. >> could not be used mitchell understanding of the law it could not be used in immigration and don'ters. proceed ago, could not be used dish believe those -- it's my understanding understanding the individual responses stay at the census bureau. i know what we receive in the several rights division is only aggregate stackal data and all of the individual responses are protected by law and the confidentiality and privacy of individual responses on the census is protected by an act of congress. >> so once again, can't be used in a legal proceeding. >> certainly can't be used in an

immigration enforcement proceeding. >> mr. gore appreciate quote ken packston, the attorney general of texas, knowing the number of? is in the district will help reduce voter fraud by providing a more complete picture toye of the eligible snorted district. say there are 300,000 u.s. citizens the district and 350,000 turn out to vote in an election. we would would know there's a problem. now, would you say, mr. gore, that voter fraud occurred if there's more votes cast than eligible voters. >> i think if you lad accurate data about the number of eligible voters and registered voters and the number of votes cast it would certainly raise a lot of concern if the turnout in a particular geographic area exceeded the number of eligible and registered voters. >> if year data collector, something is wrong waiver that scenario. right. >> sounds like it is as you outlined the hypothetical. >> now, would you say voter fraud has occurred if -- restate

that. does thesive rights division every tally the total number of coasts cast in a precinct and compare it to the eligible vote are in the same precinct. >> we have sometimes looked at the data to understand what states are doing to comply with the national voter registration act and in particular its requirement ford voter registration and removalled voters who are ineligible. so we have look at at that time aggregate data. >> do you know the differs between a census block group and a census block. >> yes, generally, yes. >> can you explain it? >> sure, the census block is the smallest unit of geeing aography. the side of an urban or suburban block, one paper build ago small collection of homes and a census block group is a group of census

blocks, on average it's 39 census blocks per group it and can be fewer or more than that. so send sunday block group is a larger area of geography and then several census block groups are putting to to form a census tract. >> with my last question, i'm going to reiterate it because sometimes people are doubting thomases. will response dots the 2020 census question or citizenship be used by the department of justice or any other law enforcement agency in any judicial proceeding against a respondent. >> congress month, it's my understanding those visit responses cannot be used in immigration enforce. proceeding, moreover are the individual response that someone is not citizen isn't really very probative of whether -- what their immigration status is. we have millions and million of hard working immigrants in the country who are citizens who entered legally and came here for the american dream, pursue thing american dream through work, through school, through

family and so whether or not someone is a citizen doesn't tell you a whole loud about their immigration status, because the congress has protected it from disclosure. >> i yield back. >> the gentleman colds back. the ya from california, mr. gomez, is recognized. >> thank you, mr. chairman. welcome, mr. gore. let's just get into the questions real quick. mr. gore, did the department of justice express the need for anyone sunday data when the census bureau recorded a con ten review. >> i'm not sure when the census bureau last conducted a con dent review. >> that was 0 no. it was last spring and then they halt the review draft in november but that's a no. let's move on. the doj says it needs citizen data to better enforce the voting righting a. when was the vote little eights act enacted. >> 1965.

>> 35353 years ago. was a citizen china question included new 1970, 1980, 1990, 2000 or 20 census, short form, across the board, not the long form, and not the american community survey. >> not included in the short form, because shed in the long form from 1970 to 77. >> thank you. the answer was, no. since the enactment of the voting rights act does the doj has not deemed it critical to include a citizenship question on the short form. the entirety of the census. so mr. gore, why did the doj not -- why didn't the doj make this request in previous years and what urgent reasons arose between 2016 and 2017 that required a last-minute change? >> congressman, thank you for your question. was not at the department of justice in that prior time frame so i can't speak why or why not certain decisions might have

been made by the department at that time. the letter that the department sent to the census bureau laid out the position of the department of justice today and why the census data information would be more suitable and more appropriate for section 2 enforcement -- >> just be clear, congressman, there's no dispute that the department of justice needs citizenship vote age population da at that time to enforce section 2 at the block level. the letter explains why hard count census data is better suited than the acs. it's easier to use because -- >> mr. gore -- >> it's a hard count -- >> the point is that not having that dat did not undermine any lawsuit that was brought by the department of justice in the rote its rights answer. so if you didn't really need it to uphole -- nobody said you don't have the citizenship data at the block level so your

argument is weak. no one ever said that so let's move on. mr. gore, would the department of justice's mission be compromised if the citizenship question were not added to the 2020 census? >> congressman what i can say is we have been making due with the available data, the acs systems and extrapolations down to the block level in addition to other data. the department of justice is -- >> you know what, can you answer that question real quick? >> i'm -- >> the mission be compromised if the citizenship questions were not add. >> as i said -- >> yes or no. >> -- i'll reclaim my time because i'm run ought of time. would the doj be unable to enforce the voting rights act without the dat. >> without accurate citizenship at that time da, yes, we have made due what i what is available. >> at the doy has not been able to enforce the voting rights acts for the past 353 years. >> that's not what i said. >> that was the question. >> cack accurate could -- the doj be unable to enforcement the

voting rights act without the data sunsets they question. so the answer is nos because you have been doing it 23503 -- for 53 years. attorney general sessions testified regarding the citizenship question. her said people don't have to answer it. really. i would think that is a very reasonable thing. i think concerns over it are overblown. mr. gore, is the attorney general encouraging people not to respond to the citizen census or the citizenship question. >> perhaps what the attorney general was referring to is the fact the census bureau will count incomplete census questionnaires in the total. so for some reason the person filling out the questionnaire doesn't answer -- >> thank you, mr. gore. appreciate that. real quick. did steven miller contact the department of justice about adding a citizenship question? do you have in the e-mails,

phone records, letters, communications, with steven miller from the white house? >> again, i'm not going to get into any department communications or deliberations that may have happened in the executive branch or any do. >> thank you, mr. gore. >> -- this or any other matter. >> gentleman yields bang. the gentleman from michigan is recognized. >> thank you, mr. chair. thank you for being here today, mr. gore. unfortunately. sometimes degenerates rather than ask -- the witness has become a piñata in towards make a political point and today is an example of that. the importance of the sin sunday is make sugar people are comfortable enough answering questions that their privacy is protected. they don't feel vulnerable, otherwise you have a faulty census so let me ask you questions boston privacy. when is the least time the department of justice brought a case against someone for unlawfully differ closing information in violation of the

privacy laws in title xiii of the census. >> i don't know. >> so you don't recall cases where people's privacy has been violated. >> i don't know of any. >> what their penaltyes lever v leveries against people violating private law ii phones note what me penalties are. >> okay. has the department of justice in your knowledge every brought a case against the person for failing to complete the census and return it? >> i've not study it that issue. i don't know. i'm not aware of any recent case in that regard. >> looking forwards to 2020 census does the department of justice have enforcements plan for people to fail to complete the census form. >> enforcement 0 woo not happen by the civil right division. i can't speak to whether there is one or not. >> once a person leaves a blank

and returns it. >> that was the question i was answering before. the census bureau -- it's my understanding the census bureau still counts that information on the questionnaire as part of the total enumeration. >> i asked it again because i didn't think you had an answer. i've left questions blank on the census and no one knockedman door. get get a letter saying why you did such a terrible thing. i appreciate you being here. i'll yield bag. >> would the gentleman yield? >> -- ask the chair. >> the gentleman from massachusetts is recognize it. >> thank you, mr. chairman. mr. gore, obviously the spirit

in which we brought you here was one that is pursuant to congressional inquiry. the right of congress to make inquiries and investigations into the executive branch is a constitutional protection for the american people. ...

>> on a distinct proceeding. this is round number one. i think american people will demand full exercise of their rights to be protective of congress. is there any basis in law in which you believe that you have been instructed that would prohibit you from participating and cooperating in this hearing? >> congressman thank you for your question. i have participated to the fullest. >> just answered several questions i'm happy to speak to any question about public information. >> then tell us who came up with this decision to add this

question? >> congressman the letter the department sent represents the final decision and statement with respect to this issue. similar to how a congressional staff works you facilitate open conversation with your staff and decisions are made through open and fair process. that is the department of justice as well. >> but it comes from a member. >> so we are asking you don't just push it off at the staff came up with this idea someone with authority in the trump administration came up with this decision. apparently you are embarrassed because nobody wants to take credit for it. there is been nothing but obfuscation including yourself and we ask this question. we don't have the power to prosecute but america deserves

those answers. with the department of justice laying down. >> this is the reason we need that information. >> it represents the view of the department so i hope the attorney general agrees with that view. >> yes obviously a decision like this was made in consultation with stakeholders at the department that i am happy to talk about and confirm i don't think that particularly is earth shattering. but yes the department stands by this and that consent to the census bureau and the department of commerce i understand the secretary of commerce takes a hard look at the request to do the independent analysis considering various options

with the data going to the department of justice and the decision was made. >> mr. chairman to have the support of the chair and get to the basis of this decision. we think it is important to the american people. obviously as the chairman you have great sway under our system of rules on this committee and i would hope that you see clear to support this very reasonable request on the part of the minority and members of this committee to support the issue of subpoena and i yield back. >> the gentleman from california is recognize. >> thank you mr. chairman. mr. gore i will start by admonishing you for not being here at the previous hearing. that was an error going back to the last administration

that showed a level of disrespect from the department of justice and much of that continues today at the department of justice where in case after case we are not getting in a timely fashion information and the highest level of classification is used as an excuse and as we know that highest level of the department of justice is embarrassing. the last attorney general before the last actually claimed a privilege which turned out be back-and-forth to his wife. so we hope this is the last time we have to have two hearings combined into one hearing now having said that listening to my colleagues in the round of questioning about the decision to find out for the purpose of civil rights compliance how many people are eligible to vote in a particular block or district

and i will tell you a short story. a few months ago approaching one year ago i had a long time resident of my district and the father of several children one of them over 21 elicited as he tried to enter camp pendleton he was at the job almost two decades because he was undocumented and falsified documents related to getting on the base. it was a sad situation he was here since 1989. i try to do what i could for the family as we often do and it went to the voter rolls i found him and his wife and one adult child. the adult child was born in the united states and was not a legal resident he entered

illegally 1989 they were both registered voters. so i don't seem that they never voted but in california there are tens or even hundreds of thousands of people who do not want to say no that i don't want to be registered as they are afraid that will tip off that they are undocumented. so i will ask you if not for the census where my democratic colleagues if they operate in good faith would echo what you said earlier this information is never disclosed and used only for the statistical purposes in aggregate, if not for your census question, what we have the same situation in california with the number of registered voters to even eligible to vote or on their behalf could lead to a different outcome in the

election? >> thank you for your question first i will address the statement which was the explanation why did not appear at the hearing last week. >> that is a decision that this committee has over the years pushed back that negotiations we could have potentially had a second panel but it is not for the department of justice to say we are not showing up if we don't get what we want because the last administration objected to somebody even though they were in the government so i don't accept that as a former chair of this committee and i would hope you take that back to your higher ups there are better ways to resolve that with his committee with a reasonable chairman then simply not to show up.

>> on the issue that you raised to the voter role in california. >> i will give you a brief overview california has no documentation whatsoever a person shows up to get a drivers license, they do not have to prove in any way a resident or citizen and then they end up being a registered voter. the voting system has no id in fact if you show up at a poll you cannot be asked to show id and if you try to show what they make you put it away. knowing how this would impact elections with tens of thousands of people registered but they are afraid to say so. >> obviously thank you for your question if there are large numbers of ineligible persons casting ballots at the polls obviously that could have an effect on the outcome there are plenty of examples of elections throughout

history that could have turned on the difference. >> thank you mr. chairman. >> the chair yields back. >> a gentlelady from michigan is recognized. >> thank you mr. chair. in the 11 month you have not had a perfect -- a permanent director the administration considered putting a partisan redistricting of a thomas burnell at the helm he himself recently admitted that this is being politicized and in interview with science magazine he said they have made a political decision and they have every right to do that because they won the election. also president trump has been campaigning under the citizenship question and asked

for his campaign that president trump has ordered the 2020 united states tenses asking if they are citizens that now the sanctuary state of california it's time to fight back. this seems to me like a political decision has come from the top and we have asked you and i will ask again, exactly who in leadership made this request was that the attorney general sessions? who specifically was it? >> congresswoman as i said before i cannot get into the specifics of the deliberation with the department of justice the letter represents the

opposition of the department and all decision-makers signed off on that including the attorney general. to get to the premise of your question about mr. burnell i don't believe anybody has had conversations with him i have nt as a private citizen not a member of the department of justice and does not speak for the department of justice or not a member of the administration or speak for it i have no idea where he gets his information from or how he draws his conclusions as to what he thinks was the reason to add this question. >> if you don't know where he gets his information then you also don't know where your information and guidance is from because based on your statement how you keep answering the questions, i don't know where it came from i got a random letter so you are sitting here today to say i don't know how things happen i don't know who makes decisions, it just kind of happens.

then all of a sudden it appears it does not appear you are an experiment witness. >> i have not said that i don't know what i said is the department of justice by long-standing policy and practice does not discuss internal deliberations or decision-making the attorney general signed off on the decision and beyond that the department position as stated in the letter. speaking to the campaign e-mail, i have never seen that email i have no communication with the campaign. i cannot speak to that. >> mr. gore will you confirm today the department of justice will follow the law to abide by the protections provided by title 13 and to comply prohibiting against

sharing individual census climate are you under oath under the department of justice say you will follow the law? be my guess. >> and with any case i will let you know that american arab association has stated many of the members of the arab administration refuses participation in the census primarily out of fear that by answering the citizenship question they will be singled out. thank you to the chair into you into this body someone has been misguided it isn't good enough to make a decision and go forward when you know the consequences. you can say you don't know how you got here but now that this is proposed, it needs to be addressed. we have tried repeatedly to

make you understand that the constituents of this country the department of justice works for you are here because of the taxpayers paying your salaries are you need to listen to the people and this question is not one that is serving the objective and the outcomes that we need for a census count in our country and i yield back. >> the lady yields back. if i understand your argument correctly asking and answering will help the department enforce the voting rights act? >> correct. >> how has the failure to ask this question in the past hampered those efforts? >> thank you for your question. it is undisputed with the voting age population we need data to force certain cases

and at the block level be are making do with other sources of information to extrapolate to the block level what the citizenship rate would be in a particular area but with the racial data from the census we have information already but we have to make an educated guess on what rate is at the block level and having it on the census makes it easier to use and also more accurate. i am aware of at least one case in the northern district of texas where it relies slowly on the estimates to prove that citizenship rate but the geographic area was too small to be reliable so the court threw the case out to say this data that was a one year estimate fewer than

265,000 people the 5000 people the census bureau said that small size of a population that it isn't reliable on the one year estimate so that particular voting rights act case was thrown out by a district court. we would like to bring every voting rights act case and that is what we would like to do. so dealing with geographic areas and those estimates to be sufficiently reliable. >> that is why i foreshadowed my question last week not trying to trick anybody or surprise anybody it is relevant if past litigation has impacted the failure you cited the case in texas other other instances where this information would have helped the court or any other deciding tribunal?

>> i am not aware of any other case that has made a difference and i will say again the other rationale the census data is easier to use because it already comes in that format we don't need any other extrapolations and it comes as the same data set being used all across the country which is the data they are already receiving to comply with the equal requirements of the constitution. >> who gets to decide if a question is legitimate? >> congressman i believe the congress left that decision to the secretary of commerce and obvious that i cannot speak for the secretary. >> what is at the heart of the litigation i don't know the

answer to the question i believe they are dependent on -- debating that question. >> 's of the secretary wants to include a question what is your favorite movie? how does the court determine whether or not that is appropriate question? what is the standards to judge the legitimacy. >> that is better to the commerce department i don't handle litigation. >> but with those different standards of review and to have a reasonable public interest or compelling public interest, you are familiar with that. >> i am congressman. but i don't know how that intersects with this particular case. that matters of litigation will all be presented in litigation and it is inappropriate for me to speculate or comment today as

i'm not the department's representative and that litigation. >> will yield for a question? >> i'm trying to figure out what one second is but i am happy to if you could keep to the split-second. >> just to follow-up answering to your question regarding the citizenship, he said they are making do with the data they are getting. when he answered my question he said they cannot enforce that at the block level that is contradictory to make i will see that i can help you out to the extent there is any ambiguity in your answer would you like an opportunity to

synchronize your answer? >> i would. thank you congressman and for raising the opportunity. the citizenship rates are an issue we need data at the block level we are making do with the data coming from the acs but using extrapolations to make an estimate what is going on at the block level so yes we are making do with the currently available data to draw estimates what is going on at the census block level and the acs data for registration data but we lay out what would be more appropriate if it is a hard count and good for us to use in the census bureau believes it would be more accurate. >> i will try to harmonize the different perspectives of the colleagues when things have been done for a while then it raises questions people want to know why it was removed

then when rias industry inserted they want to know how that affected i will give you litigation advice it is practical and how to answer questions for congress i think that is a full star wondering is we had a question for a while in another form what was the impact of changing the manner of that information in which it was collected and i guess the threshold question is do you have to assert it helps you enforce the voting rights act. due included just because you felt like it? and if the government's position is that helps us to support the voting rights act it is helpful to have specific instances or have that information with your reference to enforce that. >> chairman i am happy to provide a response to that. as i said we made a case why

the census data would be more appropriate under the voting rights act due to the simplicity of its use and greater accuracy than the estimates and extrapolation in the case those that were unable to prove their case because the estimates were too unreliable for the population as to whether that is sufficient to warrant on the census questionnaire that is what the courts are hashing out in litigation before we vote i will let the ranking member ask a question thanks to my colleagues to coming forward on an unexpected vote on a very busy morning so then we will move to the vote. >> thank you very much. >> i just listened to the questions that the chairman asked you they were good

questions as you agree that it seems like revolving around the voting rights act but doj has not filed a single voting rights act during the entire year of the trump administration jeff sessions tells the voting rights act intrusive during the trump administration the doj has a three voting rights cases while gerrymandering in texas one pertaining to voter id and one on voter purging all in favor of voter suppression efforts doj updated the manual to remove references to gerrymandering president trump also accused millions of legitimate voters of committing voter fraud voting

illegally and president trump established the commission january 27 to try to identify evidence to support his false claim that millions of citizens vote illegally and finally president trump selected as the chairman of his new commission who was held in contempt last month for failing to inform the voters of their eligibility to register after a court required proof of citizenship. i want you to understand why some of us may be skeptical when folks say they are doing this so that people like my mother who years ago could not vote or even today do you understand that? i understand you're coming from. if i might have a moment to

respond to your question because there are several things in your question that i think are not accurate of like to correct those on behalf of the department so you and the entire committee and the entire public understand what is going on. for example we have filed voting rights act as i mentioned in my opening statement involving the state of arizona to protect the voting rights of military voters with overseas and in section two we have continued to participate in cases since january 2017 that enforcement is completely in line with those enforcement efforts of the obama administration and in the first four-year term in office obama administration filed one case of section two now early 2009 that nine that the investigation conducted under the bush administration it filed no section two cases

2010 through 2012. it increased the number slightly in the second term in 2013 with three cases but not in 2014 through 2016. one on its way out the door january 2017 we have continued to litigate on behalf of the united states so that activity is completely in line with what the obama justice department did in six years it never filed a section two case. moreover it had the opportunity to do so because every state and union was required to redistrict after the 2010 census. the question about gerrymandering was a change suggested by the career prosecutors in the civil rights division because that was already assumed in another provision with an effort to simplify with the manual it represents a good change policy and practice as a

deputy attorney general has already explained publicly and we participated in the racial gerrymandering case with the supreme court we have not change positions in three voting rights cases one case the department changed its position that is currently pending before the united states of report the two other cases you are referring to are two cases out of texas and in those cases it didn't change the position texas changed its law and the voter identification law to address the effects -- the facts that were alleged in the case and that largely has its own put in place for the 2016 election nearly 9 million texans voted with no suggestion or evidence brought to the court that the voter id laws resulted in voter suppression a few weeks ago the fifth circuit agreed that law was sufficient to remedy the defects and overturn the judgment of the district court also referring

to the texas redistricting case again and had a new plan united states had taken a position and with the supreme court what we 35 was appropriate under the voting rights act i have not communicated with him maybe i met him once we had no consultation i appreciate we are coming from congressman but there are some facts hope to understand where we are coming from as we try our best and the department of justice with the civil rights division to carry out all the laws congress has enacted to the best of our ability and will continue to do so that is our mission to the charge from this congress and the constitution we take. seriously that responsibility it is my honor to serve in this capacity with the professionals of the civil rights division. >> and in consideration of the

motion to table the motion of the gentlelady those in favor? those opposed xx recorded vote is requested. call the role.

tee4 [roll call] [roll call] . . . .

>> thank you, mr. chairman. good morning, mr. gore. many individuals, citizens as well as noncitizens including legal permanent residents are fearful about giving the personal data to the government particularly in the political climate. these fears were estimated by the doj's request to include the

citizenship question on the d20 census. that is why i think it is so critical today for us to remind individuals the title 13 text the confidentiality of their census responses and government from sharing the data with other government agencies. you confirm that the department of justice will follow the law and abiding by the protections accorded by title 13 and complying with the prohibitions against sharing individual census responses? >> absolutely. i can confirm that and i like to reiterate something i said before which is we take our duties to enforce the law seriously and we believe no one should have fear when responding to the citizenship or census question if it is included. first, for the reason you laid out which is that data and the individual responses are protected by law and can be disclosed but also let me reiterate that whether someone

is a citizen or not doesn't tell you a lot about their immigration status. millions and millions of hard-working americans were not citizens in the country legally. >> thank you. what you affirmed that the department of justice has no not use the data for other pieces including sharing it with other federal or law-enforcement agency or any other? >> i can tell you with respect to this data or any other data the department of justice will abide by all legal requirements. >> okay. so, are you saying there is a possibility that you may share this data with other federal agencies? >> what i am saying is i don't know exactly what the parameters are on the restrictions of the use of this data but whatever the department will abide by. i cannot speak of the department and it is not my responsibility what happens this data and i can say unequivocally that on behalf of the department it would require with legal requirements.

>> do you conceive of a situation where it may be legal to share with other agencies? >> i can't confirm from the civil rights perspective and i don't know what the law is or what the department but we will follow the law. >> so you don't know the law is regard to the sharing of this data? >> i do know there are prohibitions on the sharing of the data. i don't know how other entities in the department of justice deal with that issue so i can't speak on their behalf but i can speak on my behalf and i can say that all entities of the permit of justice will follow the law and i would state within the civil rights division we do not share the data with other government agencies. >> let me shift another issue which is the doj aware of any study analysis section of how

the inclusion of the citizenship question will affect the response rate for the senses? >> that's a great question. i don't know that the permit of justice is well that and that's a question for the department of census bureau since the secretary of commerce is will decide what is included and my understanding is that from secretary ross' memo is that he looked at the heart issue and did find evidence to suggest that the question would lead to a reduction in response rates and that is based on the decision he issued and i can't speak on his behalf. >> if evidence were brought to your attention that the inclusion of the citizenship question would lower the response rate how would you process that evidence is a member of the doj? >> i think is a member of the department of justice -- let me

say this. i believe whatever evidence was presented to the department of commerce it was considered and i can't speak him behalf of the permit of commerce but if that was brought to our attention i think we would take a look at it or not the decision-maker with respect to whether questions are included on the census questionnaire or not. >> let me ask you this. thank you for saying that you take a look at it. we intend to present you with that evidence. as the chief civil rights lawyer for the department of justice if that evidence to show a disk impact and how minorities were counted for purposes of the senses with you then look at whether or not some kind of legal action need to be taken with regard to the census? >> the time has now expired we

may answer the question. >> thank you take a look at it but i don't know whether legal action would be warranted and i can't engage in a hypothetical of whether it would be. >> thank you. we were plenty with the information. >> the gentleman from soccer line is recognized. >> i don't think he finished his line of questioning so i will yield my time to him. >> thank you. mr. gore, i like to pick up my laptop because i think this is extremely important. in a republic, in a democracy, isn't the sanctity of the vote perhaps the most important part of civil right -- that we have spent decades, more than a century, going from denying people about because of their gender or their race to ensuring that all persons eligible or are eligible if they are citizens? >> absolutely. >> so, you look at the other questions and we've looked at draft questions on the census -- other than the first question which is how many people live in this house is there another question that is as important to our republic as this one? >> i think that's a value

judgment that reasonable minds can disagree on. >> let me ask in a different way. constitutionally we all understand that the census is required every ten years for one purpose to find out how many people are here. i don't this last week with the census of people themselves but isn't it true that there's only one question the constitutionally mandated in all these other questions are based on our countries belief that knowing this will advance the greater good. >> i think that is correct, congressman. i would now that other questions are asked but the census remains a total enumeration. there's a question about sex but people of all sexes are counted and a question of race but all races are counted and if there's

a question of citizenship then they should all be counted as well. >> keep a good question there. for example, we're asking if you are hispanic and no one is objecting to it from the democratic side but it goes into mexican, puerto rican, all the reasons you may be a yes, sir no and no one is objecting to it but in fact race is good to know but it's not essential to know for constitutional purposes. here's another one. relationship. how is the patent related to you if you answered multiple and questions are father, mother, opposite sex, unmarried, same sex, son, adopted son, stepson, let me ask you -- if you look at all the things that might cause someone to say i will just for this in the trash or i'm going to mail it back wouldn't asking someone about what -- to be

honest, sexual relations are what that leads to aren't these all questions which could reduce the turnout from the basic turnout of how many people are in this house and isn't that risk we take with every question? >> congressman, i would believe that would be risk with every question but please out for the department of commerce. anytime -- i think that's correct. >> the secretary of commerce has been incredible time, personally along with his under secretaries into this that he has been working for a long time but i'll go back to the initial question is i think that is what this part of the hearing is about. no one seems to care if you want to find out in the census whether someone is straight or gay and that seems to be not controversial to my democratic friends and yet asking someone

whether they have a right to vote so you can determine what the maximum count would be in a particular precinct or block seems to be a problem. why is it that that which goes to the core of our democracy seems to be a lesson from question to my colleagues than the question quite frankly of gender preference? >> congressman, that's a very good question but i also can't answer but we've been wondering the same thing or i have at least been wondering the same thing given the reaction to the quest the department of justice has made in the decision the secretary ross made. >> i want to use the time i have remaining to make the history straight. this question was asked during franklin delano roosevelt time and this is an historic question

isn't it? >> it is. >> this was in the community survey as we speak. >> right. >> so the difference between having it in the main census and having in the community survey which my colleagues don't object to would seem to be a volume, correct? >> i guess, yes. >> so it's a greater number of people asked the question because i got the community survey and i will tell you a tells me on penalty of everything terrible happening in my life i must answer it. last question. if you're simply getting more people answering the same question that has been asked again and again in the community survey is in it that we simply get the ability to understand more clearly where and how many people should be able to be eligible to vote and receive services of that sort. >> gentlemen's time has expired but you may answer the question. >> yes. >> thank you. gentle lady from illinois is organized. >> the law governing the additional questions to the census is at the center of commerce must submit proposal text to congress three years before sentencing followed by the actual questions two years

before census day. that law also states and i quote if the secretary find new circumstances exist which necessitate that the subject type information or questions contained in reports submitted be modified containing the secretary's determination of the subject types of information and questions posed be modified must be cemented congress with the secretary of commerce to not include a citizenship question in the subjects submitted to congress in april 2018 but they added it to your later -- under the law in order to that he must have encountered new circumstances necessitating that the subjects be modified. what are the new circumstances that necessitated this change? >> i appreciate the question. i don't work for the department of commerce or the census bureau and i can't speak on their behalf. >> zero no idea why this occurred? >> i believe based on publicly available information that the secretary of commerce to go to

this in response to the doj request for the census block level citizenship data and beyond that i don't know what the thought process was because i don't work there or work on their behalf. >> for what i just quoted from the law do you think he was in his for you to do that or do you think he follow the law? >> i don't think it's appropriate for me to answer that question because the question is in litigation. >> the voting rights act has been in place since 1965 and so has the census. they do not change. you are saying that you don't know the new circumstances and did the department of justice cite any evidence of voting rights cases and secretary ross that would have necessitated the addition of a citizenship question to the 2020 census? >> to be clear what i said was i don't know the circumstances or

the thought process that went on in the apartment of congress for the census bureau and i believe i didn't say what i didn't know was going on in the department of justice letter but our letter laid out the reasons why we think hard count census data at the block level would be more appropriate for use in redistricting cases than the american community survey estimates and extrapolations down to the block level. it would be simply frosty use and a hard count and align in time with the data that maps and courts in the department of justice already use and the census bureau and congress had made a determination that it would be more accurate. beyond that that was the statement that we made in our letter and the department of commerce my understanding took a hard look at that and made that determination. >> in conclusion seems like the only circumstances that has changed since 2017 is who is sitting in the oval office and unfortunately that is not sufficient under the law to

allow an untested question. i'll back. >> the gentle lady from new york is granted a unanimous request. >> i request a unanimous consent to place and record a statement from the asian-americans justice association. >> without objection. >> thank you. >> i believe all members have been able to have the questions answered to the extent you are able. the hearing will remain open for two weeks. if there is no for the business without objection the committee stands adjourned.

[silence] >> c-span's washington journal live everyday with news and policy issues that affect you. coming up saturday morning:

booktv will have live coverage of the ninth annual gaithersburg book festival in maryland. starting saturday at 10:00 a.m. eastern with talk radio host in his book from the left, a life in the crossfire. national institute of mental health with her book the neuroscientist lost her mind, my tale of madness and recovery. psychiatrist with the addiction a solution turning our dependence on opioids and other drugs. former attorney author of death of an assassin, the true story of the german murderer who died defending robert e lee. watch live coverage of the ninth annual gaithersburg festival in maryland saturday at 10:00 a.m. eastern on c-span2's book tv.

>> i approached some abandoned huts and when i got to the side of the hut a soldier came out of the ground and mike i saw him but it's too late when he threw a hand grenade at me and the hand grenade hit one of the polls in the hut in a large oak beam or whatever the word is there, mahogany beam, and bounced off and then it went off and it peppered my flap jacket and ripped and i hadn't entrenching tool in the back, a shovel, and cut the handle off of that. if the meat to the ground and my leg in a piece of shrapnel -- >> starting sunday at 7:00 p.m. eastern on american history tv watch us interview phenom