JUST IN: Sparks Fly As Republicans And Democrats Square Off Over Citizenship Question On The Census
The House of Representatives debated HR 7109, the Equal Representation Act.
Fuel your success with Forbes. Gain unlimited access to premium journalism, including breaking news, groundbreaking in-depth reported stories, daily digests and more. Plus, members get a front-row seat at members-only events with leading thinkers and doers, access to premium video that can help you get ahead, an ad-light experience, early access to select products including NFT drops and more:
https://account.forbes.com/membership/?utm_source=youtube&utm_medium=display&utm_campaign=growth_non-sub_paid_subscribe_ytdescript
Stay Connected
Forbes on Facebook: http://fb.com/forbes
Forbes Video on Twitter: http://www.twitter.com/forbes
Forbes Video on Instagram: http://instagram.com/forbes
More From Forbes: http://forbes.com
Fuel your success with Forbes. Gain unlimited access to premium journalism, including breaking news, groundbreaking in-depth reported stories, daily digests and more. Plus, members get a front-row seat at members-only events with leading thinkers and doers, access to premium video that can help you get ahead, an ad-light experience, early access to select products including NFT drops and more:
https://account.forbes.com/membership/?utm_source=youtube&utm_medium=display&utm_campaign=growth_non-sub_paid_subscribe_ytdescript
Stay Connected
Forbes on Facebook: http://fb.com/forbes
Forbes Video on Twitter: http://www.twitter.com/forbes
Forbes Video on Instagram: http://instagram.com/forbes
More From Forbes: http://forbes.com
Category
🗞
NewsTranscript
00:00:00 Pursuant to House Resolution 1194, the amendment in the nature of a substitute
00:00:05 recognized by Committee on Oversight and Accountability printed in the bill is
00:00:08 adopted and the bill as amended is considered read. The bill as amended
00:00:12 shall be debatable for one hour, equally divided and controlled by the Chair and
00:00:15 ranking minority member of the Committee on Oversight and Accountability or their
00:00:19 respective designees. The gentleman from Arizona, Mr. Biggs, and the gentleman from
00:00:23 Maryland, Mr. Raskin, will each control 30 minutes. The Chair recognizes the
00:00:27 gentleman from Arizona, Mr. Biggs. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all
00:00:30 members have five legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and
00:00:34 include extraneous material on the measure under consideration. That
00:00:37 objection so ordered. Mr. Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
00:00:43 The gentleman is recognized. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. HR 7109 has three
00:00:48 components. Number one, it requires the Census Bureau to include a citizenship
00:00:51 question on the decennial census questionnaire. Number two, the bill
00:00:55 directs that this information be used to ensure fair representation by requiring
00:01:00 only citizens be included in the apportionment base. And number three, a
00:01:03 severability clause. Currently, the Census Bureau estimates the non-citizen
00:01:07 population using data collected annually in the American Community Survey ACS.
00:01:12 We're going to call that ACS as I go. I just want to help you out there. That
00:01:16 data is not necessarily accurate. Further, there are no reports that asking a
00:01:22 citizenship question on the ACS every year suppresses illegal, alien, or other
00:01:27 non-citizen participation on the ACS questionnaire. The constitutionally
00:01:31 iterated rationale for decennial census is to apportion electoral districts for
00:01:36 Congress. In Commerce v. New York, Supreme Court noted that a host of various
00:01:41 questions over the years that are tangential to apportionment had been
00:01:44 included in the decennial censuses. "Race, sex, age, health, education,
00:01:51 occupation, housing, military service, radio ownership, age at first marriage,
00:01:55 native tongue, etc." The citizenship question is no stranger to the
00:02:02 census questionnaire. Commerce also noted, "Every census between 1820 and 2000,
00:02:08 with the exception of 1840, asked at least some of the population about their
00:02:13 citizenship or place of birth. Between 1820 and 1950, the question was asked of
00:02:19 all households. Between 1960 and 2000, it was asked of about one-fourth to one-sixth
00:02:24 of the population." That's another quote from the Commerce case. This isn't a
00:02:29 uniquely American practice. Even the United Nations recommends collecting
00:02:33 citizenship information via a census, as noted by, again, the Commerce Court.
00:02:40 Australia, Canada, France, Indonesia, Ireland, Germany, Mexico, Spain, and the
00:02:46 United Kingdom ask about citizenship in their respective censuses. Is the United
00:02:51 States to be the only North American country not to inquire about citizenship
00:02:55 in its census protocols? The Commerce Court held regarding the posting of a
00:03:00 citizenship question on the census as follows,
00:03:04 "In light of the early understanding of and long practice under the
00:03:11 enumeration clause, we conclude that it permits Congress and by
00:03:15 extension the Secretary of Commerce to inquire about citizenship on the census
00:03:19 questionnaire." So section 2 of HR 7109 simply asks whether a person is a
00:03:25 citizen of the United States. Yes or no? That's it. But everyone gets counted.
00:03:31 That I'll reserve. The gentleman mayors up. The gentleman mayors on the reserve.
00:03:37 The gentleman from Maryland is recognized. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I yield myself such time as I
00:03:41 might consume. The gentleman is recognized. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of
00:03:45 the committee. The last president tried to include a citizenship question on
00:03:53 the decennial census in 2020 and tried to count only U.S. citizens for the
00:03:58 purposes of census and reapportionment, and the effort failed miserably in court
00:04:04 for obvious reasons. Section 2 of the 14th Amendment states that apportionment
00:04:09 of seats in the House of Representatives is based on account of "the
00:04:14 whole number of persons in each state." Persons being the all-encompassing
00:04:22 category, much larger than that, of citizens. When the framers wanted to
00:04:29 impose a citizenship requirement in the text of the Constitution, they knew how
00:04:34 to do it. Take the President of the United States, for example. It says that
00:04:40 you've got to be a born U.S. citizen in order to run for president. Some of the
00:04:44 historians tell us that was because Thomas Jefferson was trying to block
00:04:49 Alexander Hamilton from running for president. He was foreign-born. But in any
00:04:53 event, it was very clear that you needed to be a born U.S. citizen to run for
00:04:58 president. For those of us in the House, it says we must have been a citizen for
00:05:02 at least seven years. So there are lots of citizenship requirements in the
00:05:07 Constitution. There's no citizenship requirement for being counted in the
00:05:12 census and for purposes of reapportionment. On the contrary, the census and
00:05:17 reapportionment have included all persons, including non-citizens like
00:05:22 permanent resident green card holders, since 1790. That's been the unbroken
00:05:28 practice since the beginning of the Republic. And this point was made even
00:05:33 more clearly and emphatically by the Supreme Court in its unanimous 2016
00:05:40 decision in Evanwell v. Abbott, rejecting precisely the argument my
00:05:45 distinguished friend is trying to make. Like this legislation itself, Evanwell
00:05:49 involved a challenge to congressional apportionment based on a total count of
00:05:54 the entire population instead of a limited count of the total citizen or
00:05:59 voter population. Justice Ginsburg held for unanimous court that Section 3 of
00:06:05 the 14th Amendment "retained total population as the congressional
00:06:09 apportionment base." She cited the speech made on this floor by, or rather on the
00:06:15 floor of the Senate, by Senator Jacob Howard upon introduction of Section 2 of
00:06:19 the 14th Amendment. "The basis of representation is numbers. The committee
00:06:26 adopted numbers as the most just and satisfactory basis and this is the
00:06:31 principle upon which the Constitution itself was originally framed, that the
00:06:36 basis of representation should depend upon numbers. And such, I think, after all,
00:06:41 is the safest and most secure principle upon which the government can rest.
00:06:45 Numbers, not voters. Numbers, not property. This is the theory of the Constitution.
00:06:51 My colleague needs to remember that when the Republic was founded, the vast
00:06:56 majority of people were not citizens who could vote. Women could not vote. Children
00:07:02 could not vote. Enslaved Americans obviously could not vote. So the census
00:07:10 and the apportionment was for everybody who was here. That was the whole basis of
00:07:14 the three-fifths compromise because enslaved Americans were being counted to.
00:07:19 What percentage should they count for purposes reapportionment? Well, Congress
00:07:24 arrived at 60 percent, three-fifths. It was the southern states who were saying they
00:07:28 should count completely for these purposes because they wanted the
00:07:32 enslaved Americans to be enlarging and inflating the congressional delegations
00:07:37 from the slave states. For these purposes, the northern states said no, they
00:07:41 shouldn't count at all. They should count zero percent in the apportionment, but
00:07:45 they arrived at three-fifths. But in any event, everybody agreed that everybody
00:07:49 would be counted. And Justice Ginsburg included lots of decisive legislative
00:07:54 authority like this, including the floor statement here in the House of
00:07:58 Representative James Blaine, who stated that, quote, "No one will deny that
00:08:03 population is the true basis of representation. For women, children, and
00:08:08 other non-voting classes may have as vital an interest in the legislation of
00:08:12 the country as those who actually deposit the ballot." For all of you
00:08:18 constitutional textualists out there, the plain reading of the text is clear as
00:08:23 day. For all you originalists out there, the original purposes of the passage of
00:08:29 the 14th Amendment have been carefully articulated by the Supreme Court on a
00:08:34 unanimous basis and never rebutted. For all of you members who like to follow
00:08:37 precedent, every apportionment since 1790 has included every single person
00:08:44 residing in the United States, not just those lucky enough to have been given
00:08:48 the right to vote. As the Evanwell Court noted, the 14th Amendment contemplates
00:08:52 that, quote, "Representatives serve all residents, not just those eligible to
00:08:59 vote." The constitutional meaning is indisputable, a point which settles this
00:09:03 for those who actually want to follow the Constitution in all cases, not just
00:09:08 when it favors our own preferred policy outcome. The House should be getting real
00:09:15 work done instead of wasting more time on another mega bill that will never
00:09:19 pass the Senate, let alone get signed by the President, much less approved by the
00:09:24 courts. The bill is an insult and it's an affront to the great
00:09:29 radical Republicans who wrote the 14th Amendment. Their party was a pro-freedom,
00:09:35 pro-union, pro-immigrant, anti-conspiracy theory, anti-know-nothing party that
00:09:42 wanted to make sure everybody in the country was counted and made visible. The
00:09:46 census is essential to democracy. Just as the framers endorsed Tom Paine's
00:09:50 common sense, they endorsed a common census. But this bill would destroy the
00:09:56 accuracy of the census, which may have something to do with its actual
00:09:59 legislative motivation. In the 2010 census, the undercount of Hispanic
00:10:04 citizens was 1.4%. In 2020, that number grew to 5%, with many observers
00:10:11 crediting that jump to the Trump administration's simple attempt to add a
00:10:16 citizenship question to the census and all of the intense publicity and rumor
00:10:21 surrounding it. The addition of a question about citizenship will indeed
00:10:25 deter many immigrants, including people who are permanent residents, including
00:10:32 citizens, from completing the census. Many non-citizen immigrants who are seeking
00:10:36 asylum or are refugees will avoid responding because of uncertainty over
00:10:41 their status and fear of arbitrary law enforcement action. Extensive research
00:10:46 over the last decade shows that many residents wrongly believe the Census
00:10:49 Bureau will share their responses with other agencies. To be clear on this point,
00:10:54 it does not. Federal law prohibits it, but that pervasive worry has prevented
00:10:59 some people from answering questions about immigration status or responding
00:11:04 to the census at all. Mr. Chairman, we strongly oppose this legislation as
00:11:10 unconstitutional and unwise. It dishonors our own history and the values of the
00:11:15 nation, and I will reserve at this point. The gentleman reserves. The gentleman from
00:11:20 Arizona is recognized. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Well, as my friend knows, the
00:11:24 Commerce case held specifically you can ask the citizenship question on the
00:11:28 census. That is true. You can do that. That's what we're proposing. Additionally,
00:11:33 he misstated the rationale on why the Commerce case went the way it did. They
00:11:38 said you can ask the question, but that the Secretary had contrived his
00:11:43 rationale and was in violation of the APA, and that's why that happened. So I'll
00:11:48 yield right now five minutes to the gentleman from North Carolina, Mr.
00:11:52 Edwards. The gentleman from North Carolina is recognized for five minutes. Thank you, Mr.
00:11:57 Speaker. Thank you, Mr. Biggs of Arizona, for leading this debate, and thank you,
00:12:02 Mr. Davidson of Ohio, for your co-leadership on this bill. I'll tell you
00:12:09 what, Mr. Speaker, what is an insult. An insult is to the American people, the
00:12:16 citizens that live here whose voice, whose vote is being degraded because of
00:12:25 the horrendous immigration problem that we have at our southern border through
00:12:30 illegal aliens coming across the border and not being addressed here in
00:12:36 Washington, DC. One of the lesser acknowledged issues, but equally alarming
00:12:45 as a result of the population coming across the border illegally, is the
00:12:52 effects of this administration's failure to secure the southern border is the
00:12:57 illegal immigration population's influence in America's electoral process.
00:13:02 Our democracy depends on accurate representation and electoral integrity.
00:13:09 Voting is a coveted privilege held by American citizens, and elected
00:13:15 representatives are responsible for serving the interests of the voters in
00:13:18 their district. But even if not a single illegal alien casts a vote, the mere
00:13:26 presence of illegal immigrants in the United States is having a profound
00:13:30 impact on the outcomes of elections, skewing the representation of Americans.
00:13:36 Mr. Bigg points out that the U.S. Constitution mandates that a census be
00:13:41 carried out every 10 years where everyone who is present in the United
00:13:45 States, regardless of their citizenship and immigration status, is counted. But
00:13:50 the Constitution does not specify whether non-citizens or illegal aliens
00:13:56 must be counted for the purpose of apportioning House seats. You may recall
00:14:01 that in 2016, President Trump, through executive order, added a citizenship
00:14:06 question back to the 2020 census. The same question that had been legally
00:14:13 asked on nearly every census since 1820 until it was removed in 1960. Not because
00:14:20 there was anything found wrong with that question, but because the effect of
00:14:25 illegal immigration was negligible at that time. But there's no doubt, no doubt
00:14:30 today, Mr. Speaker, that the effect of illegal immigration is significant. And I
00:14:36 won't waste my time making that case here. We all know it. It's a top concern
00:14:42 of about 70% of all Americans. Though common sense dictates that only citizens
00:14:49 should be counted for apportionment process, illegal aliens have nonetheless
00:14:54 recently been counted towards the final tallies that determine how many House
00:14:58 seats that each state is allocated and the number of electoral votes that it
00:15:03 will wield in presidential elections. And since the illegal alien population is
00:15:09 not evenly distributed through the nation, American citizens in some states
00:15:13 are losing representation in Congress to illegal aliens in other states. A 2019
00:15:19 study by the Center for Immigration Studies estimates illegal immigrants and
00:15:23 non-citizens who have not naturalized and do not have the right to vote impact
00:15:28 the distribution of 26 House seats. My bill, the Equal Representation Act, would
00:15:35 finally address this alarming undermining of American democracy by
00:15:38 requiring a citizenship question be added back to the 2030 Census, creating
00:15:44 reporting requirements for data gathered from citizenship questions, and requiring
00:15:49 that only U.S. citizens be counted for the purpose of congressional apportionment.
00:15:54 Mr. Speaker, this bill will no doubt and has no doubt drawn criticism from those
00:16:00 who don't want to fix this problem and who seek to gain political influence by
00:16:05 not fixing it. They'll claim to have become experts on our Constitution. I
00:16:12 don't see any black robes in this chamber today. They'll point to the word
00:16:18 "persons" in Section 2 of the 14th Amendment as a reason why this bill
00:16:22 should not pass. But this word carries no definition in our Constitution, and it
00:16:28 offers multiple meanings in current law. Allow me to argue. In 1992, in Franklin
00:16:35 v. Massachusetts, a Supreme Court case on apportionment of representatives
00:16:39 opined the term "persons" to mean an individual who not only has a physical
00:16:45 presence, but some element of allegiance to a particular place. The Census Bureau
00:16:51 does not include foreigners who visit the United States for a vacation or a
00:16:55 business trip in the population count, since they have no political or legal
00:17:01 allegiance to any state or the federal government. Similarly, illegal aliens who
00:17:08 are deportable have no allegiance — The gentleman's time has expired. I can yield 15
00:17:15 seconds. The gentleman's recognized for 15 seconds. Similarly, illegal aliens who are
00:17:20 deportable have no allegiance or enduring tie to the United States.
00:17:23 Foreigners here on visas have an allegiance politically and legally to
00:17:27 their home countries, not to the United States. So the same logic applies to them.
00:17:33 My bill is a common-sense solution to a chronic problem impacting the very
00:17:39 governors. The gentleman from Arizona Reserves, the gentleman from
00:17:46 Maryland, is recognized. The gentleman from North Carolina observes that we
00:17:54 don't have anybody wearing a black robe in the House of Representatives today,
00:17:58 but you don't have to wear a black robe in order to read the Constitution,
00:18:02 interpret the Constitution, and follow it. But if you need people with black robes,
00:18:06 then I would urge the gentleman to read the Supreme Court's decision in
00:18:10 Evanwell v. Abbott, where the Supreme Court unanimously found that the
00:18:18 census and reapportionment must include the entire population — all persons, not
00:18:24 all citizens, not all voters. The alternative suggestions that are being
00:18:29 made today. So what do we have? Since 1790, all persons have been included
00:18:36 in the census, in every census, on a decennial basis, since the beginning of
00:18:41 the Republic. The Supreme Court rejected the theory that's being advanced by my
00:18:46 friends in the majority today in Evanwell v. Abbott, that the Constitution
00:18:53 requires citizens rather than persons. And the gentleman from North Carolina
00:19:02 invites us to think this has something to do with immigration. We actually had an
00:19:07 immigration deal coming out of the Senate for hundreds of new Border Patrol
00:19:13 officers and asylum officers and asylum judges and fentanyl detection machinery,
00:19:20 and it was vetoed by the fourth branch of government, Donald Trump, who said he
00:19:25 didn't want a border solution, he wanted a border crisis to run on. So despite the
00:19:30 fact that Senator Lankford, perhaps one of the most conservative senators that
00:19:37 we have in the Republican Party, said that this was a great deal and the best
00:19:41 that he'd ever seen coming out of the Senate, despite the fact that
00:19:45 Senator McConnell was for it, they blew it all up. So you judge for yourself the
00:19:50 seriousness of the claims that they want to do something about immigration. This
00:19:55 is another useless and needless distraction, and I would now yield two
00:20:00 minutes to the distinguished gentlelady from California, Congresswoman Berrigan.
00:20:04 The gentlelady from California is recognized for two minutes. Thank you, thank you
00:20:08 Ranking Member Raskin. As chair of the Hispanic Caucus, I rise today to
00:20:12 oppose HR 7109. It's a bill that threatens equal and fair representation
00:20:17 of immigrant communities. This bill requires a citizenship question on the
00:20:21 U.S. Census, which directly undermines the Constitution's mandate for a fair and
00:20:26 accurate count of all residents. This requirement would deprive tens of
00:20:31 millions of immigrants their rightful access to representation and resources,
00:20:36 even though they pay taxes and contribute to our economy. A citizenship
00:20:41 question would have a chilling effect on participation in the census. Its accuracy
00:20:46 would be destroyed. The census count affects the federal government and the
00:20:51 amount it appropriates funds and resources to our communities. Republicans
00:20:56 are effectively saying, "If you're not a citizen in this country, you don't count.
00:21:01 Even legal permanent residents, you don't count." This is absurd. Let me be clear,
00:21:07 immigrants are the backbone of this economy. They work the fields, they build
00:21:12 our cities, and they contribute tirelessly to the fabric of our society.
00:21:17 They pay over half a trillion dollars in taxes, including taxes for Social
00:21:21 Security and Medicare, even though undocumented immigrants can't receive
00:21:25 benefits. Yet, despite their invaluable contributions, Republicans want to deny
00:21:30 immigrant communities access to even more vital services and resources that
00:21:35 they help fund through their hard-earned tax dollars. As representatives of the
00:21:39 people, it is our duty to ensure that all members of our communities are treated
00:21:43 with dignity and respect. Every individual, regardless of their
00:21:47 immigration status, should have the opportunity to thrive. But HR 7109 does
00:21:52 the opposite. A citizenship question on the census threatens to further
00:21:56 marginalize immigrant communities. An undercount of the immigrant population
00:22:01 would not only result in an unfair distribution of resources, but it will
00:22:05 also undermine the very foundation of our democracy. That's fair representation
00:22:10 from our government. I want to urge our colleagues to reject this extreme
00:22:14 Republican bill and instead focus on policies that uplift and empower all
00:22:18 members of our society. Thank you, and I yield back.
00:22:21 The general yields back. The general of Maryland.
00:22:23 I thank the general and I will reserve.
00:22:25 Reserves. The general of Arizona is recognized.
00:22:27 Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Of course, every single Democrat voted against the great
00:22:31 border security bill, HR 2. That's how serious they're not. Every person is
00:22:36 counted under this bill. But we ask them what your citizenship is. With that, I
00:22:40 yield two minutes to my friend from Louisiana, Mr. Higgins. The general of
00:22:44 Louisiana is recognized for two minutes. I thank the gentleman and my colleague
00:22:47 from Maryland has stated that this bill is perhaps unconstitutional. Under our
00:22:52 Constitution, he has every right to lead an Article 3 challenge to the
00:22:56 constitutionality of this bill, which I expect that they will. My Democrat
00:23:01 colleagues love to sue Americans and pursue legislation through the courts.
00:23:07 This is actual legislation presented by conservative Republicans to correct a
00:23:13 horrible wrong. I rise in support of HR 7109, the Equal Representation Act. While
00:23:20 this bill will continue to count every person in the United States, it adds a
00:23:24 simple question to the census. Are you a United States citizen? While the
00:23:29 decennial census must count every person in the United States, which I agree with,
00:23:33 Mr. Speaker, the problem is a level of illegal persons that now live in our
00:23:38 country because of President Biden's failures at the southern border. It took
00:23:42 240 years to accumulate 30 million illegals living in the United States. In
00:23:48 four short years, President Biden, under his policies, will have added 15 million.
00:23:54 Talking about 45 million illegals persons living in the United States,
00:23:58 that's the equivalent to 60 congressional seats. Now most of those
00:24:03 illegal aliens will be drawn to live primarily in sanctuary states and cities.
00:24:09 This thwarts the fair representation of American citizens in the House of
00:24:15 Representatives, foundationally altering our representative republic. This
00:24:20 important piece of legislation enables us to fairly and accurately apportion
00:24:26 congressional districts based upon equal representation of American citizens. I
00:24:32 urge my colleagues to seek the truth and to support this bill. I yield.
00:24:38 The gentleman yields back. The gentleman from Arizona Reserve. The gentleman from Maryland is recognized.
00:24:42 Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I'm going to yield two minutes to the distinguished
00:24:44 gentlelady from Illinois, Ms. Ramirez. The gentleman is recognized for two minutes.
00:24:47 Thank you, Ranking Member. I rise to oppose H.R. 7109. I mean, think about it. It's
00:24:54 another Republican attempt to attack immigrant communities in this country. So
00:25:00 many of us are children, grandchildren of immigrants, and we have the hypocrisy to
00:25:07 stand in this room here and continue to attack immigrant communities.
00:25:10 Republicans are trying to amend the Constitution through unconstitutional
00:25:15 means. The Census Bureau has constitutionally mandated responsibility
00:25:20 to count the number of persons in the United States, to count every single
00:25:26 person, because as the member prior from this side said, they are here,
00:25:33 they're contributing, they are paying taxes, they make it possible for us to be
00:25:39 able to retire and then be able to have the benefits that we've worked so hard
00:25:43 because they're paying those taxes and they serve our communities. Republicans
00:25:49 are adding census questions to have a chilling effect to keep people afraid, to
00:25:53 make them nervous, to discourage your participation in the census. And the
00:25:58 ultimate effect that it's going to have on these communities like mine is
00:26:01 undercounted and underrepresented. Our democracy grows weaker every single time
00:26:08 these kind of actions are brought to this floor. We must ensure that the census
00:26:13 remains as accurate as possible and free from the political interference that
00:26:19 would be robbing whole communities of the resources and the representation
00:26:24 they are entitled to. I encourage strongly a no vote and I yield back to
00:26:29 the ranking member. The gentlelady yields back. The gentleman reserves. The gentleman in Arizona is
00:26:33 recognized. Mr. Speaker, I yield two minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin, Mr.
00:26:37 Griffin. The gentleman is recognized for two minutes. Thank you. I want to make reference
00:26:41 to a couple other documents before I discuss the bill. First of all, our Pledge
00:26:46 of Allegiance, which we say every day. We pledge allegiance to the republic for
00:26:51 which we stand, right? The flag and the republic for which we stand. When
00:26:54 Benjamin Franklin, after our Constitution was ratified, he talked
00:27:00 about giving us a republic if we can keep it. And I think people should analyze
00:27:05 those two little quotes and wonder why there were references to a republic in
00:27:10 both of them. In any event, it kind of bugs me that people around here don't
00:27:16 understand that. But now back to the bill at hand, I'd like to thank the gentleman
00:27:20 from Arizona for introducing this bill. I think it's fairly obvious that when we
00:27:27 take a census, there are certain questions you expect to appear on the
00:27:31 census, right? And one thing, we want to know if you're a permanent citizen here or
00:27:36 whether you are not a citizen. And there's a difference between the two.
00:27:39 There's a reason why we swear certain people in as citizens. There's a reason
00:27:44 why we treat citizens different than other people. And I think it's absolutely
00:27:49 bizarre that to this point we have been sending out census forms and not asking
00:27:55 the first question that you would figure would pop into your head. Are you a
00:27:59 citizen? It's kind of embarrassing it hasn't happened up to this point. We
00:28:06 have another problem and that there's some states declaring themselves
00:28:09 sanctuary states or some sanctuary cities in which they seem to be
00:28:13 encouraging people to come here who really shouldn't be in the country at
00:28:18 all under current law. So in any event, I think this is a great bill. First of all,
00:28:25 we should, in apportioning congressional seats, take into account people are
00:28:29 citizens, not people who are non-citizens, many of which I assume are going to
00:28:35 return to the country they came from. And secondly, we expect on the form, I mean
00:28:44 the first thing that I look, they put things on their race, sometimes in the
00:28:48 surveys, they put on, on a TV or that sort of thing. So in any event,
00:28:54 something should be expected. I'd like to thank the gentleman from Arizona again for giving us the chance.
00:28:59 The gentleman from Arizona Reserve, the gentleman from Maryland is recognized. Mr. Speaker, thank you very much. I'm about to yield to my friend, Ms. Meng, from New York, but I'm inspired by the remarks of the
00:29:09 gentleman from Wisconsin, especially about the word "Republic," which of course comes
00:29:13 from "res publica," the public thing. He happened upon a subject that's of a lot
00:29:19 of interest to me because I wrote a paper about it when I was in sixth grade,
00:29:22 the Pledge of Allegiance. It was written by a radical Baptist minister named
00:29:28 Francis Bellamy, I'm not sure if the gentleman's aware of that, on the 400th
00:29:33 anniversary of Columbus's arrival in the New World. And Reverend Bellamy, who
00:29:38 was an abolitionist in Vermont, was concerned about the continuing salute of
00:29:44 the Confederate battle flag in the southern states. And so he wanted to
00:29:47 write a flag salute that would be unifying for the Union. And he wrote, "I
00:29:53 pledge allegiance to my flag of the United States of America and to the
00:29:57 Republic for which it stands, one nation with liberty and justice for all." And you
00:30:04 notice what is not in there. He did not have under God. That was added in 1954 by
00:30:09 Congress, several weeks after the Supreme Court's decision in Brown v. Board
00:30:13 of Education. But in any event, I'm not quite sure what the relevance is of the
00:30:17 gentleman's invocation of the Republic or of Ben Franklin and the famous
00:30:23 vignette about him saying, "If you can keep it." Ben Franklin was of course a big
00:30:29 supporter of immigration to the country, although he did display an anti-German
00:30:33 bias in some of his writings. But I'll tell you a little story about Ben
00:30:38 Franklin that might be of relevance to what the gentleman's talking about.
00:30:43 Apparently, because I just did a tour in Philadelphia with the Ben Franklin people
00:30:48 up there, and we learned this wonderful story. He made a loan to a friend of his
00:30:53 for $100. And then he recorded in his diary that this gentleman he made a
00:31:01 loan to for $100, Josiah, was always disappearing behind a tree or a building
00:31:06 whenever Ben came along. And he finally caught up with them and he said, "Josiah,
00:31:11 you know, I loaned you a hundred bucks and I'm wondering am I going to be able
00:31:15 to get my my principal back or at least the interest?" And Josiah said, "Well, Ben,
00:31:21 look, the $100 is well invested somewhere else, so you don't have to worry about
00:31:27 that." And Franklin said, "Well, what about the interest?" He said, "Well, I forgot to
00:31:30 tell you that it's against my religion to pay interest, so I can't pay you the
00:31:34 interest." So Franklin said, "You mean to tell me it's against your principle to
00:31:39 pay me the interest and it's against your interest to pay me the principal?"
00:31:42 And Josiah said, "Well, that's right." So Franklin said, "Well, I can see I'm not
00:31:46 going to get either." Well, look, here our principles and our interests converge
00:31:50 very much. The principles are set forth in the Constitution, which is we count
00:31:55 everybody and everybody is part of the census and everybody is part of the
00:31:59 reapportionment process. It's been like that since 1790. We don't need to start
00:32:04 finger-painting on the Constitution with this silly election year proposal. But
00:32:09 it's also in our interests because, as my colleagues have said, this is a land that
00:32:15 is built on immigration. Except for the Native Americans who are already here
00:32:21 and the people who were brought over as slaves, all of us are the descendants of
00:32:26 immigrants to this country. Tom Paine said when he got to America in 1774, two
00:32:32 years before the Revolution, he said, "This land, if it lives up to its principles,
00:32:36 will become an asylum to humanity." Not an insane asylum, mind you. An asylum to
00:32:42 humanity, a place of refuge for people seeking freedom from religious, political,
00:32:47 and economic oppression. That's who we are. And every day I have in my office
00:32:51 people from the hotel industry, people from the construction industry, people
00:32:58 from the restaurant industry saying, "We've got huge labor shortages. We need
00:33:02 people in America." So I'm for a whole lot more lawful immigration to America, less
00:33:10 unlawful immigration to America, like the deal that was worked out in the Senate
00:33:14 that was rejected by the Republicans, and a lot less demagoguery about who we are
00:33:20 as a country. Because the census and reapportionment provisions in the 14th
00:33:26 Amendment tell it all. This is a country that's, for everybody, seeking opportunity
00:33:32 and hope, willing to follow the law and follow our Constitution. With that, I will
00:33:37 yield to the gentlelady from New York. The gentleman... how much time? Two minutes.
00:33:43 The gentleman who wrote... Three minutes. Three minutes. Yield to the lady two minutes. She's
00:33:46 recognized. Thank you so much, Ranking Member Raskin. Mr. Speaker, I rise today
00:33:51 in strong opposition to HR 7109, the Equal Representation Act. The U.S.
00:33:57 Constitution requires a count of the whole number of persons in each state.
00:34:02 Counting every person has been the legal, historical, and constitutional practice
00:34:08 ever since the first census conducted in 1790. A citizens-only census, as this
00:34:15 legislation intends, is reckless, cynical, and frankly illegal. It is not the Census
00:34:22 Bureau's job to keep track of immigration status. It is also not the
00:34:27 Census Bureau's job to determine one's allegiance, just like the insurrectionists
00:34:33 on January 6th. We have agencies for both of those tasks. The census guides more
00:34:40 than 2.8 trillion dollars a year in federal funding and is distributed to
00:34:45 states, cities, and towns. This includes funding for Medicare, Medicaid, schools,
00:34:51 roads, and other critical public services. And not counting every whole person may
00:34:57 decrease federal money, even in some of my colleagues' districts. Non-citizens
00:35:03 make up about 6.7 percent of our nation's population of 333 million people. They
00:35:10 are our loved ones, friends, neighbors, and those who've been actively
00:35:14 contributing to and participating in our communities for many years. Pretending
00:35:18 that non-citizens do not live in our communities, and that's exactly what this
00:35:23 bill would do, pretend, will only instill fear, force people into the shadows, and
00:35:29 take critical federal funding away from the areas that need it the most.
00:35:33 Throughout our nation's history, there have been several attempts at adding a
00:35:37 citizenship question to the census, all of which have failed. As a daughter of
00:35:42 immigrants and as the representative of a diverse community of constituents who
00:35:47 have arrived from many corners of the world, I've adamantly fought against
00:35:51 these attempts. In 2018, the previous administration attempted to add a
00:35:55 citizenship question to the census, which Senator Hirono and I and others fought
00:36:00 against in Congress. This was...
00:36:02 The gentlelady's...
00:36:04 The gentlelady's recognized for 30 seconds.
00:36:06 This was subsequently blocked by the Supreme Court. We cannot let this latest
00:36:11 attempt succeed. Calling this legislation the Equal Representation Act is an
00:36:16 oxymoron, and I am voting no and urge my colleagues to vote no.
00:36:20 The gentlelady yields back. The gentleman reserves. The gentleman from Arizona is recognized.
00:36:24 Mr. Chair, can I inquire what the balance of my time is?
00:36:28 The gentleman from Arizona has 17 minutes.
00:36:33 Thank you very much. Mr. Chair, I wish we were hearing not deflective statements, but the actual truth here.
00:36:41 Because here's the way it works. There is nothing in this bill that says you don't
00:36:46 count everybody. You do count everybody. The thing they don't want, the thing
00:36:52 they really don't want us to know, is how many illegal aliens are in the country.
00:36:56 So we're going to ask a citizenship question, which has been asked 22 of 25
00:37:02 censuses. They don't want that. With that, I'll yield two minutes to my friend from
00:37:06 Tennessee, Mr. Burchett.
00:37:08 The gentleman from Tennessee is recognized for two minutes.
00:37:10 Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Thank you, Chairman Biggs and Ranking Member Raskin.
00:37:15 It's always good to see you with a good healthy head of hair.
00:37:18 God does listen to our prayers. We're glad you're with us and healthy, brother.
00:37:23 Thank you. I know your prayers go right to the top.
00:37:25 Yes, sir. Well, my mama's did. Mine don't quite make it that far, but they get close.
00:37:30 So thank you, brother.
00:37:32 Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of HR 7109, the Equal Representation Act.
00:37:39 This legislation will require U.S. citizens to include a question that asks
00:37:43 if the person is a United States citizen. Just a question.
00:37:47 This bill passed through the House Oversight Committee on a straight party-line vote,
00:37:51 22 to 20, and not a single Democrat supported it.
00:37:54 The census informs how our government divides up congressional districts
00:37:58 and Electoral College votes.
00:38:00 Mr. Speaker, it helps to ensure American voters have equal representation.
00:38:04 American voters.
00:38:06 That process should not factor in people who are not citizens or not eligible to vote.
00:38:11 You can see why my Democrat colleagues would have a problem with this bill.
00:38:15 Factoring illegal aliens into the process skews things in their favor.
00:38:19 In fact, it wasn't very long ago that a member of the minority party was on the news
00:38:28 claiming that they wished that more illegals would come to their district for the census.
00:38:34 If the census does not include the citizenship question,
00:38:37 states with more illegal aliens will get more congressional districts and more Electoral College votes.
00:38:42 We have a history of saying that elections are sacred
00:38:45 and that free, fair, and secure elections are the cornerstone of this great republic.
00:38:50 It's time to act like it and prioritize the dadgum representation of our people.
00:38:55 Americans are sick and tired of this administration weaponizing different parts of our government
00:39:00 and they don't want to see something like the census being used against them
00:39:03 when it's so hard, in fact, to get American citizens to even take the census.
00:39:08 Leaders in states like California and New York are taking pride in harboring illegal aliens.
00:39:12 In fact, the people of California have offered free health care to their illegals
00:39:17 and New York has kicked combat veterans out of housing to house the illegals.
00:39:24 The gentleman's time has expired. I yield him 10 more seconds.
00:39:27 The gentleman was recognized for 10 seconds.
00:39:29 We cannot be rewarded with more congressional seats, Mr. Speaker, or Electoral College votes,
00:39:34 which would end up distorting the will of the American people.
00:39:36 I'd like to thank my colleagues, Congressman Warren Davidson and Congressman Chuck Edwards,
00:39:40 for introducing this legislation. I'm proud to support it. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
00:39:43 The gentleman yields back. The gentleman deserves. The gentleman from Maryland is recognized.
00:39:46 And we're glad to see your head up here, too, Jamie.
00:39:48 Thank you, Mr. Speaker. It's always great to be with my friend from Tennessee.
00:39:52 Just two quick points on his always trenchant remarks.
00:39:56 One is that one should be clear that under this legislation,
00:40:02 they're not roping out of the reapportionment just undocumented people.
00:40:09 They're also roping out of the reapportionment permanent residents,
00:40:14 people who are green card holders who are on the pathway to citizenship already.
00:40:19 So they're talking about disenfranchising from the census reapportionment process
00:40:24 millions of people who are lawfully within it.
00:40:29 And they should be aware of that.
00:40:31 Also, if we were being cynical politically, we would embrace this legislation
00:40:36 because it's the red states like Texas and Florida,
00:40:39 whose congressional delegations are inflated by virtue of counting people who are not citizens.
00:40:45 We're simply trying to follow what the Constitution says,
00:40:48 which I know is kind of a radical proposition around here these days.
00:40:51 I will yield three minutes to the distinguished gentlelady from North Carolina, Ms. Manning.
00:40:56 I'd like to thank my cousin.
00:40:58 The gentlelady from North Carolina, my colleague, is recognized for three minutes.
00:41:02 Thank you, Mr. Speaker. And I'd like to thank my cousin, Representative Raskin, for yielding me time.
00:41:07 Well, we have wasted another legislative week on ludicrous messaging bills
00:41:13 to defend the liberty of laundry and freedom for the fridge.
00:41:17 Today, they're pushing a bill to upend our nation's process for collecting census data.
00:41:23 Let's be clear. The so-called Equal Representation Act does nothing to live up to its name.
00:41:30 In fact, their bill would result in the opposite.
00:41:33 It will reduce participation in the census, which our government relies on,
00:41:38 for a host of data to inform our decision-making.
00:41:42 What's more, this bill will violate our Constitution,
00:41:46 which states that all persons be counted in the census.
00:41:50 Instead of wasting time on deeply unserious messaging bills,
00:41:55 Congress should be focused on what really matters to the American people,
00:42:00 particularly reproductive freedoms.
00:42:03 Right now, across the country, women are suffering from extreme abortion bans
00:42:09 that are endangering their health and limiting their ability to make private medical decisions.
00:42:15 Women in America are worried about their reproductive freedoms
00:42:19 and deeply concerned about what extremist politicians will attack next.
00:42:25 We know that radical judges and politicians are not stopping with abortion bans.
00:42:31 They're now attacking fertility treatments and attempting to restrict birth control methods,
00:42:37 like Plan B and IUDs.
00:42:39 If far-right extremists really cared about women,
00:42:43 they would want to make the full range of birth control readily available,
00:42:48 not restrict access to it.
00:42:51 This Sunday is Mother's Day.
00:42:53 How about giving moms and potential moms the gift they really want,
00:42:58 the right to decide whether, when, and with whom to have children?
00:43:04 Instead of flowers, let's guarantee the right to use the full range of FDA-approved birth control.
00:43:12 In honor of Mother's Day and for this reason, at the appropriate time,
00:43:17 I will offer a motion to recommit this bill back to committee.
00:43:22 If the House rules permit, I would have offered the motion with an important amendment to this bill,
00:43:27 and my amendment would strike the text of H.R. 7190
00:43:31 and replace it with my Right to Contraception Act,
00:43:34 a bill to protect the right to access all forms of FDA-approved birth control
00:43:39 and protect women's reproductive health from political interference.
00:43:43 I ask unanimous consent to insert into the record the text of this amendment.
00:43:48 That objection is ordered.
00:43:50 I hope my colleagues will join me in voting for the motion to recommit, and I yield back.
00:43:55 The gentlelady yields back. The gentleman from Maryland Reserves and the gentleman from Arizona is recognized.
00:44:00 Mr. Chairman, I yield two minutes to the gentleman from New York, Mr. Langworthy.
00:44:04 The gentleman from New York is recognized for two minutes.
00:44:06 Mr. Speaker, right now our nation is grappling with a border crisis
00:44:11 that has been manufactured by Democratic policies
00:44:14 that brazenly reward those that break our laws to enter our country illegally.
00:44:19 My home state of New York is drowning due to policies that transformed our state
00:44:23 into a sanctuary for illegal immigration.
00:44:26 Democratic leaders in New York City, Albany, here in Congress, in the White House,
00:44:30 they have turned their back on lawful Americans,
00:44:34 choosing instead to roll out the red carpet for illegal immigrants with housing, clothing,
00:44:39 financial incentives, all paid for by the American taxpayers.
00:44:42 The gravy train's alive and well.
00:44:45 Through this process, we're learning that it's a calculated effort to boost their own political power
00:44:50 by inflating their population counts and skewing congressional representation.
00:44:55 We're talking millions of people who are not American citizens
00:44:59 having a major say in American elections.
00:45:03 They're not even hiding it anymore.
00:45:05 One of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, who happens to represent New York City in this body,
00:45:09 openly called for more illegal immigration for her district because she says she, quote,
00:45:14 "needs more people in her district for redistricting purposes."
00:45:17 This absurd notion, pushed by my colleagues across the aisle,
00:45:21 that these non-citizens should shape the future of our nation is completely unconstitutional.
00:45:26 They are corroding the essence of American citizenship,
00:45:29 turning it into a political commodity.
00:45:32 The Equal Representation Act is our line in the sand.
00:45:35 It is time to end the charade by rewarding states like New York and California
00:45:40 for this reckless sanctuary antics that undermine our laws.
00:45:44 I urge my colleagues to rise above partisan manipulation,
00:45:48 protect the sanctity of our democracy, and support the Equal Representation Act.
00:45:52 Let's send a clear message that the value of American citizenship is absolute,
00:45:57 and our elections are not for sale.
00:46:00 I yield back.
00:46:01 The gentleman on the reserve, the gentleman from Maryland is recognized.
00:46:04 Mr. Speaker, how much time do we have, please?
00:46:06 The gentleman from Maryland has six minutes.
00:46:09 Thank you very much.
00:46:10 Look, if you strip away all the bombast and all the rhetoric,
00:46:14 the gentleman just basically delivered a tirade about immigration,
00:46:21 but never addressed the fact that their legislation is totally unconstitutional.
00:46:25 If you want to deal with immigration, we had a bill,
00:46:29 and the bill would have added hundreds of Border Patrol officers and asylum officers and judges.
00:46:36 And the Republican leadership in the Senate said it was a great deal.
00:46:41 They got most of what they wanted.
00:46:43 It was a great compromise.
00:46:45 And yet, who didn't want it?
00:46:47 Donald Trump, alas, still the putative leader of those who are left in the GOP, Lincoln's party.
00:46:55 Donald Trump didn't want it because he doesn't want a border solution.
00:46:59 He wants a border crisis.
00:47:01 So they're left with a bunch of completely superficial, empty bills like this one,
00:47:11 which I doubt it will even pass the House, but if it does pass the House,
00:47:16 it certainly won't pass the Senate.
00:47:18 It'll never be signed by the president, and it will be struck down immediately by the Supreme Court.
00:47:23 So why are we wasting our time on that instead of getting to the legislation
00:47:28 that actually a majority of the Senate was behind?
00:47:31 I wish one of my colleagues would address that, and I will reserve my time.
00:47:36 The gentleman from the Reserve, the gentleman from Arizona is recognized.
00:47:39 Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
00:47:41 I now recognize and yield two minutes to the gentleman, woman from Colorado, Ms. Boebert.
00:47:46 The gentleman from Colorado is recognized for two minutes.
00:47:49 Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker, and thank you to Chairman Biggs for leading on this issue.
00:47:54 I rise in support of the Equal Representation Act, which will add a citizenship question to the census
00:48:02 and exclude illegal aliens from the apportionment base.
00:48:07 It is past time we put America and Americans first.
00:48:13 Joe Biden and his regime are shelling out benefits to illegal immigrants like Oprah Winfrey on her show.
00:48:20 Everyone gets a vote. Everyone gets recognized, even if you're here illegally.
00:48:25 In New York, aliens are receiving $53 million in free prepaid debit cards.
00:48:30 In Denver, Colorado, aliens get six free months of housing.
00:48:35 And now they want to hand them seats in Congress to buy their lifelong allegiance to the Democrat Party.
00:48:42 Since Biden took office, we have seen more than 9 million illegal aliens cross our borders
00:48:48 and more than 1.8 million gotaways evade Border Patrol agents.
00:48:54 That is larger than the population of 32 states, Mr. Speaker.
00:48:58 There are now at least 16.8 million illegal aliens living in the United States,
00:49:04 enough to account for roughly 22 seats in the House of Representatives,
00:49:09 including these aliens in the apportionment of congressional districts,
00:49:14 impacts representation in Congress, and undermines the constitutional principle of one person, one vote.
00:49:21 Americans deserve to have their voices fully represented, not diluted by illegal aliens.
00:49:28 I'm proud to be a co-sponsor of this legislation, and I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of this bill.
00:49:35 Mr. Speaker, I yield back.
00:49:37 The gentlelady yields back. The gentleman on reserve. The gentleman from Maryland is recognized.
00:49:42 Thank you kindly, and it's always delightful to hear my friend from Colorado speak.
00:49:47 One thing that I do want to point out, however, because there might be some students in the gallery today,
00:49:52 is that there can be no illegal aliens and there can be no green card holders in Congress
00:50:00 because the Constitution very clearly specifies that you must have been a citizen for seven years
00:50:05 before you run for the House, and you must have been a citizen for nine years before you run for the Senate,
00:50:11 and you must be a born U.S. citizen in order to run for president of the United States,
00:50:18 which some of the historians, as I think I mentioned before,
00:50:21 attribute to Thomas Jefferson trying to write Alexander Hamilton out of the presidential sweepstakes.
00:50:28 In any event, I think that my colleagues should probably relax with some of the hyperbole and exaggeration here.
00:50:36 After all, all we're saying is let's keep doing what we've done since 1790 in the country.
00:50:44 This is the way that the census and the reapportionment have always been run in the United States of America,
00:50:49 and what they're proposing is obviously a radical departure from what the Constitution ordains.
00:50:55 Thank you.
00:50:58 Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
00:50:59 I yield two minutes to the gentleman from Louisiana, Mr. Graves.
00:51:02 The gentleman from Louisiana is recognized for two minutes.
00:51:05 Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
00:51:06 Mr. Speaker, I want to simply explain what we're talking about here.
00:51:10 You could have a citizen of Russia that illegally crosses our southern border, pays cartels,
00:51:17 comes across our southern border, and decides to set up shop in California.
00:51:22 That citizen of Russia that can still vote for Vladimir Putin all day long
00:51:27 also is counted in the distribution of electoral votes in the United States,
00:51:31 therefore having influence, therefore shaping who is President of the United States.
00:51:38 I don't know what else could possibly be foreign interference in elections than what we're talking about today.
00:51:46 Mr. Speaker, I'm from the state of Louisiana.
00:51:48 We have six members of Congress. We have six.
00:51:52 By some calculation, the state of California alone has six members of Congress
00:51:57 entirely attributable to citizens of other countries,
00:52:00 therefore just offsetting all of the votes in all the citizens in Louisiana.
00:52:06 This is outrageous.
00:52:07 To listen to people across the aisle talk about how this is inappropriate,
00:52:13 no, this is exactly appropriate.
00:52:15 This is exactly appropriate.
00:52:16 As a matter of fact, the way that we count American citizens in our territories,
00:52:22 you are giving a greater status, a greater status to an illegal alien in the United States,
00:52:29 a citizen of a foreign country, than you're giving to an American citizen.
00:52:34 This is absolutely outrageous.
00:52:36 To listen to people to try and argue and justify this,
00:52:39 this is 100% about stacking the vote, about foreign interference in elections,
00:52:44 about allowing, incentivizing, incentivizing sanctuary cities.
00:52:49 That's what this does.
00:52:50 It actually takes American taxpayer dollars through the formula funding influenced by the census,
00:52:56 and it gives it to states that have illegal aliens.
00:53:00 This is completely outrageous.
00:53:02 I can't even believe we're standing here having this debate.
00:53:05 Vote yes if you want Americans to be represented,
00:53:09 and vote no if you think Russians and Chinese and others should be represented.
00:53:13 I urge adoption of the bill and yield back.
00:53:15 The gentleman's time has expired. He yields back.
00:53:16 The gentleman reserves. The gentleman in Maryland is recognized.
00:53:18 Mr. Speaker, thank you very much.
00:53:20 I'm delighted to hear someone on that side of the aisle denounce Vladimir Putin,
00:53:23 and I thank him for his remarks.
00:53:25 We should definitely avoid putting in a president of the United States
00:53:28 who looks up to Vladimir Putin and calls him a genius.
00:53:31 But in any event, I could be persuaded by the gentleman's policy arguments,
00:53:37 but then we've got to amend the Constitution.
00:53:40 This is the way it's been done since the beginning of the Republic.
00:53:43 The language in the 14th Amendment is perfectly clear
00:53:47 that it's all of the persons of the state who have to be counted.
00:53:51 I thought you guys were constitutional textualists.
00:53:53 I thought you followed the language of the Constitution,
00:53:56 the original intent of the Constitution, and the precedent that has been set.
00:54:01 I could be persuaded by it.
00:54:03 I don't like the fact that Texas and Florida, or any state for that matter,
00:54:07 gets an inflated congressional delegation because of this reason or that.
00:54:14 Let's have that discussion.
00:54:15 But you've got to amend the Constitution.
00:54:17 You can't just say, "Well, I don't like what's in the Constitution,
00:54:20 and therefore I'm going to ignore it."
00:54:23 And the point about the territories, I'm not sure I understood.
00:54:26 That undercut the gentleman's argument, because of course the people in the territories
00:54:29 are not represented in the House of Representatives,
00:54:32 except by non-voting delegates,
00:54:34 whose votes ultimately don't count and can't count
00:54:38 according to a D.C. Circuit decision called Michael v. Anderson.
00:54:42 And I'm going to reserve the rest of my time.
00:54:44 The gentleman reserves, the gentleman on the zone is recognized.
00:54:46 Mr. Speaker, can I inquire about the time again, please?
00:54:49 The gentleman has nine and a half minutes.
00:54:51 Thank you. I'll yield three minutes to my friend, the gentleman from Ohio, Mr. Davidson.
00:54:55 The gentleman from Ohio is recognized for three and a half minutes.
00:54:58 I think, my colleagues, that's a lot of words from the opposition to this bill
00:55:03 to say that citizenship does not matter.
00:55:06 That's basically their argument.
00:55:08 We don't care if you're a citizen.
00:55:10 In fact, they are encouraging you to not be a citizen.
00:55:13 Sanctuary cities and states invite everyone from the world to flood their cities.
00:55:17 And they need it.
00:55:19 They've said as much in interviews that their population is fleeing their horrible policies
00:55:24 in states like California, Illinois, Maryland, and elsewhere.
00:55:29 New York, and they're going to places that have more freedom and less government.
00:55:33 So what do they do?
00:55:35 They import new people who don't know better.
00:55:38 And yes, the conditions are better there than the places they're fleeing.
00:55:42 But as my colleague, Mr. Graves, was pointing out,
00:55:45 California's got six to seven members.
00:55:47 That's more than many of our states.
00:55:49 Yes, Texas has representatives because they too have a large illegal population.
00:55:54 And the Biden administration is doing everything possible to prevent them from stopping this invasion of our country.
00:56:02 It is willfully and purposefully, and I will add skillfully,
00:56:06 undermining the value of U.S. citizenship to flood this country with non-citizens.
00:56:12 And I want to tell you some great news to my colleagues.
00:56:15 Foreign nationals do have representation in the United States.
00:56:19 At embassies or consulates.
00:56:22 Their representative is not here in the United States Congress.
00:56:25 I represent United States citizens and so do my colleagues.
00:56:29 But the non-citizens do not vote, and they should not vote.
00:56:33 But don't let that stop them. They're working to change that too, so that they can vote.
00:56:37 We found that non-citizens are voting, and they found loopholes to do that with motor voter.
00:56:43 We have to defend the value and right of U.S. citizens.
00:56:47 And the only way to do that is to do the very purpose of the census, is to apportion representatives.
00:56:53 Now we get a lot of other ancillary benefits from the census,
00:56:57 but the constitutional purpose of it is to know who is here.
00:57:02 Now they want to know everything else about you.
00:57:04 How many hyphens you have in your ethnicity, national origin, what you believe about your religion, how much you make.
00:57:10 Every other way they can invade your privacy, but they don't give a rip whether you're a United States citizen.
00:57:20 The American people deserve to be fairly and equally represented,
00:57:24 and that is the only way they're going to be done, is if we know who's a citizen,
00:57:29 and the apportionment is based on the United States citizens.
00:57:34 This amendment needs to be passed.
00:57:36 And for assurance, for the previous three Congresses, I've introduced a constitutional amendment.
00:57:42 In this Congress, it's H.J. Res. 37.
00:57:45 I assume Mr. Raskin will run down and co-sponsor it immediately,
00:57:49 because he knows that he could amend the Constitution and defend the principle that is at stake here.
00:57:55 I urge all of our colleagues to sponsor this bill, to vote yes on this bill, and get it passed.
00:58:02 And I yield back.
00:58:03 The gentleman's time has expired. The gentleman yields back. The gentleman of the Arizona Reserve, the gentleman from Maryland, is recognized.
00:58:08 Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.
00:58:10 Gee, why do you need to amend the Constitution if you can just go ahead and do it by statute here?
00:58:15 That's rather curious. I think the gentleman doth protest a little bit too much.
00:58:20 I admire the intellectual honesty in putting forth a constitutional amendment,
00:58:24 because that's precisely what needs to be done, and I'd be very happy to look at that
00:58:28 and appreciate his candor in admitting that the Constitution needs to be amended
00:58:32 in order to overturn more than two centuries of practice
00:58:36 and everything the Supreme Court has ever said about the issue.
00:58:40 It also should be clear to everybody that only U.S. citizens of majority may vote in federal elections.
00:58:46 That's federal law.
00:58:48 But everybody, including children who are U.S. citizens, are counted,
00:58:52 even though they can't vote in federal elections.
00:58:55 I'll reserve. Mr. Speaker.
00:58:57 The gentleman of Maryland Reserves, the gentleman from Arizona, is recognized.
00:59:00 Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'm pleased to recognize the chairman of the House Judiciary Committee,
00:59:04 the gentleman from Ohio, Mr. Jordan.
00:59:06 For one minute.
00:59:07 For one minute.
00:59:08 The gentleman is recognized for one minute.
00:59:09 I thank the gentleman for yielding. Mr. Speaker, if you went out on the street today
00:59:12 and you asked anybody on the street, you say, "You know, we do a census every ten years.
00:59:16 We count up the number of people in the country.
00:59:18 Do you think it's okay if we find out how many of those are citizens?"
00:59:21 That person would say, "Well, yeah, but aren't you already doing that?"
00:59:25 That's what they would think.
00:59:27 All this bill says is let's count persons, like the Constitution says.
00:59:30 Let's count everyone, but let's also find out how many are citizens
00:59:33 because that's what should determine how congressional representation, how apportionment is done.
00:59:38 It is so darn simple.
00:59:40 By the way, to my good friend from Maryland on the other side,
00:59:43 we ask all kinds of other questions on the census anyway.
00:59:46 What's wrong with asking sort of the fundamental question,
00:59:49 "Are you a citizen of this great country, the greatest country ever?"
00:59:52 That's all this does, and that is an important number to get,
00:59:56 important information to get when you're figuring out who's going to represent
00:59:59 how many congressional members from each of the respective states.
01:00:03 This couldn't be more simpler.
01:00:05 I don't know why they're opposing it, but they always do.
01:00:08 I urge a yes vote and yield back.
01:00:10 The gentleman yields back. The gentleman from Arizona--
01:00:12 Reserve.
01:00:13 Reserve. The gentleman from Maryland is recognized.
01:00:15 I reserve.
01:00:16 The gentleman from the Reserve, the gentleman from Arizona is recognized.
01:00:18 I have no additional speakers. Is the gentleman prepared to close?
01:00:21 Yes, indeed.
01:00:22 Okay. The gentleman from Maryland is recognized.
01:00:25 Well, I don't want to be in the position of lecturing my colleagues
01:00:30 about something that they often like to say,
01:00:32 but the Constitution is the Constitution,
01:00:36 and nobody yet has laid a glove on the Constitution
01:00:38 or explained how the Supreme Court erred in the unanimous Evanwell decision.
01:00:43 None of them has been able to explain away the very plain language of the 14th Amendment,
01:00:47 which says that it's all the persons of the states who are counted,
01:00:50 not the citizens, and that's been the basis for both the census
01:00:54 and the reapportionment since the country began.
01:00:58 So, you know, the rest of it just strikes me like election year political rhetoric.
01:01:05 To the extent that we want to deal with immigration,
01:01:07 we had a great bargain that came out of the Senate,
01:01:11 which everybody in this body and that body seemed to be behind
01:01:14 until they heard from Donald Trump,
01:01:16 "No, he didn't want to see any legislative progress.
01:01:19 He wanted to be able to demagogue the immigration issue out on the campaign trail,"
01:01:24 although he's been severely undermined by all of the exposure that went to that decision.
01:01:28 And again, I haven't heard anybody either explain why their legislation is constitutional,
01:01:33 nor have I heard anybody explain what's wrong with the immigration package we had
01:01:37 for hundreds of new Border Patrol officers,
01:01:40 hundreds of new Border and Patrol and Asylum judges,
01:01:46 and a crackdown on drugs at the border.
01:01:49 And with that, I'll yield back.
01:01:51 The gentleman yields back. The gentleman there is recognized.
01:01:53 Thank you so much. It's an honor to debate here about this.
01:02:00 But let me tell you something.
01:02:02 I believe that by far most Americans would agree with the proposition
01:02:06 that those illegally in the United States and non-citizens
01:02:09 should not be counted for purposes of creating or modifying congressional and legislative districts.
01:02:13 I think that's probably what they think.
01:02:15 And that's exactly what Section 3 of this bill leads to.
01:02:18 Foreign nationals here legally who have not naturalized and cannot vote in federal elections,
01:02:24 together with illegal aliens who cannot vote in federal elections,
01:02:27 comprise a substantial portion of our population,
01:02:30 by some accounts in excess of 15% of our populations.
01:02:34 Non-citizens are not evenly distributed among the states,
01:02:37 and some states end up with greater representation in Congress
01:02:39 based on a higher concentration of non-citizens.
01:02:42 Perhaps that is what one New York Congresswoman meant when in response to a question regarding illegal aliens,
01:02:47 she said, "I need more people in my district just for redistricting purposes."
01:02:52 Well, the provision of this bill will ensure a fair apportionment based on equal representation.
01:02:56 Now, my colleague has relied on Evanwall v. Abbott,
01:03:00 a case that they've relied on wrongfully.
01:03:03 Their reliance is totally misplaced.
01:03:06 First of all, they're dealing with state apportionment issues in Evanwall.
01:03:10 Not federal, but state.
01:03:12 But let's just go ahead here. Let's see what Justice Ginsburg did.
01:03:15 She cited with approval the district court holding in Evanwall
01:03:19 that the "Supreme Court allows jurisdictions to use any neutral, non-discriminatory baseline,
01:03:26 including total population, when drawing state and local legislative districts."
01:03:30 That has never been overturned.
01:03:34 Nor did Justice Ginsburg overturn it in Evanwall.
01:03:38 In Evanwall, the plaintiffs that came before the court wanted apportionment based on a citizen voting age population.
01:03:45 That's what they were asking for.
01:03:48 And although Evanwall deals with state and local apportionment,
01:03:51 we can fairly extrapolate the rationale to federal apportionment as well.
01:03:55 Justice Ginsburg's holding in Evanwall turns on the idea that voter equality in a district is not required.
01:04:03 It's not required.
01:04:05 It also lays out that neither is it the total population metric
01:04:09 that is implied by these people on the other side of the aisle.
01:04:12 That's not required either.
01:04:14 For instance, Ginsburg referred to Burns v. Richardson.
01:04:18 And in that case, it held that districts may be apportioned on the basis of registered voters or voter-eligible populations.
01:04:25 That that is permissible.
01:04:28 In the Burns case, they give the example of Hawaii,
01:04:32 which could rationally justify its use of voter-eligible apportionment
01:04:35 because of the large number of transients and military personnel it had.
01:04:40 The Burns court noted that apportioning used registered voters
01:04:43 was permissible because of the conditions in which Hawaii found itself.
01:04:48 Now, what's happened since then?
01:04:51 What's happened since then is this administration will cop to it.
01:04:55 They'll admit the 9.2 million illegal aliens have come in under their control.
01:04:59 They'll also admit there's another 1.8 million known gotaways.
01:05:03 That's 11 million people that they admit to have come in in three and a half years.
01:05:08 And it has distorted the population and skewed the one-person, one-vote standard,
01:05:14 which is the canon upon which the Commerce case was founded.
01:05:24 It's the one-person, one-vote rule.
01:05:27 These are colleagues on the other side.
01:05:30 They don't want to acknowledge that there is a constitutional basis,
01:05:34 as I've just cited, to allow Section 3 to go forward.
01:05:38 But they are perfectly content with California,
01:05:41 which is a sanctuary state, hauling in people.
01:05:44 They're perfectly content with New York bringing in people through sanctuary policies.
01:05:49 Or Illinois. That skews exactly what the founders intended to make straight and clear.
01:05:58 So let's go to the 14th Amendment for just one second to actually read the second part of the 14th Amendment,
01:06:03 or get to that. I'm not going to read it.
01:06:05 But the first clause, that's what my colleague across the aisle, Mr. Speaker,
01:06:08 that's what he's relied on exclusively.
01:06:10 But he didn't bother to tell you that the second clause, in the second clause itself,
01:06:15 it deals with every federal election and every state election for state governors, judicial bodies, state legislatures.
01:06:23 And what they do there, in the second clause of the 14th Amendment,
01:06:27 they provide a way that you reduce apportionment when those individuals may be disqualified.
01:06:33 That's what we're saying here. That's why this bill needs to pass.
01:06:36 And I urge your passage. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back.