[Pages H2970-H2977]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

EQUAL REPRESENTATION ACT

Mr. BIGGS. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 1194, I call up
the bill (H.R. 7109) to require a citizenship question on the decennial
census, to require reporting on certain census statistics, and to
modify apportionment of Representatives to be based on United States
citizens instead of all persons, and ask for its immediate
consideration.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 1194, the
amendment in the nature of a substitute recommended by the Committee on
Oversight and Accountability, printed in the bill, is adopted and the
bill, as amended, is considered read.
The text of the bill, as amended, is as follows:

H.R. 7109

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the ``Equal Representation Act''.

SEC. 2. CITIZENSHIP STATUS ON DECENNIAL CENSUS.

Section 141 of title 13, United States Code, is amended--
(1) by redesignating subsection (g) as subsection (h); and
(2) by inserting after subsection (f) the following:
``(g)(1) In conducting the 2030 decennial census and each
decennial census thereafter, the Secretary shall include in
any questionnaire distributed or otherwise used for the
purpose of determining the total population by States a
checkbox or other similar option for the respondent to
indicate, for the respondent and for each of the members of
the household of the respondent, whether that individual is a
citizen of the United States.
``(2) Not later than 120 days after completion of a
decennial census of the population under subsection (a), the
Secretary shall make publicly available the number of
individuals per State, disaggregated by citizens of the
United States and noncitizens, as tabulated in accordance
with this section.''.

SEC. 3. EXCLUSION OF NONCITIZENS FROM NUMBER OF PERSONS USED
TO DETERMINE APPORTIONMENT OF REPRESENTATIVES
AND NUMBER OF ELECTORAL VOTES.

(a) Exclusion.--Section 22(a) of the Act entitled ``An Act
to provide for the fifteenth and subsequent decennial
censuses and to provide for apportionment of Representatives
in Congress'', approved June 18, 1929 (2 U.S.C. 2a(a)), is
amended by inserting after ``not taxed'' the following: ``and
individuals who are not citizens of the United States''.
(b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a)
shall apply with respect to the apportionment of
Representatives carried out pursuant to the decennial census
conducted during 2030 and any succeeding decennial census.

SEC. 4. SEVERABILITY CLAUSE.

If any provision of this Act or amendment made by this Act,
or the application thereof to any person or circumstance, is
held to be unconstitutional, the remainder of the provisions
of this Act and amendments made by this Act, and the
application of the provision or amendment to any other person
or circumstance, shall not be affected.

The SPEAKER pro tempore. The bill, as amended, shall be debatable for
1 hour equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority
member of the Committee on Oversight and Accountability or their
respective designees.
The gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Biggs) and the gentleman from
Maryland (Mr. Raskin) each will control 30 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Biggs).

General Leave

Mr. BIGGS. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may
have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and
include extraneous material on the measure under consideration.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Arizona?
There was no objection.
Mr. BIGGS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, H.R. 7109 has three components.
Number one, it requires the Census Bureau to include a citizenship
question on the decennial census questionnaire.
Number two, the bill directs that this information be used to ensure
fair representation by requiring only citizens be included in the
apportionment base.
Number three, it has a severability clause.
Currently, the Census Bureau estimates the noncitizen population
using data collected annually in the American Community Survey. We are
going to call that ACS as I go, just to help you out. That data is not
necessarily accurate.
Further, there are no reports that asking a citizenship question on
the ACS every year suppresses illegal, alien, or other noncitizen
participation on the ACS questionnaire.
The constitutionally iterated rationale for a decennial census is to
apportion electoral districts for Congress.
In Commerce v. New York, the Supreme Court noted that a host of
various questions over the years that are tangential to apportionment
had been included in the decennial censuses, ``race, sex, age, health,
education, occupation, housing, and military service,'' and ``radio
ownership, age at first marriage, and native tongue,'' et cetera.
The citizenship question is no stranger to the Census questionnaire.
Commerce also noted: ``Every Census between 1820 and 2000 (with the
exception of 1840) asked at least some of the population about their
citizenship or place of birth. Between 1820 and 1950, the question was
asked of all households. Between 1960 and 2000, it was asked of about
one-fourth to one-sixth of the population.'' That is another quote from
the Commerce case.
This isn't a uniquely American practice. Even the United Nations
recommends collecting citizenship information via a census, as noted
by, again, the Commerce Court. Australia, Canada, France, Indonesia,
Ireland, Germany, Mexico, Spain, and the United Kingdom ask about
citizenship in their respective censuses.
Is the United States to be the only North American country not to
inquire about citizenship in its Census protocols?
The Commerce Court held, regarding the positing of a citizenship
question on the Census, as follows: ``In light of the early
understanding of and long practice under the Enumeration Clause, we
conclude that it permits Congress, and by extension the Secretary [of
Commerce], to inquire about citizenship on the Census questionnaire.''
Section 2 of H.R. 7109 simply asks whether a person is a citizen of
the United States, yes or no. That is it, but everyone gets counted.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

{time} 1530

Mr. RASKIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
The last President tried to include a citizenship question on the
decennial Census in 2020 and tried to count only U.S. citizens for the
purpose of Census and reapportionment, and the effort failed miserably
in court, for obvious reasons.
Section 2 of the 14th Amendment states that apportionment of seats in
the House of Representatives is based on ``the whole number of persons
in each State,'' persons being the all-encompassing category, much
larger than that of citizens.
When the Framers wanted to impose a citizenship requirement in the
text of the Constitution, they knew how to do it. Take the President of
the United States, for example. It says that you have got to be a born
U.S. citizen in order to run for President. Some of the historians tell
us that was because Thomas Jefferson was trying to block Alexander
Hamilton from running for President. He was foreign born. In any event,
however, it was very clear that you needed to be a born U.S. citizen to
run for President. For those of us in the House, it says we must have
been a citizen for at least 7 years.
There are lots of citizenship requirements in the Constitution. There
is no citizenship requirement for being counted in the Census and for
purposes of reapportionment. On the contrary, the Census and
reapportionment have included all persons, including noncitizens, like
permanent resident green card holders, since 1790. That has been the
unbroken practice since the beginning of the Republic.
This point was made even more clearly and emphatically by the Supreme
Court in its unanimous 2016 decision in Evenwel v. Abbott, rejecting
precisely the argument my distinguished friend is trying to make. Like
this legislation itself, Evenwel involved a challenge to congressional
apportionment based on a total count of the entire population

[[Page H2971]]

instead of a limited count of the total citizen or voter population.
Justice Ginsburg held for a unanimous court that section 3 of the 14th
Amendment ``retained total population as the congressional
apportionment base.'' She cited the speech made on the floor of the
Senate by Senator Jacob Howard upon introduction of section 2 of the
14th Amendment:
``The basis of representation is numbers . . . . The committee
adopted numbers as the most just and satisfactory basis, and this is
the principle upon which the Constitution itself was originally framed,
that the basis of representation should depend upon numbers; and such,
I think, after all, is the safest and most secure principle upon which
the government can rest. Numbers, not voters; numbers, not property;
this is the theory of the Constitution.''
My colleague needs to remember that when the Republic was founded,
the vast majority of people were not citizens who could vote. Women
could not vote, children could not vote, enslaved Americans, obviously,
could not vote. So the Census and apportionment was for everybody who
was here. That was the whole basis of the three-fifths compromise.
Because enslaved Americans were being counted, too, what percentage
should they count for purposes of reapportionment? Well, Congress
arrived at 60 percent, three-fifths. It was the Southern States who
were saying they should count completely for these purposes because
they wanted the enslaved Americans to be enlarging and inflating the
congressional delegations from the slave states. For these purposes,
the Northern States said: No, they shouldn't count at all; they should
count zero percent in the apportionment. They arrived at three-fifths.
In any event, everybody agreed that everybody would be counted.
Justice Ginsburg included lots of decisive legislative authority like
this, including the floor statement here in the House of Representative
James Blaine, who stated: ``No one will deny that population is the
true basis of representation; for women, children, and other nonvoting
classes may have as vital an interest in the legislation of the country
as those who actually deposit the ballot.''
For all of you constitutional textualists out there, the plain
reading of the text is clear as day.
For all of you constitutional originalists out there, the original
purposes of the passage of the 14th Amendment have been carefully
articulated by the Supreme Court on a unanimous basis and never
rebutted.
For all of you Members who like to follow precedent, every
apportionment since 1790 has included every single person residing in
the United States, not just those lucky enough to have been given the
right to vote. As the Evenwel Court noted, the 14th Amendment
contemplates that ``Representatives serve all residents, not just those
eligible or registered to vote.''
The constitutional meaning is indisputable, a point which settles
this for those who actually want to follow the Constitution in all
cases, not just when it favors our own preferred policy outcome.
The House should be getting real work done instead of wasting more
time on another MAGA bill that will never pass the Senate, let alone
get signed by the President, much less approved by the courts. The bill
is an insult, and it is an affront to the great radical Republicans who
wrote the 14th Amendment. Their party was a profreedom, pro-union,
proimmigrant, anticonspiracy theory, anti-Know Nothing Party that
wanted to make sure everybody in the country was counted and made
visible.
The Census is essential to democracy. Just as the Framers endorsed
Thomas Paine's ``Common Sense,'' they endorsed a common Census, but
this bill would destroy the accuracy of the Census, which may have
something to do with its actual legislative motivation.
In the 2010 Census, the undercount of Hispanic citizens was 1.4
percent. In 2020, that number grew to 5 percent, with many observers
crediting that jump to the Trump administration's simple attempt to add
a citizenship question to the Census and all of the intense publicity
and rumor surrounding it.
The addition of a question about citizenship will indeed deter many
immigrants, including people who are permanent residents, including
citizens, from completing the Census. Many noncitizen immigrants who
are seeking asylum or are refugees will avoid responding because of
uncertainty over their status and fear of arbitrary law enforcement
action.

Extensive research over the last decade shows that many residents
wrongly believe the Census Bureau will share their responses with other
agencies. To be clear on this point, it does not. Federal law prohibits
it. However, that pervasive worry has prevented some people from
answering questions about immigration status or responding to the
Census at all.
Mr. Speaker, we strongly oppose this legislation as unconstitutional
and unwise. It dishonors our own history and the values of the Nation.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. BIGGS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
As my friend knows, the Commerce case held specifically you can ask
the citizenship question on the Census. That is true. You can do that.
That is what we are proposing.
Additionally, he misstated the rationale on why the Commerce case
went the way it did. They said you can ask the question, but that the
Secretary had contrived his rationale and was in violation of the APA,
and that is why that happened.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from North Carolina
(Mr. Edwards).
Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Speaker, I thank Mr. Biggs for leading this debate,
and I thank Mr. Davidson for his co-leadership on this bill.
Mr. Speaker, I will tell you what is an insult. The current situation
is an insult to the American people, the citizens who live here whose
voice and vote are being degraded because of the horrendous immigration
problem that we have at our southern border through illegal aliens
coming across the border, and that not being addressed here in
Washington, D.C.
One of the lesser acknowledged, but equally alarming, side effects of
this administration's failure to secure the southern border is the
illegal immigration population's influence in America's electoral
process.
Our democracy depends on accurate representation and electoral
integrity. Voting is a coveted privilege held by American citizens, and
elected Representatives are responsible for serving the interests of
the voters in their district.
Even if not a single illegal alien casts a vote, the mere presence of
illegal immigrants in the United States is having a profound impact on
the outcomes of elections, skewing the representation of Americans.
Mr. Biggs points out that the U.S. Constitution mandates that a
Census be carried out every 10 years where everyone who is present in
the United States, regardless of their citizenship and immigration
status, is counted. The Constitution does not specify whether
noncitizens or illegal aliens must be counted for the purpose of
apportioning House seats.
You may recall that in 2016, President Trump through executive order
added a citizenship question back to the 2020 Census, the same question
that had been legally asked on nearly every Census since 1820 until it
was removed in 1960, not because there was anything found wrong with
that question, but because the effect of illegal immigration was
negligible at that time. However, there is no doubt today, Mr. Speaker,
the effect of illegal immigration is significant. I won't waste my time
making that case here. We all know it. It is a top concern of about 70
percent of all Americans.
Though common sense dictates that only citizens should be counted for
the apportionment process, illegal aliens have nonetheless recently
been counted toward the final tallies that determine how many House
seats that each State is allocated and the number of electoral votes
that it will wield in Presidential elections.
Since the illegal alien population is not evenly distributed through
the Nation, American citizens in some States are losing representation
in Congress to illegal aliens in other States.
A 2019 study by the Center for Immigration Studies estimates illegal
immigrants and noncitizens who have not naturalized and do not have the
right to vote impact the distribution of 26

[[Page H2972]]

House seats. My bill, the Equal Representation Act, would finally
address this alarming undermining of American democracy by requiring a
citizenship question be added back to the 2030 Census, creating
reporting requirements for data gathered from citizenship questions and
requiring that only U.S. citizens be counted for the purpose of
congressional apportionment.
Mr. Speaker, this bill will no doubt and has no doubt drawn criticism
from those who don't want to fix this problem and who seek to gain
political influence by not fixing it. They will claim to have become
experts on our Constitution. I don't see any black robes in
this Chamber today. They will point to the word ``persons'' in section
2 of the 14th Amendment as a reason why this bill should not pass, but
this word carries no definition in our Constitution, and it offers
multiple meanings in current law.

Allow me to argue, in 1992, in Franklin v. Massachusetts, a Supreme
Court case on apportionment of Representatives opined the term
``persons'' to mean an individual who not only has a physical presence
but some element of allegiance to a particular place.
The Census Bureau does not include foreigners who visit the United
States for a vacation or a business trip in the population count since
they have no political or legal allegiance to any State or the Federal
Government.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. BIGGS. Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 15 seconds to the
gentleman from North Carolina.
Mr. EDWARDS. Similarly, illegal aliens who are deportable have no
allegiance or enduring tie to the United States. Foreigners here on
visas have an allegiance politically and legally to their home
countries, not to the United States, so the same logic applies to them.
My bill is a commonsense solution to a chronic problem impacting the
very governance and democracy of this country.
Mr. RASKIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
The gentleman from North Carolina observes that we don't have anybody
wearing a black robe in the House of Representatives today, but you
don't have to wear a black robe in order to read the Constitution,
interpret the Constitution, and follow it.
If you need people with black robes, then I would urge the gentleman
to read the Supreme Court's decision in Evenwel v. Abbott, where the
Supreme Court unanimously found that the Census and reapportionment
must include the entire population, all persons; not all citizens, not
all voters, the alternative suggestions that are being made today.

{time} 1545

Mr. Speaker, what do we have here? Since 1790, all persons have been
included in the Census, in every Census on a decennial basis since the
beginning of the Republic.
The Supreme Court rejected the theory that is being advanced by my
friends in the majority today in Evenwel v. Abbott that the
Constitution requires citizens rather than persons, and the gentleman
from North Carolina invites us to think it has something to do with
immigration.
We actually had an immigration deal coming out of the Senate for
hundreds of new Border Patrol officers and asylum officers and asylum
judges and fentanyl detection machinery, and it was vetoed by the
fourth branch of government, Donald Trump, who said he didn't want a
border solution, he wanted a border crisis to run on.
Despite the fact that Senator Lankford, perhaps one of the most
conservative Senators that we have in the Republican Party, said that
this was a great deal and the best that he had ever seen coming out of
the Senate, and despite the fact that Senator McConnell was for it,
they blew it all up.
You judge for yourself the seriousness of the claims that they want
to do something about immigration. This is another useless and needless
distraction.
I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from California
(Ms. Barragan).
Ms. BARRAGAN. Mr. Speaker, as chair of the Congressional Hispanic
Caucus, I rise today to oppose H.R. 7109. It is a bill that threatens
equal and fair representation of immigrant communities.
This bill requires a citizenship question on the U.S. Census, which
directly undermines the Constitution's mandate for a fair and accurate
count of all residents.
This requirement would deprive tens of millions of immigrants their
rightful access to representation and resources, even though they pay
taxes and contribute to our economy.
A citizenship question would have a chilling effect on participation
in the Census. Its accuracy would be destroyed.
The Census count affects where the Federal Government appropriates
funds and resources to our communities.
Republicans are effectively saying: If you are not a citizen in this
country, you don't count. Even legal permanent residents, you don't
count. This is absurd.
Let me be clear. Immigrants are the backbone of this economy. They
work the fields, they build our cities, and they contribute tirelessly
to the fabric of our society.
They pay over half a trillion dollars in taxes, including taxes for
Social Security and Medicare, even though undocumented immigrants can't
receive benefits.
Despite their invaluable contributions, Republicans want to deny
immigrant communities access to even more vital services and resources
that they help fund through their hard-earned tax dollars.
As Representatives of the people, it is our duty to ensure that all
members of our communities are treated with dignity and respect.
Every individual, regardless of their immigration status, should have
the opportunity to thrive, but H.R. 7109 does the opposite.
A citizenship question on the Census threatens to further marginalize
immigrant communities. An undercount of the immigrant population would
not only result in an unfair distribution of resources, but it will
also undermine the very foundation of our democracy--that is fair
representation from our government.
I urge our colleagues to reject this extreme Republican bill and
instead focus on policies that uplift and empower all members of our
society.
Mr. BIGGS. Mr. Speaker, of course, every single Democrat voted
against the great border security bill, H.R. 2. That is how serious
they are not. Every person is counted under this bill. Why can't we ask
them what their citizenship is?
I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Higgins).
Mr. HIGGINS of Louisiana. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from Maryland
stated that this bill is perhaps unconstitutional. Under our
Constitution, he has every right to lead an article III challenge to
the constitutionality of this bill, which I expect that they will. My
Democrat colleagues love to sue Americans and pursue legislation
through the courts.
This is actual legislation presented by conservative Republicans to
correct a horrible wrong. I rise in support of H.R. 7109, the Equal
Representation Act.
While this bill will continue to count every person in the United
States, it adds a simple question to the Census: Are you a United
States citizen?
While the decennial Census must count every person in the United
States, which I agree with, Mr. Speaker, the problem is the level of
illegal persons that now live in our country because of President
Biden's failures at the southern border.
It took 240 years to accumulate 30 million illegals living in the
United States. In 4 short years, President Biden, under his policies,
will have added 15 million. We are talking about 45 million illegal
persons living in the United States. That is the equivalent to 60
congressional seats.
Now, most of those illegal aliens will be drawn to live primarily in
sanctuary states and cities. This thwarts the fair representation of
American citizens in the House of Representatives, foundationally
altering our representative Republic.
This important piece of legislation enables us to fairly and
accurately apportion congressional districts based upon equal
representation of American citizens.

[[Page H2973]]

I urge my colleagues to seek the truth and to support this bill.
Mr. RASKIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished
gentlewoman from Illinois (Mrs. Ramirez).
Mrs. RAMIREZ. Mr. Speaker, I rise to oppose H.R. 7109. I mean, think
about it. It is another Republican attempt to attack immigrant
communities in this country.
So many of us, our children, and our grandchildren are immigrants,
and we have the hypocrisy to stand in this room here and continue to
attack immigrant communities.
Republicans are trying to amend the Constitution through
unconstitutional means. The Census Bureau has constitutionally mandated
responsibility to count the number of persons in the United States, to
count every single person, because as the Member prior from this side
said, they are here. They are contributing. They are paying taxes. They
make it possible for us to be able to retire and then be able to have
the benefits that we have worked so hard for because they are paying
those taxes, and they serve our communities.
Republicans are adding Census questions to have a chilling effect, to
keep people afraid, to make them nervous, to discourage their
participation in the Census.
The ultimate effect that it is going to have on these communities,
like mine, is undercounted and underrepresented. Our democracy grows
weaker every single time these kind of actions are brought to this
floor.
We must ensure that the Census remains as accurate as possible and
free from the political interference that would rob whole communities
of the resources and the representation they are entitled to.
Mr. Speaker, I strongly encourage a ``no'' vote.
Mr. BIGGS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Wisconsin (Mr. Grothman).
Mr. GROTHMAN. Mr. Speaker, I will make reference to a couple
documents before I discuss the bill.
First of all, our Pledge of Allegiance, which we say every day, we
pledge allegiance to the Republic for which we stand, right, the flag
and the Republic for which we stand.
Benjamin Franklin, after our Constitution was ratified, he talked
about giving us a Republic if we can keep it, and I think people should
analyze those two little quotes and wonder why there were references to
the Republic in both of them. In any event, it kind of bugs me when
people around here don't understand that.
Now, back to the bill at hand. I thank the gentleman from Arizona for
introducing this bill.
I think it is fairly obvious that when we take a Census, there are
certain questions you expect to appear on the Census, right?
One thing they want to know is if you are a permanent citizen here or
whether you are not a citizen. There is a difference between the two.
There is a reason why we swear certain people in as citizens. There
is a reason why we treat citizens differently than other people.
I think it is absolutely bizarre that to this point, we have been
sending out Census forms and not asking the first question that you
would figure would pop into your head: Are you a citizen? It is kind of
embarrassing it has not happened up to this point.
We have another problem in that there are some States declaring
themselves sanctuary States or some sanctuary cities in which they seem
to be encouraging people to come here who really shouldn't be in the
country at all under current law.
In any event, I think this is a great bill. First of all, we should,
in apportioning congressional seats, take into account people who are
citizens, not people who are noncitizens, many of which I assume are
going to return to the country they came from.
Secondly, we expect on the form--the first thing I look at, they put
things on, their race. Sometimes in the surveys they put on, do you own
a TV or that sort of thing.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. GROTHMAN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Arizona again
for giving me 2 minutes.
Mr. RASKIN. Mr. Speaker, I am about to yield to my friend from New
York (Ms. Meng), but I am inspired by the remarks of the gentleman from
Wisconsin, especially about the word ``Republic'' which, of course,
comes from res publica, the public thing.
He happened upon a subject that is of a lot of interest to me because
I wrote a paper about it when I was in sixth grade.
The Pledge of Allegiance was written by a radical Baptist minister
named Francis Bellamy--I am not sure if the gentleman is aware of
that--on the 400th anniversary of Columbus' arrival in the new world.
Reverend Bellamy, who was an abolitionist in Vermont, was concerned
about the continuing salute of the Confederate battle flag in the
southern States.
He wanted to write a flag salute that would be unifying for the
union, and he wrote: I pledge allegiance to my flag of the United
States of America and to the Republic for which it stands, one Nation,
with liberty and justice for all.
You notice what is not in there. He did not have ``under God.'' That
was added in 1954 by Congress several weeks after the Supreme Court's
decision in Brown v. Board of Education.
In any event, I am not quite sure what the relevance is of the
gentleman's invocation of the Republic or of Ben Franklin and the
famous vignette about him saying: If you can keep it.
Ben Franklin was, of course, a big supporter of immigration to the
country, although he did display an anti-German bias in some of his
writings.
I will tell you a little story about Ben Franklin that might be of
relevance to what the gentleman is talking about because I just did a
tour in Philadelphia with the Ben Franklin people up there, and we
learned this wonderful story.
He made a loan to a friend of his for $100, and then he recorded in
his diary that this gentleman he made the loan to for $100, Josiah, was
always disappearing behind a tree or a building whenever Ben came
along.
He finally caught up with him, and he said: Josiah, I loaned you a
hundred bucks, and I am wondering, am I going to be able to get my
principal back or at least the interest?
Josiah said: Well, Ben, look. The $100 is well invested somewhere
else, so you don't have to worry about that.

Franklin said: Well, what about the interest?
Josiah said: Well, I forgot to tell you that it is against my
religion to pay interest, so I can't pay you the interest.
Franklin said: You mean to tell me it is against your principle to
pay me the interest, and it is against your interest to pay me the
principal?
Josiah said: That's right.
Franklin said: Well, I can see I am not going to get either.
Well, here our principles and our interests converge very much. The
principles are set forth in the Constitution, which is we count
everybody, and everybody is part of the Census, and everybody is part
of the reapportionment process.
It has been like that since 1790. We don't need to start finger
painting on the Constitution with this silly election year proposal.
It is also in our interest because, as my colleagues have said, this
is a land that is built on immigration. Except for the Native Americans
who are already here and the people who were brought over as slaves,
all of us are the descendants of immigrants to this country.
Tom Paine, when he got to America in 1774, 2 years before the
Revolution, he said: This land, if it lives up to its principles, will
become an asylum to humanity--not an insane asylum, mind you--an asylum
to humanity, a place of refuge for people seeking freedom from
religious, political, and economic oppression. That is who we are.
Every day I have in my office people from the hotel industry, people
from the construction industry, and people from the restaurant industry
saying: We have huge labor shortages. We need people in America.
I am for a whole lot more lawful immigration to America, less
unlawful immigration to America like the deal that was worked out in
the Senate that was rejected by the Republicans, and a lot less
demagoguery about who we are as a country because the Census and
reapportionment provisions in the 14th Amendment tell it all.
This is a country that is for everybody seeking opportunity and hope,

[[Page H2974]]

willing to follow the law and follow our Constitution.

{time} 1600

Mr. RASKIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from
New York (Ms. Meng).
Ms. MENG. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong opposition to H.R.
7109, the Equal Representation Act.
The U.S. Constitution requires a count of the whole number of persons
in each State. Counting has been the legal, historical, and
constitutional practice ever since the first Census was conducted in
1790.
A citizens-only Census, as this legislation intends, is reckless,
cynical, and, frankly, illegal. It is not the Census Bureau's job to
keep track of immigration status. It is also not the Census Bureau's
job to determine one's allegiance, just like the insurrectionists on
January 6. We have agencies for both of those tasks.
The Census guides how more than $2.8 trillion a year in Federal
funding is distributed to States, cities, and towns. This includes
funding for Medicare, Medicaid, schools, roads, and other critical
public services. Not counting every whole person may decrease Federal
money, even in some of my colleagues' districts.
Noncitizens make up about 6.7 percent of our Nation's population of
333 million people. They are our loved ones, friends, neighbors, and
those who have been actively contributing to and participating in our
communities for many years.
Pretending that noncitizens do not live in our communities--that is
exactly what this bill would do, pretend--will only instill fear, force
people into the shadows, and take critical Federal funding away from
the areas that need it most.
Throughout our Nation's history, there have been several attempts at
adding a citizenship question to the Census, all of which have failed.
As a daughter of immigrants and as the Representative of a diverse
community of constituents who have arrived from many corners of the
world, I have adamantly fought against these attempts.
In 2018, the previous administration attempted to add a citizenship
question to the Census, which Senator Hirono and I and others fought
against in Congress.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentlewoman has expired.
Mr. RASKIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 30 seconds to the
gentlewoman from New York.
Ms. MENG. Mr. Speaker, this was subsequently blocked by the Supreme
Court.
We cannot let this latest attempt succeed. Calling this legislation
the Equal Representation Act is an oxymoron, and I am voting ``no'' and
urge my colleagues to vote ``no.''
Mr. BIGGS. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire as to the time remaining.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Arizona has 17 minutes
remaining.
Mr. BIGGS. Mr. Speaker, I wish we were hearing not deflective
statements but the actual truth here.
Here is the way it works. There is nothing in this bill that says you
don't count everybody. You do count everybody. The thing they really
don't want us to know is how many illegal aliens are in the country, so
we are going to ask a citizenship question, which has been asked in 22
of 25 Censuses. They don't want that.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr.
Burchett).
Mr. BURCHETT. Mr. Speaker, it is always good to see Ranking Member
Raskin with a good, healthy head of hair. God does listen to our
prayers. We are glad he is with us and healthy.
Mr. RASKIN. Mr. Speaker, I know Mr. Burchett's prayers go right to
the top.
Mr. BURCHETT. Mr. Speaker, my mama's prayers did. Mine don't get
quite that close.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 7109, the Equal
Representation Act. This legislation will require U.S. citizens to
include a question that asks if the person is a United States citizen.
It is just a question.
This bill passed through the House Oversight Committee on a straight
party-line vote, 22-20. Not a single Democrat supported it.
The Census informs how our government divides up congressional
districts and electoral college votes. Mr. Speaker, it helps to ensure
American voters have equal representation. That process should not
factor in people who are not citizens or not eligible to vote.
You can see why my Democratic colleagues would have a problem with
this bill. Factoring illegal aliens into the process skews things in
their favor. In fact, it wasn't very long ago that a Member from the
minority party was on the news claiming that they wish more illegals
would come to their district for the Census.
If the Census does not include the citizenship question, States with
more illegal aliens will get more congressional districts and more
electoral college votes.
We have a history of saying that elections are sacred and that free,
fair, and secure elections are the cornerstone of this great Republic,
Mr. Speaker. It is time to act like it and prioritize the dadgum
representation of our people.
Americans are sick and tired of this administration weaponizing
different parts of our government, and they don't want to see something
like the Census being used against them when it is so hard to get
American citizens to even take the Census.
Leaders in States like California and New York are taking pride in
harboring illegal aliens. In fact, the people of California have
offered free healthcare to their illegals, and New York has kicked
combat veterans out of housing to house illegals.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. BIGGS. Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 10 seconds to the
gentleman from Tennessee.
Mr. BURCHETT. Mr. Speaker, States should not be rewarded with more
congressional seats or electoral college votes, which would end up
distorting the will of the American people.
I thank my colleagues, Congressman Warren Davidson and Congressman
Chuck Edwards, for introducing this legislation. I am proud to support
it.

Mr. RASKIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
It is always great to be with my friend from Tennessee. Just two
quick points on his always trenchant remarks.
One is that one should be clear that under this legislation, they are
not roping out of the reapportionment just undocumented people. They
are also roping out of the reapportionment permanent residents, people
who are green card holders who are on the pathway to citizenship
already. They are talking about disenfranchising from the Census
reapportionment process millions of people who are lawfully within it.
They should be aware of that.
Also, if we were being cynical politically, we would embrace this
legislation because it is the red States like Texas and Florida whose
congressional delegations are inflated by virtue of counting people who
are not citizens. We are simply trying to follow what the Constitution
says, which I know is kind of a radical proposition around here these
days.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from North Carolina
(Ms. Manning).
Ms. MANNING. Mr. Speaker, I thank my cousin, Representative Raskin,
for yielding me time.
We have wasted another legislative week on ludicrous messaging bills
to defend the liberty of laundry and freedom for the fridge. Today,
they are pushing a bill to upend our Nation's process for collecting
Census data.
Let's be clear. The so-called Equal Representation Act does nothing
to live up to its name. In fact, their bill would result in the
opposite. It will reduce participation in the Census, which our
government relies on for a host of data to inform our decisionmaking.
What is more, this bill will violate our Constitution, which states
that all persons be counted in the Census. Instead of wasting time on
deeply unserious messaging bills, Congress should be focused on what
really matters to the American people, particularly reproductive
freedoms.
Right now, across the country, women are suffering from extreme
abortion bans that are endangering their health and limiting their
ability to make private medical decisions. Women in America are worried
about

[[Page H2975]]

their reproductive freedoms and deeply concerned about what extremist
politicians will attack next. We know that radical judges and
politicians are not stopping with abortion bans. They are now attacking
fertility treatments and attempting to restrict birth control methods
like plan B and IUDs.
If far-right extremists really cared about women, they would want to
make the full range of birth control readily available, not restrict
access to it.
This Sunday is Mother's Day. How about giving moms and potential moms
the gift they really want: the right to decide whether, when, and with
whom to have children. Instead of flowers, let's guarantee the right to
use the full range of FDA-approved birth control.
In honor of Mother's Day and for this reason, at the appropriate
time, I will offer a motion to recommit this bill back to committee. If
the House rules permitted, I would have offered the motion with an
important amendment to this bill.
My amendment would strike the text of H.R. 7190 and replace it with
my Right to Contraception Act, a bill to protect the right to access
all forms of FDA-approved birth control and protect women's
reproductive health from political interference.
Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert in the Record the text
of this amendment immediately prior to the motion to recommit.
For full text, please see H.R. 4121.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentlewoman from North Carolina?
There was no objection.
Ms. MANNING. Mr. Speaker, I hope my colleagues will join me in voting
for the motion to recommit.
Mr. BIGGS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New
York (Mr. Langworthy).
Mr. LANGWORTHY. Mr. Speaker, right now, our Nation is grappling with
a border crisis that has been manufactured by Democratic policies that
brazenly reward those who break our laws to enter our country
illegally. My home State of New York is drowning due to policies that
transformed our State into a sanctuary for illegal immigration.
Democratic leaders in New York City, Albany, here in Congress, and
the White House have turned their backs on lawful Americans, choosing
instead to roll out the red carpet for illegal immigrants with housing,
clothing, and financial incentives all paid for by the American
taxpayers. The gravy train is alive and well.
Throughout this process, we are learning that it is a calculated
effort to boost their own political power by inflating their population
counts and skewing congressional representation. We are talking
millions of people who are not American citizens having a major say in
American elections.

They are not even hiding it anymore. One of my colleagues on the
other side of the aisle, who happens to represent New York City in this
body, openly called for more illegal immigration to her district
because she said she ``needs more people in her district for
redistricting purposes.''
This absurd notion, pushed by my colleagues across the aisle, that
these noncitizens should shape the future of our Nation is completely
unconstitutional. They are corroding the essence of American
citizenship, turning it into a political commodity.
The Equal Representation Act is our line in the sand. It is time to
end the charade of rewarding States like New York and California for
their reckless sanctuary antics that undermine our laws.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to rise above partisan
manipulation, protect the sanctity of our democracy, and support the
Equal Representation Act. Let's send a clear message that the value of
American citizenship is absolute and our elections are not for sale.
Mr. RASKIN. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire as to the time remaining.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Maryland has 6 minutes
remaining.
Mr. RASKIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
If you strip away all the bombast and all the rhetoric, the gentleman
just basically delivered a tirade about immigration but never addressed
the fact that their legislation is totally unconstitutional.
If you want to deal with immigration, we had a bill, and the bill
would have added hundreds of Border Patrol officers, asylum officers,
and judges. The Republican leadership in the Senate said it was a great
deal. They got most of what they wanted. It was a great compromise.
Yet, who didn't want it? Donald Trump, still the putative leader of
those who are left in the GOP, Lincoln's party. Donald Trump didn't
want it because he didn't want a border solution. He wants a border
crisis.
They are left with a bunch of completely superficial, empty bills
like this one, which I doubt will even pass the House. If it does pass
the House, it certainly won't pass the Senate. It will never be signed
by the President, and it would be struck down immediately by the
Supreme Court.
Why are we wasting our time on that instead of getting to the
legislation that actually a majority of the Senate was behind? I wish
one of my colleagues would address that.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. BIGGS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from
Colorado (Ms. Boebert).
Ms. BOEBERT. Mr. Speaker, I thank Chairman Biggs for leading on this
issue.
I rise in support of the Equal Representation Act, which will add a
citizenship question to the Census and exclude illegal aliens from the
apportionment base. It is past time we put America and Americans first.
Joe Biden and his regime are shelling out benefits to illegal
immigrants like Oprah Winfrey on her show: Everyone gets a vote.
Everyone gets recognized, even if you are here illegally.
In New York, aliens are receiving $53 million in free, prepaid debit
cards. In Denver, Colorado, aliens get 6 free months of housing. Now,
they want to hand them seats in Congress to buy their lifelong
allegiance to the Democratic Party.

{time} 1615

Since Biden took office, we have seen more than 9 million illegal
aliens cross our borders and more than 1.8 million got-aways evade
Border Patrol agents. That is larger than the population of 32 States,
Mr. Speaker.
There are now at least 16.8 million illegal aliens living in the
United States, enough to account for roughly 22 seats in the House of
Representatives.
Including these aliens in the apportionment of congressional
districts impacts representation in Congress and undermines the
constitutional principle of one person, one vote. Americans deserve to
have their voices fully represented, not diluted by illegal aliens.
Mr. Speaker, I am proud to be a cosponsor of this legislation, and I
urge my colleagues to vote in favor of this bill.
Mr. RASKIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, it is always delightful to hear my friend from Colorado
speak. One thing that I do want to point out, however, because there
might be some students in the gallery today, is that there can be no
illegal aliens and there can be no green card holders in Congress
because the Constitution very clearly specifies that you must have been
a citizen for 7 years before you run for the House, you must have been
a citizen for 9 years before you run for the Senate, and you must be a
born U.S. citizen in order to run for President of the United States,
which some historians, as I think I mentioned before, attribute to
Thomas Jefferson trying to write Alexander Hamilton out of the
Presidential sweepstakes.
In any event, I think that my colleagues should probably relax with
some of the hyperbole and exaggeration here. After all, all we are
saying is: Let's keep doing what we have done since 1790 in the
country.
This is the way that the Census and the reapportionment have always
been run in the United States of America, and what they are proposing
is obviously a radical departure from what the Constitution ordains.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. BIGGS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to gentleman from Louisiana
(Mr. Graves).
Mr. GRAVES of Louisiana. Mr. Speaker, I want to simply explain what
we are talking about here.

[[Page H2976]]

Mr. Speaker, you could have a citizen of Russia who illegally crosses
our southern border, pays cartels, comes across our southern border,
and decides to set up shop in California. That citizen of Russia, who
can still vote for Vladimir Putin all day long, also is counted in the
distribution of electoral votes in the United States, therefore having
influence and therefore shaping who is President of the United States.
I don't know what else could possibly be foreign interference in
elections than what we are talking about today.
Mr. Speaker, I am from the State of Louisiana. We have six Members of
Congress. We have six. By some calculations, the State of California
alone has six Members of Congress entirely attributable to citizens of
other countries, therefore, just offsetting all of the votes of all of
the citizens of Louisiana.
This is outrageous.
To listen to people across the aisle talk about how this is
inappropriate, I say: No, this is exactly appropriate. This is exactly
appropriate.
As a matter of fact, regarding the way that we count American
citizens in our territories, you are giving a greater status to an
illegal alien in the United States, a citizen of a foreign country,
than you are giving to an American citizen.
It is absolutely outrageous to listen to people who try to argue and
justify this. This is 100 percent about stacking the vote, about
foreign interference in elections, and about allowing and incentivizing
sanctuary cities. That is what this does.
It actually takes American taxpayer dollars through the formula
funding influenced by the Census, and it gives it to States that have
illegal aliens.
This is completely outrageous. I can't even believe we are standing
here having this debate.
Mr. Speaker, vote ``yes'' if you want Americans to be represented,
and vote ``no'' if you think Russians, Chinese, and others should be
represented.
Mr. Speaker, I urge adoption of the bill.
Mr. RASKIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to hear someone on that side of the aisle
denounce Vladimir Putin, and I thank him for his remarks. We should
definitely avoid putting in a President of the United States who looks
up to Vladimir Putin and calls him a genius.
In any event, I could be persuaded by the gentleman's policy
arguments, but then we have got to amend the Constitution. This is the
way it has been done since the beginning of the Republic. The language
in the 14th Amendment is perfectly clear, that it is all of the persons
of the State who have to be counted.
Mr. Speaker, I thought you guys were constitutional textualists. I
thought you followed the language of the Constitution, the original
intent of the Constitution, and the precedent that has been set. I
could be persuaded by it. I don't like the fact that Texas and Florida,
or any State for that matter, gets an inflated congressional delegation
because of this reason or that. Let's have that discussion, but you
have got to amend the Constitution. You can't just say: Well, I don't
like what is in the Constitution, and therefore I am going to ignore
it.
The point about the territories I am not sure I understood. That
undercut the gentleman's argument because, of course, the people in the
territories are not represented in the House of Representatives except
by nonvoting delegates whose votes ultimately don't count and can't
count according to a D.C. circuit court decision called Michel v.
Anderson.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. BIGGS. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire about the time remaining.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Arizona has 9\1/2\
minutes remaining.

Mr. BIGGS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio
(Mr. Davidson).
Mr. DAVIDSON. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for yielding.
Those are a lot of words from the opposition to this bill to say that
citizenship does not matter. That is basically their argument: We don't
care if you are a citizen.
In fact, they encourage you to not be a citizen. Sanctuary cities and
States invite everyone from the world to flood their cities, and they
need it. They have said as much in interviews that their population is
fleeing their horrible policies in States like California, Illinois,
Maryland, New York, and elsewhere, and they are going to places that
have more freedom and less government.
So what do they do?
They import new people who don't know better, and, yes, the
conditions are better there than the places they are fleeing, but as my
colleague, Mr. Graves, was pointing out, California has six to seven
Members. That is more than many of our States. Yes, Texas has
Representatives because they, too, have a large illegal population, and
the Biden administration is doing everything possible to prevent them
from stopping this invasion of our country.
It is willfully and purposefully, and I will add skillfully,
undermining the value of U.S. citizenship to flood this country with
noncitizens.
I want to tell some great news to my colleagues: Foreign nationals do
have representation in the United States at embassies or consulates.
Their representative is not here in the United States Congress. I
represent United States citizens, and so do my colleagues.
Nonetheless, noncitizens do not vote, and they should not vote, but
don't let that stop them. They are working to change that too so that
they can vote. We found that noncitizens are voting, and they found
loopholes to do that with the Motor Voter Act.
We have to defend the value and right of U.S. citizens. The only way
to do that is to do the very purpose of the Census, which is to
apportion Representatives.
Now, we get a lot of other ancillary benefits from the Census, but
the constitutional purpose of it is to know who is here.
Now, they want to know everything else about you, Mr. Speaker, how
many hyphens you have in your ethnicity, national origin, what you
believe about your religion, how much you make, and every other way
they can invade your privacy, but they don't give a rip whether or not
you are a United States citizen.
The American people deserve to be fairly and equally represented, and
the only way that is going to be done is if we know who is a citizen,
and the apportionment is based on United States citizens.
This amendment needs to be passed.
For assurance, for the previous three Congresses, I have introduced a
constitutional amendment. In this Congress that is H.J. Res. 37. I
assume Mr. Raskin will run down and cosponsor it immediately because he
knows that he could amend the Constitution and defend the principle
that is at stake here.
Mr. Speaker, I urge all of our colleagues to sponsor this bill and to
vote ``yes'' on this bill and get it passed.
Mr. RASKIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, why do you need to amend the Constitution if you can
just go ahead and do it by statute here?
That is rather curious. I think the gentleman doth protest just a
little bit too much. I admire the intellectual honesty in putting forth
a constitutional amendment, because that is precisely what needs to be
done. I am happy to look at that. I appreciate his candor in admitting
that the Constitution needs to be amended in order to overturn more
than 2 centuries of practice and everything the Supreme Court has ever
said about the issue.
It also should be clear to everybody that only U.S. citizens of
majority may vote in Federal elections, that is Federal law, but
everybody, including children, who are U.S. citizens are counted even
though they can't vote in Federal elections.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. BIGGS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Ohio
(Mr. Jordan), who is the chairman of the House Judiciary Committee.
Mr. JORDAN. Mr. Speaker, if you went out on the street today and
asked someone, almost anybody on the street, and said: Do you know that
we do a Census every 10 years and we count up the number of people in
the country, and do you think it is okay if we found out how many of
these people are citizens?
That person would say: Well, yes, but aren't you already doing that.

[[Page H2977]]

That is what they would think.
All this bill says is: Let's count persons, like the Constitution
says, but let's also find out how many are citizens because that is
what should determine how congressional representation, how
apportionment is done.
It is so darn simple.
By the way, to my good friend from Maryland on the other side, we ask
all kinds of other questions on the Census anyway.
What is wrong with asking the fundamental question: Are you a citizen
of this great country, the greatest country ever?
That is all this does, and that is an important number to get. It is
important information to get when you are figuring out who is going to
represent and how many congressional Members there will be from each of
the respective States.
This couldn't be more simple. I don't know why they oppose it, but
they always do.
Mr. Speaker, I urge a ``yes'' vote.
Mr. RASKIN. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. BIGGS. Mr. Speaker, I am prepared to close, and I reserve the
balance of my time.
Mr. RASKIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time to
close.
Mr. Speaker, I don't want to be in the position of lecturing my
colleagues about something that they often like to say, but the
Constitution is the Constitution, and nobody yet has laid a glove on
the Constitution or explained how the Supreme Court erred in the
unanimous Evenwel decision.
None of them has been able to explain away the very plain language of
the 14th Amendment, that it is all the persons of the States who are
counted, not the citizens, and that has been the basis for both the
Census and the reapportionment since the country began.
So the rest of it just strikes me like election year political
rhetoric. To the extent that we want to deal with immigration, we had a
great bargain that came out of the Senate, which everybody in this body
and that body seemed to be behind, until they heard from Donald Trump
that no, he didn't want to see any legislative progress, he wanted to
be able to demagogue the immigration issue out on the campaign trail,
although he has been severely undermined by all of the exposure that
went into that decision.
Again, I haven't heard anyone either explain why their legislation is
constitutional, nor have I heard anybody explain what is wrong with the
immigration package that we have for hundreds of new Border Patrol
officers, hundreds of new Border Patrol and asylum judges and a
crackdown of drugs at the border.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. BIGGS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
Mr. Speaker, it is an honor to debate here about this. Let me tell
you something, Mr. Speaker, I believe that, by far, most Americans
would agree with the proposition that those illegally in the United
States and noncitizens should not be counted for purposes of creating
or modifying congressional legislative districts. That is probably what
they think, and that is exactly what section 3 of this bill leads to.
Foreign nationals here legally who have not naturalized and cannot
vote in Federal elections, together with illegal aliens who cannot vote
in Federal elections, comprise a substantial portion of our population,
by some accounts in excess of 15 percent of our populations.
Noncitizens are not evenly distributed among the States, and some
States end up with greater representation in Congress based on a higher
concentration of noncitizens. Perhaps that is what one New York
Congresswoman meant when, in response to a question regarding illegal
aliens, she said: ``I need more people in my district just for
redistricting purposes.''
The provision of this bill would ensure a fair apportionment based on
equal representation of citizens.
Now, my colleague has relied on Evenwel v. Abbott, a case that they
relied on wrongfully. Their reliance is totally misplaced.
First of all, they are dealing with State apportionment issues in
Evenwel, not Federal, but State. Let's go ahead, and let's see what
Justice Ginsburg did. She cited with approval the district court
holding in Evenwel that the Supreme Court allows jurisdictions to use
any neutral, nondiscriminatory baseline, including total population,
when drawing State and local legislative districts.
That has never been overturned, nor did Justice Ginsburg overturn it
in Evenwel. In Evenwel, the plaintiffs that came before the Court
wanted apportionment based on the citizen voting age population. That
is what they were asking for.

{time} 1630

Although Evenwel deals with State and local apportionment, we can
fairly extrapolate that rationale to Federal apportionment, as well.
Justice Ginsburg's holding in Evenwel turns on the idea that voter
equality in a district is not required. It is not required. However,
she also lays out that neither is it the total population metric that
is implied by my colleagues on the other side of the aisle. That is not
required either.
For instance, Justice Ginsburg referred to Burns v. Richardson. In
that case, it held that districts may be apportioned on the basis of
registered voters or voter-eligible populations, that that is
permissible.
In the Burns case, they give the example of Hawaii, which could
rationally justify its use of voter-eligible apportionment because of
the large number of transients and military personnel it had. The Burns
court noted that apportioning using registered voters was permissible
because of the conditions in which Hawaii found itself.
Now, what has happened since then? What has happened since then is
this administration will admit that 9.2 million illegal aliens have
come in under their control. They will also admit that there is another
1.8 million known got-aways. That is 11 million people that the
administration will admit to have come in, in 3\1/2\ years. It has
distorted the population. It skewed the one-person, one-vote standard,
which is the canon upon which the commerce case was founded. It is the
one-person, one-vote rule.
Our colleagues on the other side don't want to acknowledge that there
is a constitutional basis, as I have just cited, to allow section 3 to
go forward, but Democrats are perfectly content with California, which
is a sanctuary State, hauling in people. The minority is perfectly
content with New York bringing in people through sanctuary policies, or
Illinois. That skews exactly what the Founders intended to make
straight and clear.
Let's go to the 14th Amendment for just one second to actually read
the second part of the 14th Amendment, or get to that. I am not going
to read it. The first clause, that is what my colleague across the
aisle, Mr. Speaker, has relied on exclusively, but he didn't bother to
tell you about the second clause.
In the second clause itself, it deals with every Federal election and
every State election for State Governor, judicial body, and State
legislatures. What they do there in the second clause of the 14th
Amendment is provide a way to reduce apportionment when those
individuals may be disqualified.
Mr. Speaker, that is what we are saying here. That is why this bill
needs to pass, and I urge a passage.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. All time for debate has expired.
Pursuant to House Resolution 1194, the previous question is ordered
on the bill, as amended.
Pursuant to clause 1(c) of rule XIX, further consideration of H.R.
7109 is postponed.

____________________