fundraising data and campaign and sprayed watch campaign trail friday nights at 7:30 p.m. eastern on c-span, online at c-span.org, or download the podcast at c-span now, our free mobile app, wherever you get your podcasts. c-span, your unfiltered view of politics. >> c-span's "washington journal" our live forum involving you to discuss the latest issues in government, politics and public policy from washington, d.c. and across the country. thursday morning, a politics reporter talks about planned changes to the asylum system by the biden administration. and house republican leadership issues and congressional use of the day with a florida republican congas been and a new

york congressman. c-span's "washington journal" join the catiolive at 7:00 eastern thursday g on c-span, c-span now, or onl c-span.org. >> on a party-line vote of 200 6-20 the house approved legislation requthe s. census to include a citizenship question and exclude noncitizens from bount in the population starting in the year 2030. the census determines congressional districts and tommy house seats and electoral college for its each state gets. the white house says it opposes legislation. me as i may consume. h.r. 7109 has three components and requires the citizenship question of the questionnaire. number two, the bill directs this information to be used to

ensure fair representation by requiring citizens in the apportionment base and number three the severe built close. the noncitizen population using data collected annually and we are going to call that a.c.s. as i go. that data is not necessarily accurate. further, there are no reports that asking a citizenship question on the a.c.s. suppresses partisan participation. and this is to apportion electoral districts for congress. and congress versus new york, a host of various questions over the years that had been included in the creance successes. and health, education, occupation, housing, military, radio ownership, age of first marriage, native tongue, et

cetera. the citizenship question is no stranger. congress noted every census with the exception of 1840 asked at least some of the population of tear citizenship or place of birth. 1920 and 1950 the question was asked of all households and asked of one fourth to one sixth of the population. and this isn't a uniquely american practice. even the united nations recommends collecting citizenship information via a census as noted by the commerce court. australia, canada, france, ireland, germany, mexico, spain and the un united kingdom ask about citizenship. is the united states to be the only north american country not to be questioned.

the commerce court held that the citizenship as follows. quote, in light of the early understanding of and long practice under the enumerations' clause we conclude that it permits congress and by extension the secretary of commerce to inquire about citizenship on the questionnaire. section 2 of h.r. 7109 asks whether a person is a citizen of the united states. yes or no. that's it. but everyone gets counted. with that, i reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from arizona reserves. the gentleman from maryland is recognized. mr. raskin: i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized mr. raskin: thank you members of the committee. the last president tried to include a citizenship question on the creance success in --

census in 20 and the effort failed miss ranly in court. section 2 of the 14th amendment apportionment of seats is based on accounts of quote, the whole number of persons in each state, unquote. persons being the all encompassing category much larger than that of citizens. when the framers wanted to impose 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 you have to be a born u.s. citizen to run for president. some historians say that's because thomas jefferson was trying to block alexander hamilton from running for president, as he was foreign born. in any event it was clear you

needed to be a born u.s. citizen to run for president. for those of us in the house, we must have been a citizen for seven years. there are lots of citizenship requirements in the constitution. there's 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 cardholders, since 1790, that's been the unbroken practice since the beginning of the republic. and this point was made even more clearly and emphatically by the supreme court in its unanimous 2016 decision in evan well vs. abbott, rejecting precisely the argument my distinguished friend is trying to make. like this decision, evanwell involved a challenge to congressional apportionment based on total count of the entire population instead of limited count of the total

citizen or voter population. justice ginsburg held for unanimous court that section 3 of the 14th amendment, quote, retained total population as the con gretion apportionment base. she cited the speech made on this floor by -- or rather on the floor of the senate by senator jacob howard, upon introduction of section 2 of the 14th amendment. quote, 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. number, not voters. number, not property. this is the theory of the constitution. my colleague needs to remember that when the republican was -- 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 bay sthoifs three-fifths compromise. because enslaved americans were being counted too, what percentage should they count for purposes of reapportionment, congress arrived at 60%. three-fifths. southern states said they should count completely because they wanted enslaved americans to inflate the southern state. northern states said no, they should count zero percent. but they arrived at three-fifths. but 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 representatives of representative james blaine who stated, quote, no one will deny that population is the true basis of representation. for women, children, and other non-voting classes may have as vital an interest in the legislation oh -- legislation of the country as those who deposit the ballot. for all of you constitutional textualists out there, the plain reading of the text is clear as day. for all you 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 evanwell court noted, the 14th amendment contemplates that, quote, representatives serve all residents, not just

those eligible 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 favor ours own preferred policy outcome. the house should be getting real work done instead of wasting more time on another ma tba 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's an affront to the great radical republicans who wrote the 14th amendment. their party was a pro-freedom, pro-union, pro-immigrant, anti-conspiracy 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 tom payne's -- tom paine's "common sense," they endorsed the common

census. in 2010 census, the undercount of hispanic citizens was 1.4%. in 2020 that number grew to 5% 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 rumors surrounding it. the addition of a question about citizenship will deter many immigrants. including people who are permanent residents. including citizens from completing the census. many noncitizen immigrants 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 show miss 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. but that pervasive worry has

prevented some people from answering questions about immigration status or responding to the census at all. mr. chairman, we strongly oppose this legislation as unconstitutional and unwise. it dishonors our own history and the values of the nation and i will reserve at this point. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from arizona is recognized. mr. biggs: thank you, mr. chairman. my friend knows the commerce case held you can ask the citizenship question on the census. that is true. you can do that. that's what we're proposing. additionally, he mistated the rationale on why the commerce case went the way it did. they said you can ask the question but that the secretary con drived his rationale and he was in violation of the a.p.a. that's why that hasmed i yield five minutes to the gentleman from north carolina, mr. edwards. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes.

mr. edwards: thank you, mr. speaker. thank you, mr. biggs, for leading this debate, and thank you, mr. davidson of ohio, for your co-leadership on this bill. i'll tell you what is an insult, mr. speaker. an insult is to the american people, the citizens that live here, whose voice, whose vote is being degraded because of the horrendous immigration problem that we have at our southern border, through ill lyle aliens coming across the border, and not being addressed here in washington, d.c. one of the lesser acknowledged issues, but equally alarming as a result of the population coming across the border illegally, is the 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. but even if not a single illegal alien cast 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 year, where everyone who is present in the united states, regardless of their citizenship and immigration status is counted. but the constitution does not specify whether nonsit sorns illegal aliens must be downed for the purpose of aporlingsing

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. but there's no doubt, no doubt today, mr. speaker, that the effect of illegal immigration is significant. and i won't waste my time making that case here. we all know it. it's a pop concern of about 70% of all americans. though commonsense dictates that only citizens should be counted for 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 it will wield in presidential elections. and 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 imenact distribution of 26 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 downed 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'll claim to have become experts on our constitution. i don't see any black robes in this chamber today. they'll 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 vs. 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. similarly, illegal aliens who are deportable have no allegiance -- the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. mr. biggs: i yield 15 seconds. mr. edwards: similarly, illegal aliens who are deportable have no allegiance or tie to the united states. foreigners here on visa have an allegiance legally and play plar home country, not the united states. the same logic applies to them. my bill is a commonsense solution to a chronic problem impacting the very governance. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from arizona reserves. the gentleman from maryland is recognized. mr. raskin: mr. speaker, 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. but if you need people with black robes then i would urge the gentleman to read the supreme court's decision in evanwell vs. abbott where the supreme court unanimously found that the census and are reapportionment must include the entire population, all persons, not all citizen, not all voters. the alternative suggestions that are being made today. so what do we have? 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 being advanced by my friends in the majority today in evanwell vs. 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 had an immigration deal coming out of the senate for hundreds of new border patrol officers, and asylum officers, and asylum judge, 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. so 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'd ever seen coming out of the senate, despite the fact that senator mcconnell was for it, they blew it you will judge for yourself the claims they want to do something about immigration. this is another useless and

needless distraction and i yield two minutes to the distinguished gentlelady from california, congresswoman barragan. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady is recognized. ms. barragan: i rise today to oppose h.r. 7109. it's a bill that threatens equal and fair representation of immigrant communities. this bill requires a citizenship question which undermines the constitution's mandate of a fair and accurate count of all residents. this would deprive immigrants to representation and resources even though they pay taxes and contribute to our economy. this question would have a chilling effect on participation in the census. the census count affects the federal government and the map it properties funds and resources. republicans are saying, if you are not a citizen in this

country, you don't count. even permanent legal residents, you don't count. this is absurd. immigrants are the backbone of this economy. they work the fields and build our cities and they contribute tirelessly to the fabric of our society. they pay over half a trillion in taxes including taxes in social and medicare even though undocumented immigrants can't receive benefits. republicans want to deny services and resources that they help fund through their hard-earned tax dollars. it is our duty to ensure all members of our communities are treated with dignity and respect. they should have the opportunity to thrive but h.r. 7109 does the opposite. citizenship question further

marginalizees and undercut the immigrant population and under nine the foundation of our democracy, fair representation from our government. i urge my colleagues to reject this extreme republican bill and focus on policy that uplifts all members of our society. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady yields back. mr. raskin: i reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from arizona is recognized. mr. biggs: every single democrat voted against h.r. 2, that's how serious they are not. every person is counted under this bill. when we ask what their citizenship is. i yield to mr. higgins for two minutes. mr. higgins: this bill is perhaps unconstitutional under our constitution he has a right to lead an article 3 challenge.

this bill which i expect 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 the horrible wrong. i rise in support of h.r. 7109, equal representation act. while this bill will continue to count every person in the united states, it adds a simple question, are you a unions citizens. while the decennial census, the problem is the number of illegal persons because of president biden's failures at the southern border. took 240 years to accumulate illegals. in four short years president biden under his policies will have added 15 million. 45 million illegal persons.

that's the equivalent of 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, foundation neal altering our representative republic. this important piece of legislation enables to fairly and accurately apportion congressional districts based upon equal representation of american citizens. i urge my colleagues to seek the truth and to support this bill. i yield. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time the gentleman from arizona reserves. the gentleman from maryland is recognized. mr. raskin: i yield two minutes to the gentlelady from illinois. mrs. ramirez: i rise to oppose h.r. 7109. think about it. another republican attempt to attack immigrant communities in

this country. so many of us are children, grandchildren of immigrants and we have hypocrisy in this room here and continue to attack immigrant communities. republicans are trying to amend the con threution through unconstitutional means. the census in has responsibilities 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 worked so hard because of 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 and discourage

participation in the census. and the this is undercounted and underrepresented. our economy grows weaker these kinds of actions are brought to this floor. we must ensure that the census is as rack rat as possible and free from the political interference that would be robbing whole communities of the resources and representation they are entitled to. i encourage a no vote. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady yields back. the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from arizona. mr. biggs: i yield two minutes to mr. grothman. mr. grothman: i want to make reference to a couple of other documents. our pledge of allegiance, we pledge allegiance to the flag and the republic for which we stand. when benjamin franklin after our

constitution was ratified, he talked about giving us a republic if we can keep it. and people should analyze those two quotes and wonder why there were references to republic in both of them. in any event that people around here don't understand that. i thank the gentleman from arizona for introducing this bill. i think it's fairly obvious that when we take a census, there are certain questions that you expect to appear on the census. and one thing, i know a permanent citizen or not a census. there is a reason why. a reason why we treat citizens different than other people. and i think it's absolutely bizarre that to this point we have been sending out census forms and not asking the first

question, are you a citizen. it is kind of embarrassing and hasn't happened up to this point. we have another problem in that some states declaring themselves sanctuary states or cities and encouraging people to come here who really shouldn't be in the country at all. in any event, i think this is a great bill. first of all, we should in apportioning congressional seats taking people who are citizens not people who are noncitizens, many of which i assume are going to return to the country they came from. and secondly, we expect on the form -- first thing i look at, race, sometimes in the surveys -- the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired the gentleman's time has expired

the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from maryland is recognized. mr. raskin: i am about to yield to my friend, ms. maining from -- meng from new york and especially the word republic which comes from the public thing. he happened upon a subject that issues interest to me because i wrote a paper about it in sixth grade. the pledge of allegiance was written by a radical baptist minister named francis bellamy on the 400th anniversary of columbus arrival in the new world and he was concerned about the continuing salute of the confederate battle flag in the united states and wanted to write a i pledge allegiance to my flag of the united states of america and to the republic

which it stands, one nation, with liberty and justice for all. you notice, he did not have under god. it was added in 1954 after the supreme court's and and i'm not sure what the gentleman's reference and about him saying if you can keep it, ben franklin was a big supporter of immigration to the country, although he did display an antigerman bias in some of his writings. but i'll tell you story about ben franklin that might be relevance of what the gentleman is talking about. apparently -- because i did a tour in philadelphia with the ben franklin. he made a loan to a friend of his for $100 and then he

recorded in his diary that this gentleman he made a loan to, $100 was disappearing behind a tree or building and he finally caught up with him, josiah, i loaned you a00 bucks and can i get my principal back or the interest and he said, $1200 is well invested somewhere invested and he said what about the interest? i forgot to tell you it's against my religion to pay you interest. franklin said you mean it's against your preliminary to pay me the interest and your interest to pay me the preliminary. our premises and interest converge much. they are set forth in the constitution which is we count everybody and everybody is part

of the census. it's been like that since 1790 and don't need to finger painting on the constitution with silly election year proposal. it is in our interest because as my colleagues have said, this is a land that is built on immigration except for the native americans who were already here and the people that were brought over as slaves, all of us are december ep end ants. tom payne said in 1774, two years before the revolution, he said this land if it lives up to its presumes will become an asylum to humanity, a place of people seeking aseal whrum from political and religious asylum. i have people from the hotel industry, people from the construction industry and

restaurant industry saying we have huge labor shortages, we need people in america. i'm for a whole lot more lawful immigration to america, less unlawful immigration like the deal that was worked out in the senate and rejected by the republicans and lot less demagogry about who we are as a country because the creance success provisions in the 14th tell it all. this is a country for everybody willing to follow the law and follow our constitution. with that, i yield to the gentlelady from new york two minutes. -- three minutes. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady is recognized. ms. manning: mr. -- the messenger: i -- i rise in opposition to h.r. 7109.

the u.s. constitution requires the count of whole number of persons in each state. counting every person has been the legal, historical and constitutional practice ever since the first census conducted in 1790. citizens-only census as this legislation intends is reckless, cynical and illegal. it is not the census bureau job to keep track of immigration status and not their job to determine one's allegiance like the snevmentists. we have agencies for both of those tasks. the census guides more than $2.8 trillion in federal funding and is distributed to states, cities and towns. this includes funding forthis i, roads, schools and other purposes. not counting every whole person

may decrease federal money even in some of my colleague's districts. noncitizens make up about 6.7% of the nation's population of 330 million people. they are our loved one, friends, neighbor, 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 and that's 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 representative of a diverse community of constituents who have arrived from many corners of the world, i've 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. this was -- mr. raskin: i yield 30 seconds. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady is recognized for 30 seconds. ms. meng: this was subsequently blocked by the supreme court. we cannot let this latest attempt to succeed. calling this an equal representation act is an oxy moron. i am voting no and urge my colleagues to vote no. mr. biggs: can i inquire what the balance of my time is? the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from arizona has 17 minutes. mr. biggs: thank you very much. mr. chairman, i wish we were hearing not deflective statements but the actual truth here. because here's the way it works. there is nothing in this bill that says you don't count everybody. you do count everybody. the thing they don't want, the thing they really don't want us to know is how many illegal aliens are in the country. so we're going to ask a

citizenship question which has been asked 22 of 25 sent us ises. they don't want that. with that, i yield two minutes to my friend from tennessee, mr. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for two minutes. mr. burchett: thank you, mr. speaker. thank you, chairman biggs and ranking member raskin, always gad to see you with a good, healthy head of hair. god does listen to our prayers, we're glad you're with us and healthy, brother. thank you. mr. raskin: i know your prayers go right to the top. mr. burchett: my mama's did, mine don't quite make it that far but they get close. thank you, brother. 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 the person is a united states citizen. 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. it helps to ensure american voters have equal representation. american voters that. process should not factor in people who are not citizens or who are not eligible to vote. you can see why my democrat colleagues would have a problem with this bill. factoring illegal aliens in the process skews things in their favor. in fact it wasn't long ago that a member of the -- of the minority party had a -- was on the news claiming that they wished that 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 elections are sacred and free, fair, and secure elections are the cornerstone of this great country. it's time to act like it and prioritize the dadgum representation of our people. americans are sick and fieferres

administration weaponizing different parts of our government and they don't want to see something like the census being used against us. when it's so hard to get americans to even take the census. leaders in states like california and new york are taking pride in harboring illegal ail yield back the balance of my times. in fact the people of california have offered free health care to their illegals in new york -- and new york has kicked combat veterans, mr. speaker, combat veterans out of housing to house illegals. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. mr. biggs: i yield 10 more seconds. mr. burchett: they should not be allowed more seats or more electoral votes which will distort the election results. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from maryland is recognized. and we're glad to see your head of hair too, jamie. mr. raskin: thank you, mr. speaker. it's always great to be with my friend from tennessee. just two quick points on his

always trenchant remarks. one should be clear that under this legislation, they're just -- they're not roping out of the aapportionment just undocumented people. they're also roping out of the reapportionment permanent resident, people who are green cardholders, who are on the pathway to citizenship already. they're talk about disenfranchising from the census reapportionment process millions of people who are lawfully within it. and they should be aware of that. also, if we were being cynical politically, we would embrace this legislation because it's the red states like texas and florida whose congressional delegations are inflated by virtue of counting people who are not citizens. we're simply trying to follow what the constitution says which i know is kind of a radical proposition around here these days. i will yield teleminutes to the distinguished gentlelady from north carolina, ms. manning. ms. manning --

the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady is recognized for three minutes. ms. manning: thank you, i'd like to 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're 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 decision making. what's 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 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're now attacking fertility dreams, and attempting to restrict birth control methods like plan b and i.u.d.'s. 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 f.d.a. 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 permit, i would have thaiferred motion with an important amendment to this bill and my amendment would strike the tech of h.r. 7190, and replace it with my right to contraception act, a bill to protect the right to access all forms of f.d.a. approved birth control and protect women's reproductive health from political interference. i ask unanimous consent to insert into the record the text of this amendment. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. ms. manning: i hope my colleagues will join me in voting for the motion to recommit and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady yields back. the gentleman from maryland

reserve. the gentleman from maryland is recognize -- from arizona is recognized. mr. biggs: i yield two minutes to the gentleman from new york. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from new york is recognized for two minutes. >> mr. speaker, right now our nation is grappling with a border crisis. mr. langworthy: my home state is grappling with policies that turned our state into a place for illegal immigrants. my colleagues have turned their back on lawful americans, rolling out the red carpet for illegal ail generals with house, clothe, and financial sin sent -- incentives and paid for by taxpayers. through this process we're learning that it's a calculated effort to boost their own political power by inflating their population counts and skewing congressional representation. we're talking millions of people. who are not american citizens,

having a major say in american elections. they're 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 for her district because she says she, quote, 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 co-roading 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 by rewarding states like new york and california for this reckless sanctuary antics that undermine our laws. 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. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from maryland is recognized. mr. raskin: how much time do we have? the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from maryland has six minutes. mr. raskin: thank you very much. look, if you strip away all the bombast and 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. and asylum officers. and judges. and the republican leadership in the senate said it was a great deal that got most of what they wanted. it was a great compromise. and yet who didn't want it? donald trump. alas, still the constitutive leader of -- the putative leader of those left in the g.o.p.

lincoln's party. donald trump didn't want it because he didn't want a border solution, he wants a border crisis. so they're left with a punch of -- a bunch of completely superficial, empty bills like this one, which i doubt will even pass the house, but if it does pass the house, it certainly won't pass the senate. it'll never be signed by the president and it'll be struck down immediately by the supreme court. 10* 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. i'll reserve my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from arizona is recognized. mr. biggs: thank you, mr. chairman. i now recognize and yield two minutes this the gentlewoman from colorado, ms. boebert. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman is recognized for two minutes. ms. boebert: thank you very much, mr. speaker. thank you to 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 win free on her show. everyone gets a vote. everyone gets recognized. even if you're here illegally. in new york, aliens are received $53 million in free prepaid debit cards in. denver, colorado, aliens get six free months of housing. and now they want to hand them seats in congress to buy their lifelong allegiance to the democrat party. since biden took office, we have seen more than nine million illegal aliens cross our borders and more than 1.8 million gotaways 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 dilute t by illegal aliens. i'm proud to be a co-sponsor of this legislation and i urge my colleagues to vote in favor of this bill. mr. speaker, i yield the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from maryland is recognized. mr. raskin: delightful to hear my friend from colorado speak. one thing i want to point out because there might be students in the gallery today is 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 seven years before you run the house and nine years before you run for the senate and born u.s. citizen in order to run for president of the united states, which some historians attribute to thomas jefferson trying to write alexander hamilton out of the presidential sweepstakes. i think my colleague should relax with the ex acknowledge regulates here. we are saying let's keep doing that we have done since 1790. this is the census and apportionment has been run and they are proposing a radical departure from what the constitution ordetains.

mr. biggs: i yield two minutes to the gentleman from louisiana. mr. graves: i want to simply what we are talking about here. you could have a citizen of russia that illegally crosses our southern border, pays cartels and decides to set up shop in california. that citizen of russia can vote for 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 before interference in elections than what we are talking about today. i am from the state of louisiana. we have six members of congress, we have six. by some calculation, the state of california alone has six members of congress entirely

attributable to citizens of other countries. offsetting all of the votes and citizens in louisiana. this is outrageous. to listen to people across the aisle talk about how this is inappropriate. no. this is exactly appropriate. as a matter of fact, the way that we killed american citizens in our territories, you are given a greater status, a greater status to illegal alien in the united states, than you are giving to an american citizen. this is absolutely outrageous. to listen to people justify this. this is 100% about stacking the vote, about foreign interference in elections and allowing and incentivizing sanctuary cities. that's what it does. it takes american taxpayer collars influenced by the census

and gives it to states that have illegal aliens. this is completely outrageous and i can't believe we are having this debate. vote yes if you want americans to be represented and vote no if you think russians and chinese should be represented. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from maryland. mr. raskin: i'm delighted to hear someone denounce putin. we should avoid putting in a president of the united states that looks up to putin and calls him a genius. i could be persuaded by the gentleman's policy amendments but we have the amendment in the constitution. this is the way it has been done. the language is perfectly clear that it's all of the persons of the state who have to be counted. i thought you guys were constitutional text thurlists and thought you followed the

original constitution. i could be persuaded. i did don't like texas or florida or any state gets an inflated congressional delegation because of this reason. let's have that discussion. but you have to amend the constitution. you can't just say i don't like what's in the constitution and therefore i'm going to ignore it. and point of the territories and i'm not sure i understood. the people in the territories are not represented except by nonvoting delegates whose votes don't count and can't count in michael versus anderson. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from arizona. mr. biggs: can i inquire about the time again, please. the speaker pro tempore: 9 1/2 minutes. mr. biggs: i yield three minutes to the gentleman from ohio.

daiferredz daiferredz -- davids daiferredz -- mr. davidson: that is a lot of opposition to say this doesn't matter. in fact, they are encouraging you not to be a citizen. sanctuary cities and states invite everyone to flood their cities and need it and said as much that it is fleeing their horrible policies in states like florida, illinois, maryland and elsewhere, new york and going to places that have more freedom and less government. what do they do? they import new people and the conditions are better there than the places they are fleeing. but as mr. graves was pointing out. california has six to seven members. texas has representatives because they 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 skillfully undermining the value of u.s. citizenship to flood this country with noncitizens and 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. but noncitizens do not vote and should not vote. they are working to change that, too. we found that noncitizens are voting and found loopholes to do that with motor voter. we have to defend the value and right of u.s. citizens and only way to do that is to do the very purpose of the census is to apportion representatives. we get a lot of other been fits from the census but the

constitutional purpose of it is to know who is here. they want to know how many -- national origin, your religion, how much you make. but they don't give a rip whether you are a united states citizen. the american people deserve to be fairly and equally represented. and that is the only way they are going to be done if we know the citizensship and apportionment is based on the united states citizens. this amendment needs to be passed. and for assurance for the previous three congresses, i have introduced a constitutional amendment in this congress h.j.res. 37. i assume mr. raskin will co-sponsor it immediately because he knows he can amend the constitution and defend the preliminary that is at stake here. i urge my colleagues to sponsor

this bill and vote yes and get it passed. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time the gentleman from arizona reserves. the gentleman from maryland is recognized. mr. raskin: gee, why do you amend the constitution if you can do it by statute here. that is rather curious. i admire the intellectual honesty because that's what needs to be done and i would be happy to look at that and appreciate his candor in admitting that the constitution needs to be amended in order to overturn two centuries' of practice and everything the supreme court has said about the issue and should be clear to everybody that only u.s. citizens, a majority may vote in federal elections. but everybody, including children who are u.s. citizens are counted even though they can't vote in federal elections.

i reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from arizona is recognized. mr. biggs: i recognize the gentleman from ohio, mr. jordan. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from ohio is recognized. mr. jordan: does anybody on the street, we do a census and count up the number of people and is it ok to find out how many are citizens. yeah, aren't you already doing that. this bill says let's count everyone and find out how many citizens because that's what should determine how apportionment is done. it is so darn simple. by the way to my good friend, we ask all kinds of other questions on the census, what is wrong about asking are you a citizen of this great country? that's all this does and that is an important number to get when you are figuring out who is

going to represent, how many congressional members from each of the respective states. i don't know why they are opposing. but they always do. i urge a yes vote and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from maryland is recognized. mr. raskin: i reserve. mr. biggs: i have no additional speakers. is the gentleman prepared to close? mr. raskin: yes. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from maryland is recognized. mr. raskin: i don't want to be in a position of lecturing my colleagues that they often like to say, the constitution is the constitution and nobody has laid a glove on the constitution or explained how the supreme court erred in the evanwell case. and it's persons that are counted and since the country

began. so you know, the rest of it strikes me like election year political rhetoric. to the extent to deal with immigration, we had a great bargain that came out of the senate until they heard from donald trump and no legislative progress and wanted to be able to deema going the issue on the campaign trail and has been undermind by the exposure. and i haven't heard anybody explain why their legislation is constitutional nor explain what is wrong with the immigration package to add hundreds of border patrol officers, hundreds of border, patrol and asylum judges and crackdown on drugs at the border. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time the gentleman from arizona is

recognizedded. mr. biggs: an honor to debate here. most americans would agree with the proposition those here illegally in the united states and noncitizens shouldn't be created for. i think that's what they think and what section 3 of this bill leads to. foreign nationals here legally who are not naturalized together with illegal aliens who cannot vote come myself incompetents of 15% of our populations. noncitizens are not distributed and end up with greater representation in congress. perhaps that is when new york congresswoman met in response to a question, she said i need more people in my district just for redistricting purposes. this is based onial

preparation. my colleague relied on evanwell a case relied on wrongfully. first of all, they are dealing with state apportionment issues, not federal, but state. let's see what skas ties ginsburg did, she sided with approval the holding in evanwell that the supreme court allows to use any neutral and including total population. that has never been overturned. nor did justice ginsburg overturn it in evanwell. the plaintiffs wanted apportionment based on the voting age population and what they were asking tore. even though it deals with state apportionment, the rationment to federal apportionment as well.

justice ginsburg turned on the idea that voting require is not required. but she also lays out that neither is the total population metric that is implied by these people on the other side of the aisle isn't required. ginsburg referred to burns v. richardson and held that districts may be held on voter ell i believe populations, that is permissible. in the burns' case, gives the example of hawaii which could justify its use of apportionment because of the large number of transits and military personnel it had. and using registered voters was permissible because of the conditions hawaii found itself. what has happened since now what's happened since then? what's happens since then, is the administration j.a.t. admits

9.2 million ail generals have come in, and they know there's another 2 million known gotaways. that's 11 million people. that's distorted the population and skewed the one person, one vote which is the kay nonupon which the commerce -- the canon upon which the commerce case was founded. one person, one vote rule. but they are -- our colleagues on the other side don't want to acknowledge that there's a constitutional basis as i just cited to allow section three to go forward. but they are perfectly content with california which is a sanctuary state, hauling in people. they are 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. so 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'm not going to read it. but the first clause, that's what my colleague across the aisle, that's what he's reride on exclusively. he didn't bother to tell you that the second clause, in the second clause itself, it deals with every federal election and every state election for state governor, judicial body, the state legislatures. and what they do there in the second clause of the 14th amendment, they provide a way that you reduce apportionment with those individuals maybe disqualified. that's what we're saying here. that's why this