and include extraneous material on the measure under consideration. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered mr. biggs: i yield myself such time 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 the

2024 election. this is about 40 minutes.