[Congressional Record Volume 170, Number 85 (Thursday, May 16, 2024)]
[Senate]
[Pages S3746-S3747]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]



                  Unanimous Consent Request--H.R. 7109

  Mr. HAGERTY. Mr. President, last week, the House of Representatives 
passed the Equal Representation Act. This commonsense bill would 
require that only U.S. citizens are counted for the purposes of 
allotting congressional districts and electoral votes. This makes 
sense. In order for every American's vote to have equal weight, only 
legal voters should be counted in apportioning voting power.
  On the other hand, the current method of counting illegal aliens in 
allocating Americans' voting power dilutes the votes of some Americans. 
It also serves as a perverse incentive for open borders and sanctuary 
cities because resettling illegal aliens increases the relative 
political power of the States and the voters that do so.
  What was once called a conspiracy theory turned out to be an 
objective fact that Democrats now acknowledge. Migrants here illegally 
are being counted in the census, and they are counted for determining 
electoral college votes and congressional seats. Commerce Secretary 
Raimondo confirmed this yesterday when I asked her in a committee 
hearing.
  It is impossible to dispute that this policy increases the voting 
power of districts and States that resettle more illegal aliens. In 
fact, some Democrats have taken it a step further, calling for more 
illegal immigration to increase their power. Just this year, video 
surfaced of a U.S. Representative from New York--her name is Yvette 
Clarke--who said, when asked about illegal immigration, ``I need more 
people in my district just for redistricting purposes.'' Yes, that is 
what she said. She said it quite out loud. She represents the same 
district where James Madison High School is located. You may recall 
that last fall, last winter, James Madison High School was the school 
where the students were told to go home and study by Zoom so their 
school could be used to house illegal aliens. What Congresswoman Clarke 
means is that Americans are fleeing blue cities and States en masse 
because of failing government--and congressional seats are allocated 
based on population--so if you are losing population, you either have 
to backfill it or lose congressional seats. That is where the illegal 
aliens come in.
  This Congresswoman's statement helps explain why President Biden and 
Democrats are allowing recordbreaking illegal immigration. It is to 
preserve their political power. Since President Biden took office 
alone, over 10 million illegal aliens have entered our country. That 
could amount to more than a dozen congressional seats.
  This bill is simple. It would simply require that the Census Bureau 
include a citizenship question to provide a basic understanding of the 
U.S. population, which is the purpose of the census, and it would allow 
for delineation between citizens and noncitizens for apportionment 
purposes. My bill would count only citizens for purposes of 
congressional and electoral college apportionment. In other words, it 
would count only citizens for determining citizens' voting power. That 
way, the power of each American's vote doesn't depend on how many 
illegal aliens are in their area.
  The Equal Representation Act will ensure that the weight of every 
American's vote is equal, it will restore the one person, one vote 
principle, and it will certainly end the perverse incentive under which 
illegal immigration increases political power.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that as in legislative 
session, notwithstanding rule XX, the Senate proceed to the immediate 
consideration of Calendar No. 386, H.R. 7109. I further ask that the 
bill be considered read a third time and passed and that the motion to 
reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  The Senator from Hawaii.
  Mr. SCHATZ. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, a couple of 
points. The first point is actually the main point, which is that we 
had the toughest bipartisan bill on border security in generations on 
this floor, and when Donald Trump found out how tough it was and how 
effective it was going to be, he told Senate Republicans to kill it, 
and that is what they did. So spare me the crocodile tears about the 
situation at the border. We had the opportunity to fix that, and Donald 
Trump explicitly said: Don't pass this. Blame me. Blame me.
  No. 2, my good friend Senator Hagerty, who feels very passionately 
about this--his quibble is with the Constitution. The Constitution 
provides that all persons in the United States are counted--all 
persons. It says nothing about their citizenship status. So if you have 
a problem with the way the census is conducted, you have to amend the 
Constitution of the United States--not the law, not the statutory laws 
of the United States, but the Constitution of the United States.
  I have lost count of the number of times Republicans have tried and 
failed to add citizenship questions to the census. We have to see this 
for what it is--an attempt to reduce the count in immigrant 
communities.
  If that sounds like sort of a rhetorical flourish, a little bit too 
much, let me remind you that it was only a few years ago that the 
Supreme Court ruled against adding this question. They ruled against 
it. Why? It is because the real reason they wanted to add it was from a 
conservative effort who thought it would ``be advantageous to 
Republicans and non-Hispanic Whites.''
  ``[B]e advantageous to Republicans and non-Hispanic Whites.''
  They wanted to ask people the citizenship question not in a longer 
census questionnaire, not as part of their annual data gathering, but 
the first question out of the gate to scare people from interacting 
with the Federal Government because--listen, someone knocks on your 
door from the Federal Government, and the first question is ``Are you a 
citizen?'' You will decline to participate if you have friends or 
families or cousins or neighbors who may have mixed-citizenship status.

[[Page S3747]]

  And here is the other quote, that it ``would clearly be a 
disadvantage for Democrats.'' This was never about gathering data. This 
was never about enforcing the law. It has always been and continues to 
be a pretext to scare people, particularly immigrants, out of taking 
the census, out of being counted at all, to undercount people and rig 
the political system in favor of one political party. And don't take 
this progressive Democrat from Hawaii's word for it; take this Supreme 
Court's word for it.
  I am not a lawyer, but I remember this--I remember they said they had 
no non pretextual reason to ask that question. In other words, they 
were asking this question in order to gain partisan advantage.
  So for those reasons, I respectfully object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The objection is heard.
  The Senator from Tennessee.
  Mr. HAGERTY. Mr. President, first, I would like to remark that the 
border security bill that my esteemed colleague references would simply 
increase the processing of illegal aliens into this country. If this 
language were incorporated in it, we would stop the incentive for 
illegal migration. That would be the fix. That was not in the bill. The 
bill that he referenced would not have addressed the border security at 
all.
  My Democratic colleague is objecting to legislation that would 
actually restore the one-person, one-vote principle, and it would end 
the perverse incentive under which illegal immigration increases 
political power.
  It is indisputable that Congress can direct that a citizenship 
question be included in the census. It was included in the census for 
most of our history up until Barack Obama's administration took it out 
in 2010.
  And the Constitution says that the census shall be conducted ``in 
such Manner as [Congress] shall by Law direct.''
  Congress does, indeed, have the authority to do this; in fact, we 
have had the citizenship question until 2010.
  Second, on the question of what population is counted for 
apportioning House seats and electoral votes, the Constitution says 
that you count the number of persons in the United States.
  It doesn't mean literally everyone in the United States. We don't 
count people here on vacation; we don't count people here on temporary 
stays. Why would we count people who are here and who have broken in 
illegally? It means citizens who are members of the American political 
body--a body that votes on representation--and who have permanent 
allegiance to our constitutional system.
  In fact, it may be unconstitutional to count illegal aliens under the 
14th Amendment because that dilutes some citizens' votes and undermines 
the principle of one person, one vote.
  The constitutional argument is simply a dodge for the indefensible 
position that opposition to this bill means support for the notion that 
more illegal aliens should mean more political power for the States and 
the communities that attract.