Lgbtqi+ Data Inclusion Act
Floor Speech
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. BIGGS. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Madam Speaker, today we have heard impassioned arguments from House Democrats about the need to gather better data on the American population. In fact, the majority leader just said: Obviously, we take information to better provide services to Americans. That is what he said.
As required by the Constitution, the decennial Census is carried out every 10 years to conduct an actual enumeration ``in such manner as Congress shall by law direct.''
It is well past time--it is well past time that Congress, again, directs the Census Bureau to collect data on the citizenship of respondents.
I realize that many of my colleagues do not believe that there is a crisis on our southern border. But just last month, CBP had 239,416 encounters along the southern border. And what that means is every encounter is either a surrender or an arrest of somebody who is illegally in the country.
Of those, 25 percent involved an individual who had at least one prior encounter in the previous 12 months. This does not include the number of known and unknown getaways which, last year, are estimated to have been a million individuals we don't know anything about.
So whether someone is a U.S. citizen is an important data point that should be recorded in the Census and on other Federal data surveys. If we are going to get information, as the majority leader said, this should be in that panoply of information.
As we have heard today from my colleague across the aisle, data from these Federal surveys inform policy decisions. For instance, decennial Census data informs Federal funding and enforcement of the Voting Rights Act.
I believe we should know whether the Federal Government is serving its citizens well, but how can we do that when we do not know how many citizens there are, how many actual citizens there are, or where they live?
Today, I will offer a straightforward solution to this problem as a motion to recommit. If we adopt the motion to recommit, we will instruct the Committee on Oversight and Reform to consider an amendment to require the Federal surveys covered by the bill--including the U.S. Census--to also ask respondents whether they are U.S. citizens.
In contrast to asking intrusive questions about sexual orientation that serve no legitimate purpose, the Federal Government should have a better understanding of the U.S. citizens residing in America and those who are not citizens.
This information will better inform lawmakers and ensure the government is working to better the lives of Americans, which is what I have heard is the stated goal of the Democrats.
It is time that the U.S. Government--and U.S. Congress, especially-- works to protect the prosperity of the American people. Such serious work starts with strong borders and a sound immigration policy that is actually enforced.
Contrary to what the chairwoman stated in the Rules Committee, the Supreme Court has not decided it is unlawful to inquire about citizenship on the Census.
The Supreme Court--let me reiterate that--has not said you cannot inquire about citizenship. That is false. It has been done historically.
In the prior case before the Supreme Court, the process leading up to putting the question on the Census was flawed. Upon that basis, the question was decided.
But the decision states, ``The Enumeration Clause permits Congress, and by extension, the Secretary, to inquire about citizenship on the Census questionnaire.''
That is what we are doing. We are following the Constitution as has been recognized by the Supreme Court. It is critical to ensuring an accurate apportionment of Representatives in the House based on the Census--in this House--unlike the information this bill seeks to collect. Similar to your underlying bill, this information will be voluntarily gathered.
Today, the American people will finally get to see their Representatives take a vote on this important matter.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. BIGGS. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Madam Speaker, I just want to cover and address some of the statements made by the chairwoman regarding my previous statement.
She admitted in her statement that several surveys already gather the info that they seek in the underlying bill. Yet, that was a rationale for not asking the citizenship question.
What is good for the goose is good for the gander. You are already collecting some of this information, as you admitted, from 5 different agencies, and you want to expand it to 130. You said, well, you guys get it from the Department of Labor statistics on the question of citizenship. Hey, let's get it all across the board. Let's do it all across the board. Same rationale.
The chairwoman said the LGBTQ question will be voluntary, but the citizenship question is not. That is simply untrue. If you look at the amendment, that would be there.
We discussed this in the committee. All you are doing is you are adding, in some cases, just the word ``citizenship'' to the questions that you are already asking, or you are asking whether or not the respondent is a citizen of the United States.
That is voluntary. It is not mandatory. That is just untrue to say that.
Then the argument was made that the Supreme Court used a rationale that was inaccurate. The Supreme Court rationale for not allowing the Trump administration, through an executive agency, to ask the citizenship question on the Census was this: It was because the process was not initiated by Congress.
The Supreme Court specifically stated, ``The Enumeration Clause permits Congress, and by extension, the Secretary, to inquire about citizenship on the Census questionnaire.''
It had not been done by Congress. It had been done by a lower-level agency. So all of those things should now dispel the arguments against including this amendment. That is why I am going to encourage everyone in this body to support the motion to recommit.
Mrs. CAROLYN B. MALONEY of New York. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee), the distinguished chief deputy whip.
Ms. JACKSON LEE. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from New York, Chairwoman of the Oversight Committee, for her leadership, and Chairman Grijalva for his dynamic leadership, as well.
I rise today because I just feel moved by the moment to really talk about truth in the moments that I have. I started this morning by citing the Declaration of Independence that said, we all are created equal--a portion thereof--with the unalienable rights of life and liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
It is important that today in Pride Month, as I recognize my constituents in Houston, all of them, and the caucus that has been a steadfast advocate in Houston for the rights of all people in the LGBTQI community.
It is important to be counted, to be recognized, and I want to emphasize, again, the distortion of how punitive this will be. It is voluntary.
I know my constituents. Some of them don't even fill out the Census because they are free. They know they don't have to do it. Some of them don't answer questions on the Census.
For anyone to suggest that this would be punitive and that people would be fearful and they would think not to do it, it is voluntary. And I can assure you that this community, LGBTQI+ Americans, remains vulnerable to discrimination on a daily basis.
Only 21 States have laws that explicitly prohibit discrimination based on sexual orientation in employment, housing, and public accommodations, and only 20 States have such protections for gender identity.
H.R. 4176, the LGBTQI+ Data Inclusion Act, is to include and affirm and to be counted.
Do you realize that in most States a same-sex couple can get married on Saturday, then be legally denied service at a restaurant on Sunday, be fired from their jobs on Monday, and evicted from their apartment on Tuesday?
We thought we would be past that after years of working and fighting, but it is important to note that this bill will provide us with the appropriate information.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Source