Andy Biggs

Mr. BIGGS

Mr. BIGGS. Mr. Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. BIGGS. Mr. Chair, I rise to speak in support of my amendment, which protects defense-related activities from the aggressive use of the Endangered Species Act. This amendment would curb the Endangered Species Act's application in areas used for national defense-related operations and prohibits the Secretary of the Interior from designating areas necessary for military operations as crucial habitats. Compliance with environmental laws has created restrictions on how DOD manages, plans, and conducts training exercises on its installations. According to DOD, 85 percent of Army installations have threatened endangered species present. Two million acres of Army training and testing lands have training restrictions in place related to stringent ESA requirements. These restrictions, when applied, harm our readiness and our mission. Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. BIGGS. Mr. Chair, the issue that I bring forward is a longstanding issue. A 2004 review by GAO discusses issues at the Barry M. Goldwater Range at Luke Air Force Base in Arizona, where officials reported that nearly 10 percent of the F-16 training exercises were canceled due to the presence of an endangered species on the training range impact area. That doesn't include the long-range missile testing that now has to be canceled and rescheduled on a regular basis. Nearly 80 percent of Marine Corps Aviation units train at the Goldwater Range before deployment. The range provides the space and infrastructure for marines to receive this critical tactical aviation training, air-to-ground and air-to-air. Maybe DOD hasn't asked for it, but my colleagues should go out to the Barry M. Goldwater Range area. If my colleagues are so doggone concerned about biodiversity, they should get their tails down to the border to take a look at the Cabeza Prieta National Wildlife Refuge. Look at the garbage that has come through because of the illegal aliens and the trash that is there. It is tons. The biodiversity that has been impacted there is incalculable. They have cut roads through this otherwise pristine desert that sits right next to the Barry M. Goldwater Range. We have the animals that are driven through. We have the individuals. If biologists determine that a Sonoran pronghorn may be present within 3 miles of training range impact areas, missions are redirected or canceled. That is a regular occurrence. I get a kick out of people who live in Northern Virginia. They sell cars. They want to talk about car sales for EVs. Get your tail down to the border. Look at the biodiversity degradation that is there. Talk to the people who run the Barry M. Goldwater Range and other military installations. They are going to tell you that our readiness project is endangered because of strict ESA rules. This amendment would help protect our mission and our readiness. Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. BIGGS. Mr. Chair, when you say zero evidence, I guess the GAO report gets discounted. I guess the evidence from the people who run the range gets discounted. I guess hearing from the contractors who work there and have to reschedule repeatedly because of the enforcement of the ESA is not evidence either. I guess the fact that China doesn't have to worry about environmental impacts from an ESA impacting their readiness is zero evidence. When we look at it, in the Southwest, you have the acuna cactus. That is preventing, in many areas in the entire eastern portion of the Goldwater Range, the use of military targets and off-road vehicles, which impedes the ability to get mission ready. With the continued rising threats abroad, Congress must ensure that military readiness is not negatively impacted by regulatory compliance constraints from radical environmentalists. This amendment ensures that the Department of Defense can conduct the training necessary to keep the men and women of our Armed Forces prepared. Mr. Chair, I urge passage of this amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. BIGGS. Mr. Chairman, as I have done for each of the past 5 years--this is the sixth year in a row--I rise to speak in support of my amendment, which would prohibit funds for any project or activity related to NATO until the Secretary of Defense certifies to congressional defense committees that each member of NATO has spent 2 percent of their respective GDP on defense expenditures. In 2006, NATO members agreed to spend at least 2 percent of their gross domestic product on defense spending to ensure the readiness of the alliance. By 2014, just three members had reached the agreed-upon 2 percent funding level. Under a new 2014 agreement, each member country has until 2024 to reach their 2 percent goal. Unfortunately, as of 2023, just 11 of the 32 countries, including the United States, contributed at least 2 percent of GDP on defense. This has to change. In 2023, Italy was projected to spend just 1.46 percent of its GDP on defense, and its Defense Minister stated that they will certainly not meet NATO's target in 2024 and will likely not meet NATO's target by 2028. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. BIGGS. Mr. Chairman, in 2023, Germany stepped back from its commitment to meeting NATO's target of spending 2 percent, going back on its 2022 commitment to invest more than 2 percent of their GDP to defense year after year. In 2024, that number is expected to grow, and about two-thirds of NATO member countries are expected to at least meet the 2 percent target. That would be great. Much of the growth that we have seen recently was due, in large part, to President Trump's push to our NATO allies to increase spending to meet the 2 percent standard. However, more work must be done to ensure NATO allies are paying their fair share. The U.S. continues to spend far more than its fair share and takes on the overwhelming responsibility of being the world's police. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. BIGGS. Mr. Chairman, we hear about Ukraine and NATO. We haven't even discussed China and other areas around the world that are concerns. What is our number one threat? For 20 years, we have been told it is our national debt by bipartisan leaders of the military and the Department of Defense. Why do we end up carrying free riders? Why do we lead the way on everything? Because we are America, but let me tell you something: That can't endure. Why did the USSR go away? The USSR went away not because there was a coup or an uprising. It was a business enterprise that had to declare bankruptcy. That is why the USSR failed, ultimately. At $35 trillion in national debt, we have that danger, as well. We cannot afford to carry free riders indefinitely. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. BIGGS. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. BIGGS. Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. BIGGS. Mr. Chair, if you want to strengthen NATO and you want to stop free riding, maybe you use leverage. Maybe you use leverage. If you want to strengthen our country, maybe use leverage to get your partners who are supposed to be your partners to start paying their share. The only reason that this is even improving is because the previous administration made that a big issue and made that demand. We should make that demand still. I reiterate: The number one security threat, according to a long line of DOD officials, is our national debt. At some point you simply can't keep funding the military operations you want to fund. If your partners aren't willing to pay their share, you don't strengthen them, you weaken us. That is what this amendment is designed to do. It doesn't prevent us from putting forward our operations anywhere, but it does encourage and leverage our partners to actually pay their fair share. Mr. Chair, I urge everyone to support this amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. BIGGS. Mr. Chair, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. BIGGS

Mr. BIGGS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for doing this. Mr. Speaker, I am going to try to dovetail with what Mr. Good has talked about, and that is the weaponization of the Federal Government against American citizens for political purposes. It is bad enough when it becomes weaponized against American citizens, but it becomes actually exponentially worse when it becomes a tool of authoritarianism to actually attack political opponents. Why is it worse? It is worse because it undermines the very foundation of the rule of law and of the free association and free speech of American citizens, from which we recognize all of our political apparatus. Let's think about this. We know the committee of weaponization, the Select Subcommittee on the Weaponization of the Federal Government, recently put out a report dealing with the misuse of financial records of Americans. Imagine if the Federal Government could get ahold of everybody's credit card statements. Well, they can, actually. Why can they? Because they have asked for it, and the banks and credit card companies, many of them, have actually turned that information over to the FBI and the Department of Justice. For what reason? There is no particular reason. There is no indicia of probable cause or suspicious behavior. They are just acquiring metadata so they can go after and pursue the individuals. We see the same thing with this movement to buy up additional metadata from data brokers, private commercial data brokers. They do that so they can avoid the requirements of suspicious conduct or probable cause. That is what went on when the FBI actually did millions of queries on American citizens and did hundreds of thousands of illegal searches of the data of American citizens. They didn't have probable cause. There was nothing, according to statute. This is part of the problem with the FISA statute. They had no reason to believe that any of those searches would lead to finding criminal conduct, yet they still went after these American citizens. The DOJ and judiciary are joined by the ATF. The ATF has been going after firearm licensees, distributors, trying to find technical errors showing up because this is the way the Biden administration is trying to disarm the American public. It just goes on. Every institution has been weaponized. The military has been weaponized. It looks like General Perry is here. He might want to talk about that. The education system is weaponized. You know what happens when you have a generation or two that has been indoctrinated into how bad this country is, that we have no moral high ground, that we don't respect freedom, that we are going to basically embrace critical race theory and that type of the thing. First of all, you remember that when they did this, they said there is no such thing as critical race theory. That is what the Democrats said here. We were in Judiciary. We had debates on it. They said there is no such thing. Of course, there is such a thing. Critical theory grew right out of the Frankfurt School, the philosophical group that was led by Jurgen Habermas, Theodor Adorno and the others in the Frankfurt School. They came over and created the critical theory. In the early seventies, a law professor created the notion of critical race theory. He published articles. It was adopted. The reality is what has happened with that is you have an indoctrinated generation that believes that America is no good, was no good, and will never be good because it is systemically and inherently problematic. It is not just critical race theory. There is a whole bundle of other critical arguments related to critical theory. You have district attorneys and county attorneys who have run on the notion that those who commit violent crime are misunderstood and should be released into the public, and that those who are victimized become marginalized, which is why I introduced the ALVIN bill, which was to get at Mr. Bragg in New York, and the WILLIS Act. What are these meant to do? They are meant to use what the Founders gave us within the Constitution, which is our opportunity to use the funding streams and the purse strings to actually try to bring a runaway executive branch back in. This all culminates in today's actions. What do we see happening? I won't steal my friend's thunder because he was talking about former President Donald Trump, who is undergoing four pieces of lawfare. Those lawfare originated right in the White House. They are coming down from President Biden. How do we know that? Because the paramour of Fani Willis came up and met in the White House to get instructions. How do we know that? Because Jack Smith, who is prosecuting him here on the Mar-a-Lago case, went to the White House multiple times to get instructions. How do we know that? Because Alvin Bragg also met with the White House. How do we know that? Because Matthew Colangelo, one of the high-ranking DOJ lawyers, left that DOJ and went to Alvin Bragg's office after Alvin Bragg and everybody else who looked at the case that is going on in New York City said there is no there there. By the way, they probably were also told your two star witnesses are Stormy Daniels, who has basically said multiple times--four different times--there was never any interaction between her and Donald Trump, and then Michael Cohen, who has a long string of convictions for lying. He lied about lying, and then he lied about lying about lying today. We heard it in the hours of testimony we saw. The next step is, how else do you weaponize government? You use it to shield bad acts from the public. Let me give you one. This is my last one. Today, the Judiciary Committee voted to hold Merrick Garland in contempt of court. Tonight, I anticipate the Oversight Committee will do the same. What did the Biden administration do? President Biden has asserted executive privilege. Now, I want my colleagues to think about this for just a moment. The rationale for the executive privilege based on what Merrick Garland said today, both in an oral and written statement, was two reasons. Number one, we are not going to be able to pursue sensitive investigations. He didn't say how that works, but that is not a reason for executive privilege. It isn't. The other thing with regard to executive privilege is they talked about politics and the political ramifications if this audio recording was released. Now, you have already released the transcript. By the way, both of those arguments are undercut because you already released a written transcript. The only reason not to bring out the recording is because you were abashed, embarrassed because you either doctored your transcript, your written transcript, or because the performance is so egregiously bad in the oral transcript. Neither of those will work. I am going to call right now and remind everybody that we can take action here. We should. I will just tell you that that is another way that you can weaponize government. That is to hide information, fail to be transparent. That is what this administration has done.

Mr. BIGGS. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate both of the chairmen for their comments. I want to add just a couple things. We are a constitutional republic. We are not a democracy. A constitutional republic actually elects representatives to make decisions and represent the will of a district or a State. That is the distinction. Democracy actually comes from the Latin word ``demos''. It is where the people themselves are voting directly on the issues and decisions to be made. That is really what happens in a democracy, which is why the Founders warned us and said: You have a constitutional republic, you don't have a democracy. You don't have a democracy because democracies have been short and turbulent in their destruction. As one historian said in about 1804, it has been the sad history of democracies that as soon as people realize they can vote themselves benefits from the government, they do so, and the government terminates. So we have a constitutional republic. We have separation of powers both horizontally and vertically. James Madison taught us very clearly that we should honor those separations rigidly. When we talk about horizontally, we always think of the legislative branch, the executive branch, and the judiciary, which by the way, are not coequal branches. The Founders were very clear on this. They described the judiciary as the weakest branch. We control their jurisdiction, except for in a few cases of original jurisdiction. We create the Article III courts with the exception of the United States Supreme Court. The executive branch has very limited powers. In fact, they thought the executive branch itself, the Presidency would be more ceremonial than substantive, and the legislative branch would be small with enumerated powers, but because the House of Representatives was elected directly by the people, it would have the purse strings. The Senate was to be elected by the State legislatures, and they were to represent the States' interests. Well, what has happened is we are upside down. We are so upside down because every State--having spent many years in the State legislature, and I think my colleagues know this. What happens is this: We spend about 80 percent of our time in the State of Arizona trying to respond to Federal mandates passed by this bunch of yo-yos or by the bureaucracy where they were telling us things like, gee, in Phoenix, Arizona, what we want you to do is we want you to water down your dust because the number one particulate in the Phoenix metro area is dust. That is your biggest pollutant. Water it down. The other half is EPA saying: You can't water it down because we are watching you on your water usage. This is from people who are cubicle dwellers who are controlling, without any understanding, 5.5 million people in the Phoenix metro area. They become weaponized. They are nameless. They are faceless. They are the D.C. cartel, which consists of bureaucracy, media, and lobbyists. That is your cartel. They have taken the institutions of this country, and they have weaponized them against the American people. It is time for this body to say we are the ones closest to the people, and we must do all we can. We may not have leverage over the Senate now, we may not have leverage over the executive branch now, but we must do and can do everything possible to restore the separation of powers both horizontally and vertically. If we did that, I guarantee you what would happen is this weaponization would dissipate. It wouldn't go quietly in the night, but we have felt it wrap around our necks like the flaxen cords of sin, and we have got to begin cutting it off.

Mr. BIGGS

Mr. BIGGS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to me. I do find it interesting that the arguments are consistently wrong from my colleagues across the aisle. First of all, now they are telling us: Oh, it is just money. They need more money. Yet, overwhelmingly, everybody on that side of the aisle voted for the continuing resolutions that came up last year. There wasn't one of them who said: Let's amend the CR and get more money. No. They didn't do that. They said: We are going to rely instead on this bogus bill that is going to come from the Senate. Now, the bogus bill from the Senate that they now love and embrace, why do they embrace it? It is because it has a few things in it that are really unique. Number one, every day 1,500 people have to be allowed in. Not legally, because we allow over 1 million people in legally, they have to be let in if they are here illegally. Well, 1,500 would be an improvement for sure because we are looking at 3 million this year, and that would only be about over one-half a million. I can understand why they would say that that is an improvement. The reality is that the President has authority now to act and has chosen not to act. This bill from the Senate would have said that he could close the border when the number got to 5,000 a day. That was an option, 5,000. Good grief, that is over 1.8 million. By the way, that would still be an improvement over what the Biden policy is today. The mandatory closure of the border doesn't kick in until 7,500 illegal aliens are encountered. Wow, that is what they say is so great. The other thing they like about it is it granted amnesty. That is what they really liked about this. We know right now President Biden could close that border right now today if he would change the policy. To what, one might say? How about back to the policies of his predecessor, Donald Trump? Let me give you an example, Mr. Speaker. The Yuma sector is a good- sized sector along the border. The entire last year of Donald Trump's Presidency, the encounters were a little under 8,000 for the whole year. Do you know what they get every day now, Mr. Speaker? And this is down. They get 350 a day. There have been days that I have been in Yuma where they have had 2,500 to 3,000 a day. Last week I was down at the border, and the week before that I was down at the border at different places in Arizona. I can tell you, Mr. Speaker, that Arizona is on track to going from 2018 through 2020, 60,000 encounters a year on average. This year it will be over 700,000 encounters. The number one drug trafficking and human trafficking corridor is the Tucson sector. When I was there just 2 weeks ago driving along the border, there were no Border Patrol agents. Why is that, you might say, because you could go for miles? It was because every agent was processing the illegal aliens who had crossed during the night. There were hundreds, and we are supposed to say: Well, do you know what? This is a meaningless resolution. It is not a meaningless resolution. It gets at the heart of the matter. Who is being impacted by this type of diaspora? Every country in the world is represented. I have talked to people from all over the world, and let me just tell you this, Mr. Speaker, if you go down to the little town of Sierra Vista in Cochise County, not too far from the border, about 20,000, 25,000 people live there. They have multiple high-speed car chases every week. Why? It is because the cartels control the southern border. They Snapchat and they Instagram to kids in Tucson high schools, Chandler high schools, and Mesa high schools up in my district who will go down and borrow their mom and dad's car. They will go down, and they say: Come meet us at this mile marker, and you will have four bodies. You will get paid $1,000 to $2,000 a body. You take them up to I-8 and I-10, drop them off at this mile marker, or you take them to an address in Phoenix to a drop house. Whatever you do, don't stop. These kids are as young as 13, fatality drivers, who drive at high speeds through a town of 25,000 people. That is the impact that our local law enforcement and our local people feel. How about the city of Yuma? There is one hospital, a 10-bed ER and a 10-bed maternity ward, and it is oftentimes filled with illegal aliens. Locals have to be air- vacked to San Diego or Phoenix. That is real. My friends can dance around it all they want, but this is why this is not a meaningless resolution. Mr. Speaker, I support it, and I encourage my friends to do the same.

Mr. BIGGS

Mr. BIGGS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Florida for yielding to me. Before I get into the nub, I will just respond to a couple things. The baseline, the reason that you come down 16 percent and still have rabid crime is because you were so high the years before, and they were. Washington, D.C., was. We know it; you know it; everybody knows it. I would also suggest that my friend from Florida is correct. The D.C. Council had not taken action that they needed to take. In fact, they had gone the other way and only recently were converted after Congress put pressure on them to make changes. By the way, that was bipartisan pressure, but somehow, we are told that is improper now. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the bill, H.R. 7530, the DC CRIMES Act, which takes necessary steps to improve public safety in our Nation's Capital for its residents and for our constituents. As violent crime skyrockets and D.C. police officer ranks continue to dwindle, the D.C. Council continues to push progressive policies that make everyone in D.C. unsafe. Their inaction has endangered residents of and visitors to our Nation's Capital, which is why in 2022, when the D.C. Council passed the Revised Criminal Code Act of 2022, I think we were all shocked. The bill eliminated mandatory minimum sentences for all crimes except first-degree murder, eliminated life sentences, and reduced maximum penalties for violent crimes. What whipsawed them back in just about an 18-month period? I suggest to you, respectfully, that it was because Congress was exercising its constitutional oversight authority over the District of Columbia, and that persuaded the council that they were in the eye and being watched by Congress. Their residents were also unhappy. I am going to have to suggest, respectfully, that it wasn't the D.C. Council responding to crime across America and not just in D.C., which is an ironic argument to make, quite frankly, when you are claiming that Congress has no authority, when we have constitutional authority to oversee the actions of D.C. The reality is, the council was responding to oversight that is authorized by the Constitution. Congress responded by blocking the reckless D.C. act from taking effect by advancing the bipartisan H.J. Res. 26 into law. The response from the D.C. Council was to then pass another bill, the Comprehensive Policing and Justice Reform Amendment Act, which targeted D.C. Metropolitan Police Department officers and their ability to combat rising crime. Congress attempted to block this act with H.J. Res. 42, but President Biden vetoed the bipartisan disapproval resolution, ensuring D.C.'s antipolice reforms went into effect. The D.C. Metropolitan Police Department has lost over 1,200 members since 2020 and staffing remains at the lowest level in 50 years, with officers often citing the D.C. Council's restrictive laws as their reasons for leaving. In a hearing last year, former D.C. Police Chief Contee noted that MPD needed an additional 800 officers to be fully staffed. As a result of the council's continued soft-on-crime agenda, crime in D.C. has increased 30 percent in 2023 compared to the previous year. Homicides were up 29 percent over 2022 and homicides doubled since 2012, which is why, when my colleague across the aisle begins saying they are down 16 percent in 2024, why do you think that is? It is because you had hit records in 2023 and now you are beginning to take this seriously because Congress is acting. Violent crime increased by 37 percent from 2022 to 2023, with robberies rising 65 percent. Motor vehicle thefts increased by 107 percent in 2023 compared to 2022. Congressman Donalds' bill ensures that Congress is fulfilling its constitutional responsibilities to oversee the district by lowering D.C.'s definition of youth to 18 and prohibiting D.C. from enacting new soft-on-crime sentencing changes in the future, which they no doubt will once Congress averts its eye from D.C. However, if we enact Congressman Donalds' bill, they will not be able to revert to their soft-on-crime ways, which has made D.C. unsafe for people, the millions of people who want to come and visit here and for the residents of this city. Mr. Speaker, I urge passage of this bill.

Mr. BIGGS

Mr. BIGGS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Langworthy).

Mr. BIGGS. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 1194, I call up the bill (H.R. 7109) to require a citizenship question on the decennial census, to require reporting on certain census statistics, and to modify apportionment of Representatives to be based on United States citizens instead of all persons, and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. BIGGS. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on the measure under consideration.

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

Mr. BIGGS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. As my friend knows, the Commerce case held specifically you can ask the citizenship question on the Census. That is true. You can do that. That is what we are proposing. Additionally, he misstated the rationale on why the Commerce case went the way it did. They said you can ask the question, but that the Secretary had contrived his rationale and was in violation of the APA, and that is why that happened. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Edwards).

Mr. BIGGS. Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 15 seconds to the gentleman from North Carolina.

Mr. BIGGS. Mr. Speaker, of course, every single Democrat voted against the great border security bill, H.R. 2. That is how serious they are not. Every person is counted under this bill. Why can't we ask them what their citizenship is? I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Higgins).

Mr. BIGGS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Grothman).

Mr. BIGGS. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire as to the time remaining.

Mr. BIGGS. Mr. Speaker, I wish we were hearing not deflective statements but the actual truth here. Here is the way it works. There is nothing in this bill that says you don't count everybody. You do count everybody. The thing they really don't want us to know is how many illegal aliens are in the country, so we are going to ask a citizenship question, which has been asked in 22 of 25 Censuses. They don't want that. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Burchett).