there purposely harming americans all because the president has said we must repeal the obamacare program. well, i'm sorry. i disagree. i want americans to have health care coverage. i was an insurance commissioner for years and i fought the insurance companies every single day. and then i came here in 2009 and was able to vote providing on this floor the vote that allowed the affordable care act to move out of this house to the senate and eventually become law, the 218th vote. i'm proud of that vote because i know from my personal experience that the affordable care act dealt with real problems that americans had and gave americans a real opportunity to get health care and to get health care services. .

and here we are, with the president of the united states, actively this day, doing everything he could, not achieved in the congress, but rather now in the courts, doing everything he can to harm americans. how cynical. how terrible. how harmful. but that's where we are. we'll see what the court does. hopefully they will be sympathetic. to 130 million americans. to nine million americans. to 15 million americans. to children. young adults ages 18 to 25le maybe they'll be sympathetic. we'll see. we'll see what happens. but if the affordable care act is somehow through the courts repealed and there is no replacement, i want the american

people to understand who is responsible. who is responsible for the harm that will immediately be inflicted upon americans. it is our president and it is his colleagues who have aided and abetted and who today in state attorneys general are arguing for the harm that will come to americans. we haven't given up the fight. we never give up the fight. so that every american has affordable health insurance. whatever that may be. we've come a long way with the affordable care act. we'll fight all along the way. should we lose this battle, we're never, ever, ever, never, going to give up our goal of providing quality, affordable

health care to every american. mr. speaker, i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: members are remined to refrain from engaging in personalities toward the president. pursuant to clause 12-a of rule 1, the chair declare the house in recess subject to the call of the chair. >> follow the house live when members return tomorrow at 10:00 a.m. eastern for morning speeches and noon for le jiss

work. legislative c-span with news and policy issues that impact you. coming up, wednesday morn, board member of the one country project including north dakota senator heidi hikamp talking about reinvigorating the democratic party with world issues. and then bill johnson who serves on the house budget committee will discuss the debate over federal spending in an effort to avoid another government shutdown. emily lawson will join us. she'll talk about efforts to close the gender pay gap. be sure to watch "washington journal" live at 7:00 eastern wednesday morning. join the discussion. >> federal reserve chairman jerome powell will testify before the house financial

services committee on monetarily policy and the state of the u.s. economy live wednesday at 10:00 a.m. eastern. and live at 2:30 p.m., a house subcommittee hearing on the treatment of immigrant children at the u.s.-mexico border. witnesses include an asylum seeker from guatemala. and live at 9:30 eastern. the senate armed services committee will consider the nomination of mark milly for chairman of the joint chiefs of staff. watch all three hearings live on scrmbings span 3, online at -- c-span 3, online at c-span.org r listen with the c-span app >> there's been discussion of an appearance before congress. any testimony from this office would not go beyond our report. it contains our findings and analysis and the reasons for the decisions we made. we chose those words carefully and the work speaks for itself.

and the report is my testimony. i would not provide information beyond that which is already public in any appearance before congress. >> former special counsel robert mueller is set to appear before two committees on wednesday july 17th. at 9:00 a.m. eastern he gives testimony to the house judiciary committee. later, he'll take questions from the house democratic committee. it will be live on c-span 3. online at c-span.org or listen with the free c-span radio app. >> during his list of accomplishments, our guest david rifken served from 1981 to 1989. n approach the administration could take in getting the question on the 2020 census. what is that approach?

caller: administration -- guest: the administration can argue that it compels the giveal government to information on citizen numbers. it can be done by executive order, that the president would sign, ordering the department of commerce to put this question on the census. i also want to emphasize that the supreme court decision agoed two weeks specifically stated, by a majority, that it is admissible to ask this question. the congress did not block the president from doing that. the problem wasn't entirely procedural. it is certainly something that can be carried. it happens all the time where a government agency or department on asomething it has power stature to accomplish, but doesn't do it well.

it happens to a bunch of upper agencies. host: when it comes to the section two of the 14th amendment, to read from the op-ed he wrote on this, you said the section two of the 14th amendment provides the state denies the franchise to anyone's eligibility to vote should -- the language is absolute and mandatory. compliance is impossible without lives.g to many citizens where does that come from? guest: it's part of a war amendment. providing -- to prevent the states from engaging in discrimination and denying citizens rights. at the time, only male citizens 21 years or older were allowed to vote. it was changed by the 19th and

26 amendment. what this language try to do is come up with a mechanism of penalizing states that this franchised a portion of their citizens. there was no version of the language in reference to race. that got changed to more generic language, referencing the race and color, in the 15th amendment. about people that tweeted it, this leg which has never been used by congress, but it does not matter. there are a lot of provisions in the constitution unutilized. postwar amendments have been used in an enforcement sense for many decades, but it is a provision that has to be enforced. the only person who can do that is the president. why census? section two of the 14th amendment amends section two article one, the very same

section that deals with the census. that information is meant to be gained from the census. the president is the only one who can do that. congress does not run the census. what is important is that congress of never -- congress never objected to the charge of constitutional duty. it does not specifically mentioned this, but nothing in the census act prevents the president from doing it. how do we know that? the supreme court said 5-4 that it is permissible under the statute. host: our guest with us to talk about the citizenship question on the 2020 census and his arguments he laid out in an op-ed, you can find it online. if you want to ask them questions, call us at (202) 748-8000, for democrats. (202) 748-8001 for republicans. independents are (202) 748-8002. if this is done by executive order, is that a weaker way of getting this done versus the

other -- guest: it's strong in two ways. first of all, it's quickly. second, if the president proceeds in that fashion, they take off of the table the administrative questions about amassing the record. the sole question on the table would be, is this constitutional? is this within the scope of the president's powers? the answer is yes. an interesting tidbit is that criticism is not addressed but has been lodged by the president's equal protection clause. the argument is that doing this discriminates against portions of a population, therefore violates protection laws. , in 1974,e court entertained a challenge to the california policy of this franchising -- disenfranchising. that contravenes the equal

protection clause, because of section one of the 14th amendment. the supreme court parsed section one and section two and made a specific point that something that is expressly allowed on the section two, section two allows abridgment of voting rights of citizens who participated in rebellion or crime. the courts said you cannot possibly violate equal protection clause by doing something specifically in section two. people who wrote the 14th amendment were not at war with themselves. that definitively answers the question of whether or not the section two compliant policy can never be considered a violation of the protection clause of section one. guest: there's a gentleman -- host: there's a gentleman named matthew frank writing for national review. let's take your analysis of the approach of the op-ed. he had said that the admin meant on the 14th amendment, doesn't actually protect any voting rights by any direct enforcement

action by the federal government? it's the worst kind of "keeping the constitution into with the nonsense to say that today's male citizens over 21 mean all eligible voters as they claim." guest: to put it gently, he is wrong for a couple of reasons. first, the reference in section leo was to mail citizens -- ma citizens. franchised was changed, legitimately so in my opinion, perfectly good thing. amendment, the fact that the reference there is the male citizens does not -- how the constitution works. the other point remains, which is frank lee silly, is that he does not see much of an opportunity for judicial enforcement. that's not necessarily true, but

there are numerous provisions in the constitution that are not provisionally enforceable. they can be something that the judiciary is not equipped to enforce. it doesn't mean they are not binding. the notion the clear constitutional command -- i can tell you this much as practicing -- unconstitutional it has not been sufficiently enforced area the only way you can supplant outs additional language is having an amendment that officiates it, which happened in the original one whichn article changed by section one of the 14th amendment. he's just wrong. what is interesting, the reason i emphasized that case, in 1974, after the 19th

amendment, the 26th amendment ratified. instead -- they treated section two as a pivotal part of the decision the california policy of not allowing x felons to vote was constitutional. the minority of justices on the supreme court in 74 made the same point about what, in their opinion, was wrong with section two of the 14th amendment. it only protected a portion of eligible electorates. six justices disagree. i'm happy this up in court majority -- to be in the supreme court majority. host: there are calls that the attorney general says he sees a path forward in getting this question on the census. you suspect -- do you suspect the path is the one you are advocating for? guest: i'm hoping that is the case. it is not the only path, but the most expeditious path.

i have a lot of respect for doj. i think they will find the right way to receipt -- proceed. host: did you talk to them specifically about the stuff that'll? guest: no. they can figure out -- stop at all? guest: no. they can figure it out themselves. host: jack, republican line, go ahead. caller: thank you very much. i'm not a lawyer, i'm a retired engineer. ancestors came into the united states from germany in the 1880's. i don't know what the immigration laws were then, at that time. my grandparents were born here, but my ancestors came -- they had skills. they were tool makers. and, i'm a retired manufacturing engineer now, so i would like to

know, what would the immigration laws -- where the immigration laws at that time in the united were the immigration laws at that time in the united states? and i support the question on citizenship. it should be asked. guest: the immigration laws throughout history were quite unrestricted. we were welcomed, pretty much everybody, with very few exceptions. until they had the infamous chinese exclusion act, the first ofr to cap certain types immigrants, the chinese, from arriving here. that was the political judgment made properly and was not done in resistance mode. it was political judgment made by congress at the time, and it made perfect sense. to be clear, there's a good relationship, in my opinion, aside from section two, having a good snapshot of the

distribution of citizens and noncitizens throughout the country. and, seeing from one census to another, what the trends are. secondaryion, is a point but helps to have a more informed discourse, hopefully, civilized bait about immigration. host: out of seattle washington, eric is next calling on our line for independents. good morning. you are on. caller: good morning. thank you. i feel like something that would help the census is two things. number one, we need to stop changing people's nationality when they come here to the united states. what i'm saying is that they are considered russian, german, chinese, whatever they come from. when they come from the united states -- to the united states, russians are allowed to say they are white people. once people get to the united states, all caucasian people, wherever you are from, poland,

you are just considered white. tost: how does this relate the citizenship question and what would you like to ask the guest about it? caller: i would like to ask in this. trump's mother was an immigrant and came here. wives, both of them are immigrants. host: color, thanks. guest: i think this country benefits from immigration. i came here as a refugee, as a young lad. question abouthe citizenship does not discriminate against anybody and does not block anybody from coming here. i believe people should come here illegally. i think legal immigration -- here legally. i think legal immigration is something that should be managed, but i don't see a problem asking the citizenship question. it's important for your viewers, that this question was asked

until 1950, every single senses. on antinues to be asked sample of the census forms after 1950. the concept that this is unordinary is untrue. host: the viability, if you taken that question, what would it do for the account overall? guest: i'm not a statistician, but i find it implausible. there are strong laws in place to bar the use -- misuse of data. there are two criticisms that i heard about the consequences of putting the citizenship question on the senses. it would precipitate considerable percentage of people to fail to respond. the second is that it would not be accurate because they will lie, in a sense of somebody not a citizen saying i am a citizen. i don't see, logically, how both of those things can be true. host: let's hear from north carolina, mike, republican line. go ahead, please. caller: good morning.

is it true the citizenship question was on the senses and the obama administration had its removed? thank you -- it removed? thank you. guest: i don't have any idea if that is true. it is conceivable. one of the things i would like to suggest that benefits not only the debate about this issue but other issues, who cares what happened a long time ago and who did what to whom? the question as far as the interagency battles and all of this is concerned, does it make sense to ask this question? is it constitutionally permissible? is it legally permissible? the critics, for example, it is not the question. critics point out some gentleman who died in 2015 who wrote a memo suggesting adding this

question might be politically beneficial to republicans. had any impactat on this process? to me, it doesn't do much quality on discourse to be pointing fingers. host: you were previously at the justice department saying the legal team said this question was being replaced and those lawyers may be coming from the consumer protection branch. is there anything there that you might add? guest: no. from what i understand, the people who originally defended the census rulemaking were part of a federal programs branch. they brought other people, civil vision included, and it happens all the time. when i was litigating a number of years ago, i challenged obamacare.

that is the case that went to the supreme court. was a deputydy who assistant attorney general and replace a number of line attorneys. times.ppens a number of i wouldn't draw implications or speculate. [indiscernible] preparedwyers are not to defend this case. there plain city. host: virginia is from riverside california -- riverside, california. democrats. hi. caller: hi. glad to speak this morning. under his breath, when he started talking about this, he was saying, in my opinion, in my opinion. where is it documented in his opinion and wears it in black-and-white in 1952? i'm 75 years old, and i understand the senses. i've never been asked that

question. i've been here while. is parens.uestion didn't they just drop that a few years ago -- parents. didn't they just drop that a few years ago? are they going to be citizens because trump is president? a good question, i think. guest: on the first question, change came in 1950, again. if you look at the duration, most of our history, the question was asked. we appreciate0, the fact that it is not asked to and all of the census forms, the short forms. the long forms, asked questions about trump's parents -- not trump's parents. the parents of melania. i'm sure they will get the form, but i don't see what it matters. is, whyhe real issue

does it make sense to ask this question? is it legal? host: talk about the legal challenges. what does it face? guest: there will be legal challenges, unfortunately. i think it is eminently defensible, but the lower courts have stopped the rulemaking from being implemented would rule against the administration. is going to seek an emergency review by the supreme court during the summer. quite unusual, but happened before in history. i have every confidence the supreme court would uphold this. host: how to put the citizenship back in the census. you can find that on the wall street journal's website. republicanlifornia, line, you are next up. good morning. caller: yes. if you count all of these illegals in california, that is

going to give california and other sanctuary states more representatives in congress than his proper, so if they don't ask that question on the census form , i will just boycott the whole senses altogether -- census altogether. that's how i can lower the count in california. the census will be very inaccurate. host: ok. guest: i would encourage everybody to respond to the census question. i understand the concern some people have expressed. about the fact that you have states that are disproportionately attracting illegal immigrants, undocumented immigrants, and therefore, artificially beef up the allotment of seats in the house and there rep position -- representation in the electoral college. viewers need to understand that, currently, a portion is done,

numeration is done based on total population numbers. there are people who argue that you need to get back to a baseline. this is not what this debate is about. we are talking about having a givetion that would accurate information, not the way -- changing the way the process unfolds. host: were you surprised that the chief justice was the right majority on that opinion? guest: i was surprised. i have a lot of regard for the justice. i disagree with him strongly on this issue. to be fair, the administration didn't do a good job at developing the record -- not the administration, the commerce department. they made themselves vulnerable, and the chief justice was concerned about this lobby rulemaking record. are sloppy, ins my opinion.

the way things work, administrative law, that was good enough. in twor, the chief -- different majorities, they put the proposition legal onto the census act and a 5-4 majority, a joined chiefority, justice is that it was probably done. -- first time in history because it was somehow pretextual. i think there's a compelling language in the senses that suggests a lot of times you develop -- census that suggests a lot of times that you develop multiple reasons why you get there. the reasons you choose to articulate may not be the most important reasons.

work, so ithings thought it was wrong -- a wrong decision. important to emphasize, if the trump administration comes out with another approach that violates ,he supreme court case decision just being totally disingenuous, the court is clear that you can take another stab at it and another stab. it happens all the time. government agencies and departments are being forced to redo things by the courts all the time. it doesn't mean -- host: after the sloppiness of the original argument, how would you boil it down? guest: for reasons that are probably obvious, this became institutionally and politically airy controversial. that's where the number -- politically became controversial. that's where the number of came.

that's called democracy. were not talking about political masses from mars, political masters that reflect the policy preference of the administration voted in by the american people, the majority of american people. let's go to florida, independent line, john. answer waiting >> good morning. mr. rivkin, you are a brilliant light with constitution issues. but you confuse me with the answer to the woman from chico, california. how does this not affect apportionment in the electoral college? isn't everything based on the census as far as representation goes? there are no 11 or 12 million illegals in this country. it's closer to 40 million illegals in this country. so i need a better answer from

, you regarding that, because to me, it doesn't make sense. how do we base apportionment, how do we base the electoral college if not for this census? guest: thank you. for the kind reference. the current law is using the total person baseline. think about it this way. the census numbers are going to come in, i assume a citizen question will be on it, and it will have two sets of numbers for each state. it will say say this many citizens and this many noncitizens. those numbers would be aggregated. let's say the citizen number is 10 and noncitizens is two. 12 would be the total baseline going into it. the supreme court, in a case called even wheel out of texas, dealt with a question where the plaintiffs argued it is constitutionally required to use the citizenship numbers. the supreme court was not impressed with that argument and rejected it, leaving on the

table the question if states wanted to use citizenship numbers rather than total persons could do so. so there will be quite a bit of litigation on this issue, but , for purposes of the 2020 census, all of your viewers need to be assured that having the citizenship question would not take off from the citizens. the criticism you may have heard was that the noncitizens might be scared to answer so they would take themselves out of the census, if you will, instead of having 10 and two, you would have 10 and one. i'm not a statistician, so i don't think that argument makes a whole lot of sense. host: this is from virginia, nadia, independent line. caller: hello. sir, in my opinion, this administration and the supreme court's opinion, this administration wanted to place the question, the citizenship

question on the census for extremely nefarious reasons. so in my opinion, this administration should be blocked from putting this question on the 2020 census, and coming forth with another reason is quite frankly unacceptable. because we know, for a fact, and the supreme court stated that they wanted the question for nefarious reasons. so why you are putting so much credibility in this administration baffles me. they are not about the democratic process. boats. -- votes. there are factual other sources that are more accurate to obtain citizenship numbers. that is a fact, sir. guest: a couple of things. look i'm a lawyer. i happen to be a republica,

supporting this administration. not on this issue, but many issues. even if i felt totally differently, the law is the law, the constitution is the constitution. this is a very unfortunate part of our debate to say because this is a bad administration and trump is a bad guy that nothing they do should be counted. i think it's wrong and un-american, frankly. the second point, i'm a lawyer. that is not what the supreme court said. they didn't say anything as far as majority is concerned or nefarious motives. they said the particular rationale put forward was not the real reason. put forth by the secretary of commerce, compliance with the voting rights act. they didn't say it was a bad reason. they said it was a good reason, but not the real reason. it happens all of the time where epa, federal energy regulatory commission, the exchange commission have the rules struck

down because of administrative deficiencies. under the colors logic the , entire administrative state would come to a halt. if you try something badly the first time, and you cannot fix it. it doesn't work like this. it doesn't work as a philosophical matter about what you should do, and it doesn't work like this as a matter of law. host: david rivkin, constitutional lawyer and other law here in washington, d.c., a longtime person of washington as far as working in the administration, served as the deputy director of policy development from 1981 to 1989. in the census department. lee is from the democrats line. georgia. good morning. caller: be honest with the people. you know that man who put in that book was hired by the republicans [indiscernible] to do what he did, tried to get

it onto the citizenship thing. for the republican advantage. it changes things. come on. be honest with the people. don't sit on tv in front of your family in the world and tell lies like l don't know what's going on. y'all know that that man was hired to do that. that question had not been on there. all these years. obama didn't take the question off of that thing, off the citizenship thing. the question had been out of there from 50 to 70 years. they stopped asking that question. host: let our guest respond. guest: i don't know when this question -- what was the policy of the obama administration, and i don't think it matters. there has been all sorts of speculation about nefarious purposes of putting down this question.

first of all i do not know what , happened and what was in people's hearts and minds, and i'm not prepared to speculate about it. what i'm prepared to say is that this question is constitutionally required, number one. that would be true no matter what administration is in power. the question is legally defensible and permissible under the census acts. that is all that matters to me. i don't believe this question would have any political implications, as far as suppressing responses. if you wanted me to speculate, i would say on the contrary. the people opposing it with such vigor are doing that's because they don't want the breakdown of citizens and noncitizens data to be available in this format, if you will, because they understand that would have implications and would have debate about any other matters. how was more information about thing in a democratic society?

host: one more call, from philadelphia. republican line. caller: good morning. this census question is good for immigrants who are legal in this country. we enter in this country and they already have our record, whether he enter from airports to see sports -- seaports. we need to differentiate between legal and illegal. from green card to citizenship. if this question differentiates between legals and illegals, this is a good question, and i don't think any legal immigrants should have a problem with that or if there is anything wrong with this question. guest: i don't think there's anything wrong with the question. i think it's a good question. i happen to think even if an illegal immigrant -- i can't say this question couldn't get you into any trouble, but i don't think people will want to -- will under respond to this.

there are two issues going on. one is a knee-jerk reaction from some callers but also quite clearly in this day and age that anything this administration is doing is by definition wrong. second, there are people that do not want to have the information about the total number of noncitizens in this country, legal and illegal. this information is already exist. they have administrative records, social security, et but having this question come , from census would give additional credibility. there are people that say we have 11 to 12 million illegal aliens. others say i don't know what the 30 million. right number is, but having this information is a useful, key fact to work into the debate. the people that don't wanted are not doing justice to their own position.

host: a wall street journal piece is called how to put citizenship question back into the senses and david rivkin is one of the co-authors of the piece. thank you for your time. announcer: washington journal bugs are available at the c-span store. go to c-span.org and check out all the c-span products. washington journal mugs. c-span's washington journal, live every day with news and policy issues that affect you. coming up wednesday morning, board members of the one country project, including former north dakota democratic senator heidi heitkamp, talk about their groups campaign to reinvent a great -- reinvigorate the democratic party relationships of the world. and representative who serves on the budget committee will discuss spending and the effort to avoid a government shutdown.