[Congressional Record Volume 169, Number 26 (Wednesday, February 8, 2023)]
[House]
[Pages H762-H769]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
DISAPPROVING THE ACTION OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COUNCIL IN
APPROVING THE LOCAL RESIDENT VOTING RIGHTS AMENDMENT ACT OF 2022
Mr. LANGWORTHY. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 97, I call
up the joint resolution (H.J. Res. 24) disapproving the action of the
District of Columbia Council in approving the Local Resident Voting
Rights Amendment Act of 2022, and ask for its immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the title of the joint resolution.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Flood). Pursuant to House Resolution 97,
the joint resolution is considered read.
The text of the joint resolution is as follows:
H.J. Res. 24
Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the
United States of America in Congress assembled, That the
Congress disapproves of the action of the District of
Columbia Council described as follows: The Local Resident
Voting Rights Amendment Act of 2022 (D.C. Act 24-640),
enacted by the Council of the District of Columbia on
November 21, 2022, and transmitted to Congress pursuant to
section 602(c)(1) of the District of Columbia Home Rule Act
on January 10, 2023.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The joint resolution shall be debatable for
1 hour, equally divided and controlled by the chair and the ranking
minority member of the Committee on Oversight and Accountability or
their respective designees.
The gentleman from New York (Mr. Langworthy) and the gentleman from
Maryland (Mr. Raskin) each will control 30 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New York.
General Leave
Mr. LANGWORTHY. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members
have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include
extraneous material on the measure under consideration.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from New York?
[[Page H763]]
There was no objection.
Mr. LANGWORTHY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.J. Res. 24, disapproving the
action of the District of Columbia Council in approving the Local
Resident Voting Rights Amendment Act of 2022, introduced by the
chairman of the House Committee on Oversight and Accountability,
James Comer of Kentucky.
Our Nation's Capital City is in crisis. Crime is rampant. Students in
D.C. Public Schools suffered historic learning loss because Democrats
kept schools closed. Buildings are sitting empty while Federal workers
continue to work from home.
The D.C. Council has prioritized a bill to allow noncitizens,
including illegal immigrants and foreign employees at embassies openly
hostile to the United States to vote in local elections.
This move by the D.C. Council dilutes the votes of American citizens,
including the many residents of the District who struggled and
sacrificed to obtain legal citizenship the right way.
Voting is a pillar of American democracy and a constitutional right
that must be protected and preserved for citizens of our country.
Voting is how Americans exert their will upon their government.
Voting ultimately determines how laws are written and enforced so
that citizens can shape the rules under which they can earn a living
and be protected from harm.
Voting is an essential privilege and responsibility established at
great cost throughout our Nation's history.
To quote one of our Founding Fathers, Samuel Adams: ``Let each
citizen remember at the moment he is offering his vote . . . that he is
executing one of the most solemn trusts in human society.''
On November 21, 2022, the D.C. Council chose to trash this solemn
trust by granting this sacred right of voting to anyone residing in the
District, including those here illegally and other noncitizens.
Just think about the immediate implications of this law. Our Nation's
Capital City plays host to virtually hundreds of foreign organizations
and embassies. Many of these foreign nationals have interests directly
opposed to those of the United States, and they make no claim
otherwise.
D.C.'s law makes zero exceptions for such individuals whose role may
be to disrupt or destroy the American way of life and principles our
Nation stands upon.
For years, Democrats in Washington decried potential foreign
influence in our electoral process, but D.C.'s new law potentially
allows foreign agents from China, Russia, and other adversaries to
participate in local elections held within this Nation's Capital City.
It is no secret that President Biden's policies have created the
worst border crisis in American history, bar none. Just this week, the
Committee on Oversight and Accountability heard from the U.S. Border
Patrol about how the Biden administration's policies are undermining
their ability to secure our southern border. Now, D.C. Democrats are
providing another magnet for illegal immigration.
This law is so bad that the D.C. Council even lost the support of The
Washington Post's editorial board. In October of last year, The
Washington Post editorial board announced it opposed the bill declaring
that ``voting is a foundational right of citizenship.''
The Post went on to note that allowing an estimated 50,000 noncitizen
D.C. residents to vote is just simply a bridge too far. I think most of
us can agree on that, and I think most of the American people would
certainly agree with that.
Even D.C. Mayor Muriel Bowser agrees with us. She chose to withhold
her own signature from this legislation. While the bill was ultimately
enacted without her support, it is shocking that even the progressive
Democrat Mayor of D.C. does not support the actions of this out-of-
control D.C. Council. If a bill goes too far for Mayor Bowser, then the
alarm bells should be ringing in every State and locality across the
Nation.
Our free and fair elections are the hallmark of a healthy democracy,
and we must protect them. The D.C. Council's law intends to do the
opposite.
Mr. Speaker, for these reasons, I urge you to support the resolution
of disapproval to stop this radical reform in its tracks.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. RASKIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to H.J. Res. 24, which seeks
to nullify the duly enacted laws of the District of Columbia and
violates the principle of local, democratic self-government, which is
at the heart of the home rule charter for Washington, D.C., and also
violates the equal protection and democratic principles that animate
our Constitution.
I would like to begin just by observing a striking juxtaposition in
contrast between the address we heard last night, the State of the
Union Address from the President, and the lecture that we just received
now from the floor leader.
President Biden appeared here with a message of unity under the
powerful economic growth that we are experiencing as a country--12
million new jobs added, record progress that we are making on climate
change, massive investment in the American people in the Inflation
Reduction Act and the Infrastructure Act, the $1.2 trillion investment
in the roads, highways, bridges, ports, and airports.
We are dramatically reducing healthcare costs for people in the
Medicare program, reducing to $35 a month what diabetics have to pay
for their insulin shots.
We are making progress for America. So, what do our good friends
across the aisle come back with today, the day after this great
statement of national purpose and progress? They want us to become the
supercouncil for the District of Columbia and begin to micromanage the
bills that are being passed by the representatives locally of 713,000
people.
With no national agenda, with no plans for getting on board with
American progress, what do they have? Well, they are going to bring us
a whole series of these disapproval resolutions for the people of
Washington, D.C.
They don't want to vote in Washington, D.C. They don't want to live
in D.C. They can move to D.C. and run for D.C. Council if that is their
interest, but no, they just want to lord it over the people of
Washington.
They don't like the District of Columbia's voting rules, and they
don't like the criminal justice reform they just engaged in for a
period of a decade with judges and lawyers, the D.C. Bar, and the
people participating. They don't have a hearing on any of it. They just
want to decree that they are going to strike it down.
Just you wait, they will be coming back with gun safety laws that
will appear in Congress from the people in D.C. because there is that
part of the home rule charter that gives us this opportunity if we want
to micromanage their policies.
We will see gun safety laws; we will see abortion legislation; we
will see equal rights for the LGBTQ population--all of these things the
Republican minority used to do a long time ago. They have brought back
the worst possible instincts.
They don't want to have a hearing on it. We didn't have a single
hearing in the Oversight and Accountability Committee about any of this
legislation. None of it.
Did they go to the D.C. Council when it was debated? No, they didn't
do that.
Did they invite the Mayor or the D.C. Council to come here? No, they
didn't do that.
They just decided they are going to slap around the local population.
None of us would accept it for the localities that we represent.
Now, it so happens that people in Washington, D.C., are not just a
locality and municipality. The people in Washington are involved right
now in a petition for statehood admission to the Union.
In fact, in the 116th Congress and the 117th Congress, this body
voted to approve their petition for statehood, but our friends across
the aisle opposed that.
It passed the House. If the Senate had approved it, well, then the
people of D.C., or whatever their local system is, would be able to
decide these things on their own, just like the people in New York City
or Albany or any other town in New York would be able to decide for
themselves.
[[Page H764]]
I thought that our friends over there were interested in local self-
government. I thought they supported home rule, but apparently not when
it comes to the people of Washington, D.C.
We reject this throwback attempt at micromanaging the affairs of the
people of Washington. They don't need lectures about voting rights.
They need voting rights. They are the only population of taxpaying,
draftable American citizens in the country who don't have equal voting
rights in Congress.
When January 6 came and people stormed this Chamber and waged
violence against the Capitol Police, against the Metropolitan Police
Department, against hundreds of people who live in Washington, as well
as in Maryland and Virginia, the people of Washington stood with
democracy. They stood with Congress.
They have a legitimate grievance, not a phony, counterfeit grievance.
They are not claiming to have won an election they didn't win. All they
are asking for is equal rights.
Let's grant them their statehood. If you can't stomach the idea that
they would be a State, at least allow them their home rule rights to
decide for themselves who is going to vote in Washington, D.C., what
their criminal laws are going to be, what their laws on abortion are
going to be, and what their civil rights and civil liberties practices
are going to be in the District of Columbia.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. LANGWORTHY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman
from Florida (Ms. Lee).
Ms. LEE of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of Chairman
Comer's resolution disapproving of the D.C. Council's recent action to
allow noncitizens, including illegal immigrants, to vote in local
elections. The council's actions undermine voter confidence, faith in
our elections, and, ultimately, the sovereignty of the United States.
Voting is a sacred right reserved only for American citizens. That is
why Federal law and the Constitution prohibit noncitizens from voting
in Federal elections.
In order to further promote integrity in our elections, many States
have also prohibited noncitizens from voting in their State and local
elections. Our Nation's Capital should be a model for the rest of the
country, but for years, the District has run poor elections. Now, the
council wants to take it even further by allowing noncitizens to vote.
At a time when communities across our Nation are dealing with the
consequences of an unprecedented number of criminals, human smugglers,
and deadly fentanyl pouring across our borders, it is unthinkable that
the D.C. Council wants to reward those who have broken the law.
Further, this would let diplomats vote in D.C. elections, some of
whom can be agents of our adversaries, like China and Russia. That is
why several of my colleagues on the House Administration and Oversight
and Accountability Committees last Congress, including Chairman Steil
and Mr. Comer, sent a letter to D.C. Mayor Muriel Bowser, criticizing
the measure and calling on her to reject it.
Congress can and should exercise its constitutional responsibility
over D.C. and stop this law with this joint resolution of disapproval.
I commend Chairman Comer for leading this commonsense measure and
taking steps to restore voter confidence.
We have seen that in States like Georgia and Florida, when you
implement key election integrity tools that make it easier to vote and
harder to cheat, we can boost voter confidence, which in turn boosts
voter turnout.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentlewoman has expired.
Mr. LANGWORTHY. Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 30 seconds to the
gentlewoman from Florida.
Ms. LEE of Florida. Mr. Speaker, we need more election integrity, not
less. I urge my colleagues to support this resolution.
Mr. RASKIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I want to make a couple of corrections.
First of all, the D.C. legislation that would be disapproved by this
resolution allows only for voting in local elections--school board
elections, Advisory Neighborhood Commission elections, council
elections. It does not allow voting in Federal elections for
noncitizens.
{time} 1715
The Constitution, contrary to what the gentlewoman said, permits
noncitizen voting at the local level, and there are a number of
jurisdictions that do that.
Mr. Speaker, yield 5 minutes to the very distinguished gentlewoman
from the District of Columbia (Ms. Norton).
Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend for yielding.
I strongly oppose this undemocratic, paternalistic resolution. There
is only one question before this House. The question is: Do you believe
in democracy?
More specifically: Should the District of Columbia's local
legislature, whose members are elected by D.C. residents, make the laws
for D.C., or should Congress, whose voting Members are elected by the
residents of the several States, make laws for D.C.?
What is democracy?
The dictionary defines it as a ``government in which the supreme
power is vested in the people and exercised by them directly or
indirectly through a system of representation usually involving
periodically held free elections.''
Perhaps President Lincoln described democracy best in the Gettysburg
Address when he said that it is government of the people, by the
people, for the people.
D.C.'s local legislature, the D.C. Council, has 13 members. The
members are elected by D.C. residents. Eight members are elected by
geographical area, and five members are elected at-large. If D.C.
residents do not like how the members vote, then they can vote them out
of office.
Congress has 535 voting Members. The Members are elected by residents
of the several States. None are elected by D.C. residents. If D.C.
residents do not like how the Members vote, even on legislation that
applies only to D.C., they can only ask politely for the residents of
the several States to vote them out of office.
The Revolutionary War was fought to give consent to the governed and
to end taxation without representation. Yet, the nearly 700,000 D.C.
residents cannot consent to any action taken by Congress, whether on
national or D.C. matters, and they pay full Federal taxes. Indeed, D.C.
residents pay more Federal taxes per capita than any State in the Union
and more total Federal taxes than 23 States.
The legislative history and merits of this legislation enacted by the
D.C. Council that is the subject matter of this resolution are
irrelevant to the question before the House, but I do want to set the
record straight.
The D.C. Council passed the legislation on two separate occasions, as
required by Congress, by votes of 12-1 and 12-0 after holding a
hearing. The legislation is not unprecedented. Indeed, there is a long
history in the United States of noncitizens being allowed to vote in
local, State, territorial, and Federal elections.
I will close with two final thoughts. D.C. residents, a majority of
whom are Black and Brown, are worthy and capable of governing
themselves. It is true Congress has absolute power over D.C., but might
does not make right.
Mr. Speaker, if you believe in democracy, you will vote ``no'' on
this resolution.
Mr. LANGWORTHY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Mr. Speaker, there is talk about how people are accountable to
different levels of government.
But how are you accountable when there is no protection articulated
in this legislation for the voters on keeping two sets of voter lists?
D.C. residents are entitled to vote for the Presidency and for
Federal offices.
I need to ask the question out loud: Are Members of Congress okay
with members of the CCP who work at the Chinese Embassy voting in U.S.
elections?
Are you comfortable with employees and members of Putin's regime who
work at the Russian Federation Embassy voting in D.C. elections?
These are questions that this body must ask itself when considering
this legislation. And make no mistake, Mr.
[[Page H765]]
Speaker, two sets of books aren't going to work in any board of
elections in America. You are entitled to vote in this election but not
that. There is going to be commingling, and the volunteers who work the
polls are not going to have all of the tools necessary to stop people
from intermingling in those elections.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Colorado (Mrs.
Boebert).
Mrs. BOEBERT. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of Chairman Comer's
resolution.
If free flights, free phones, free healthcare, free education, free
lawyers, and other freebies being offered to illegal aliens weren't
already enough, the D.C. Council decided to now give illegal aliens the
right to vote--a right that more than 1.1 million American military
servicemembers have given their lives for.
Giving this right to illegal aliens is as if our government were
``The Oprah Winfrey Show.'' You get a vote, you get a vote, you get a
vote.
It makes a mockery of our constitutional Republic that our brave
heroes have fought for and died to defend.
The right to vote is the most sacred right in our constitutional
Republic. Giving the right to vote to noncitizens cheapens this sacred
right by discounting the value of citizens' votes. It also cheapens the
value of American citizenship and cheapens our standing around the
world as we incentivize the invasion of our own country.
Under Biden's watch, over 4.6 million illegal aliens--and those are
just the ones whom we know of--have already crossed our wide-open
southern border that Secretary Mayorkas and Joe Biden refused to
secure, and about which Democrats could have done something for the
past 2 years when they held all levels of power and refused to do so.
By the end of the year, Biden will have let in more illegal aliens
than the entire population of my State of Colorado.
Instead of trying to secure the border, Democrats are more focused on
giving illegal aliens more handouts and privileges, including giving
them the right--the sacred right--to vote. These illegal aliens are
even treated oftentimes better than our veterans who are struggling to
have their healthcare needs met and to get the services that we
promised them for their great service, but it is immediately given to
those who come across our southern border illegally.
Let's put American citizens first and not cheapen their votes. Let's
pass this legislation and ensure the voice of the American people is
heard without interference from foreign nationals.
Mr. Speaker, I urge support of the underlying bill.
Mr. LANGWORTHY. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
=========================== NOTE ===========================
February 8, 2023, on page H765, in the first column, the
following appeared: Mr. LANGEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the
balance of my time.
The online version has been corrected to read: Mr. LANGWORTHY.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
========================= END NOTE =========================
Mr. RASKIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I was just reviewing some materials that showed that
both the States that the gentlewoman from Colorado and the gentleman
from New York represent had noncitizen voting in the 18th, 19th, and,
in the case of Colorado, up to the 20th century. So I think if they are
talking about giving away the sacred right to vote, their States have
done that before.
It has got a kind of interesting history to it. To me, it is
basically irrelevant because it is not our decision to be making. It is
up to the people of D.C., just like it is up to the voters of Colorado
and it is up to the voters in New York.
But the history of it is intriguing because when the country
started--as I am sure the gentlewoman is aware--there were race
qualifications for voting and there were gender qualifications for
voting. It was only through social struggle that these were removed.
But at the beginning of the Republic, all that mattered was the
property qualification--the wealth and property qualification--for
White men. If you were a White man, regardless of your citizenship
status, you had the right to vote.
That lasted basically up to the Civil War. But it became a bone of
contention between the North and the South because the Northern States
were continuing to defend alien suffrage and the Southern States
opposed it. In fact, Mr. Speaker, if you look at Article I of the
Confederate Constitution, the very first thing it does, it says that
you must be a citizen of the Confederacy in order to vote there.
They didn't want noncitizens voting.
Why?
Because the immigrants were overwhelmingly antislavery.
It was very clear in the debates in Congress about this that the
Southern States wanted to get rid of it, which is why the Confederacy
banned it. After the Civil War, noncitizen voting spread around the
country.
But the point is that when we are talking about local noncitizen
voting--who is going to vote in your school board or town council
elections--that should be decided locally.
My colleagues who are the ones determined not to make the District of
Columbia a State should be the first ones to say that if it is just a
local government, then let them decide on who is going to vote on
matters of garbage collection and who their teachers are going to be.
The jurisdictions that have done this, like Los Angeles, have wanted to
make sure that parents in local public schools get the right to vote
regardless of their citizenship status.
Most of the noncitizens, of course, are lawful residents, people with
green cards, and permanent residents, and they want them to be engaged
and involved.
In any event, if my friends really support home rule and local self-
determination, they will allow the people of Washington, D.C., to
decide.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentlewoman from New York (Ms.
Ocasio-Cortez).
Ms. OCASIO-CORTEZ. Mr. Speaker, I thank the ranking member and my
colleague from Maryland for yielding.
It is so rich to hear the other side discuss the sacred right of
voting, discuss what our veterans and our servicemembers fought for,
and the sacred right of voting while defending and continuing to defend
the disenfranchisement of American citizens in D.C. for their right to
vote.
They don't believe in statehood. They don't believe in the actual
enfranchisement and voting rights for D.C. residents who are U.S.
citizens.
Yet, they have the audacity and the gall to not just continue in that
position and claim they believe in the sacred right to vote while
denying that right to vote to an overwhelmingly Black city, but then
expanding their position--expanding their position--so that, in direct
contradiction of their ``conservative'' values of small government and
defending freedom, they have decided to expand the jurisdiction of this
body to meddle into the business of D.C. residents.
{time} 1730
The D.C. Council has the right to determine its policies for D.C.
residents. If any Member of this body does not like that, they can feel
free to change their registration, resign their post, and run for D.C.
Council.
For those who are residents here of Washington, D.C., they could have
gone, as the ranking member stated, to any one of the many hearings on
this issue.
I understand that there may be disagreement. I understand that
Republicans may not be happy with what the D.C. Council is doing, but
when cities in Vermont pass the same provisions, when San Francisco,
when nine Maryland cities brought up this provision, did the Republican
Party corral all of Congress and bring this issue down to the floor for
a vote?
No, they did not.
They are singling out the residents of the District of Columbia and
expanding in the history of disenfranchisement that goes all the way
back to the legacy of slavery, and they are bringing it right here to
this floor. Because why? They don't have any real bills to debate. We
are not here to talk about healthcare; we are not here to talk about
abortion; we are not here to talk about voting rights. We are here to
talk about the expansion and the continued subjugation and
disenfranchisement of the people of the District of Columbia. Let them
govern themselves.
Mr. RASKIN. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. LANGWORTHY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Texas (Mr. Pfluger).
[[Page H766]]
Mr. PFLUGER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of Chairman Comer's
resolution. The radical D.C. Council is literally putting the integrity
of our election system at risk.
They have passed a bill to allow illegal immigrants, Chinese and
Russian agents, foreign exchange students, and quite literally anyone
else who finds themselves on the streets of D.C. in our Nation's
Capital for longer than 30 days the ability to vote in elections.
This should not be a partisan issue, and you don't have to be a
Republican to understand why this is wrong.
Voting is a sacred right, regardless of what was just said. Voting is
a sacred right. This ridiculous measure disenfranchises millions of
legal American citizens and opens up our election system to a host of
security issues. In fact, the Mayor of D.C. didn't even sign this.
Congress must pass this resolution today, but we should also move to
pass my bill, H.R. 192, to make it clear to D.C. that they cannot ever
allow noncitizens to influence our Nation's Capital. We are putting
every single Member, both Republican and Democrat, on the record about
whether they support noncitizens voting.
Of course, I urge my colleagues in the House and the Senate and
President Biden to pass our bill, to pass this measure, to sign it into
law immediately.
Let me just say one thing in response to my colleague on the other
side of the aisle who a few moments ago said, ``We brought back our
worst possible instincts,'' I think when referencing the Republican
Party. This tells you everything you need to know. It tells you
everything you need to know about Americans. Please listen up, this
tells you everything you need to know, that the radicals want you to
think that this is normal, and it is not.
Americans deserve confidence in our election system and confidence in
knowing that only legal American citizens are casting their vote in
elections here in this country.
Mr. RASKIN. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire how much time is remaining?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Maryland has 14\1/2\
minutes remaining.
Mr. RASKIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume
just to respond to the gentleman before he goes, perhaps.
When I said that they were returning to their worst possible
instincts, that was actually a bipartisan comment because in the old
days it was Democrats, racist Dixiecrats on the House District
Committee who lorded over the District of Columbia and denied the
people of Washington their rights. They are returning us to those days
where Congress will micromanage the affairs of Washington, D.C., and
not allow the people their own self-government.
He said you don't need to be a Republican or a Democrat to understand
the issue. It would actually help to know your Abraham Lincoln because,
of course, Lincoln was a major defender of noncitizen voting to the
extent you guys want to act like a super D.C. Council and get into the
merits of it.
In fact, when he was elected, his Southern opponents said he was
elected on the strength of the noncitizen vote in New York, as a matter
of fact, and in Illinois and other States where they had so-called
declarant alien suffrage, which means if you are on the pathway to
citizenship you are allowed to vote, which is a policy that makes a lot
of sense, but different jurisdictions have different policies according
to home rule and self-government.
When Lincoln was here, his major legislative initiative,
interestingly enough, was to abolish the slave traffic in the District
of Columbia because he felt that freedom and democracy should obtain in
the Nation's Capital. That is something that our colleagues should also
think about in terms of defining an agenda of their party. I know they
are careening from this issue to that issue, but if you are thinking
about D.C., think about what Abraham Lincoln did.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from
Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee).
Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the ranking member for his
leadership and of course Congresswoman Eleanor Holmes Norton for her
continued consistency in refuting and rebutting wrongheaded and
misdirected policies that seem to come year after year.
Let me read breaking news from one of the historic newspapers in this
month that we begin to focus on Black history. From ``The Washington
Informer,'' the headline says, ``D.C. Council Blasts House GOP
Interference in City Law.''
``D.C. Council members have lashed out at Republicans on Capitol Hill
for seeking to meddle in city affairs.''
For some reason, Ranking Member Raskin, there was some thought that
our friends were riding in on a white horse because there was some
disagreement on the Council. That disagreement, as you have so
effectively said, with the Congresswoman as well, is that they want to
handle their own matters.
Let the record be clear: The United States Constitution does not
forbid noncitizens from casting a vote in local, State, and other
elections. At least 15 cities currently allow noncitizens to cast
ballots in local elections, and particularly noncitizens were
occasionally permitted to cast ballots in local, State, and Federal
elections in 40 States from the time of the Nation's inception until
1926.
We have had a history of local decisions being made by local voters.
In this instance, local voters voted and made a decision. Whatever
modifications they desire to make, they are not asking this place to
implode their work.
As we begin to think about voting rights, I would ask my colleagues
to help join us in supporting the John R. Lewis Voting Rights
Advancement Act that Democrats have tried to pass here in this Congress
for a long, long time.
I would ask them to help us in the redistricting that skewed and
denied Democrats in Texas two districts that were legitimately, based
upon the Census, in fact, created by Hispanics and African Americans.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentlewoman has expired.
Mr. RASKIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 1 minute to the
gentlewoman from Texas.
Ms. JACKSON LEE. In redistricting across the Nation, North Carolina,
Georgia, Texas were States in which voting rights were directly
undermined. Some of the restrictive legislation that was passed in
Georgia and Texas is evidence of the oppression of many in the party of
my friends across the aisle's States to deny people of color their
right to vote.
Mr. Speaker, it looks as if we have an opportunity here. For
champions of voting rights that seem to be evidenced across the aisle,
join me in the John R. Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act. At this
time in this month, we ask that you allow the citizens of Washington,
D.C., one, at some point to have statehood, but, more importantly, in
this instance to stay out of home rule decisions or to stay out of
decisions granted to them. Those decisions are granted to them.
For that reason, I am enthusiastically in opposition to H.J. Res. 24
because this legislation goes beyond the boundaries of the
responsibilities, duties, and rights of this body. Leave the Government
of Washington, D.C., to the people of Washington, D.C.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to H.J. Res. 24--
Disapproving the action of the District of Columbia Council in
approving the Local Resident Voting Rights Amendment Act of 2022.
H.J. Res. 24 will overturn the Local Resident Voting Act of 2022, a
measure passed by will of the people in the District of Columbia
Council.
This overreaching resolution seeks to overturn the will of
Washington, D.C. people, who voted to support the rights of noncitizens
who fulfill residency and other requirements to vote in district local
elections under the Local Resident Voting Rights Amendment Act of 2022.
Let the record be clear, Mr. Speaker, the United States Constitution
does not forbid noncitizens from casting their vote in local, state, or
federal elections.
At least 15 cities currently allow non-citizens to cast ballots in
local elections.
While voting in federal elections was made illegal for noncitizens in
1996, the legal voting of noncitizens in American elections has a long
history in this nation.
Noncitizens were occasionally permitted to cast ballots in local,
state, and federal elections in 40 states from the time of the nation's
inception until 1926.
During the early years, the District of Columbia Organic Act of 1801
granted Congress
[[Page H767]]
sole power over the district's boundaries, depriving its citizens of
the voting privileges they had previously enjoyed as residents of
Maryland and Virginia.
Due to its treatment as a U.S. territory rather than a state, the
District of Columbia has no voting representation in Congress and is
certainly not given its fair amount of federal funding--despite the
fact that Washington, D.C. residents pay more federal taxes per person
than citizens of any other state, and more than residents of 22 states
combined.
It is no secret that when politicians seek to suppress voting rights,
the feared component of increased racial political power rears its ugly
head in driving and motivating shifts in laws that will eliminate or
stunt the political growth of minority populations in America.
As we stand here today, marking the first week of Black History
Month, we must acknowledge that we are standing in a building built by
the hands of slaves, and we are standing in a city that is not only one
of the most diverse cities in the country, but is also home to one of
the largest Black populations--yes, Washington DC--our nation's
capital.
The underrepresentation of Blacks and minorities in our nation's
capital and in our national democratic systems is a shameful stain on
our morals and values as Americans.
We must put an end to current and historical voter suppression and we
must stop pushing oppressive and systemically racist policies if we are
ever to truly be a nation united by our democratic pillars and
principles.
The nearly 700,000 D.C. residents, a majority of whom are Black and
Brown, are worthy and capable of self-government.
And Congress, which is not accountable to D.C. residents, should not
interfere with legislation duly enacted by the duly elected D.C.
government.
Members of Congress should not substitute their policy judgment for
the judgment of D.C.'s elected officials.
Quite simply, Congress should keep its hands off D.C.
The legislative history and merits of the two bills enacted by D.C.
that are the subject of the disapproval resolutions--the Revised
Criminal Code Act and the Local Resident Voting Amendment Act--should
be irrelevant to the consideration of these disapproval resolutions,
since there is never justification for Congress nullifying legislation
enacted by D.C.
That being said, we need to set the record straight on these two
bills enacted by D.C.
Under the D.C. Home Rule Act, which was passed by Congress, D.C.'s
legislature, the 13-member D.C. Council, is required to pass
legislation twice, with at least 13 intervening days between each vote,
to enact legislation.
Legislation passed by the Council and signed by the D.C. mayor--or
with a veto override or without the mayor's signatures--is transmitted
to Congress for a review period.
The legislation takes effect at the expiration of a review period,
unless a resolution of disapproval is enacted into law during the
review period.
And yet, the House did not hold a hearing or markup on either
disapproval resolution.
This resolution cannot stand as a serious policy measure to be
respected on the floors of this chamber, and must be opposed.
Mr. LANGWORTHY. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire how much time is
remaining?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from New York has 18 minutes
remaining.
Mr. LANGWORTHY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman
from Colorado (Mrs. Boebert).
Mrs. BOEBERT. Mr. Speaker, I wish to speak in response to some of the
opposition that I have heard to this legislation.
First of all, we have heard about slave trade multiple times this
evening. If we are concerned about slave trade, then let's secure the
southern border because that is where the human trafficking is taking
place. Millions of people are being trafficked, and women and children
are being sexually assaulted and abused. Young girls are taking Plan B
pills at the start of their journey because they anticipate being
sexually assaulted on their journey.
If this is something that you are that concerned about, then let's
work together to secure the southern border and stop the human
trafficking and the slave trade that is happening there.
There is slavery that is taking place in China in the cobalt mines
that these climate extremists are pushing. There is child enslaved
labor there. That is where we are extracting our rare earth minerals,
from China-owned mines in the Congo. So let's talk together about
American energy.
You say that this is just for local elections. Are there two
registries? How is that going to work if there are two registries? I
don't think it is going to stop there because every time we give in and
give an inch, well, they take 7 miles.
The gentleman on the other side of the aisle mentioned that in
Colorado illegal aliens are voting. Well, illegal aliens are voting,
but no State has actually allowed that since 1926 in America. There are
loopholes that are allowing illegals to vote in our elections. This is
election interference, allowing noncitizens to vote in our elections.
In fact, this is why the crime rate is up in Colorado. We are
encouraging illegal aliens to come to Colorado. We are number one in
the Nation for bank robberies, number one in the Nation for auto
thefts, number two in the Nation for fentanyl poisoning. We have a
Department of New Americans. If you go to the Colorado State website,
it says, well, what is a new American? A new American is a Coloradan.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentlewoman has expired.
Mr. LANGWORTHY. Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 1 minute to the
gentlewoman from Colorado.
Mrs. BOEBERT. What is a new American? A new American is a Coloradan,
an immigrant seeking asylum, a refugee, asylee, a DACA recipient, an
SIV holder, and all other forms of immigrants seeking safety,
opportunity, reunification of family. Chain migration is being
encouraged in my State where noncitizens are voting and making a
difference in our elections.
Now, if there is a better way to do so, then let's let the D.C.
Council reevaluate this. That is why we are sending it back to them. I
would say that statehood is a matter that Congress has to consider on
behalf of the entire Nation and pursue a constitutional amendment if so
desired. Congress dealt with this issue in both the 116th and 117th
Congresses and rejected the idea.
Congress has jurisdiction over D.C., and we need to ensure a vibrant
capital city. This act does the opposite. I would again encourage
opposition to this bill.
Mr. RASKIN. Mr. Speaker, the distinguished gentlewoman from Colorado
boasts that her State is number one in auto thefts, number one in bank
robberies, and number two in fentanyl, as I understand it. It sounds
like they have got their hands full with their own problems, and I
don't know that they should be spending their time dictating to the
people of Washington, D.C., what their voting rights policy is going to
be.
Now both the gentlewoman from Colorado and the gentleman from New
York invite the question of would it actually be administratively
possible for a jurisdiction to have two separate voting lists for those
who are eligible to vote just in local elections and those who are
eligible to vote in both local and Federal elections?
Well, that is a great question that you could have posed at a hearing
within the Oversight Committee if we had one, but we didn't have it. I
actually happen to have researched this question, and there are a
number of jurisdictions around the country which permit noncitizen
voting at the local level, and they have one list for that. If you are
a noncitizen when you enter, your name is checked off that list, and
you get one ballot which is just for your school board elections and
the local elections. Then if you are a citizen, you get a complete
ballot that includes local, State, and Federal elections, so there
actually is an answer, and it is working in multiple jurisdictions
around the country, including several in my home State of Maryland. I
think the same thing used to be able to work in New York State as well;
so that is something that would be easily researchable, and it is
something also that we could have answered if we had followed regular
order and actually had so much as one hearing on this subject before
deciding to jump in like King Kong and squash the people of Washington,
D.C.
Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as she may consume to the gentlewoman
from the District of Columbia, (Ms. Norton), the distinguished
nonvoting Delegate.
{time} 1745
Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend for yielding the time
because I have something important to say and to put into the Record.
Forty States have permitted noncitizens to vote at various points.
One of them is the State of the gentlewoman who has just spoken,
Colorado. The
[[Page H768]]
other States are: Alabama, Arkansas, Connecticut, Delaware, Florida,
Georgia, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana,
Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, Montana,
Nebraska, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, North Carolina,
North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South
Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Vermont, Virginia, Washington
State, Wisconsin, and Wyoming.
At least 14 municipalities permit noncitizens to vote today. Eleven
in Maryland: Barnesville, Cheverly, Chevy Chase section 3, Garrett
Park, Glen Echo, Hyattsville, Martin's Additions, Mount Rainier,
Riverdale Park, Somerset, and Takoma Park.
Two in Vermont: Montpelier and Winooski.
One in California. San Francisco allows voting for noncitizens who
are a parent or legal guardian of a child living in San Francisco to
vote in local school board elections.
Mr. LANGWORTHY. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. RASKIN. Mr. Speaker, I should say that none of those
jurisdictions have been overrun with fentanyl or illegal aliens. All of
those jurisdictions are functioning democratic self-governmental units,
just as the jurisdictions in New York and Colorado that had the same
practice were.
This really isn't about noncitizen voting, Mr. Speaker. This is about
democratic self-government and allowing local jurisdictions to make
home rule decisions for themselves because this isn't the end of it. It
is just the beginning.
Tomorrow, I think we are going to be considering a resolution of
disapproval for the District of Columbia's criminal justice reform that
they have engaged in over the last 9 or 10 years involving Federal
judges, local judges, council members, the D.C. Bar, and so on. We
didn't know anything about that. We didn't have a hearing. Yet, someone
is going to pick something out.
What the good chairman of our committee talked about in the Rules
Committee was a carjacking law where I guess the minimum sentence
changed. Well, we looked up Kentucky. Kentucky doesn't even have a
carjacking law. You would have to use armed robbery, which can only get
you 20 years. The District of Columbia would treat carjacking with up
to a 24-year sentence.
These are the kinds of measurements we are going to have to go
through with everybody's State and everybody's jurisdiction if we are
really going to turn ourselves into the super-D.C. Council and try to
get to know the people of Washington and what their concerns are and
what they are into.
The whole reason we went to home rule in 1973 was so that Congress
could spend its time on national policy issues, the kind that President
Biden was talking about last night. We just added 12 million new jobs
to the American economy. We passed a $1.2 trillion infrastructure plan
to invest in the ports, airports, bridges, roads, and highways all
across America, not just in the District of Columbia, no insult
intended. That is a very tiny part of the jurisdiction of Congress, and
they want to turn us basically into an appellate legislative division
over the District of Columbia.
Mr. Speaker, I am prepared to close, and I reserve the balance of my
time.
Mr. LANGWORTHY. Mr. Speaker, I also have no further speakers. I am
prepared to close, and I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. RASKIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
This legislation promises to be the first of many. I think tomorrow
criminal justice reform comes up. I know that the MAGA wing of the
Republican Party doesn't like Medicaid-funded abortions in Washington,
D.C. They don't like the stricter gun safety laws that the people of
Washington, D.C., have passed. They don't like their progressive
legislation protective of the LGBTQ community and so on.
We are headed now for a mini culture war between the dominant MAGA
wing of the Republican Conference today and the people of the District
of Columbia, who find themselves in an odd situation because they want
to be admitted to the Union the way 37 States have been admitted to the
Union after the original 13 were.
That means, by the way, that three-quarters of the States, nearly 75
percent of the States, came in after the original 13. They appealed to
Congress to use our powers under Article IV of the Constitution to
admit new States. They had exercised their powers under the First
Amendment, under the Ninth Amendment, and under the 10th Amendment to
organize a new statehood constitution and to petition for admission to
the Union.
Our muscle memory is weak here because it hasn't happened since
Hawaii and Alaska, but Thomas Jefferson thought that this was the
destiny of communities under the United States of America. We would not
be a colonial power that would continue to lord over people
perpetually. On the contrary, when he talked about the Northwest
Ordinance, he said as sufficient population formed and as commitment to
democratic principles were realized, these new communities would be
admitted as States.
I think, as a matter of basic civic respect and self-respect, we owe
the people of Washington our attention when they are asking for
admission to the Union. These are people who pay more per capita in
Federal taxes than anybody in the country, more in hard dollars, I
believe, than the people of 18 or 20 States. They have served in every
war that America has ever fought. They are subject to the military
draft.
It is just that when Eleanor Holmes Norton, the distinguished
professor of constitutional law from Georgetown University, comes to
this floor, she comes as a nonvoting Delegate. There is no
representation and no voice over in the Senate. That is an offense to
basic democratic principles that we teach children in second grade.
We should be passing statehood again in the 118th Congress the way we
passed it in the 117th, the way we passed it in the 116th, and we
should get the Senate to focus on it. Short of that, the very last
thing we should be doing is rolling back the limited rights the people
of Washington have to exercise home rule powers.
Mr. Speaker, I oppose this resolution, and I yield back the balance
of my time.
Mr. LANGWORTHY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
The D.C. Council has once again put its radical agenda ahead of the
American people. This time, the District's progressive D.C. Council is
directly disenfranchising American citizens.
In this day and age, it is often the case that the only factor
differentiating the privileges of American citizens from noncitizens is
the right to vote. The D.C. Council wants to erase that distinction.
The United States Congress must exercise its constitutional oversight
role over the District of Columbia, the seat of our Nation's Capital,
and reject this offensive local legislation.
In a time when our democratic institutions must be protected more
than ever, it is imperative that the United States House of
Representatives, the people's House, unite in opposition to the Local
Resident Voting Rights Amendment Act. We must reject the D.C. Council's
misguided efforts.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to
support the sacred rights of the American citizenry by voting for
Representative James Comer of Kentucky's resolution of disapproval.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. All time for debate has expired.
Pursuant to House Resolution 97, the previous question is ordered on
the joint resolution.
The question is on the engrossment and third reading of the joint
resolution.
The joint resolution was ordered to be engrossed and read a third
time, and was read the third time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on passage of the joint
resolution.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Mr. RASKIN. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, further
proceedings on this question will be postponed.
[[Page H769]]
____________________