[Congressional Record Volume 170, Number 90 (Thursday, May 23, 2024)]
[House]
[Pages H3489-H3496]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




  PROHIBITING VOTING BY NONCITIZENS IN DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA ELECTIONS

  Mr. HIGGINS. Madam Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 1243, I call 
up the bill (H.R. 192) to prohibit individuals who are not citizens of 
the United States from voting in elections in the District of Columbia, 
and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to 1243, the amendment in the 
nature of a substitute recommended by the Committee on Oversight and 
Accountability, printed in the bill, is adopted, and the bill, as 
amended, is considered read.
  The text of the bill, as amended, is as follows:

                                H.R. 192

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. PROHIBITING VOTING BY NONCITIZENS IN DISTRICT OF 
                   COLUMBIA ELECTIONS.

       An individual who is not a citizen of the United States may 
     not vote in an election for public office in the District of 
     Columbia or in any ballot initiative or referendum in the 
     District of Columbia.

     SEC. 2. REPEAL OF LOCAL RESIDENT VOTING RIGHTS AMENDMENT ACT 
                   OF 2022.

       The Local Resident Voting Rights Amendment Act of 2022 
     (D.C. Law 24-242) is repealed, and

[[Page H3490]]

     any provision of law amended or repealed by such Act shall be 
     restored or revived as if such Act had not been enacted into 
     law.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The bill, as amended, shall be debatable for 
1 hour equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority 
member of the Committee on Oversight and Accountability or their 
respective designees.
  The gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Higgins) and the gentleman from 
Maryland (Mr. Raskin) each will control 30 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Higgins).


                             General Leave

  Mr. HIGGINS of Louisiana. Madam 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 Louisiana?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. HIGGINS of Louisiana. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as 
I may consume.
  I rise in support of H.R. 192, an act to prohibit individuals who are 
not citizens of the United States from voting in elections in the 
District of Columbia, our Nation's Capital.
  In reporting out H.R. 192, the House Committee on Oversight and 
Accountability holds that Congress must act to exert its constitutional 
responsibility to oversee the District of Columbia and make certain 
necessary amendments to the District's law.
  Since the voters entrusted Republicans with control of the House in 
the 118th Congress, the Oversight Committee has conducted long overdue 
oversight of our Nation's Capital City, including holding hearings on 
the District of Columbia.
  Specifically, to the topic we are discussing today, the Oversight 
Committee held a joint hearing with the Committee on House 
Administration on election integrity in the District.
  At that hearing, the committees examined the District government's 
Local Resident Voting Rights Amendment Act, which allowed noncitizen 
residents to vote in D.C. local elections.
  This act includes illegal immigrants and even foreign diplomats, 
whose interests may be opposed to the interests of Americans. This 
radical change to our election laws upset lawmakers on both sides of 
the aisle, Madam Speaker.
  D.C. Mayor Bowser withheld her signature on the Act, something she 
had done only a handful of times in her tenure.
  On February 9, 2023, 260 Members of this House voted to overturn the 
D.C. act through a resolution of disapproval.
  In that vote, 42 House Democrats voted to block the D.C. law.
  However, the bipartisan resolution of disapproval was not considered 
in the Democratic-controlled Senate, so D.C.'s noncitizen voting law 
went into effect. This, in my opinion, and the opinion of many 
Americans across the country, is unacceptable.
  The primary factor that differentiates American citizens from 
noncitizens is the right to vote.
  D.C. residents should be confident that their local government vote 
is not being diluted by noncitizen residents or illegal immigrants 
casting votes.
  Article I of the Constitution grants Congress exclusive jurisdiction 
over the Nation's Capital, and the rules of the U.S. House charge the 
Committee on Oversight and Accountability with a duty to oversee the 
municipal affairs of the District of Columbia.
  I urge my colleagues to support Representative Pfluger's commonsense 
bill to ensure that only United States citizens have the right to vote 
in local D.C. elections and to support the repeal of D.C.'s radical 
law.
  Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. RASKIN. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I rise today to oppose H.R. 192, yet another attack on home rule in 
the District of Columbia. I wish we were here today talking about 
climate change, which is a dagger at the throat of humanity.
  We have seen record drought in the Midwest, record forest fires in 
the West, record flooding in the East, hurricanes of record velocity in 
the distinguished gentleman from Louisiana's beloved Gulf Coast. There 
were mosquitoes in the north pole last summer. The sea levels are 
rising everywhere.
  However, we are not here to talk about that emergency.
  I do have a book for my friend, Mr. Higgins, called ``Bayou 
Farewell'' written by one of my constituents about what has been taking 
place on the Louisiana coast that I am going to offer to him today.
  We are not talking about climate change, and we are not talking about 
gun violence, despite the fact that America now has rates of gun 
violence and gun-related mortality 20 times higher than the nations of 
the European Union. Gun violence is now the leading cause of death 
among children and young people under 18 in America. It is out of 
control.

  However, we are not talking about that.
  We are exercising our constitutional authority, as my distinguished 
colleague from Louisiana says, to oversee the District of Columbia. 
Here today what has caught our eye is that they have legislation which 
passed and has become law in the District of Columbia which allows 
permanent residents and other noncitizens to register to vote.
  As a result, they have nearly a half million registered voters in the 
District of Columbia. Madam Speaker, 512 of them are noncitizens. A 
little bit more than one-tenth of 1 percent of registered voters are 
noncitizens.
  Their primary election in 2024 has already begun. The D.C. voters 
received their ballots or began receiving ballots in the mail on April 
29, and the District has already begun accepting ballots.
  The D.C. Council had transmitted the Local Resident Voting Rights 
Amendment Act of 2022 to Congress for the required review period on 
January 10, 2023.
  The House passed a disapproval resolution, as my friend mentioned, on 
February 9, 2023. The Senate did not pass the disapproval resolution.
  The act became law in March of 2023.
  What we are talking about now is passing legislation to overturn a 
practice that is literally taking place as we speak within the District 
of Columbia.
  Now the critical point everybody needs to understand is that the 
District of Columbia has no voting representation in the House of 
Representatives, nor does the District of Columbia have any voting 
representation in the United States Senate. Their legislation doesn't 
apply even to their nonvoting delegate in the House, nor does it apply, 
of course, to Presidential elections.
  What we are talking about is should these 500 or so people in the 
District of Columbia be allowed to vote for advisory neighborhood 
commission, school board, and members of the D.C. Council and mayoral 
elections.

                              {time}  1030

  The practice of noncitizen voting, my friend may be interested to 
learn, is one that actually was adopted in the vast majority of 
American States at different points in American history, including, I 
checked, in Louisiana, where it existed for around a decade.
  It started, as far as I could tell, with this basic premise, that 
when the country began, there was a race qualification, a gender 
qualification, and property, wealth, and religion qualifications in 
different places, but the basic logic of it was that if you are a White 
male property owner, it doesn't make any difference what your 
citizenship status is. That lasted really up until the Civil War.
  The practice of alien suffrage at the local level was one that became 
hotly contested before the Civil War. The Southern States opposed it 
because they said that the immigrants who were coming in who were being 
given the right to vote were antislavery, abolitionists. The Northern 
States, specifically the Republican Party and Abraham Lincoln, defended 
the practice of noncitizen voting. This was a major bone of contention 
geographically, sectionally, in the country with legislation like the 
Kansas-Nebraska Act and other statehood admission struggles.
  When the South seceded from the Union and wrote their own 
constitution, the very first article of the Confederate Constitution 
banned the practice, which we are discussing in a very modified form 
today. They banned anybody from voting in the Confederacy

[[Page H3491]]

who was not a citizen of the Confederacy. When the Union won the war, 
and secession was put down, alien suffrage spread across the country.
  Again, the Republican Party championed it, and they championed it in 
the form of something called declarant alien suffrage, which is, for 
people who were permanent residents of the country who were on the 
pathway to citizenship, they were given the right to vote, especially 
in a lot of the Western States, as those States tried to attract 
population westward.
  The practice appears to have been diminished and eliminated in a lot 
of places around the turn of 20th century and before World War I. It 
survives today in the form that the District of Columbia has fastened 
onto it for local voting on the theory that you want people at the 
local level to be involved in their kids' schools and you want people 
to be engaged in local government.
  We ban noncitizen voting at the Federal level, which means we also 
ban it at the State level because they are linked constitutionally in 
Article I. So, what we are talking about is noncitizen voting chosen by 
a local government at the local level simply for municipal elections.
  The basic logic of it there, as I understand it from just trying to 
read up on what the people in D.C. did, was that they saw that while 
noncitizens from Canada or Mexico, for example, shouldn't be able to 
vote in national elections because the interests of the United States 
and Canada and Mexico may diverge, at the local level, everybody 
presumably has the same basic interests in efficient garbage 
collection, excellent public schools, and so on.
  That is why they have done it. It affects a relative handful of 
people. I am not quite certain why we would be engaging in legislative 
action to overturn it, except for the purposes of sending some kind of 
message about it.
  The gentleman also mentioned diplomatic personnel and undocumented 
people. As for the diplomatic personnel, a foreign passport may not be 
used to register to vote in the District of Columbia. The person has to 
have a residential address in the District of Columbia, and it cannot 
be an embassy or another diplomatic site because you can't register at 
your place of work. I don't know whether the gentleman has actually any 
evidence of this happening. I think, if there were, that would be 
something we would be interested in.
  The same thing with undocumented people. It would, of course, be 
crazy for an undocumented person to attach their name to a public and 
transparent document like a voter registration document. I don't know 
if they have any evidence that this has happened, but we were not able 
to find any evidence that there were any undocumented people doing so.
  In other words, the District's use of this practice for local 
elections and local government functions appears to be in accord with 
the way it has always been used, which is for permanent residents who 
are part of the community who are on the pathway to citizenship.
  Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HIGGINS of Louisiana. Madam Speaker, my friend and colleague has 
mentioned in his opening statement that 500 noncitizens are registered 
to vote in D.C. My colleague is clever to point this out, but I am 
quite sure he is also aware that it has been estimated that 50,000 
noncitizens are eligible to vote. As the election cycles move forward, 
they will no doubt consider registering and casting their vote should 
we not turn this law.
  My colleague also mentioned the topic of representation in our 
Nation's Capital. As a constitutional scholar and professor, he is well 
aware that our Founders envisioned our Nation's Capital would 
necessarily develop a robust citizenry and that those residents would 
enjoy unique access to the Republic's elected and appointed highest 
officials, equaling a form of representation that no other citizenry in 
any other city of sovereign States would enjoy.
  Madam Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. 
Pfluger), the author of this bill that we are considering today.
  Mr. PFLUGER. Madam Speaker, I rise in support of my bill, H.R. 192, 
which would prohibit individuals who are not citizens of the United 
States from voting in elections in the District of Columbia.
  I think there has been a lot of talk about our Founding Fathers. I 
point out that I think one of the things that they envisioned was a 
healthy, functioning Republic with accountability, with D.C. at the 
epicenter, and D.C. not being a State but a District because they knew 
that that would change the dynamics of this place.

  I, like many others, think that this Federal District is very 
special, and it is worth having the accountability, and that 
accountability is here in the United States Congress. It is Congress 
through the Constitution that our Founders entrusted the care of D.C., 
specifically ``exclusive legislation in all cases whatsoever'' over the 
District.
  Washington, D.C., is going through a tough time. It has not been 
going well in the last couple of years. In fact, let me just point out 
that, in 2023, this was the deadliest year on record in Washington, 
D.C.
  Madam Speaker, 274 people were killed. Violent crime spiked by nearly 
40 percent. There were proceedings that even the Mayor opposed that had 
to do with violent crime, carjackings, lowering the penalties and 
thresholds, and making it a little bit easier. It was a strategy of 
appeasement that even the Mayor opposed.
  In this Congress, last year, we acted and did something. What we did 
was said no, Washington, D.C., is not going to lower those penalties 
for things like carjackings.
  It was said that we would never get that through the Senate. Guess 
what? The Senate passed it, and President Biden signed it into law 
because he said it was ridiculous to reduce accountability measures in 
the District of Columbia.
  So, here we are. In this case, the D.C. City Council has made a very 
shortsighted decision that I fear could be a harbinger around the 
country. That decision, I believe, lessens and cheapens citizenship. We 
see that in other areas, but the D.C. City Council has moved to allow 
noncitizens, including illegal aliens and foreign agents, to vote in 
local D.C. elections.
  In fact, not only are they allowed to vote, but they are being 
encouraged. You can look at this flyer right here. This was just sent 
out by Washington, D.C., to encourage people to vote.
  Yes, there may be 500 who are registered--this is a year old--but 
there are 50,000, according to Washington, D.C., statistics, who are 
eligible. They are encouraging people to vote for Mayor, for attorney 
general, for members of the board of education, and more.
  Some may argue that, yes, these are just local elections. They are 
democratic elections that regularly determine taxation, the criminal 
code that I just referenced, and the election of the very city 
councilmembers who decide ordinances like who gets to vote, not to 
mention that many of these are decided by close margins.
  I find it inconceivable that the city council and now other city 
councils around the United States would intentionally dilute the voting 
power of their constituents for noncitizens who otherwise might not 
meet the requirements, might not pay taxes, might not be members of the 
community who want the same things as those who are citizens. 
Therefore, I believe it is cheapening and lessening citizenship.
  As the Capital of our democracy, Washington, D.C., ought to be 
leading the way, setting the example, not incentivizing the exact 
practices that our adversaries would relish. Take a look at what 
happened in San Francisco, where they just swore in somebody who is not 
a citizen to be an election administrator. The election administrator 
will administrate elections in that part of California, not just for 
local and municipal elections but all the elections.
  Let's look beyond the Democrats' call for this bill to be deemed 
discriminatory or false claims about its intended purpose. I am asking 
my colleagues on the other side of the aisle to look ahead and put 
citizenship back in its rightful place as the gold standard. Free and 
fair elections are a prerequisite for a healthy republic. I believe 
that is what our Founders intended. Noncitizen voting, whether it is 
one vote or a million votes, dilutes the voting power of the citizen.

[[Page H3492]]

  Madam Speaker, I believe Congress must act clearly and decisively to 
bar noncitizens from voting in any election, including Washington, 
D.C., and I urge my colleagues to support my resolution.
  Mr. RASKIN. Madam Speaker, just a couple of quick points about the 
distinguished gentleman's remarks.
  First after all, what we are talking about is making a Federal 
decision or a congressional decision for a locality.
  The gentleman's native Texas had noncitizen voting from 1869 to 1921. 
For a half-century, Texas had it. That policy is one that was 
completely up to them. It was never overruled by the Federal 
Government.
  The gentleman says that foreign agents could vote under this 
legislation. Of course, foreign agents can vote all across the country 
today. People who register under the Foreign Agent Registration Act or 
fail to register under FARA and are convicted for that still have the 
right to vote. I believe Michael Flynn is still voting despite the fact 
that he failed to register under FARA. Paul Manafort is still voting. 
Other people who have been foreign agents don't automatically lose 
their right to vote because of that.
  In the District of Columbia, if somebody wants to register from a 
foreign country, they effectively have to renounce their right to vote 
in a foreign country because the District of Columbia says you can't be 
voting in another country.
  Incidentally, that is not the rule all over the world. Under the 
Maastricht Treaty, Americans who are living in European countries and 
are effectively domiciled there, which is defined as having physical 
residence plus the indefinite intention to remain, are given the right 
to vote in European localities--again, in just European local 
elections, not in EU elections or national elections. If you are an 
American living in Barcelona or Spain indefinitely, you get to vote in 
local elections there. They have adopted basically the same logic that 
the people in D.C. adopted, which is that they want people who are 
living there indefinitely to be engaged in local government.
  Madam Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentlewoman from the District 
of Columbia (Ms. Norton).

                              {time}  1045

  Ms. NORTON. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I 
strongly oppose this undemocratic, paternalistic bill.
  This Congress, Republicans have introduced 22 bills to overturn the 
District of Columbia's election laws, yet Republicans have refused to 
make the one and only change to D.C. election laws that D.C. residents 
have requested, which is to be given voting representation in the House 
and Senate.
  Madam Speaker, I include in the Record a letter from the D.C. Council 
Chairman Phil Mendelson and D.C. Attorney General Brian Schwalb 
opposing H.R. 192.
                                                     May 22, 2024.
     Hon. Mike Johnson,
     Speaker of the House, House of Representatives,
     Washington, DC.
     Hon. Hakeem Jeffries,
     Minority Leader, House of Representatives,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Speaker Johnson and Leader Jeffries: We write today as 
     two of the District's top elected local officials to express 
     our opposition to H.R. 192, which will overturn the Local 
     Resident Voting Rights Amendment Act of 2022 (Act). At its 
     core, H.R. 192 is undemocratic. The District of Columbia 
     should be allowed to govern itself without interference from 
     Congress. District residents pay more federal taxes per 
     capita than any state, serve in the military, and contribute 
     to the national welfare just the same as people everywhere 
     else. Yet, over the past two years, our residents have 
     repeatedly suffered the indignity of having politicians 
     elected elsewhere--politicians who aren't accountable to 
     District residents attempt to usurp the authority of our 
     elected officials.
       Reasonable people can disagree about the merits of the Act. 
     But the District's democratically elected Council voted on it 
     and approved it. Regardless of our own views on the Act, we 
     stand united in our belief that Washingtonians should enjoy 
     the same right to self-determination and self-governance as 
     people in every other state. That includes the right to 
     determine who should participate in purely local--not 
     federal--elections. H.R. 192 would deny District residents 
     this fundamental right.
       H.R. 192 is ill-conceived for another reason: if passed, it 
     could sow chaos and confusion in the District's elections 
     this year. In fact, early and mail-in voting is already 
     underway for the District's primary election.
       Congress already attempted to overturn the Act, introducing 
     no fewer than four resolutions to repudiate the will of 
     District voters. Each time, the resolutions have failed. We 
     urge Congress to once against rebuff this undemocratic attack 
     on District residents, affirm our right to self-governance, 
     and reject H.R. 192.
           Sincerely,
     Brian L. Schwalb,
       Attorney General for the District of Columbia.
     Phil Mendelson,
       Chairman, Council of the District of Columbia.
  Ms. NORTON. Madam Speaker, before I discuss the substance of H.R. 
192, I will discuss democracy and the lack of it in D.C. The nearly 
700,000 District residents have no voting representation in Congress, 
and Congress has the ultimate say, even on local D.C. matters.
  My Republican colleagues are correct that Congress has the 
constitutional authority to legislate on local D.C. matters, but the 
majority is wrong that Congress has a constitutional duty to do so. 
Instead, legislating on local D.C. matters is a choice.
  In Federalist No. 43, James Madison said of the residents of the 
future D.C.: ``As a municipal legislature for local purposes, derived 
from their own suffrages, will of course be allowed them. . . . ''
  The Supreme Court held in 1953 that: `` . . . there is no 
constitutional barrier to the delegation by Congress to the District of 
Columbia of full legislative power.''
  D.C.'s local legislature, the Council, has 13 members. The members 
are elected by D.C. residents. If D.C. residents do not like how the 
members vote, they can vote them out of office. That is called 
democracy.
  Congress has 535 Members. The Members are elected by residents of 
their States. None are elected by D.C. residents. If D.C. residents do 
not like how the Members vote on local D.C. matters, they cannot vote 
them out of office. That is the antithesis of democracy.
  The merits of H.R. 192 should be irrelevant since there is never 
justification for Congress legislating on local D.C. matters. However, 
I will discuss H.R. 192.
  D.C.'s Local Resident Voting Rights Amendment Act of 2022, allows 
D.C. residents who are noncitizens to vote only in local D.C. 
elections.
  D.C.'s law is not unique. More than a dozen cities today allow 
noncitizens to vote in local elections. While the Local Resident Voting 
Rights Amendment Act applies only to local D.C. elections, there is a 
long history in the United States, including before its founding, of 
allowing noncitizens to vote in State, local, territorial, and Federal 
elections. At various points, 40 States have allowed noncitizens to 
vote, including Texas, the home of the sponsor of H.R. 192.
  Congress only first prohibited noncitizens from voting in Federal 
elections in 1996. The House passed the disapproval resolution on the 
Local Resident Voting Rights Amendment Act in February 2023. The Senate 
did not vote on the disapproval resolution, and the Local Resident 
Voting Rights Amendment Act became law in March 2023.
  Voting, including by noncitizens, started earlier this month in D.C. 
primary elections. Why did Republicans wait to bring H.R. 192 to the 
floor until voting had already started? The majority did so to disrupt 
the elections.
  The Revolutionary War was fought to give consent to the governed and 
to end taxation without representation. Yet D.C. residents cannot 
consent to any action taken by Congress, and they pay full Federal 
taxes while being denied voting representation in Congress. Indeed, 
D.C. pays more Federal taxes per capita than any State and more total 
Federal taxes than 20 States.
  If House Republicans cared about elections or D.C. residents, 
Republicans would bring to the floor the D.C. statehood bill, H.R. 51, 
the Washington, D.C. Admission Act.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentlewoman has expired.
  Mr. RASKIN. Madam Speaker, I yield an additional 20 seconds to the 
gentlewoman from the District of Columbia.
  Ms. NORTON. The act would give D.C. residents voting representation 
in Congress and full local self-government. Congress has the 
constitutional

[[Page H3493]]

authority to admit the State of Washington, D.C. It simply lacks the 
will. D.C. residents, a majority of whom are Black and Brown, are 
worthy and capable of self-government.
  Madam Speaker, I urge Members to vote ``no'' on H.R. 192.
  Mr. HIGGINS of Louisiana. Madam Speaker, I have not heard my 
Democratic colleagues address the fact that even one noncitizen's vote 
will, in fact, dilute the votes of American citizens.
  The gentlewoman mentioned Republicans' efforts to disrupt D.C. 
elections. Quite to the contrary, Madam Speaker. We seek to restore the 
integrity of D.C. elections. We stood in support of an American's right 
to have their vote fully counted, including, most certainly, in our 
Nation's Capital. When there are 50,000 potential noncitizen voters in 
the Nation's Capital poised to cast a vote, that is the disruption of 
the D.C. voting process for the American citizens of D.C., whom we do 
indeed care for, love, and hope to represent.
  Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from California 
(Mr. McClintock) to speak on this bill.
  Mr. McCLINTOCK. Madam Speaker, in America, the citizens are the 
sovereign, and we govern through the votes we cast. Allowing foreign 
nationals to cancel out the votes of American citizens makes a mockery 
of our democracy, and it robs Americans of our sovereign right to 
direct our own government and decide our own destiny.
  The fact that Democrats enacted such a law into the Capital City of 
our Nation and in other jurisdictions across the country and defend it 
today on this floor speaks volumes of how far that party has drifted to 
the left and what a grave threat their policies now pose to the most 
fundamental institutions and rights that we cherish as Americans. Only 
the American people can change that, and only if the sanctity of our 
elections can be protected.

  One more point: Washington, D.C., is unlike any other town or 
community in our Nation. Washington, D.C., belongs to the American 
people, who retain through their Constitution the exclusive right to 
govern it through their elected Representatives. This outrageous law is 
the strongest argument yet for Congress to take back America's Capital 
City for America and to take back America from the radical left.
  Mr. RASKIN. Madam Speaker, I quote Justice Scalia on what the very 
distinguished gentleman from California just described as a radical 
practice: In general, noncitizen voting ``has been open, widespread, 
and unchallenged since the early days of the Republic.''
  What my Republican colleagues would like to portray as some kind of 
outlandish practice is one that has been used at various points in our 
history by a majority of the States, certainly at the local level. It 
was the Republican Party, again, I reemphasize, which was the great 
champion of noncitizen voting and stood up for it against the States 
that ended up seceding from the Union in the Civil War.
  We were debating the very point that the gentleman fastened upon when 
we talked about the Census. The Supreme Court has been emphatic 
repeatedly that the Census counts everyone in America, citizens and 
noncitizens alike.
  Now, we know Republicans don't like that. My colleagues on the other 
side of the aisle have been trying to get around it in a dozen 
different ways, but the Supreme Court has been perfectly clear that 
everyone is counted in the Census, even if they don't have the right to 
vote and even if they are not a citizen.
  Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Illinois 
(Mrs. Ramirez).
  Mrs. RAMIREZ. Madam Speaker, I thank the ranking member for yielding. 
I couldn't agree more with the gentleman.
  Madam Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.R. 192. This is another 
condescending Republican attempt to do three really specific things: 
Meddle in local D.C. elections; disfranchise Black and Brown voters who 
are fully capable of governing themselves, by the way; and eroding the 
trust of Americans in our Federal elections.
  In the 118th Congress alone, Republicans have introduced 17 bills to 
overturn D.C.'s election laws, but my colleagues on the other side of 
the aisle have refused to do the one thing that the residents of D.C. 
have asked for, and that is equal representation through statehood.
  In the Republican tradition of undermining elections, the majority is 
pushing this bill while the primary elections in D.C. are underway.
  Let's be clear: It is all intentional to stoke fear among voters and 
raise false alarms around the integrity of D.C.'s voting process. H.R. 
192 is another sorry Republican effort to continue to carry on this 
baseless MAGA narrative about noncitizens affecting the outcomes of 
Federal elections.
  Let's put this into context. A 2016 study of our Federal elections 
found only 0.001 percent of votes cast were cases of suspected, not 
proven, noncitizen voting. Even the former President's appointed 
commission to investigate his claims of voter fraud by noncitizens was 
disbanded without identifying one single case.
  In the meantime, a third of working-age Americans are living through 
crushing medical debt, families are spending up to 75 percent of their 
income on rent and utilities, and scientists agree that the climate 
crisis may cost 14.5 million deaths by 2050. Yet, here we are again.
  Madam Speaker, we need to stop entertaining legislation based on 
Republican lies. There are real problems that need to be addressed and 
comprehensive solutions.
  Mr. HIGGINS of Louisiana. Madam Speaker, may I inquire as to how much 
time is remaining.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Louisiana has 17\1/2\ 
minutes remaining.
  The gentleman from Maryland has 10\1/2\ minutes remaining.
  Mr. HIGGINS of Louisiana. Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the 
gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Van Drew), my colleague.
  Mr. VAN DREW. Madam Speaker, in what other country than Joe Biden's 
America can illegal immigrants waltz over an unsecure border?
  In what other country can an illegal immigrant get immediate housing, 
free food, legal counseling, and free educational subsidies?
  In what other country can illegal immigrants get free flights and bus 
rides and transportation to the city or the town of their choosing?
  There is none that I know of. There is none that most Americans would 
know of. No country in the world would be stupid enough to allow so 
many unknown people, with unknown desires, with unknown intentions, to 
cross their border.
  Why is our country the only one dumb enough to offer incentive after 
incentive to the millions of illegal immigrants pouring over our border 
every single year? To truly understand what is happening here, we have 
to see the big picture, and then we will realize the border policy that 
we have now isn't about bad policy or dumb policy. In fact, the policy 
is working exactly as the orchestrators want it to work.
  The left knows they can flood this country with millions of people. 
If the left can promise those millions of people that the Democrats are 
the party that will feed them, will house them, will transport them, 
will educate them for free on the American taxpayer's back and that 
Republicans will take that away, then the Democrats can use the 
millions of illegal immigrants as political pawns to increase their 
power.
  It is shameless. It is wrong. It is un-American. For years, 
conservatives have warned about this. We have warned about the left 
attempting to allow illegals to vote in elections, but it was made fun 
of. It was a joke. It would never happen. It was labeled, in fact, as a 
conspiracy theory. Yet, here we are. Here we are today. D.C., our 
Nation's own Capital, allowing illegal immigrants to vote in its local 
elections.

                              {time}  1100

  Yesterday's conspiracy, yesterday's conspiracy is today's reality.
  I strongly support H.R. 192 to prohibit noncitizens from voting in 
elections here in D.C. This is a dangerous and bad precedent and an un-
American attempt at gaining power, and it needs to be stopped here and 
it needs to be stopped now. We have to stand up.
  If we allow illegal immigrants to vote in elections now, Madam 
Speaker,

[[Page H3494]]

how long is it going to be before we are back on this floor attempting 
to stop a State from allowing illegal immigrants to vote in our Federal 
elections? American elections should be voted on by American citizens.
  Mr. HIGGINS of Louisiana. Madam Speaker, H.R. 192, quite simply, 
prohibits noncitizens from voting in D.C. local elections and repeals 
the Local Resident Voting Rights Amendment Act. This is common sense.
  Congress has a constitutional duty to oversee our Nation's Capital 
and H.R. 192 represents the exact role Congress should take in regard 
to the matters of the District's governance.
  Under the United States Constitution, Congress is granted exclusive 
legislation in all cases whatsoever regarding our Nation's Capital. We 
recognize, as my colleagues have stated, the jurisdictional authority 
within the municipality and the local elected officials of our Nation's 
Capital, but when those local elected officials take actions which are 
injurious to the operations of our Nation's Capital, then we have 
constitutional authority and, indeed, duty to respond. Hence, why in 
February of last year, 260 Members of this House voted to overturn the 
D.C. act in question as being repealed through this bill and in that 
vote, 42 House Democrats did, indeed, vote to overturn that D.C. law.
  Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. RASKIN. Madam Speaker, I am sorry that the gentleman from New 
Jersey has left the Chamber because I could reassure and console him 
very quickly. It is against the law for noncitizens to vote in Federal 
elections. That is embodied in Federal statute, and it is a crime for 
someone to attempt to do that. That is not what is on the table here 
today.
  What is on the table is whether a locality, in this case, the 
District of Columbia, should be permitted to allow noncitizens to 
participate in local elections for things like school board and city 
council and advisory neighborhood commissions.
  The gentleman from New Jersey should be apprised at some point that 
the great State of New Jersey allowed noncitizen voting between 1776 
when the country began and 1820. For a half century, it was allowed in 
his State and obviously did not lead to the downfall of the Republic.
  Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman 
from Michigan (Ms. Stevens).
  Ms. STEVENS. Madam Speaker, I thank the distinguished ranking member 
of the Oversight Committee for yielding. I also thank my colleague, the 
Representative from Washington, D.C., who tragically and outrageously 
does not have full voting rights here in this Chamber, but whose 
arguments and points are very well received.
  Madam Speaker, I am rising in stark opposition to H.R. 192, another 
unbelievable attempt by my colleagues on the other side of the aisle to 
legislate specifically on the District of Columbia. We are individual 
Representatives duly elected by our constituents to legislate for this 
country and our constituents have representation, and yet the District 
of Columbia, who we are obsessively seeing our colleagues try and 
legislate on, does not have representation.
  Why not look at the host of issues this country is facing? We only 
have so much time in this body. We are almost to the halfway point left 
of this term. We could be working on paid leave, decreasing maternal 
mortality, fully funding special education, the climate crisis, a 
national gun violence epidemic, women's rights, real voting rights for 
this country.
  Give me a break. This is how we are choosing to use our time, a fifth 
effort to legislate specifically to the Nation's Capital, the only 
capital of a country that does not have full voting rights in a Federal 
Chamber?
  This is outrageous, and it is anti-democratic. Frankly, what this 
also is, as we have seen this playbook before and the ranking member 
knows this, this is another attempt to fearmonger around national 
elections that are coming, that supposedly those who are voting 
shouldn't. We need more people to be voting.
  Madam Speaker, I fiercely oppose this legislation.
  Mr. RASKIN. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for her trenchant 
remarks. She makes an excellent point. Washington, D.C., is the only 
National Capital on the planet Earth disenfranchised in its own 
legislature, which is the vulnerability that is being exploited today 
by our colleagues.
  Can you imagine if they told the people of Paris that they could not 
be represented in L'Assemblee nationale simply because they breathed 
the same air as representatives coming from other parts of France? You 
would have another French Revolution on your hands.
  I will thank the people of Washington that Ms. Norton represents, who 
have a valid bona fide political grievance and yet did not come down 
here and beat the daylights out of our police officers, wounding and 
brutalizing and hospitalizing nearly 150 of them.
  They have gone about it the right way. They have petitioned for 
statehood, and they are trying to defend their rights to govern 
themselves.
  Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HIGGINS of Louisiana. Madam Speaker, may I inquire as to the time 
remaining.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Louisiana has 13 minutes 
remaining.
  Mr. HIGGINS of Louisiana. Madam Speaker, my distinguished colleague 
has mentioned that it is already against the law for an illegal to cast 
a vote.
  We understand this, but surely the gentleman knows that corruption is 
borne in the heart of man, not the mechanisms of man.
  We have a duty and a responsibility as Members of this Congress to 
oversee the actions of the Nation's Capital City and it is our duty to 
mitigate against the violation of law.
  We recognize that it is against the law for an illegal to cast a vote 
in a Federal election. We know this, but we also know that burglary is 
against the law, yet we have fences and gates and doors and locks. We 
mitigate against the actions of man, though, we know that some of those 
actions may be, indeed, against the law.
  The existence of the statute itself does not overcome the corruption 
born in the heart of man. We have an obligation as a body to exercise 
our constitutional jurisdictional authority in the one municipality in 
the entire country that falls under that constitutional jurisdictional 
authority; that is, our Nation's Capital as the city whose laws we 
address today.
  Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. 
Graves), my friend and colleague.
  Mr. GRAVES of Louisiana. Madam Speaker, I will clearly communicate to 
the folks at home what it is that we are doing here. What we are doing 
is, we are talking about passing a law that prohibits citizens of 
foreign countries from voting in elections in D.C.
  It prohibits people that are here illegally from voting in elections. 
It prohibits spies from China from voting in elections. It prohibits 
people who are here from Russia that have wishes of ill will on the 
United States from voting in the elections in D.C.
  Now, I have heard my friends on the other side say that this would 
disenfranchise voters in Washington.
  Let's think through that for just a minute. If you are allowing 
people that are not citizens of Washington, that are not citizens of 
the United States to vote here, you are diluting the vote of the people 
that are citizens of this city. You are diluting it. Which policy 
disenfranchises? It is absurd to hear people make these allegations.
  Now, let's talk about some of the people that largely agree with what 
we are saying. The mayor didn't sign this. Even the Mayor of 
Washington, D.C., didn't sign this because she knows that this is 
outrageous. The Washington Post, that I wouldn't argue is a bastion of 
conservative thought, even said that ``voting is a foundational right 
of citizenship.''
  Madam Speaker, I have heard my friends on the other side argue or 
allege that we are meddling. We are meddling.
  Madam Speaker, there is this pesky little document that we take an 
oath to called the Constitution and, of course, I say that in jest. In 
the Constitution, it says: Congress is granted exclusive legislation in 
all cases whatsoever, over Washington. We are doing exactly what we 
took an oath to do.
  Let's summarize. If you want Chinese spies, if you want people who 
are here

[[Page H3495]]

illegally that also can vote in their actual home country, then you 
would vote ``no.'' You would say no, we want the status quo. We want 
spies to vote. We want Russian Embassy employees to vote. We want 
people who are here illegally to vote. That is fine. You vote ``no.'' 
However, if you think that D.C. residents, that their vote should 
actually count for local elections, then you vote ``yes.''
  Now, my friends are going to say: What about voting in Federal 
elections? I am sorry for anybody who moved here and found out by 
surprise that that is not how it works because this was established 
originally as a Federal District distinguishing it from the States.
  I am sorry if folks just woke up and realized that, or maybe after 
they bought their house.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. HIGGINS of Louisiana. Madam Speaker, I yield an additional 1 
minute to the gentleman from Louisiana.
  Mr. GRAVES of Louisiana. Madam Speaker, it is unbelievable that we 
are even here having to debate this, once again, about whether it is 
appropriate for people who are citizens of foreign countries, people 
who are here illegally, people who can vote for Vladimir Putin would 
also get to vote for the Mayor of D.C.
  It is unbelievable that people in this body who represent hundreds of 
thousands of citizens of this country believe that that is the 
appropriate path.
  Madam Speaker, I urge adoption of this legislation.
  Mr. RASKIN. Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
California (Mr.  Robert Garcia).
  Mr. ROBERT GARCIA of California. Madam Speaker, I thank Ranking 
Member Raskin for the time.
  Madam Speaker, this is an incredible debate we have here. Of course, 
I rise in strong opposition to H.R. 192. It is interesting that the 
majority keeps talking about fair elections, ensuring that elections 
are done the right way, when 147 of them wouldn't even vote to certify 
the last Presidential election that we had here in this country. A 
majority of the Republican Party won't even admit or certify the last 
election on who actually won the last Presidential election, yet you 
want to talk about an attack on local neighborhood councils here in 
Washington, D.C., and local elections.
  It is hypocrisy what we are seeing here today in this debate.
  This is nothing more than the majority's attempt to attack D.C. over 
and over again. They want to talk about Chinese spies voting in 
elections. The only Chinese spies that are here in D.C. are the ones 
being invited by the majority to come testify at our Oversight 
Committee hearing to actually attack the current President of the 
United States. This is a ridiculous debate we are having here by the 
majority.
  Now it sounds also that the majority is obsessed, as they always are, 
with the local laws of D.C., and as I said before, if they are so 
interested in local government, they should resign from Congress and 
run for the local city council or mayor.
  It is a great job. I was mayor of my community. I was on the local 
city council. That is what they seem to be most interested in doing.
  Instead of wasting our time here, we should be focused on the real 
issues that Americans are facing. That is why today I will make a 
motion to recommit this bill back to committee and instead call up H.R. 
16, the American Dream and Promise Act.
  Dreamers have come to our country as children. They know no other 
country or have no other allegiance than to the United States, and we 
all know that this is true.

                              {time}  1115

  The American Dream and Promise Act is a landmark, bipartisan piece of 
legislation that would give these children and young adults a pathway 
to lawful, permanent residency. This is actually a transformational law 
that could impact our country. It would change the lives of nearly 2.3 
million people in all 50 States.
  Madam Speaker, I thank the countless Members who have worked to pass 
the Dream Act, including this year's sponsor, Congresswoman Sylvia 
Garcia, and advocates and community members.
  Dreamers are our friends, family members, classmates, and coworkers. 
They are estimated to contribute about $45 billion a year to the 
American economy and $13 billion in taxes every single year. The data 
is clear: Dreamers, like all immigrants, make our country stronger.
  I offer this amendment today to get this back on track and get this 
legislation through. Let's let the Dream Act come to the floor today 
and vote to protect these 2.3 million people.
  For me, this is personal. As an immigrant myself, and as someone who 
has lived with immigrants, I know how important the Dream Act is to our 
country and to so many.
  Instead of wasting our time on this bill, we should be focused on 
actually helping people in this country who are making our country 
better every single day. Today, Republicans and Democrats once again 
have the chance to work across the aisle to protect millions of people 
who have put down roots and invested in our country and our economy. It 
is the right thing to do.
  Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of my 
amendment in the Record immediately prior to the vote on the motion to 
recommit.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from California?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. ROBERT GARCIA of California. Madam Speaker, today, I hope my 
colleagues will join me in voting for this motion.
  Mr. HIGGINS of Louisiana. Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the 
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Pfluger), the author of the bill.
  Mr. PFLUGER. Madam Speaker, I thank all those who have risen in 
support of this. Let's just think about it in simple terms.
  If we go back to our constituents and tell them that Washington, 
D.C., is allowing noncitizens to vote in local elections, they can't 
believe it. It has been said by several colleagues on the other side of 
the aisle that multiple States allowed noncitizens to vote. In the case 
of Texas, that was literally over 100 years ago, and we figured out it 
was not a good idea.
  It is absolutely ridiculous that this is even a thought. I said it a 
little bit ago, but Washington, D.C., is not exactly having an easy 
time with accountability. When you look at the crime rates, violent 
crime is spiking by 40 percent, and 2023 was the deadliest year on 
record here, with 274 people killed. Look at what Congress had to do, 
what President Biden signed into law, to maintain the penalties on 
violent offenders, specifically in carjackings, because the city 
council in Washington, D.C., decided to lessen those penalties. This 
Congress voted on that last year, and the President signed it into law. 
That is the kind of accountability that Americans are wanting. They 
want that accountability.
  To think that Americans are in favor of having noncitizens vote in 
Washington, D.C., is ludicrous. That is why this legislation is so 
important. Washington, D.C., should be the standard. It should be the 
standard. It is a unique case. It is a unique case in our country 
because it is not a State.
  Congress has jurisdiction constitutionally authorized to us, and we 
are acting because the city council overstepped. They have done 
something that even the Mayor is not in favor of.
  Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of this 
legislation to put citizenship on the pedestal that it deserves and to 
stop lessening and cheapening citizenship in this country. I urge 
support of H.R. 192.
  Mr. RASKIN. Madam Speaker, may I inquire as to how much time I have 
remaining.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Maryland has 3\1/2\ 
minutes remaining.
  Mr. RASKIN. Madam Speaker, I thank my friend from Louisiana for a 
very substantive and dignified debate on this subject, which I know 
attracts strong views across the aisle.
  I want to restate some essential points for people to keep in mind. 
One is that what we are talking about is local elections in the 
District of Columbia, so the question is who will get to vote for the 
school board members and the councilmembers and who will

[[Page H3496]]

get to vote for the neighborhood advisory commissioners. That is an 
institution that I think is unique to the District of Columbia, where 
neighborhoods have elected representatives who get to weigh in on 
things like the times that bars close, restaurant licenses, and stuff 
like that. That is really what we are talking about here.
  The people in D.C. have only one nonvoting Delegate for the District 
of Columbia, no voting representation here, no voting representation in 
the Senate, so the noncitizens, the 500 or so who are registered today, 
can't even vote for Eleanor Holmes Norton. It goes to the question of 
local elections.
  I am certain that most Members of Congress and most Americans 
certainly didn't expect that the House of Representatives would be 
spending so much time debating this relatively minute matter and, I 
daresay, trivial matter in the context of all the national emergencies 
and crises we are facing today, but it does seem to be part of an 
election year assault on the District of Columbia.
  It is a lot easier to kick D.C. around a little bit than to solve the 
gun crisis, which has gotten to the point where gun violence is now the 
leading cause of death in America for young people under the age of 18. 
It is a lot easier to kick D.C. around a little bit than to confront 
the climate crisis, which is bearing down on all of us across the 
country.

  The gentleman has made one very powerful point, which is, 
constitutionally, we have the authority to do this because the people 
in D.C. are still under the authority of Congress under Article I, 
Section 8, Clause 17. That is why they want out. They want us to use 
our power over the District in all cases whatsoever to modify the 
boundaries of the District of Columbia and to yield the residential 
areas to the creation of a new State.
  The power of Congress to do that was established in 1846 when 
Alexandria, Arlington, and Fairfax County were retroceded to Virginia. 
We have the power to redraw it. We can redraw it, and D.C. would 
actually be larger populationwise than two other States in the Union.
  They want to exist on a plane of political equality. They want to be 
able to have the right to go through the same political experience the 
gentleman talked about in Texas. At one point, they wanted to grant 
noncitizens the right to vote in local elections. At another point, 
they didn't. That is all they are asking for, the right to make their 
own decisions for themselves.
  I daresay, no matter how benevolently motivated the gentleman from 
Louisiana is, or I am as a Representative from Maryland, no one is more 
interested in the welfare of the people in the District of Columbia 
than the people who actually live there.
  Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. HIGGINS of Louisiana. Madam Speaker, I express my sincere 
gratitude to my friend and colleague, Representative Raskin, for 
conducting this debate in a vigorous yet respectful manner. I am 
certain that he will agree that this is the manner in which our 
Founders envisioned we may debate.
  The subject of congressional interaction, exercising constitutional 
authority within the parameters of our Nation's Capital municipality, 
is a legitimate discussion. It is part of our Nation's narrative and 
broad debate, and this is the body, Madam Speaker, wherein such debate 
should take place. I am hopeful that my colleagues on both sides of the 
aisle may engage in this as we move forward in the spirit with which we 
have discussed and debated today.
  Madam Speaker, D.C.'s noncitizen voting law does, indeed, 
disenfranchise American citizens. It is a dangerous policy that 
undermines the ability of the citizens of D.C. to have a free and fair 
election. I urge my colleagues to support this important legislation to 
prohibit those who are not citizens of the United States from voting in 
elections in the District of Columbia.
  Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this necessary bill, 
and I yield back the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. All time for debate has expired.
  Pursuant to House Resolution 1243, the previous question is ordered 
on the bill, as amended.
  The question is on the engrossment and third reading of the bill.
  The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, and was 
read the third time.


                           Motion to Recommit

  Mr. ROBERT GARCIA of California. Madam Speaker, I have a motion to 
recommit at the desk.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will report the motion to 
recommit.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Mr. Robert Garcia of California moves to recommit the bill 
     H.R. 192 to the Committee on Oversight and Accountability.
  The material previously referred to by Mr.  Robert Garcia of 
California is as follows:

       Mr. Robert Garcia of California moves to recommit the bill 
     H.R. 192 to the Committee on Oversight and Accountability 
     with instructions to report the same back to the House 
     forthwith with the following amendments:
       Strike section 1 and all that follows and insert the 
     following:

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE; TABLE OF CONTENTS.

       (a) Short Title.--This Act may be cited as the ``American 
     Dream and Promise Act of 2023''.
       (b) Table of Contents.--The table of contents for this Act 
     is as follows:

Sec. 1. Short title; table of contents.

                       TITLE I--DREAM ACT OF 2023

Sec. 101. Short title.
Sec. 102. Permanent resident status on a conditional basis for certain 
              long-term residents who entered the United States as 
              children.
Sec. 103. Terms of permanent resident status on a conditional basis.
Sec. 104. Removal of conditional basis of permanent resident status.
Sec. 105. Restoration of State option to determine residency for 
              purposes of higher education benefits.

                 TITLE II--AMERICAN PROMISE ACT OF 2023

Sec. 201. Short title.
Sec. 202. Adjustment of status for certain nationals of certain 
              countries designated for temporary protected status or 
              deferred enforced departure.
Sec. 203. Clarification.

                     TITLE III--GENERAL PROVISIONS

Sec. 301. Definitions.
Sec. 302. Submission of biometric and biographic data; background 
              checks.
Sec. 303. Limitation on removal; application and fee exemption; and 
              other conditions on eligible individuals.
Sec. 304. Determination of continuous presence and residence.
Sec. 305. Exemption from numerical limitations.
Sec. 306. Availability of administrative and judicial review.
Sec. 307. Documentation requirements.
Sec. 308. Rulemaking.
Sec. 309. Confidentiality of information.
Sec. 310. Grant program to assist eligible applicants.
Sec. 311. Provisions affecting eligibility for adjustment of status.
Sec. 312. Supplementary surcharge for appointed counsel.
Sec. 313. Annual report on provisional denial authority.

  (For full text, please see H.R. 16.)
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule XIX, the 
previous question is ordered on the motion to recommit.
  The question is on the motion to recommit.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the noes appeared to have it.
  Mr. ROBERT GARCIA of California. Madam 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.

                          ____________________