[Congressional Record Volume 171, Number 99 (Tuesday, June 10, 2025)]
[House]
[Pages H2594-H2600]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
PROHIBITING VOTING BY NONCITIZENS IN DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA ELECTIONS
Mr. COMER. Madam Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 489, I call up
the bill (H.R. 884) to prohibit individuals who are not citizens of the
United States from voting in elections in the District of Columbia and
to repeal the Local Resident Voting Rights Amendment Act of 2022, and
ask for its immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 489, the
amendment in the nature of a substitute recommended by the Committee on
Oversight and Government Reform, 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. 884
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. PROHIBIT 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 THE 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(D.C. Law 24-242) is repealed, and any provision of law
amended or repealed by such Act shall be restored or revived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 Government Reform, or
their respective designees.
The gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Comer) and the gentleman from
Florida (Mr. Frost) each will control 30 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Comer).
[[Page H2595]]
general leave
Mr. COMER. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members
may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks
and include extraneous material on the measure under consideration.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Kentucky?
There was no objection.
Mr. COMER. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Madam Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 884, which prohibits
individuals who are not citizens of the United States from voting in
elections in the District of Columbia.
On November 21, 2022, the D.C. Government enacted the Local Resident
Voting Rights Amendment Act, permitting noncitizen residents to vote in
D.C. local elections. This includes illegal immigrants and even foreign
diplomats whose interests may be opposed to the interests of Americans.
This radical change to Washington, D.C.'s election laws upset
lawmakers on both sides of the aisle. For instance, Washington, D.C.,
Mayor Bowser withheld her signature on the act, something she has done
only a handful of times.
Last Congress, when an identical bill was brought to the floor, 262
Members voted in favor, including 52 of my colleagues on the other side
of the aisle. Unfortunately, the Senate refused to take up this
bipartisan, commonsense bill to maintain election integrity in our
Nation's Capital.
The right to vote is a defining privilege of American citizenship.
Diluting that right by extending it to noncitizens, whether here
legally or illegally, undermines the voice of Washington, D.C.,
residents.
Article I of the Constitution grants Congress exclusive jurisdiction
over the Nation's Capital, and the House Oversight and Government
Reform Committee is charged with ensuring responsible governance in the
District, including its election laws.
I urge my colleagues to support Representative August Pfluger's bill
to restore commonsense protections and ensure that only United States
citizens have the right to vote in local D.C. elections.
Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. FROST. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Madam Speaker, I strongly oppose H.R. 884, which would repeal a law
duly enacted by the District of Columbia because D.C. should be free to
govern its own local matters.
Republicans claim that Congress has a constitutional duty to
legislate on local D.C. matters, but this is historically and legally
incorrect. Republicans legislate on local D.C. matters only when they
think they can score political points, such as by demonizing
immigrants.
Where is this passion and work on affordable housing for D.C.
residents? Where is this impassioned work on ending gun violence for
D.C. residents? They only bring it up to the floor when they think they
can score political points, taking away the democratic rights of people
here in D.C. and home rule.
The Framers expected Congress to establish a local government for
D.C., and Congress has established various forms of local government
for D.C. since 1802.
The Supreme Court has held that Congress may delegate to D.C.
legislative authority over local D.C. matters. In 1973, Congress passed
the District of Columbia Home Rule Act, which gave D.C. an elected
chief executive and an elected legislature, the Mayor and the D.C. City
Council. The purpose of the Home Rule Act is to ``grant to the
inhabitants of the District of Columbia powers of local self-
government'' and ``relieve Congress of the burden of legislating upon
essentially local District matters.'' H.R. 884 contravenes the purpose
of the Home Rule Act.
D.C.'s Local Resident Voting Rights Amendment Act of 2022 allows D.C.
residents who are not yet U.S. citizens to vote only in local
elections--namely, for Mayor, members of the city council, the State
Board of Education, attorney general, advisory neighborhood
commissioner, and ballot measures.
The D.C. law does not allow noncitizens to vote in Federal elections,
which is a crime under Federal law.
Regardless of your views on the merits of noncitizen voting for local
elections, we have to acknowledge that D.C. is not the first nor are
they the only jurisdiction in our country to allow this. At various
points throughout American history, Congress and 40 States have allowed
noncitizens to vote in local, State, and territorial elections,
including the home State of the sponsor of this bill.
Congress did not prohibit noncitizens from voting in Federal
elections until 1996, and today, about 20 municipalities allow
noncitizens to vote in local elections.
I also want to address very specific concerns that we are hearing
from our Republican colleagues. Number one, they are concerned that
foreign diplomats might vote in local D.C. elections. We believe,
number one, that that is highly unlikely, both because they have to
renounce their right to vote in their home country and because D.C. has
no authority over Federal matters and has only limited local self-
government.
In D.C., the penalty for voter fraud includes imprisonment for up to
5 years. To be eligible to vote in D.C., a person must maintain their
residency in D.C. for at least 30 days before the election and cannot
claim voting residence or the right to vote in any State, territory, or
country.
In a letter to Congress, the D.C. Board of Elections made it clear
that to vote in a D.C. local election, a foreign diplomat would have to
``effectively renounce their right to vote in their country of
origin.'' The board noted that a foreign diplomat would have to ``swear
under penalty of law through the D.C. registration application that
that person is not claiming voting residence in another country.''
The board also noted that an embassy address could not be used to
register to vote since it is considered a commercial or business
address and that a foreign passport cannot be used to register to vote
since it does not contain a residential address in D.C.
While Republicans are concerned about foreign diplomats voting in
local elections, I wonder if they are aware that currently in this
country, United States citizens who are registered under the Foreign
Agents Registration Act are currently allowed to vote in elections at
all levels of government in the United States, including Federal
elections. That is right. Registered foreign agents who are currently
U.S. citizens can vote anywhere in the United States.
Republicans are also concerned that undocumented immigrants might
vote in local D.C. elections. That is highly unlikely because the D.C.
voter roll is a public record, and undocumented immigrants likely will
not want to identify themselves, including their addresses.
In closing, the House of Representatives is considering the wrong
D.C. voting rights bill here today. Republicans claim that voting is a
core right or privilege of American citizenship. Not only is that
historically incorrect, but as I described earlier, it is also
hypocritical.
Republicans have fought tooth and nail to defeat legislation that
would give the American citizens who reside in D.C. voting
representation in the House and Senate. We, of course, continue to push
for D.C. statehood.
Madam Speaker, I urge the House to reject H.R. 884 and, instead, to
pass H.R. 51. I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. COMER. Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
Texas (Mr. Pfluger), the sponsor of the bill.
Mr. PFLUGER. Madam Speaker, I thank Chair Comer, my good friend from
Kentucky, for yielding me time.
Madam Speaker, I rise in support of my bill, H.R. 884, that would
prohibit individuals who are not citizens of the United States from
voting in elections in the District of Columbia. This is a commonsense
bill.
I am going to start with a question. It is posed: For what reasons--
why--would my colleagues on the other side of the aisle want foreigners
to vote in local elections in Washington, D.C.? What is the purpose?
Let's just pose that question of why.
I ask the American public to ask your Representative where they stand
on this issue because it is a bipartisan issue, with over two-thirds of
this body having voted for it last year.
[[Page H2596]]
Free and fair elections are a prerequisite for the healthy Republic
that our Founding Fathers envisioned in the District of Columbia as the
epicenter, and they entrusted its care to Congress in Article I,
Section 8, Clause 17 of the U.S. Constitution.
On November 21, 2022, the D.C. City Council made a radical decision
to allow noncitizens, including illegal aliens and those who are
aligned with embassies of foreign countries, to vote in local D.C.
elections. After the noncitizen voting law went into effect, the
District actively encouraged noncitizens to vote for Mayor, attorney
general, members of the State Board of Education, and more.
Some may wrongly dismiss these as merely local elections. However,
the reality is that local elections are a vital part of our democratic
process and have a significant impact on communities. Local elections
determine critical matters, such as taxation, the criminal code, and
the election of city council members who create essential ordinances,
including those that dictate voting rights.
It is also important to acknowledge that many local elections are
decided by razor-thin margins, underscoring their significance and the
importance of active participation.
I find it unimaginable that the District, along with many across the
country, would intentionally weaken the power of their constituents,
citizens, many of whom come from underserved communities, in favor of
noncitizens who, in some cases, have broken our laws to enter this
country or could potentially be employed by a foreign adversary.
As the capital of our democracy, Washington, D.C., should be at the
forefront of ensuring safe and secure elections, not encouraging
illegal immigrants and others to vote for policies that we don't want.
Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues on the other side of the aisle to
look beyond the Democrats' claim that this bill is discriminatory or
misrepresents its intended purposes. No, it doesn't. It absolutely does
not. This keeps the sanctity of being a citizen of this great country
at the highest possible level.
{time} 1500
Madam Speaker, let's restore that sanctity, and I go back to the
question. This is common sense. We have to ask ourselves: Why would we
want a foreign agent, an illegal immigrant, or somebody else who is not
a citizen voting for elections in D.C.? What nefarious purpose are my
colleagues pushing?
As I mentioned last Congress, the House passed this bill with
bipartisan support. All Republicans and one-third of Democrats
supported this commonsense measure. I ask everyone in the House of
Representatives to stand up and do the right thing and vote for this
bill.
Mr. FROST. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Madam Speaker, the gentleman just asked our constituents to ask us
what we think about this issue. I think the better thing would be for
the gentleman to ask his constituents what they care about. I promise
this issue will not be in the top 3 or 10 things that they want us to
focus on.
At the same time, they are pushing a bill to take away healthcare
from 15 million Americans. Give me a damn break.
D.C. believes in universal adult suffrage, that all adult D.C.
residents, regardless of their immigration status, are subject to D.C.
laws and taxation and must register with the Selective Service System.
D.C. believes they deserve a say in the local laws that govern them and
how their local taxes are spent.
Congress should not decide which residents are fit to govern on local
D.C. matters. I promise the gentleman that if he spoke with his own
constituents, they don't give a damn.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 7 minutes to the gentlewoman from the District
of Columbia (Ms. Norton).
Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, I strongly oppose this undemocratic,
paternalistic bill, which would repeal a law enacted by the locally
elected District of Columbia Government and impose a new law on D.C.
Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record a letter from every member of
D.C.'s local elected legislature, the council, opposing this bill.
Council of the District of Columbia,
Washington, DC, June 9, 2025.
Hon. Mike Johnson,
Speaker, House of Representatives,
Washington, DC.
Hon. Hakeem Jeffries,
Democratic Leader, House of Representatives,
Washington, DC.
Dear Speaker Johnson and Leader Jeffries: We write to
express our opposition to three pieces of legislation we
understand will be considered on the House floor this week.
All three bills would repeal provisions in laws that were
carefully and deliberately enacted by the Council for the
benefit of all District residents.
H.R. 2096 would repeal several efforts by the Council to
ensure that police officers who violate the law and
contravene public safety are appropriately disciplined. The
bill would strip the Chief of the Metropolitan Police
Department (MPD) of the authority to discipline officers who
violate the law or MPD policy. It would also limit the MPD
Chief's discretion to impose disciplinary penalties greater
than those recommended by the board investigating the
allegations made against an officer. Stripping MPD management
of its authority in this area would greatly undermine both
MPD and public safety. A 2022 D.C. Auditor's report
catalogued cases where MPD was barred from firing officers
who had committed sexual and domestic violence, who were
arrested for assorted criminal activity, or who gave false
statements, misused their firearms, or slept on the job. H.R.
2096 would also restore a 90-day statute of limitations for
claims against police officers that, in the past, was
repeatedly used by officers seeking to avoid accountability.
Every MPD Chief for the past 15 years has supported this
reform because it empowers police leadership--not a third-
party board or arbitrator--to determine the appropriate
standards of conduct and discipline for their officers.
Congress should not substitute its authority for that of
local elected leaders and MPD Chiefs who have examined these
issues closely.
We support having a robust and strong police force and work
closely with MPD leadership to provide them with the tools
they need to make the city safe. Part of that effort includes
ensuring that the force can appropriately remove officers who
violate the law, MPD policies, and the public trust. When the
public trusts that MPD can effectively police its own,
residents are more likely to cooperate in investigations and
more likely to assist in prosecution, making the District
safer. H.R. 2096 would make it harder for law enforcement
leadership in the Nation's Capital to remove bad actors who
undermine that trust.
We also oppose H.R. 884, which would repeal a 2022 law
extending voting rights in local District elections to non-
citizen residents. Non-citizens enjoy similar voting rights
in 15 other jurisdictions, including San Francisco and
Oakland, California, Montpelier, Vermont, and a number of
jurisdictions in neighboring Maryland. It continues to be
unlawful for non-citizens to vote in federal elections in the
District. In fact, federal law has prohibited non-citizens
from voting in federal elections since 1996. Our local law
cannot and does not attempt to change that.
Finally, we oppose H.R. 2056, which attempts to negate
provisions in local District law governing how MPD and other
District agencies participate in federal immigration
enforcement efforts. This law has been on the books for 13
years and makes it clear that District officials must
cooperate with any court order directing that an individual
in District custody suspected of an immigration violation be
detained or transferred to federal custody. H.R. 2056 would
also eliminate rules governing information sharing between
the District and federal law enforcement on immigration
matters. In sum, the bill would scrap rules and practices
that are clear and familiar and replace them with nothing.
This will only cause confusion and uncertainty both for law
enforcement and those suspected of an immigration violation.
The Council is already considering a proposal from Mayor
Muriel Bowser to reconsider the District's laws and policies
in this area. We respectfully request that you allow us to do
that work.
Thank you for your consideration and your attention to
these important matters. We look forward to working with you
on our shared goals to advance the safety, security, and
prosperity of the District.
Sincerely,
Phil Mendelson,
Chairman, At-Large.
Anita Bonds,
Councilmember,
At-Large.
Robert C. White,
Councilmember,
At-Large.
Brooke Pinto,
Councilmember,
Ward 2.
Kenyan R. McDuffie,
Chair Pro-Tempore,
At-Large.
Christina Henderson,
Councilmember,
At-Large.
Brianne K. Nadeau,
Councilmember,
Ward 1.
Matthew Frumin,
[[Page H2597]]
Councilmember,
Ward 3.
Janeese Lewis George,
Councilmember,
Ward 4
Charles Allen,
Councilmember,
Ward 6.
Zachary Parker,
Councilmember,
Ward 5.
Wendell Felder,
Councilmember,
Ward 7.
Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record a letter from D.C.'s
locally elected attorney general, Brian Schwalb, opposing this bill.
Government of the District of Columbia, Office of the
Attorney General,
June 9, 2025.
Hon. Mike Johnson,
Speaker, House of Representatives,
Washington DC.
Hon. Hakeem Jeffries,
House Minority Leader, House of Representatives,
Washington DC.
Dear Speaker Johnson and Minority Leader Jeffries: I write
in opposition to three pieces of legislation before you
today, H.R. 2096, H.R. 884, and H.R. 2056. These bills seek
to repeal, explicitly or in effect, three local D.C. laws
pertaining to three inherently local issues, namely the
administration of local elections, the allocation of finite
local law enforcement resources, and the processes for
disciplining local police officers if they engage in
misconduct. The D.C. Council--whose members are elected by
and are directly accountable to District residents--passed
those laws after extensive debate and consideration. It would
be undemocratic and contrary to the principles of local
autonomy on which this country was founded for Members of
Congress, in whose election District residents have no say,
to vote to upend these purely local laws.
District residents should have the same right as all other
Americans to govern our local affairs. Just like your
constituents in Louisiana and New York, and indeed the
constituents in all of your colleagues' home states across
the country, the more than 700,000 residents who call the
District home know and care deeply about the local issues
that uniquely impact our lives. Our democratically elected
local officials work closely with policy experts, local law
enforcement, and other community stakeholders to pass laws
that are in the best interests of all Washingtonians.
Substituting the will of District voters and the duly elected
D.C. Council for that of federal politicians is, simply put,
un-democratic. Even if members of Congress might vote
differently on similar local issues for their own
jurisdictions, the residents of D.C. deserve to have our
local laws respected without interference from the federal
government.
I urge you and your colleagues to vote against advancing
these proposals.
Sincerely,
Brian L. Schwalb,
Attorney General for the District of Columbia.
Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, last Congress, Republicans introduced 26
bills or amendments to change local D.C. election laws, including 14 to
prohibit noncitizens from voting in D.C. or to repeal, nullify, or
prohibit the carrying out of the local D.C. law that allows noncitizens
to vote in local elections.
Yet, Republicans refused to make the only election law change D.C.
has requested, which is to make D.C. a State so they can hold elections
for voting Members of the House and Senate.
While Congress has the authority to legislate on local D.C. matters,
it is not required to do so. In Federalist No. 43, James Madison said
of D.C. residents: ``A municipal legislature for local purposes,
derived from their own suffrages, will of course be allowed them.''
In 1953, the Supreme Court held that ``there is no constitutional
barrier to the delegation by Congress to the District of Columbia of
full legislative power.''
Mr. Speaker, I want to discuss democracy, or lack thereof, in D.C.
There are 700,000 D.C. residents. D.C. residents are required to pay
Federal taxes, register with the Selective Service System, and serve on
Federal juries in the same manner as residents of States. Yet, D.C.
residents have no voting representation in Congress, and Congress has
the ultimate say on local D.C. matters.
The council has 13 members. If D.C. residents do not like how the
members vote, residents can vote them out of office or pass a ballot
measure. That is called democracy.
Congress has 535 voting Members. None are elected by D.C. residents.
If D.C. residents do not like how the Members vote on local D.C.
matters, residents cannot vote them out of office or pass a ballot
measure. That is the antithesis of democracy.
The substance of this bill is irrelevant since there is never
jurisdiction for Congress to legislate on local D.C. matters. However,
I will briefly discuss it.
D.C. allows noncitizens to vote in local elections because it
believes that all adult residents deserve a say in their local
government. While D.C. law allows noncitizens to vote only in local
elections, 40 States and the Federal Government allowed noncitizens to
vote in local, State, territorial, and Federal elections at various
points, including at the founding.
The Federal Government first prohibited noncitizens from voting in
Federal elections only 29 years ago. Today, nearly 20 cities allow
noncitizens to vote in local elections.
As the House has considered this bill, Republicans have repeatedly
said the franchise is a right of citizenship. If that is what
Republicans believe, I hope they will finally grant American citizens
who live in D.C. the right to vote for voting representation in
Congress. I have introduced H.R. 51 to do so.
Pursuant to the Admissions Clause and District Clause of the
Constitution, H.R. 51 would admit the residential and commercial areas
of D.C. as a new State. Statehood would not only give D.C. voting
representation in Congress, but it would also give D.C. full local
self-government.
Mr. Speaker, I urge Members to respect the will of D.C. residents by
voting ``no'' on H.R. 884.
Mr. COMER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentlewoman from New
York (Ms. Malliotakis).
Ms. MALLIOTAKIS. Mr. Speaker, I rise to ask the question: Why are the
Democrats so obsessed with allowing noncitizens to vote in our
election? Why do they go out of their way to dilute the voices of
American citizens, the very American citizens who elected them to
represent them?
It is incredibly frustrating to hear that they continue to double
down or triple down on giving rights to people who are not citizens of
this country at American taxpayers' and citizens' expense.
The lead debater on the other side of the aisle said that it is not
just Washington, D.C., that is looking to allow noncitizens to vote in
our elections. Mr. Speaker, 20 municipalities--and guess what? They are
all run by Democrats.
In New York City, we had the same problem when the New York City
Council passed legislation to allow noncitizens to vote in municipal
elections. We had to sue to stop it, and we successfully did. It took
not just one round in court, not just two rounds in court, but three
rounds in court, where the city council and the mayor of New York used
taxpayer money to continue to fight this each and every round despite
being voted down in the New York State Supreme Court, the New York
State Appellate Court, and, lastly, the New York Court of Appeals.
By the way, all were Democrat appointees on that panel of judges. We
still won because it is illegal. It is not constitutional for
noncitizens to vote in our elections.
Just like we fought this in New York City and prevailed, we will do
the same here in Washington, D.C. We will make sure that they stop
allowing and don't allow noncitizens to vote in their municipal
elections because we are exercising our constitutional responsibility
to protect our elections.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to continue to be strong and vote
in support of this because we know that it passed overwhelmingly with
bipartisan support last year. Fifty-two Democrats sided with
Republicans.
Those who continue to push for noncitizens to vote in our elections
to dilute citizenship and dilute the voice of citizens in our elections
should be ashamed of themselves. They should think about who actually
elected them to represent their interests here today and why they
continue to push to the contrary.
Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I think it is interesting because the gentlewoman who
just spoke said this is about preserving ``our elections.''
This is not about our elections. It is not about my election. It is
not about her election, being from New York. It is about the elections,
the local elections, of residents of D.C. It is not
[[Page H2598]]
about hers or mine. It is about their local elections.
I think it is interesting because I don't know what happened. My
Republican colleagues always like to talk about limited Federal
Government. My Republican colleagues always like to talk about how
important local governance is. Yet, they want to rip it away from the
people in this city.
My question is: How many doors have they knocked on in D.C.? Have
they knocked on a single door? Have they spoken with a single resident,
a person who lives here, about what they care about? No, they are using
this Chamber and these bills to score national political points on
local issues.
Mr. Speaker, the other thing the gentlewoman said is that this is
about protecting the sanctity of citizen voting. Like every other
issue, Republicans want our people to believe that in order to protect
us, we have to take something away from somebody else. That is how we
protect the sanctity of voting for citizens. We have to take something
away from D.C. that they voted for when, right in front of us, if we
want to protect the sanctity of citizen voting in D.C., then we know
what we have to do. It is D.C. statehood.
We have to ensure that citizens in D.C. are able to have a fully
voting Representative in the United States Congress and have full
representation in this country.
That is what we do to protect the sanctity of citizen voting in
Washington, D.C. We don't encroach on decisions that the people here
have made locally.
Mr. Speaker, I don't want to hear about our elections. Local D.C.
elections are not my elections. They are not their elections unless
they live here. The local D.C. elections are about the residents of
this area.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. COMER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas
(Mr. Gill).
Mr. GILL of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to Democrats
trying to give voting rights to illegal aliens.
Mr. Speaker, once again, Democrats are taking the 20 percent side on
another 80-20 issue. The American people do not want illegal aliens
voting. They shouldn't be here to begin with. They have no claim on our
resources. They certainly should not influence our political system in
any respect.
Mr. Speaker, every single one of them needs to be deported.
Thankfully, we have a President who is actually doing that.
For so long, Democrats have called conservatives conspiracy
theorists. They have slandered us for saying that the Democratic
playbook, which they themselves have articulated, is to open up our
borders to ultimately provide amnesty, a path to citizenship, and
voting rights to illegal aliens.
{time} 1515
Mr. Speaker, they are doing that right now. That is exactly what they
are doing, and they are fighting for it. Allowing illegal aliens to
vote is not only grotesquely unjust, but it waters down the meaning of
citizenship for American citizens who are here.
Mr. Speaker, our government should represent our people, American
citizens. Illegal aliens have no right to vote. They shouldn't be
voting, and they need to be deported.
Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, once again, my Republican colleagues want to deflect on
this issue focusing on undocumented immigrants. Undocumented immigrants
are unlikely to vote in local D.C. elections.
Again, why?
It is because the D.C. voter roll is public record. Undocumented
immigrants are not going to want to identify themselves, including
their address, where they live.
Noncitizen voting, again, this is consistent in a lot of
jurisdictions across the entire country. We talked about 20
municipalities doing this to allow universal adult suffrage, the
ability for people to take part in local elections.
The other thing, really quick, that one of my Republican colleagues
brought up that the purpose of this bill is to: ``Stop diluting the
voices of American citizens.'' What is really diluting the voice of
American citizens are voter suppression laws like we see in the South
and like we see in Florida where I am from: poll taxes, voter roll
purges, and voter intimidation. That is what is diluting the voice of
American citizens.
I haven't heard a single Republican in this debate talk about
ensuring that citizens who live in D.C. can have full representation in
Congress.
Where is that?
I bring it up again. In every issue Republicans want to talk about
protecting us by taking away stuff from other people. They never want
to talk about giving citizens what they deserve. The citizens of D.C.
deserve to have full representation in the United States Congress.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. COMER. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire how much time remains.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Fine). The gentleman from Kentucky has
20\1/2\ minutes remaining.
Mr. COMER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 10 minutes to the gentleman from
Wisconsin (Mr. Steil).
Mr. STEIL. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman for his good work, and I
thank my colleague, August Pfluger, for bringing forward today's
legislation.
U.S. elections should be for U.S. citizens only. It is a simple
premise. When I began my work on trying to stop noncitizens from voting
in the United States, I was often told by people that they didn't
believe that this was actually the case. That is how radical of a
provision that exists in Washington, D.C., law.
Let's set the stage for folks listening today. Let's set the stage to
understand how radical this provision is in Washington, D.C.
To be eligible to vote in municipal elections in our Nation's
Capital, an individual only has to reside in Washington, D.C., for 30
days. Let's walk through that.
An individual who works at the Russian Embassy holding a Russian
passport in their pocket, residing in the United States Capital of
Washington, D.C., for simply 30 days, could walk out of the embassy,
walk to a polling location and, because Washington, D.C., does not even
have photo ID, would not need to pull their Russian passport out of
their pocket and would be eligible to vote for Mayor in our Nation's
Capital.
What the Democrats want to do, Mr. Speaker, is use Washington, D.C.,
as a petri dish for liberalizing voting laws across the country. What
my Democratic friends want to do, Mr. Speaker, is allow noncitizens to
vote across the country.
The arguments that are being made fail on the merits when you
recognize that, in fact, the law, Mr. Speaker, today, allows
noncitizens who simply resided in the Nation's Capital for 30 days to
be eligible to vote. Again, individuals working at embassies across
this city are eligible to vote for positions like Mayor and alderman.
That is the height of hypocrisy. We need to make sure that U.S.
elections are for U.S. citizens only.
In our Nation's Capital, we should be looking at a whole host of
election law reforms. In fact, I am of the belief that we should make
Washington, D.C., the gold standard of election laws to actually show
the American people what happens when we put in place provisions with
strong election integrity.
My colleague across the aisle referenced legislation that Republicans
are working for. Let's take an example, and let's dig into that for a
moment.
Let's look at the election integrity law that was passed in the State
of Georgia. This, if we recall, in 2021 was a law that then-President
Joe Biden called Jim Crow 2.0. In fact, the stories that were told
about that legislation earned him, I think, four Pinocchios, or
whatever they call that in The Washington Post. This is how ridiculous
it was.
Corporate America bought into the misstatements and the falsities of
President Biden. If we recall, Major League Baseball removed the All-
Star Game out of Atlanta, Georgia, following Georgia passing this piece
of legislation.
Of course, two elections have passed since that legislation went into
effect. So we should look at the empirical data, not at the statements
that were made, the hyperbolic statements that were made by my
colleagues on the left. We should look at the empirical data of what
took place when those reforms were implemented.
What we saw was people increasing their confidence in our elections.
That
[[Page H2599]]
is a good thing. That is a good thing. In the University of Georgia,
Georgia State put forward a robust survey of how elections were
conducted in the State of Georgia. What I saw was high voter
participation and people actually having a positive view of how
election results were conducted.
If I recall correctly, it was zero percent statistically of Blacks
who had a poor or negative voting experience. We should champion that.
We should work to instill election integrity provisions across the
board. When people increase their confidence in our elections, then
they are more likely to participate. Mr. Speaker, that is a good thing.
What we want is U.S. citizens participating in our elections.
However, what we see from my colleagues on the left is a whole host
of policies that actually weaken election integrity. We have held
debates as it relates to photo identification, again, another provision
that should be in Washington, D.C., law.
Photo identification is almost the touchstone of what election
integrity is. It is making sure people are who they say they are. It is
a simple provision.
I am often reminded of a time when I was driving back home in
Wisconsin. I was heading back home, and I walked in to buy a six-pack
of beer. The clerk recognized me and said: Hey, Bryan, how are you
doing?
I said: Good. It is good to see you.
I set my six-pack of beer on the counter, and she said: Bryan, I need
to see your ID.
So just like every American, what did I do?
I reached in, I grabbed my wallet, I pulled out my ID, and I handed
it over to the clerk.
In my opinion, I think it is absolutely nuts that we protect our beer
more than we protect our ballots in our Nation's Capital. We should be
looking at ways to strengthen election integrity here in our Nation's
Capital, the front door for many folks to the greatest country in the
world.
Instead of fighting back and saying: Yes, in our Nation's Capital, as
the Democrats will say, we should allow noncitizens to be voting in our
Nation's elections. We should actually be saying: No. Let's use
Washington, D.C., as the gold standard of election integrity.
What I believe we will see is exactly what we saw in Georgia. Despite
the hyperbolic statements being made by past-President Joe Biden and by
my colleagues on the left, what we will actually see is an increase in
confidence in our elections. We will see growing participation. We will
see a strengthening of our democracy.
It is why this legislation is such an important step forward in the
process of strengthening the integrity of our elections, increasing
Americans' confidence, and garnering additional voter participation
across the country.
I think it is relevant to also note that last Congress this bill came
before us, and 52 of our Democratic colleagues voted with every
Republican in the House. It will be interesting today, Mr. Speaker, to
see how many of my colleagues across the aisle have the courage to
stand up and to say that U.S. elections should be for U.S. citizens
only.
The big difference here is now we have an opportunity to see this
legislation move forward in the United States Senate. This is a bill
that could actually be signed into law. We have an opportunity for the
first time in a number of years to not only pass election integrity
legislation here in the United States House of Representatives, we have
an opportunity to pass election integrity legislation into law.
Let me tell you, Mr. Speaker, I am excited about the opportunity to
stand there when President Trump signs this bill into law. This is an
opportunity for a major step forward in election integrity here in our
Nation's Capital. It is also a statement across the country because I
believe the radical Democrats want to use Washington, D.C., voting laws
as a petri dish to roll out their plan across the country.
My colleagues on the radical left would like to see noncitizens
voting in my home State of Wisconsin; in small communities and big
communities all across this country to drive forward and assist them in
advancing a radical agenda.
It is why making sure that we pass this law today is so important: to
make sure that we are standing up for common sense; to make sure that
we are standing up for election integrity; to make sure that only U.S.
citizens have a voice in U.S. elections.
This legislation should be straightforward. To my colleagues on the
left, I am afraid it won't be.
I am proud to know that I believe every Republican who votes today
will vote ``yes'' on this important measure. That is because it is the
Republican Party, my colleagues with common sense who believe that we
need election integrity in our Nation's Capital. More importantly, we
need election integrity across the country.
As we begin this effort, I think we have an opportunity as Americans
to see increased confidence in our elections. Once again, when we
increase confidence, we increase participation.
Our principles should be U.S. elections are for U.S. citizens only.
This legislation does that.
Mr. Speaker, I encourage my colleagues to vote ``yes.''
Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, if the esteemed chair from Wisconsin would indulge me,
he brought up a set of laws in Georgia, which I thought was very
interesting, talking about what we need to do. However, I would yield
30 seconds to the chair if he could let me know who voted for those
laws that were enacted in Georgia.
Mr. STEIL. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. FROST. I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin.
Mr. STEIL. It was signed into law. It was signed into law in the
State of Georgia by the Governor of the State of Georgia.
Mr. FROST. Reclaiming my time. I am curious what body wrote the
legislation, voted on the legislation, and sent it to the Governor's
desk?
Mr. STEIL. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. FROST. I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin.
Mr. STEIL. I assume the assembly and senate of the State of Georgia
prior to signature by the Governor of the State.
Mr. FROST. Reclaiming my time. The reason I ask the gentleman is he
brings up a law in Georgia that was written by the elected
representatives of the legislature voted into office by the people of
Georgia.
My Republican colleagues would have us believe that today a lot of
Democrats are going to vote for a bill to give noncitizens the ability
to vote in D.C.
That is not what we are voting on. We are not voting on a bill to do
something. We are voting on a bill to allow something to stay in place
which was voted into action by the elected representatives of the local
government of D.C.
That is what we are doing here today. We are not voting to give
noncitizens the ability to vote. We are just saying: Let D.C. make
their own local laws just like they did in Georgia, just like the
esteemed chair brought up earlier.
The other thing I want to mention that was brought up has to do with
the length of residency to vote. D.C.'s length of residency requirement
is not a unique thing. To vote in D.C., yes, a person has to be a
resident for at least 30 days before an election, but to vote in
Kentucky, for example, a person has to be a resident for at least 28
days.
I haven't heard our esteemed chair of the Committee on Oversight and
Government Reform complain about the laws in Kentucky. In fact, under
the National Voter Registration Act of 1993, States cannot set a voter
registration deadline for Federal elections more than 30 days before an
election.
In closing, Mr. Speaker, as I mentioned here today, no matter what my
Republican colleagues say, they want to frame this as the Democrats
voting to do something here today. We are not voting to let noncitizens
vote in D.C. today. What we are voting to do is allow D.C. to make
their own decisions. That is something my Republican colleagues used to
talk a lot about, home rule, the ability for localities and people to
elect their representatives to a body and those representatives to do
something.
If my friend has a problem with local D.C. laws, then pick up a damn
clipboard, go knock on doors, and try to change it in D.C. To do it
from this institution, I think is shameful.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
[[Page H2600]]
{time} 1530
Mr. COMER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I remind my colleague on the other side of the aisle,
the U.S. Congress has a constitutional role to oversee Washington,
D.C., law and intervene as necessary.
D.C.'s noncitizen voting law is a dangerous policy. Only American
citizens should be permitted to vote in this country, especially right
here in the Nation's Capital city.
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.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. All time for debate has expired.
Pursuant to House Resolution 489, 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.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on passage of the bill.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Mr. FROST. 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.
____________________